Is OS X and Apple products in general a botnet? I know that if you aren't paying for a service, you aren't the customer, you are the product for whoever is using your information. So by that logic shouldn't Apple care a lot about your privacy since you have to pay through the nose for their products?
the product you're paying for is the hardware and the operating system. you've somehow been confused into thinking that the operating system is a service, thanks to microsoft or just general stupidity.
you don't have to pay for/use apple services if you use apple products. it's just that things work better that way.
>>54575593
I'm aware. But their software is provided to entice you to buy their hardware. So that should hypothetically give them more incentive to care about your privacy than Google or even Microsoft.
>>54575634
apple's entire business model is on selling you premium hardware. the operating system and software is ancillary. you might argue that the iPod was a vehicle for selling you music, but no aspect of purchasing DRM music makes anything a "botnet".
apple has a very minor direct stake in advertising, so their incentives are aligned in such a way that there's not much good reason to have access to mine your data for anything (unless they're actively using your data to give the government intelligence, and we know they're at least not being cooperative about it or the FBI wouldn't have had its hissy fit). so while you're right that it hypothetically gives them more incentive to care about your privacy than google or MS have (not sure why you would use "even", there, since MS is just about as heavily invested in advertising as Google, and they're open about scanning onedrive for shit), but you should generally only trust a corporation to do what corporations do.
that is: expect it to protect and monetize its assets. google doesn't want to cooperate with the government by giving up data about users in whole cloth, because that's their only valuable asset. same with MS. they're both happy to pore over their data and let the FBI know if various flags get raised, but none of it's free.
similarly, apple would be happy to give the government access to shit if they had an avenue to monetize it. but their business was never structured around that, and the government is stingy, hence the impasse.
t. good goys
>>54575671
I used "even" for Microsoft because you have to pay for Windows, so it *should* be tailored to what customers want instead of what the botnet wants. But I guess Microsoft's near monopoly gives them the power to try and profit both ways.
>>54575715
i was pretty explicit about only trusting corporations to do what corporations do - that is, do literally anything that will earn them a net profit. if you think that's naive, then it's because someone didn't set you straight during your retarded edgy teenager phase.
for-profit corporations exist to make a profit and do nothing else. they don't exist to benefit the community or help the disadvantaged or any of that humanitarian crap. if the costs (fines, loss of business from moral objection, etc...) on using slave labor were lower than the projected profits, corporations would all go do it.
hell, they kind of do. the working conditions at factories in china are such that nobody would work there unless starving to death was the only alternative, which is principally the same choice slaves got (work or die).
>>54575731
the microsoft upgrade is free and every thread i've seen about windows 10 seems to be about telemetry, forced upgrades, and various other shit where microsoft basically forces your computer to do shit you didn't want it to do.
that's the definition of a botnet. i assumed you understood this based on your OP post.
>>54575785
The upgrade is free, but a new license is not and OEMs still have to pay for licenses on the systems they build and sell. And I'm pretty sure the upgrade is only temporarily free. I'm just saying, if there was a truly competitive desktop OS market, privacy would be something that OS makers would compete on to earn sales. But that's not the case because Windows is so ubiquitous that it's almost impossible for competitors to pop up and gain significant market share, so Microsoft is free to try and profit from selling your information because they know 99% of people will still stick with Windows, they can't protest and install a competitors OS.
>>54575834
not necessarily. competition is like evolution; you don't know what pressures will select for certain outcomes, and the assumption that your preferred outcome will necessarily win over others will almost invariably disappoint you.
humans are softer, weaker, slower, and less resilient than practically every wild, undomesticated animal. intelligence is pretty much the only dimension in which we've come out ahead.
there's nothing to say that the most successful operating system wouldn't be the one that makes sense of myriad devices the most effectively through shared notifications, etc... with nothing to do regarding privacy or any of that other shit.
>>54575884
>humans are softer, weaker, slower, and less resilient than practically every wild, undomesticated animal. intelligence is pretty much the only dimension in which we've come out ahead.
We are capable of hunting fast animals by exhausting them over long distances. Some villages still practice endurance hunting to this day. Humans are excellent at endurance, most predators rely on occasional bursts of speed.
We also have hand eye coordination which allows us to throw projectiles with great accuracy.
We are much scarier than we give ourselves credit for.
>>54575573
Yes.
>>54575984
our endurance isn't the best by any means, and our coordination is primarily the result of our brains.
don't act like we're here for any reason other than our brains. don't act stupid when you're not.
>>54575984
This. The weird agenda to make humans feel unremarkable is bullshit. Not only are we intelligent, we are fast, we have endurance, we are efficient as fuck, we have amazing sensory organs, we have unmatched coordination and body awareness etc. Sure you can find an animal that's better at any of those, but what gets mentioned rarely is that we are among the top ten animals in each of those categories, or even literally the best (intelligence, endurance, efficiency of metabolism, hearing range). Still, somehow people just love to think that we are shitty animals biologically. We are not, we are fucking amazing.
>>54576158
being in the top 10 is not helpful if an animal above you in that ranking lives in your area, which they invariably do.
insisting on an honorary mention for second place is distinctly human. we lose out to faster, stronger, more dangerous animals all the time, except for our intelligence.
your assumption that "only" being the most intelligent animal makes us unremarkable is the retarded horse shit that should be corrected. intelligence happens to be the dimension that allows us to arbitrarily overcome every other advantage. if you don't think that's remarkable, then you're an even bigger idiot than i thought.
>>54576055
>our endurance isn't the best by any means
Yes, it is. Some humans manage to run >200 km in 24 hours. Find me an animal that is capable of that. There is none. Because their cardiovascular systems and metabolisms are simply shit compared to ours. Horses can run for 10 minutes, that's it. Even predators that specialize in endurance hunting (dogs for example) can't run for that long.
>>54576190
>if you don't think that's remarkable, then you're an even bigger idiot than i thought.
I never said anything like that. But sure, you can continue talking with yourself if you like that. Same for the rest of your stupid post.
Don't reply.
>>54576194
horses average roughly on par with the world record for humans.
camels have perhaps the best endurance of any land animal and totally trash humans for long distances.
ostriches, antelopes, etc... all run sufficiently long and sufficiently fast that they can get a fuck of a way away from humans and relax for a while before the humans catch up.
again, and i'm sick of repeating myself on this: our advantage is intelligence and everything that flows from it. stop acting like you're too stupid to appreciate this.
>>54576216
>weird agenda to make humans feel unremarkable is bullshit
was this talking about the broader agenda outside of 4chan, or some post in this thread that i'm not seeing?
and begging me not to reply makes you look like a retarded coward. your position is specious. cop to it or stop talking. don't ask me not to embarrass you.
>>54575573
do you know what a botnet is?
>>54576274
Yes. But /g/ uses botnet as a catch all term for anything that collects your personal information.
Apple: you own the product, you pay extra
Microsoft/ Google: you are the product, and it costs less because of the data they can sell about you
I'd rather pay a bit extra and get better hardware
>>54576311
>Apple: you are the product, they can sell data about you, AND you pay extra
Fixed.
Get fucked cuck, lmao.
>>54576943
Soo.... it told Apple about that one time I've looked up the "Applications" folder to add to the dock? And that other time I've searched for my Xcode project? Cause who the fuck actually looks stuff on the internet up through Spotlight?
>>54577005
>literally using the same excuse as microcucks and googlecucks
>j-j-just dont use the features that connect to their services!!!111
iCuckoldry, not even once
