> There is no public consensus on this. American voters are fine with free, ad-supported software. They’re fine with surveillance in exchange for convenience.
Is that true though? When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy, and if they're actually given a choice, most will probably take it.
The issue about not understanding the cost is real, but that's not unprecedented. There was a time when most people didn't understand the cost of cigarettes and tobacco, but that problem was solved through government intervention.
Edit: to clarify, I said the tracking is “opt-in”, but it’s not a default. iOS explicitly asks you to choose between tracking or no tracking. It does not assume any default.
> When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy
Americans want privacy. There isn't consensus around the acceptable level of tradeoffs [1][2].
> was a time when most people didn't understand the cost of cigarettes and tobacco, but that problem was solved through government intervention
In 1964, the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee marked a turning point for smoking in America [3]. The Tobacco MSA was entered into in 1998 [4], by when most smokers recognized their habit as an addiction. The government intervention followed evidencing harm, public discussion and massive changes in public behavior. We are still in the first phase for ad-funded tech.
While Apple is in general better at privacy than Google (better can be far away from good), I think an Android user can theoretically be better protected. It just needs a lot of attention. But he would at least be able to do something against the "exceptions for the manufacturer". A locked down environment will always be comparably insecure. Not that Android phones aren't locked down...
> When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy, and if they're actually given a choice, most will probably take it.
I've seen this or equivalent statements a lot in discussion related to privacy, tracking, and the ios ecosystem. However, I don't think the results show what you're saying they do. All I see is that people accept the default behaviour of their devices. Unfortunately, there's no mobile ecosystem where you can easily opt out of tracking to compare to.
Yes, I would add though that the option that's perceived as closest to "Do nothing/Add nothing/Skip" will get extra perception points as closer to default.
> When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy...
Or it could be a clear indicator that people will leave the defaults where they are, which is why there have been figurative wars over getting a particular browser to be the default browser of an operating system.
> Is that true though? When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy, and if they're actually given a choice, most will probably take it.
Is it? Or is it a clear indication that most people will stick with whatever the default option handed to them is?
Of course giving the option to opt out without consequences will entice people to opt out. But what if the software stops working unless you pay for it after you opt out? That changes everything.
Then the question is no longer "Am I okay with tracking if I can shut it off and everything's still the same," but becomes "Am I okay with tracking if it means I don't have to pay for the software or service?"
That’s true. I think that will be the real test for the market.
Appstores/marketplaces will need to clearly show which apps are free without tracking so that consumers are aware that there are privacy-respecting alternatives, and don’t feel like they have no choice.
However, there’s also the issue that the definition of “tracking” and “privacy” is too vague. If Google or Facebook offered a paid service with privacy, I personally still wouldn’t trust them to not collect data on me.
Why should people have to buy extra services for a non free piece of hardware just to remain ad free on that hardware? Apple is double dipping here (probably triple dipping if you also include AppStore fees and charges).
People want to be able to own the things they buy, without further nonsense.
If you don't want to pay for the operating system, just buy some hardware and put Linux on it. Apple isn't double dipping because their OS isn't free, and nor is their hardware. They are different units of the same company, and both units have to pay their staff.
To whit, anywhere the software is provided "free" it is actually just included in the price. It is no coincidence they don't let you upgrade the actual version of that software without paying (or jail breaking as the case may be). Most phones and tablets are kept at whatever version you bought them at, by design.
If you buy a hardware firewall, you still have to pay for its software and maintenance. If you buy a car, you still have to buy winter tires at the appropriate time of year, and pay for the car's regular checkup. For tires, you even may have to pay for yearly rotation, balancing, etc. This business model shows up in many variants all over the place. Different divisions or people work on something, it's a separate pay item.
It also doesn't help when companies try things that can produce relevant ads for a user without tracking the users themselves, and they get blocked at every turn.
For example, Twitter allows you to prune a list of ad subjects. You can add and subtract to that list. This could effectively reduce the need for tracking, but people reflexively block the ad accounts, rendering any form of ad campaign ineffective.
I'm not saying that's the answer, btw. It may be, or it may not be. I am saying though, that people are so used to blocking ads and not paying, that finding solutions to keep online companies viable is extraordinarily difficult without tracking.
If Twitter turned around and told everyone who did that, that they have to pay for a subscription, they'd quickly go out of business.
>Is that true though? When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy, and if they're actually given a choice, most will probably take it.
That option already existed in the settings. People couldn't be bothered to go set it because they don't really care.
Is that true though? When Apple made tracking opt-in, pretty much everyone refused. I think that's a clear indicator that the overwhelming majority do want privacy, and if they're actually given a choice, most will probably take it.
The issue about not understanding the cost is real, but that's not unprecedented. There was a time when most people didn't understand the cost of cigarettes and tobacco, but that problem was solved through government intervention.
Edit: to clarify, I said the tracking is “opt-in”, but it’s not a default. iOS explicitly asks you to choose between tracking or no tracking. It does not assume any default.