You didn't make a point. App telemetry is absolutely benign compared to the kind of invasive ad tracking that Facebook participates in. There's no shortage of horror stories of poorly implemented Facebook Pixel integrations passing sensitive user data that marketers then use to create custom ad campaigns.
Apple is using the data first-party only and isn't reselling or otherwise making it available for third parties to use. Explain how it's not benign, other than "tracking bad". How does it harm consumers, or put customers at risk?
Because it will. It's simply inevitable because of the system we live in. At some point or another, they will need to grow revenue and suddenly that trove of data they have collected beforehand, regardless of its initial purpose, will be used to screw customers.
The only way to protect against this is to not let them have that in the first place. Once they have it, it's impossible to guarantee it won't be misused sooner or later.
Apple has a pretty good revenue stream already without using telemetry for advertising, which is why they've been able to position themselves as so privacy focused. Maybe that might change in the future, but like it or not, the Apple ecosystem is lucrative enough already that it seems pretty unlikely they would be nefarious about it anytime soon.
I don't think you're going to convince anyone by pulling some fiction out of thin air and trying to pass it off as inevitable truth. With regards to Apple, there's more evidence refuting you than supporting you.
What an absolutely absurd generalization wrapped in aphorism. There is nothing in history that is absolutely repeated in all instances, nor is "history repeats itself" a valid argument that proves anything other than lazy thinking.
Come on man. This is not an abstract thought. You don't need to go far to see examples of this exact scenario.
You can choose to ignore it. That's your prerogative. But what I'm saying is not a lazy generalization. It's backed by what happened and continues to happen in our current day and age.
Almost no company starts as an evil entity. But they definitely end up there once they grow large enough.
That's exactly what it is. You're pretending you can predict the future with confidence about specific business decisions a company will make regarding its data and assets. You must be a billionaire with your ability to play the stock market by predicting the future.
I literally laughed out loud. I give up, this will be my last reply.
No, I can't predict the future. I can, however, look at our world and its incentives. Look at similar companies and how consistently they change.
Right now Apple is using privacy as a marketing strategy. One day that can change - in reality it will inevitably change, it's just a matter of time. Profits will forever be the one and only motive for a company to exist. Once privacy costs more than it brings in, it will be compromised.
It's not rocket science. It's basic logic.
Now let's assume your argument is true: we can't predict they will change. Why is that a reasonable thought? Have they never changed before? Is there anything that prevents them from changing?
Your argument falls flat: change is constant. Everything changes. Your argument is that "no, for this company, it won't happen". It makes no sense. Whether you believe in this company or not is irrelevant.
If instead of doing ad hominem attacks, you'd really consider how certain we can be of change, you might even change your mind.
