From what I can tell, nothing in this statement actually precludes targeting ads based on spending. If it did, they would just say that. They only preclude selling the data or sharing it with the ads team. But that was never the model to start with! This is a sleight of hand by Google to cover up what they actually do: profile users and then offer that profiling to other companies in the form of a service.

To put it more explicitly, you can say “I’ll put your ad in front of 20 year olds with an interest in skateboarding” without selling user data or even sharing profile data with the ads team. You just simply get the ads and the target market and use the data to put the ad in front of them.

And doesn’t the fact that Google says they won’t do those things proof that they know their entire business model is super shady and wouldn’t be appreciated by users if they fully understood it?

In other words, what should Apple have done here? What is the right cut, and how did you come to that figure?

I’m also not interested in having my photos included in family histories, or indeed being remembered at all. Not in a bitter way, just in the same way that I’m not interested in which mushrooms grow in Botswana. It’s a thing that I think is perfectly reasonable to be interested in.

This is not hyperbole. Facebook already lays claim to the behavioral data of non users, creating shadow profiles ready to materialize should you become a user. This an extension of that.

We are sleepwalking into a dystopia.

And yet iTunes Match remains in service.

There are some things we don’t give the benefit of the doubt for. Murdering public officials is one of them.

I wouldn't call them outlandish. I think there's merit in the ability to install whatever software you want. But I also think there's merit in making sure there's a robust, unfragmented market of apps that work with the last 6 years of iPhones, and restrictions that Apple has in place ensure that.

I think the Dev Store is a reasonable compromise to ensure that average users don't have to run AVG AntiVirus on their phones. That situation is absurdly anti-user.

>why is there no strict walled garden for Macs?

There is, and it's annoying: GateKeeper, which if I recall correctly requires you to basically outsmart your OS to install software using the GUI.

This is why I'm happy the iPad Pro is getting more desktop-like, hopefully bridging the gap between people who want a laptop to do weird stuff and people who want a device that will work no matter what you do to it.

The Developer Edition requires you to register for a now-free developer account. There's big friendly letters that say, "Welcome, developer! We know that you'll enjoy getting the most of your hardware and not clogging up our forums and support lines with complaints about things that are broken due to the unreviewed apps, because you're a developer, and you know how to fix things when they break. Here's your unwalled garden. Enjoy."

Then there can be that Dev Store where Advanced stuff goes, and if there's ever any hacks / vulnerabilities / bad stuff Apple can point to the Dev Edition and say "That's what they signed up for, but for normal folks the walled garden awaits."

iPhone Developer Edition and iPhone Customer Editions are identical in hardware. You can buy a Customer Edition and convert it to a Developer Edition phone by simply registering as a developer and signing away your right to bitch and moan if apps contain spam, porn, scams, or brick your device. iPhone Developer Edition can be turned back into a Customer edition through a setting, all ready to be sold.

I would say that SF doesn’t want to incentivize future growth. That’s the source of the inequality, right?

Which might help explain what is considered hate speech. These discussions tend to devolve (as all good online discussions do) into the nuance and what-about's. It's the role of the courts to determine that, and it's an ever-evolving collection of legal precedent as a result.