Apple has engineered iOS to offer much more privacy than Google for many years, but they have not highlighted it much in the past. Was that also just a marketing move?
> but they have not highlighted it much in the past
Sure they have. Every instance where they stonewalled an investigation was undoubtedly seen at least in part as a way to differentiate themselves from their main competition, which is an run by what is essentially an advertising company that functions by gathering user information.
If you can do something that differentiates you from your competition and they can't feasibly replicate it without changing a large part of how they function at a base level, you do so, even if it might take a while to (or never) pay off. The return on that gamble far outweighs the cost.
Apple created iAd as a way to allow developers to monitize free apps while respecting the end user's privacy many years ago. Privacy is hardly something Apple discovered recently.
iAd stood out because it didn't share customer data with advertisers as was the standard in the industry.
>Apple has a lot of knowledge regarding its users,but what it doesn’t do with that data is share it with advertisers very freely. That makes Madison Avenue very mad.
>rather than offering a cookie-based ad-tracking and targeting mechanism, it essentially requires partners to tell it what kind of audience it needs to reach, and then trust that Apple will handle the rest, AdAge says. And it’s well worth noting that Apple prioritizes customer privacy here over a big potential upside in ad revenue.
>what it doesn’t do is hand over the keys to all that data and let advertisers plug into it directly with their own data-mining and targeting software. That’s not standard for the ad industry and that’s likely the reason a few Madison Avenue feathers are ruffled over their approach.
They haven't much highlighted privacy in keynotes, marketing material etc. in the past. For the longest time, it was tucked away in the iOS security white paper. Now they're ramping it up.
I am just arguing against GP's dismissal of Apple's stance on privacy as a marketing move. I believe it's truly close to their heart, and it's a happy coincidence that it's also increasingly a marketable asset (given the despicable data collection practices of the big tech/advertisement firms).
But neither me nor, presumably, GP has privileged inside information on Apple's true motives (and surely they're multifaceted and complex and not monolithic anyway). So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.
> I believe it's truly close to their heart, and it's a happy coincidence that it's also increasingly a marketable asset
I think it's both, and impossible to separate. It's a public company, it doesn't have stuff close to it's heart, but it does have ideals it strives for that it presents to the board as the path forward. Part of that explanation is explaining how it helps the company.
> So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.
But, if you read carefully, it wasn't asserted that it was purely a marketing move. Just that it was one (which we've sort of covered tangentially), and it was delusional to think that it wasn't (which we've also covered). There wasn't any statement that it also wasn't something they've incorporated into their company ideology.
That's one of the shortcomings of delayed text communication. What could have simply been a quick reply of "sure, it may not be the only reason, but it can't be discounted" from the original author gets blown out into a larger discussion where people are arguing slightly differently things based on their contextual interpretation of the statement.
