jony0

crowley said:

jony0 said:

GG1 said:

bloggerblog said:

I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set

At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).

I've suspected for some time and wouldn't be surprised that this is already done. As well as optimizing machine level instructions in microcode for Swift, it would take just one Apple Silicon proprietary instruction to freeze any regular ARM based processor and kill any Hackintosh ambitions or any direct iOS emulations for that matter.

Is it possible that their license precludes them from doing that even if they wanted to?

GG1 said:

bloggerblog said:

I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set

At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).

gatorguy said:

jony0 said:

gatorguy said:

Rayz2016 said:

gatorguy said:

mr lizard said:

techconc said:

Beyond the technology in this proposition, I have to wonder about the business model.  Apple is apparently receiving billions of dollars from Google to use their search engine by default.  Why would Apple want to stop that revenue stream?  Further, does Apple really want to get into the advertising business?  One of the reasons we trust Apple today is precisely because their business model doesn't depend on them harvesting our information to monetize with advertisers as Google does.   The alternative is to have an unpaid service like Maps, but not only would that cost money to run such a service, but Apple would be losing revenue from Google in the process.  None of this makes much sense to me from a business model perspective. 

I suspect if they did get into web based search their advertising model would look similar to how it does on the App Store, where they are already in the advertising business. 

In other words, no information harvesting, just classic paid-for sponsored search terms. Similar in many ways to DuckDuckGo's model, which has proven well for them. 

It will indeed be interesting to see if Apple is prepared to drop the significant payment they receive from Google though. A test of their privacy focused values vs. lucrative revenue streams...

You might look at how Apple uses you as a customer for targeted advertising. Your data has a play in it. It's more like Google than DDG.
Apple like Google exposes no identifiable user data to the advertisers, private information is never shared, customers are relegated to an advertising ID number and not a name or number or email address, and "targets" are aggregated groups with similar preferences and/or demographics rather than an individual person. 

From Apple themselves:

On the App Store, Apple News, and Stocks, we may use information such as the following to assign you to segments:

• Account Information: Your name, address, age, and devices registered to your account. Information such as your first name in your Apple ID registration page, or salutation in your iTunes Account may be used to derive your gender.
• Downloads & Activity: The music, movies, books, TV shows, and apps you download as well as any in-app purchases.
• Activities in Other Apps: App developers, subject to their own privacy policies and applicable laws, may provide information regarding your in-app purchases and activities such as game level completion.
• Advertising: Your interaction with advertising delivered by Apple’s advertising platform.
• Other Segments: For specific advertising campaigns, advertisers may match information they have about their users with Apple’s information to create segments, which must contain at least 5,000 people. Advertisers can use an Advertising Identifier, or other information they have about users, such as a phone number or email, to match users to segments on Apple’s advertising platform. During the match process, these identifiers are obscured to limit personally identifiable information being disclosed. To choose which segments they match users to, Advertisers may use information they have from interactions with users. This information is acquired and used subject to the Advertisers’ own privacy policies.

When selecting which ad to display from multiple ads for which you are eligible, we may use some of the above mentioned information, as well as your App Store browsing activity, to determine which ad is likely to be most relevant to you. App Store browsing activity includes the content and apps you tap and view while browsing the App Store. This information is aggregated across users so that it does not identify you.

So I would certainly expect that if Apple chooses to broaden their scope and offer a search engine of their own that it will be monetized thru ads very similar (tho not the same) to the way Google does. With that said, I don't personally see the logic in Apple doing so. Any business at the end of the day is in it for the money. Unless Apple thinks it will give them more profits than the $B's Google gives them it doesn't make business sense. 

Well, at least they didn’t grab the data from your browser when you asked them not to. 

Or swipe it in a drive by. 

Now who would do such a thing. ߤ䦬t;br>

About 10 years ago (gosh time flies by) Google collected a few wi-fi snippets in Germany without permission or disclosure, then likely fibbed about it being a "mistake". Bad Google.

On your other question I have no idea who grabbed browser data without permission. I think you might mistakenly be referring to "Incognito mode" on Chrome (essentially the same as Private Mode in Safari), but if not you'll have to be more specific. Who?

I'm not going to speak for him but he may have been alluding to the turning off the "Do Not Track" flag thingie where they got the big fine.

The OP has been active quite a bit since I posed that question and hasn't bothered with an answer so I surmise it was what I suggested it was, Incognito Mode

FWIW the fine you refer to wasn't for tracking, nor was it a big one. It was for telling users the wrong way to opt-out. Do Not Track is not a legal mandate, and it's failed now anyway since no one honored it, but giving people the right information about how to turn data collection off is, especially since Google was already under a consent order for some short-lived social platform they had a few years before. TBH I don't know what that one was about or why.