franklinjackcon

ihatescreennames said:

franklinjackcon said:

DanielEran said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)

d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it

Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4.  Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected.  Nobody cared.  But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.

That’s just one example.

sagan_student said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

I already think they do have this, When lying in bed with our phones on the nightstand, I can say ‘Hey Siri’ and only my phone lights up; when my better half says it, only her phone activates. I think this is just something that is not advertised until they are completely confident in it. Kind of like the approach to water resistance. Sure they didn’t advertise it until the 7 came out, but before then people would tell stories of accidentally dropping their 6 or 6s’ into the toilet and it being okay. 

DanielEran said:

franklinjackcon said:

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.

The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)

lkrupp said:

Clickbait documentary. Single out Apple for scorn just like Mike Daisey did. Stir up the activists, ALL of whom use electronic gadgets made in China by the same factories. I wonder how many of these concerned activists refuse to own an Apple product but instead switched to a phone made by that bastion of environmental purity and holiness, Samsung? Almost all Hollywood celebrities these days are seen clutching an iPhone in their impeccably manicured hands, even the ones who make commercials for the other guys. Hypocrites all since Apple is one of only a few tech companies that actually does more than give lip service to environmental issues. Apple certainly isn’t guiltless but come on, man.

radarthekat said:

Businesses outsource components because it’s not their expertise to produce those components.  And there’s zero legal requirement, as far as I know, anywhere in the world, for a business to even be aware of the processes used by its component suppliers to construct those components.  Businesses are consumers in this regard, just like you and I.  We aren’t required to know all the engineering and processes, and substances used in the processes that went into a product we purchase.   We rely on the FDA, or UL or the USDA, or the FCC, etc, to ensure things are done properly.  

So Apple is no more complicit than we are in the processes and substances used by a component manufacturer operating under the laws of whatever country it does business in. 

The folks who who created this documentary should google ‘legal test of complicity’ and the same for ‘ommision.’  They might learn something before trying to educate the rest of us.