kempathonnodge

ova said: By the way, is the current UK prime minister elected by the people?  Did not think so. 

Your message was so unnecessarily condescending, I felt compelled to reply. In the UK we elect a government, we don’t elect a leader. Hence ‘prime minister’ not ‘president’. 

CheeseFreeze said:

It’s a tough balance. Apple here is doing this for consumer privacy reasons, however on a corporate level it’s also a strategy to weaken competition or at least influence them heavily out of self-interest. It’s a slippery slope.
 
And it’s also one more example of how they are using their market dominance to decide what is acceptable and not (hence anti-trust cases).
Lastly, Apple has proven to be hypocrites themselves when dealing with China and Russia where they gladly bend their own rules and values to sell more products and services. They want to have it both ways.

So although I like what they do out of personal interest (consumer privacy), on a corporate level I am concerned about this behavior, because there is more to it than we consumers realize.

I'm wary of this ideas that 'there is more to it than we consumers realise'. Apple have a proven track record of making decisions that benefit users, sometimes these don't benefit them (Siri being not so great), and sometimes the benefit isn't clear to the lay user - giving up floppy disks, CD, firewire, moving to usb-c, keeping Lighting connectors... . I hear a lot the argument that there must be something going on, but in 45 years this just hasn't been shown to be true. This simply isn't the case for other big tech firms.

The China/Russia argument is not as simple as that. You can't make change unless you are in the game, to simply not work with the Chinese or Russians would not benefit anyone. Apple also has to abide by US law, which not everyone agrees with either!

It shouldn't be their place to push the privacy drive, but in the absence of governments that understand the issue, let alone that are willing to challenge 'big tech', this is really the only option. Watch how many states will be lobbied to fight on the behalf of other big tech companies to challenge these 'pro-consumer laws', instead of embracing and regulating effectively in line with what we know is a better way.  

charlesn said:

Well, this should send a clear and powerful message to aspiring white collar criminals everywhere: If you can't do the time, definitely DO the crime, since there's essentially no penalty for trying and getting caught! Unfriggin-believable. Someone caught stealing a Macbook at an Apple store would get a stiffer sentence. 

Spot on. Most, if not all, criminals have experienced a lifetime of difficulties and their criminality is not chosen, but often criminal acts of stealing, for example, are the least worst of very limited options. This guy, whilst probably had something going on that pushed him down this route, committed a knowingly huge offence and then chose to lie to the court. Without his power, money and privilege, he’d have gone to jail for a long time.

I’m so torn on this issue. 

I think this has become very polarised. Do we ‘do what we are told’ or ‘do what the F we like’? Well, bad stuff happens in both scenarios, and sometimes some agreement and compliance is a good thing. Hence agreed laws not to kill each other, countries banning CFC’s, environmental protections to stop irreparable harm to our shared planet, banning slave/child labour etc. The idea that governments shouldn’t legislate ‘private companies’ at all is as ludicrous as saying governments should be allowed to dictate everything we say or do. Sadly we live in an increasingly polarised world where we fight for one side or the other… to be right or to be wrong. 

There has to be governmental regulation, and it has to have some teeth or tech companies wield too much power over an entire population and economy. We now live in a world where companies wield more power than governments.

No doubt that those who are always by a desk or in a car will want to use this feature. I certainly would too. Particularly thinking about the increase in docks and the use of the phone as an office camera, many more phones will be holding a +80% charge that is unnecessary harmful. It’s a feature I understand will make a significant difference to the battery life of those who toggle it on. I think the author of the article has missed the mark on the unequivocal recommendation that it makes no difference.

It is important that there is some boundary around how companies behave to restrict other services. For example, I agree that the inability to use a third party smartwatch and for it to be able to handle basic functions like messaging and calling should be encouraged - this doesn’t negatively impact users.