> Then, on top of that, there is value in the data you're able to collect. Traffic data is really valuable. Tracking the movement of vehicles and pedestrians [...]
...but then they decided to market themselves as "privacy-focused", so they can't really do that, right? Or are they actually doing it?
> At one point, Apple was working on a car
...but then they killed the car project, so that goes out of the window too.
Collecting dots/vectors on a map doesn't necessarily invade my privacy. The problem comes with linking that dot with a person. As long as that link is lost and unrecoverable, I have no problem with Apple (or anyone) collecting it. The second problem is actually ensuring that.
The main problem with this is that the data is naturally linked to your phone, and you have to trust the provider to anonymize it. I suspect that's at least part of the reason for Apple painting itself as privacy-friendly: building trust with its users that they won't misuse their data.
I mean most of those vectors will converge on my home dot; with time data any vector intersecting with my home can tell a lot about my life. Additionally, is it anonymized per user (ie all my vectors are still a set just not identified as me) or each vector is an individual product unliked from all other vectors and user data.
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-maps/
> vectors will converge on my home dot
That’s just because your phone sends it, but your phone also has a list of “significant locations,” around which it could avoid sending data for a mile or less.
> but then they decided to market themselves as "privacy-focused", so they can't really do that, right? Or are they actually doing it?
Here's the genius behind Apple's marketing: when they say "privacy" they (mostly) don't mean from them! They are mainly talking about third parties. Apple collects a ton of first-party data, and nobody seems to be concerned about that. I also the pond Apple swims in (big tech) is so disgusting and polluted that even their minor effort at cleanliness seems pretty good.
Apple has a lot of technical solutions that mean data is collected, but is never associated with a particular user.
As an example, location data is shared with Apple, but it’s associated with a random unique identifier rather than your account. When your trip ends, your device switches to a new identifier. Traffic information is only shared if a certain threshold of users travel on a route [1].
Other examples include the entirely on-device photo scanning, the same rotating identifier system for transcripts of Siri interactions, etc. and, of course, being the only major cloud provider to offer E2EE on everything.
Not perfect, but a huge difference from their competitors.
[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Location_Services_White_P...
I do appreciate their sharing that, but I hate that it requires entirely just trusting them. They've so locked the user out of the device that it's difficult or impossible to verify anything for yourself, and even if you did, they could trivially push a change at any time because they have ultimate control over the device.
On the flip side, I tend to think a company so large would have at least one whistleblower or something on the inside, and/or would be so concerned about legal fallout that they wouldn't risk it.
On the flip side of the flip side, Apple is notoriously secretive (even among insiders) and very tight-fisted around employees sharing/leaking information. They also have some of the best lawyers in the world and a near infinite ability to fund any legal action, so may feel (and in fact, be) untouchable. And should Apple go evil, there aren't really great alternatives anyway for the average person, and they're generally so invested in the walled garden that walking away would entail a major disruption to their life.
I agree though, while not perfect, they are certainly much better than their competitors (not counting small players, e.g. GrapheneOS), and I'm grateful that at least they keep privacy at the forefront of conversation. If they abandoned it, there'd be nobody to pick up the mantle.
You are implying that E2EE is "on everything" without mentioning that it's very far from being the default.
Allegedly, Apple have built in privacy features so they can't associate individual users with routes, or know what the entire route is[1]. Apple does show traffic data in the app, so they obviously do collect the data somehow.
When Apple built maps, the car project was still alive, so it would have been a factor in deciding on the investment. They could still partner with a car manufacturer and use the data.
I do suspect that my first point was key in green lighting Apple Maps. Google could have asked for more and more money to provide maps for Apple, or they could pull out completely, and force users to use the App Store app, which would have left the product direction of Maps completely out of Apple's hands.
[1] https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigati...
I haven't been an employee since 2015, but by then Google had already been doing the route trimming and splicing for live traffic data. (If you had location history enabled, some of that same data at lower granularity was stored in another service, of course)