Yet this is completely fair to consumers who buy the application. Some welcome protection for them against unscrupulous developers or ad agencies.
This change of the rules makes a ton of sense; with location-aware backgrounding (applications waking up and getting a notice when you change locations), it would be very easy for an agency to track where you're going and in turn sell it to someone else to make a quick buck.
With something like $30 billion in cash in the bank, Apple's one of the companies that I'm not worried about selling information in order to make a quick buck. After all, aren't people always saying that Microsoft should use the privacy angle against Google? Why not Apple as well?
Umm, did you bother reading Apple's financials before tossing out that piece of FUD? The vast bulk of Apple's financials, and that $30 billion in cash, comes from hardware sales. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense to protect a profit source from unsavory types building who-knows-what from data collected in the background.
Hardware with their software on top of it, and their experience all around. Remove the software on top of it, and you have hardware that is priced much higher than it should be.
Keep in mind what I'm replying to. The argument is that 'bulk' of the money Apple makes is from hardware sales. Remove the hardware sales, and Apple doesn't make much money. My argument is that if you removed the software, they wouldn't be making the hardware sales. People aren't buying Apple for the hardware. They are buying it for the complete package.
Even you admit as much by suggesting they are removing half the product.
If you have $30 billion in cash, chances are that you have somewhat of a reputation. Apple definitely does. That repuation is worth far more to the company than a couple hundred thousand or a few million that an agency could offer.
However, if you're a small firm that might be struggling to survive and is somewhat lacking in the morals department ("Is it illegal? No? Then why not? We need the money."), that same money looks far more attractive.
I never mentioned developers. I mentioned agencies. As in, advertising agencies. They already (or used to) sell email addresses to spammers. It isn't far fetched to imagine selling location-based data as well. That sort of information is far more valuable than an email.
It would also be very easy for you to uninstall the app. This is possible on my droid but I haven't really run in to it. If I were worried, I probably wouldn't install the app.
Comments
Yet this is completely fair to consumers who buy the application. Some welcome protection for them against unscrupulous developers or ad agencies.
This change of the rules makes a ton of sense; with location-aware backgrounding (applications waking up and getting a notice when you change locations), it would be very easy for an agency to track where you're going and in turn sell it to someone else to make a quick buck.
But, somehow, as a consumer, I don't get any protection against Apple.
Hmm.
With something like $30 billion in cash in the bank, Apple's one of the companies that I'm not worried about selling information in order to make a quick buck. After all, aren't people always saying that Microsoft should use the privacy angle against Google? Why not Apple as well?
Generally companies don't get $30 billion in cash by turning down opportunities to make money.
Umm, did you bother reading Apple's financials before tossing out that piece of FUD? The vast bulk of Apple's financials, and that $30 billion in cash, comes from hardware sales. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense to protect a profit source from unsavory types building who-knows-what from data collected in the background.
Hardware with their software on top of it, and their experience all around. Remove the software on top of it, and you have hardware that is priced much higher than it should be.
Naturally. If you remove half of a product while keeping the same price, it's bound to be overpriced. Software isn't free (unless it is free...).
Keep in mind what I'm replying to. The argument is that 'bulk' of the money Apple makes is from hardware sales. Remove the hardware sales, and Apple doesn't make much money. My argument is that if you removed the software, they wouldn't be making the hardware sales. People aren't buying Apple for the hardware. They are buying it for the complete package.
Even you admit as much by suggesting they are removing half the product.
If you have $30 billion in cash, chances are that you have somewhat of a reputation. Apple definitely does. That repuation is worth far more to the company than a couple hundred thousand or a few million that an agency could offer.
However, if you're a small firm that might be struggling to survive and is somewhat lacking in the morals department ("Is it illegal? No? Then why not? We need the money."), that same money looks far more attractive.
Ummm... who exactly are these "unsavory developers"? This is starting to feel like a bad political ad.
I never mentioned developers. I mentioned agencies. As in, advertising agencies. They already (or used to) sell email addresses to spammers. It isn't far fetched to imagine selling location-based data as well. That sort of information is far more valuable than an email.
someone has never heard of crush offers...
It would also be very easy for you to uninstall the app. This is possible on my droid but I haven't really run in to it. If I were worried, I probably wouldn't install the app.