Apple vs Facebook

[calvin1719]

The thing is that you only look at one side of the argument. Companies reveal their revenue sources in their financial statements and Google/FB are absolutely dependent on the income from sharing data with the advertisers. On the other hand, Apple's income stream is primarily from products and services. A cynic might say that they failed in their advertising business but that is precisely the reason they pivoted to privacy and in that sense it benefits the users as well. You can read about their approach over here. You can request all the data that a company holds and you can compare Apple's data with what Facebook and Google have on you. Spoiler, it is magnitudes less, despite the same GDPR regulations being applied to all companies in Europe.

You can call removing of chargers and earphones as greed but it is part of its target to achieve 100% carbon neutrality by 2030. If you are talking about greed, then think of all the Chinese companies that are following in Apple's footsteps by removing accessories while still being the worst polluters on the planet and exploiting minorities/child labour.

Yep, most companies are greedy capitalists but it comes down to what they offer you and the planet as a whole in return.

I think part of the disconnect here is that you're willing to attribute altruistic motives to Apple, while others (like me) are not willing to do that for Apple, FB, or Google.

Also, Google allows advertisers to access anonymized user data through a black box for user targeting, unless the data is gathered as first-party data (that is, by the advertiser themselves on their site/app through Analytics) - the data owned by Google is not shared directly.

IIUC, Apple is now blocking collection of in-app analytical data by default for trackers from FB, Google, etc., and forcing users to opt-in (instead of opt-out). But, this does not prevent Apple itself from collecting the data that FB or Google may otherwise have collected. This, in turn, boosts their targeting capabilities while simultaneously reducing the effectiveness of other ad networks in reaching the right users for highly targeted campaigns.

Just because they currently collect less data on users than Google, is not indicative of future plans or changes that we may see. As I said, they're far behind in the ad game.

You can call removing of chargers and earphones as greed but it is part of its target to achieve 100% carbon neutrality by 2030. If you are talking about greed, then think of all the Chinese companies that are following in Apple's footsteps by removing accessories while still being the worst polluters on the planet and exploiting minorities/child labour.

We're talking about Apple's greed, how does juxtaposing them with Chinese companies help the discussion? Your point is not clear to me here, apologies if I'm missing something.
This would 100% not happen if it didn't help the bottom line, or at least the degree would be greatly lessened.
As msakandi said above, a far higher driver of e-waste (than chargers and accessories) is Apple's move to unrepairable devices and planned obsolescence, but that continues because it boosts profits. In the end, all of these companies are legally obliged to increase stakeholder value.

Edited to add: Moves towards improving non-core aspects of production, such as decreasing carbon footprint, eliminating human rights abuse in the supply chain, reduction of waste, etc. are only made by most companies when they judge that the cost of negative public sentiment outweighs the cost or revenue impact of such moves. No exception to this comes to mind currently, but I'm sure there are a couple. If anyone knows any, please let me know.

 

[t3chg33k]

I think part of the disconnect here is that you're willing to attribute altruistic motives to Apple, while others (like me) are not willing to do that for Apple, FB, or Google.

Also, Google allows advertisers to access anonymized user data through a black box for user targeting, unless the data is gathered as first-party data (that is, by the advertiser themselves on their site/app through Analytics) - the data owned by Google is not shared directly.

IIUC, Apple is now blocking collection of in-app analytical data by default for trackers from FB, Google, etc., and forcing users to opt-in (instead of opt-out). But, this does not prevent Apple itself from collecting the data that FB or Google may otherwise have collected. This, in turn, boosts their targeting capabilities while simultaneously reducing the effectiveness of other ad networks in reaching the right users for highly targeted campaigns.

Just because they currently collect less data on users than Google, is not indicative of future plans or changes that we may see. As I said, they're far behind in the ad game.



We're talking about Apple's greed, how does juxtaposing them with Chinese companies help the discussion? Your point is not clear to me here, apologies if I'm missing something.
This would 100% not happen if it didn't help the bottom line, or at least the degree would be greatly lessened.
As msakandi said above, a far higher driver of e-waste (than chargers and accessories) is Apple's move to unrepairable devices and planned obsolescence, but that continues because it boosts profits. In the end, all of these companies are legally obliged to increase stakeholder value.

Edited to add: Moves towards improving non-core aspects of production, such as decreasing carbon footprint, eliminating human rights abuse in the supply chain, reduction of waste, etc. are only made by most companies when they judge that the cost of negative public sentiment outweighs the cost or revenue impact of such moves. No exception to this comes to mind currently, but I'm sure there are a couple. If anyone knows any, please let me know.

Caring for the environment as a corporate when it requires significant investment is an exception and not the rule. You can probably access multiple reports but I have linked whatever came up first. The fact is none of the other bigwig companies will do anything about it until regulations push them to. In that sense, Apple is doing it voluntarily which is commendable.

Google, Amazon, Samsung, Xiaomi, Sony and 6 other IT giants have failed in this test | Gadgets Now

www.gadgetsnow.com

Again, I included the Chinese companies in the discussion because of the fact that there are much worse perpetrators because of their volume and general disregard for the environment. Even as Apple has promoted planned obsolescence, they have at least scaled up recycling to recover most of the rare earth materials and use them again. Others are not even trying despite imitating Apple in wastefulness.

Apple pushes recycling of iPhone with 'Daisy' robot

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Apple Inc <APPL.O> is trying to change the way electronics are recycled with a robot that disassembles its iPhone so that minerals can be recovered and reused, while acknowledging rising global demand for electronics means new mines will still be needed. The Cupertino...

www.reuters.com

Lastly, on the data side, Apple collects data for advertising and it is detailed in their policy. However, its use case is to serve ads about apps and services which is something you don't even encounter if you don't access the App Store regularly. The fact, as you mentioned is that every company, be it Google, FB or Microsoft controls the data on their respective platforms and guards it like a state secret. However, it takes some restraint to not collect data excessively (FB fail) and to also not allow any third-party access to private data (Android fail).

Legal - Apple Advertising & Privacy- Apple

Data & Privacy

support.apple.com

I would recommend to turn off ad personalisation and reset the device identifier on any platform as then it doesn't use the data to provide targeted ads. This of course works for Google and Apple but not FB as their anonymisation has failed repeatedly based on data leaks.

 

[calvin1719]

Caring for the environment as a corporate when it requires significant investment is an exception and not the rule.

Which is exactly what I said.

The fact is none of the other bigwig companies will do anything about it until regulations push them to.

I contend that it's negative brand impact that will get them moving and not regulations, but ok.

In that sense, Apple is doing it voluntarily which is commendable.

Again, don't deceive yourself that they're doing this out of the goodness of their trillion-dollar heart.

Again, I included the Chinese companies in the discussion because of the fact that there are much worse perpetrators because of their volume and general disregard for the environment. Even as Apple has promoted planned obsolescence, they have at least scaled up recycling to recover most of the rare earth materials and use them again and others are not even trying.

Apple pushes recycling of iPhone with 'Daisy' robot

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Apple Inc <APPL.O> is trying to change the way electronics are recycled with a robot that disassembles its iPhone so that minerals can be recovered and reused, while acknowledging rising global demand for electronics means new mines will still be needed. The Cupertino...

www.reuters.com

Are you saying that Apple is better than the Chinese copycats, simply because they have a better PR team and have a veneer of environmental preservation behind which they hide their greed?
I don't think anyone is disputing that these Chinese companies you refer to pollute a lot and are guilty of just as much, if not more, than Apple.
The point I'm trying to make is, making statements about carbon neutrality or taking symbolic baby steps towards environmental preservation without the pressure of regulation does not necessarily mean Apple has anything but it's own interest in mind - not the environment, not users, not people or flora or fauna impacted by any of the issues being discussed here.

Even as Apple has promoted planned obsolescence, they have at least scaled up recycling to recover most of the rare earth materials and use them again and others are not even trying.

I find it amusing that spending a large amount of money to recover materials (i.e. lower costs) before the actual EOL of those materials, by artificially reducing the useful life of those materials, is looked upon favourably. You don't think they could be spending some of this money on some of the other issues we've discussed above? Of course not, that would neither lower costs nor increase revenue.

 

[t3chg33k]

Which is exactly what I said.


I contend that it's negative brand impact that will get them moving and not regulations, but ok.


Again, don't deceive yourself that they're doing this out of the goodness of their trillion-dollar heart.



Are you saying that Apple is better than the Chinese copycats, simply because they have a better PR team and have a veneer of environmental preservation behind which they hide their greed?
I don't think anyone is disputing that these Chinese companies you refer to pollute a lot and are guilty of just as much, if not more, than Apple.
The point I'm trying to make is, making statements about carbon neutrality or taking symbolic baby steps towards environmental preservation without the pressure of regulation does not necessarily mean Apple has anything but it's own interest in mind - not the environment, not users, not people or flora or fauna impacted by any of the issues being discussed here.



I find it amusing that spending a large amount of money to recover materials (i.e. lower costs) before the actual EOL of those materials, by artificially reducing the useful life of those materials, is looked upon favourably. You don't think they could be spending some of this money on some of the other issues we've discussed above? Of course not, that would neither lower costs nor increase revenue.

I think I have put across my point enough number of times already. I am looking at it in relative terms because every consumer product purchase is done in relative terms. The impact on the environment however is absolute and every other big electronics company is hurting the planet much worse than Apple is.

I am not sure why you are time and again trying to single out Apple for its practices. They are a corporate entity creating value for shareholders by getting consumers to part with their money for the value perceived by them as every other consumer company. They don't have a heart, period and their environmental initiatives don't operate in isolation. The entire premise of existence for a for-profit company and indeed every department in a technology company, be it marketing or engineering, is to make more money. Apple has simply done it better and everyone hates them for that.

When a company tries to balance their environmental impact irrespective of their consumer practices, that is still commendable. The point I am putting across yet again is that all the other companies imitated Apple in its approach of encouraging consumerism to earn money from the customer but yet did nothing to balance it out in terms of environmental impact.

 

[msankadi]

Which is exactly what I said.


I contend that it's negative brand impact that will get them moving and not regulations, but ok.


Again, don't deceive yourself that they're doing this out of the goodness of their trillion-dollar heart.



Are you saying that Apple is better than the Chinese copycats, simply because they have a better PR team and have a veneer of environmental preservation behind which they hide their greed?
I don't think anyone is disputing that these Chinese companies you refer to pollute a lot and are guilty of just as much, if not more, than Apple.
The point I'm trying to make is, making statements about carbon neutrality or taking symbolic baby steps towards environmental preservation without the pressure of regulation does not necessarily mean Apple has anything but it's own interest in mind - not the environment, not users, not people or flora or fauna impacted by any of the issues being discussed here.



I find it amusing that spending a large amount of money to recover materials (i.e. lower costs) before the actual EOL of those materials, by artificially reducing the useful life of those materials, is looked upon favourably. You don't think they could be spending some of this money on some of the other issues we've discussed above? Of course not, that would neither lower costs nor increase revenue.

You're cent percent correct here. It is just naive to fall into the trap of their marketing gimmicks when they have shown multiple times in the past that they don't have any qualms in going back on their word. They keep saying one thing and keep doing another as I have already highlighted.

If they are so serious about privacy as they claim, simply ban Google and fb from apple platforms. Period. Why keep crying b**ching and moaning about it for months without doing anything. On top of it apple is asking for almost 40% of your revenue from google to harvest user data and people still believe in their Bs privacy publicity. The day they are capable of leveraging their user data instead of letting others like Google use it, they will have no qualms of using it themselves.

For green initiatives again let's not look at just the current picture let's look at collective 20 years carbon footprint. How much has apple adversely impacted the environment due to their greed of creating non repairable devices over the last 20 years. How much due to the proprietary cables they kept changing every year?just because they are saying one thing to sell their devices right now or to make more profit by selling cables separately doesn't erase their history of polluting because of their greed.

@tt3chg33k People don't hate apple because of their money. After all why would they? Most of them don't have money riding on it. A grocer will hate Amazon because it is impacting their livelihood. Why would an average person care for how rich apple is? Are they going to give any money to apple supporters? If yes, I am all for saying whatever apple wants.

Nope people hate apple for its pathetic software. For its practices and what it has done to the tech world. I can't imagine how much better off the tech world would be today without a greedy to the core company like apple.

 

[calvin1719]

I think I have put across my point enough number of times already. I am looking at it in relative terms because every consumer product purchase is done in relative terms. The impact on the environment however is absolute and every other big electronics company is hurting the planet much worse than Apple is.

I am not sure why you are time and again trying to single out Apple for its practices. They are a corporate entity creating value for shareholders by getting consumers to part with their money for the value perceived by them as every other consumer company. They don't have a heart, period and their environmental initiatives don't operate in isolation. The entire premise of existence for a for-profit company and indeed every department in a technology company, be it marketing or engineering, is to make more money. Apple has simply done it better and everyone hates them for that.

When a company tries to balance their environmental impact irrespective of their consumer practices, that is still commendable. The point I am putting across yet again is that all the other companies imitated Apple in its approach of encouraging consumerism to earn money from the customer but yet did nothing to balance it out in terms of environmental impact.

I give up. You're not really seeing my point and I'm too lazy to say it again. What was initially a side note in my response turned into the main focus of the thread, so let's leave that and bring it back to privacy initiatives and advertising.
Anyway, I wasn't really singling out Apple, but see sentence one of this response.