Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/privacy/ <comment><USER2> Have used Android for years (I have been using devices like Pro, rooted, custom ROMS, skins whatever you might imagine). Shifted to Apple's echo system 2-3 years ago. It took me some time to get used to iOS but integration across devices (my mac, my iPad, my watch) is simply amazing. I am not going sound like broken record or fan boy here. Apple got me on this video where Steve Jobs really showed how much they care for privacy [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo) the other day my wife got a notification from Google Photos that it prepared our Album from our trip to SFO. We have turned of location tagging and everything, turns out Google is not content with me asking them to leave me alone, they would use ML and whatever they have built to figure out where I have been. In this day in age, while Apple might sound outdated to a lot of people, nothing can beat the sense of security with privacy Apple carries with itself now.

<comment><USER3> > nothing can beat the sense of security with privacy Apple carries with > itself now.

That is exactly it. Apple is not good at privacy, they are good at giving you the sense of it. A closed source OS, on proprietary hardware, where they don't even give you root access to your own device, will never be private. You pay them, but really they own the phone and you have to trust them.

But they are obviously very good at making you /feel/ secure and private.

<comment><USER4> I don't think privacy can be measured by counting the number of lines of code that are open source.

A device can be perfectly respectful of your privacy despite being closed and proprietary.

The only difference (IMO) between open and closed platform is that with the former you can have 3rd parties inspect it.

However, unless you have the resources to fully audit an open platform (either yourself, or by paying someone else) I believe you should assume the worst from both open and proprietary platforms.

<comment><USER5> Even if it actually is, there is no way to know if a closed and proprietary is respectful of your privacy. It is a matter of blind trust.

Which does not mean that open source is synonymous of privacy either, only that one can go further than blind trust to the manufacturer.

<comment><USER6> There's more than the device code. They're not going to open source their entire web infrastructure. They DO store your data, somewhere. Either way, you need trust.

<comment><USER7> Exactly!

As another example, Telegram claims to be the most secure messaging app out there. They have open-sourced their code, but what really matters is what they do with peoples' data on their servers.

> They're not going to open source their entire web infrastructure.

I think blockchain can actually solve this problem once and for all. When data is stored in decentralized nodes, much of these concerns are gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apple is pushing the privacy angle pretty strongly now, and I can't really blame them. It's a key differentiator between them and their chief competitor.

The phones are good on their own, but when choosing between having every action tracked and keeping some things to yourself, unsurprisingly a lot of people want privacy. Here's hoping their marketing can help ordinary people who wouldn't normally care about privacy see why it's important (and maybe score some wins for privacy at the polls in the future!)

<comment><USER9> Honestly on verge of switching, despite my deep disdain for the locked down walled garden. Hopefully their privacy stance is a raging success and catches on to every other service that I only minimally use due to the 'surveillance chill' effect. (..goes back to tracking my users)

If only it wasn't for that fscking no headphone jack..

<comment><USER10> I recently bought a new Android phone, not out of any love for Google and their horrendous privacy policies, but out of love for my headphone jack.

Apple, what were you thinking?

<comment><USER11> Apparently Google is also ditching the headphone jack[1] on the new Pixel line

[1] [http://bgr.com/2017/07/27/pixel-2-rumors-no-3-5mm- headphone-...](http://bgr.com/2017/07/27/pixel-2-rumors-no-3-5mm-headphone- jack/)

<comment><USER12> Luckily for consumers Android is a diverse ecosystem not controlled by one single manufacturer. There are many devices with headphone jacks to choose from.

<comment><USER13> What makes you think the other major manufacturers aren't going to follow suit?

It may just be a matter of time. Especially if 2 major companies normalise it, then all the other companies get to drop a feature and save a few cents on every phone.

<comment><USER14> Samsung's still making a flagship line with a stylistic after pretty much everyone else dropped smartphone styluses; and they brought back external SD cards, too, which a number of manufacturers (themselves included) dropped from flagship lines.

It's possible that dropping headphone jacks _could_ become universal, but I don't see any reason to expect it's likely.

<comment><USER13> I can see wireless charging and waterproof devices becoming the norm.

Most people also buy headphones from popular brands rather than attempt to discern on sound quality.

I see quite a few AirPods and Bluetooth headphones these days. I don't think you can discount the possibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Apple doesn't gather your personal information to sell to advertisers or other organizations."

Apple is taking a direct jab at Amazon, Facebook and Google.

My friend who works at Facebook confirmed they actually buy shopping data from Amazon (and in fact many companies buy your credit card shopping history), and internally Facebook has a tool where you can search someone's name and see their shopping history according to the data collected from Amazon. Of course the tool is monitored and all searches are recorded. My friend only ran the search on himself, but he said it was a little shady that this tool exists.

<comment><USER16> I work with data scientists and it's scary how much they have access to.

One first hand story: this person searched a database to find tax records for a specific individual and their income. The records were de-anonymized but there's enough data there he could figure it out.

We should design systems to preserve individual privacy. The person I heard the story from had no business in this persons tax records.

<comment><USER17> Can you clarify this term - "de-anonymized"? It reads like the word "anonymised" is what's meant.

<comment><USER18> "de-personalized" or "anonymized" would both work as valid interpretations in that paragraph, in case that helps you gain understanding while waiting for a reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's great that privacy advocates now have such a powerful ally as Apple. Even if it's only just for raising public awareness in that privacy online is important.

They are not perfect by any means, but it definitely takes the discussions about privacy, encryption and personal data protection away from the "don't be paranoid" or "just don't be a criminal" territory.

<comment><USER20> I still see those sentiments frequently, even posted non-ironically and even on HN. It baffles me. People don't seem to value their rights, especially if they aren't using them. What many don't seem to realize is that the loss of liberties may impact them when they do decide to use them.

They may not feel like they need privacy now, but what about what they do becomes taboo? Rights need to protect even the worst among us, and they are eroded by using the worst among us as examples.

I don't really have anything to hide from the government, but I damned sure support the 4th. Some day, I might want to hide something and be secure in my person and papers. I don't like most criminal activity and I don't like terrorists, but I really don't want them being used as an excuse to erode my rights.

<comment><USER21> Exactly, I personally don't feel like I have anything particular to hide, but I fully 100% support people who _do_ feel like they've got something to hide, and their right to privacy.

So for now, they can have my data. But I try my very best to avoid letting Google et al. infer other people's actions from mine, so I don't tag people in photos or otherwise expose them or their actions, without their consent.

<comment><USER22> _> I fully 100% support people [...] and their right to privacy. [...] So for now, they can have my data._

Unfortunately, these are conflicting goals. It is not enough not to tag photos.

For example, if you use Gmail, they have your address book, hence they have names and emails of other people.

Or, if you publish photos of a group of people, and Google/FB/etc. have working face recognition, they know these people are connected with you (and with each other), and at which time and location you all came together.

But imagine they don't even get that from you. If they know private information from yourself, you are training their system to extract that information from others, too. For example, if you are homosexual then you tech them how to recognize homosexuals. If you are heterosexuals, you teach them how to better distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals. Same for other types of private information.

It is impossible to show everything from oneself, and at the same time respect the privacy of vulnerable people nearby oneself.

<comment><USER21> By extension, it is utterly impossible to avoid exposing information about yourself, unless you live completely off the grid.

I try to have as low an online profile as I can, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Impressive to see a detailed page dedicated to affirming privacy as a "right". One of my first thoughts was, "it'd be nice to see a white paper" \-- which Apple does when you get to the bottom of the "Approach to Privacy" page (linked to from the submitted URL): [https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach- to-privacy/](https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/)

There's a link to an iOS security white paper that was published in March 2017. And there's one for FaceID. Not sure how if any of the info was previously unknown, but the paper's publish date is September 2017: [https://images.apple.com/business/docs/FaceID_Security_Guide...](https://images.apple.com/business/docs/FaceID_Security_Guide.pdf)

<comment><USER24> > Impressive to see a detailed page dedicated to affirming privacy as a > "right"

That's just marketing speak for "we failed to make a business out of tracking you, so now we're spinning that to our advantage". If Apple had succeeded with iAds, you wouldn't be seeing this page now.

Just business as usual.

<comment><USER25> Exactly. I try not to be so cynical, but this is so clearly a marketing tactic that research and emerging trends have shown is a winner for them, since they are so far behind in the AI race (and AI can't succeed without data, so by harming people's acceptance of data harvesting they in turn reduce their competitors' advantage).

<comment><USER26> Privacy has been big at Apple for a long time, this video was posted in this thread of Steve Jobs talking about how important privacy is to Apple [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a lifelong Android fan, I'm more and more convinced that I want to pay for an apple product in the future.

<comment><USER28> As a long time Apple user who has moved to Android, I wish that Apple's privacy also didn't come with a highly restricted walled garden.

I would love it if the level of Apple privacy came to Android but not if it meant losing the tiny bit of openness that Android has over Apple.

<comment><USER29> I find myself dreaming more and more about PostMarketOS [0] and it's potential. I cannot wait to try this out after cell and data have been integrated (I have not checked in 30 days in case it anyway had but I suspect it is at least a few months out)

[0] [https://postmarketos.org/](https://postmarketos.org/)

<comment><USER30> What do you think about the Librem 5 phone, who are collaborating with the KDE and GNOME people to create a consistent mobile interface where Matrix is a first-class citizen?

<comment><USER29> I am interested to see where the librem phone goes but I am not sold on it yet.

I am excited about it, but do not like the idea of asking for donations/funding without having design completed yet... my concern is I give money then do not like a decision they have made.... in any case I am watching it closely, what about you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Did already everyone forgot the case where Apple insisted on the truth that they don't track you and a few weeks later one found a hidden file on the phone with the tracking info since it was bought? Apple told us that it was a mistake and removed every evidence with the next ios update. The only real privacy one can get is by not using apple, Android, Google, Facebook and so on. The others have to judge the tradeoff of having a powerful device vs. leaked privacy and being the product, not the customer.

<comment><USER32> Bugs are not the same as intentions.

<comment><USER33> Are you claiming a full on device tracking feature was a _bug_? How do you accidently implement that?

<comment><USER34> Are you aware of how and why that functionality worked?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I really struggled with my most recent phone purchasing decision but ended up sticking with iOS because, despite how much I love the customizability of Android, I feel like the stance Apple has taken on privacy over the last few years is something I want to support.

I understand that for them it may just be a business decision and differentiator, but it is one that is important enough to me to keep me on their platform.

<comment><USER36> I may not be up to date on Apple's stance but last I read it, I thought their privacy policy basically said "we record whatever we want, and use it how we want" (maybe with a "but we won't sell it" clause)?

I feel there's some very careful wording in the OP which blurs the lines between "we care about protecting your privacy from everyone, including us" and "we care about protecting your privacy from everyone, except us". I don't have time right now to do another deep dive through their legal documents but this is the kind of thing large data-driven companies do to keep their customers feeling good while they go about collecting data as always.

<comment><USER37> The lines aren't blurred at all. In fact, they even explicitly say that the data they do collect is anonymous and used to find patterns in usage etc. not to sell or do other nefarious things with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> HN generally really supports Apple products and the company, but cynical old me can't possibly believe some monstrously powerful for-profit corporation could ever make customer freedoms a primary goal. My gut tells me Apple are taking this stance because they feel it affects their bottom line somehow (perhaps they want to project an image of being customer friendly?)

I don't want to be unfair towards Apple, I think large corporations inherently lack empathy for customers and primarily focus on their bottom lines as a consequence of their ownership and structure. It's just very concerning to see people become emotionally attached to corporations or products partly because of stances like these, when I'm fairly certain those stances aren't completely sincere.

<comment><USER39> Ultimately I believe Tim Cook is a good human who really does want what he says and leave the world in a better place than what they found it. He routinely does things he thinks is the right thing to do, which is often contra to what Wall Street wants and that of a purely for-profit enterprise, e.g:

> He said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and > just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary > consideration on such issues.

> "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I > don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about > environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a > leader.

> "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of > this stock."

\- [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple- shareholder...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders- meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/)

Under Cook Apple's approach to privacy has never wavered, they've always been staunchly pro-privacy even when it was unpopular to do so during the FBI terrorist attack. So I don't think their stance on privacy is a marketing strategy, IMO he really believes we all have a fundamental right to privacy and that they're doing everything in their powers to ensure their customers get it.

<comment><USER40> > _Ultimately I believe Tim Cook is a good human who really does want what he > says and leave the world in a better place than what they found it._

What does a 'good human' mean in your context?

I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced (suicide nets, plant explosions, high cancer and infertility rates) or the people mining minerals for chips. The conditions of all of these people are directly within Mr. Cook's influence.

Of course, it's possible to argue over a La Croix that the _real_ social good is making lots of new iPhones every year, which give more important people more important power.

And you can make similar arguments about his vast international tax avoidance, keeping money from healthcare, education, housing, etc.

Does "good person" simply mean "their self-interest appears to be aligned with my own, and I assume yours"?

> _IMO he really believes we all have a fundamental right to privacy and that > they 're doing everything in their powers to ensure their customers get it._

Everything in his powers? Then why a 50% margin? Why is his only lobbying interest in Washington lowering his tax bill?

I agree with the majority of posters on this thread, that privacy is a highly marketable feature, especially to older wealthy Americans. Cook is in the business of _collecting the premium_ placed on privacy.

He is doing everything in his power to collect that premium.

If he was doing everything in his powers _to further privacy_ , he could use Apple's considerable cash and lobbying muscle to push for legislation.

But, products wouldn't be aspirational if people in general could have them!

<comment><USER41> > I'm not sure if the people that make Apple products would be convinced > (suicide nets, plant explosions, high cancer and infertility rates) or the > people mining minerals for chips.

Foxconn and its competitors manufacture for many companies, not just Apple. Why doesn't anyone raise these concerns when we discuss the Xbox and PS4? Or any of the countless other tier-one products manufactured by Foxconn?

Have you ever raised these concerns about Samsung products and their responsibility towards the miners of rare earth minerals?

(And let's not forget that a Foxconn worker has always been statistically less likely to commit suicide than an American citizen.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> How true is this? Is there any way to confirm what Apple says with respect to privacy? Serious question.

<comment><USER43> Indeed. Are there reproducible builds of open source software and firmware in iOS?

It is my impression that it is still closed-source.

<comment><USER44> And until this is rectified, no-one should take their words on face value. It has to be verifiable, otherwise it's just words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> So, how many of those who support Apple are going to stop using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tinder, etc.? And, start going offline to protect their data?

I'm no expert but I believe that these services (individually &/or collectively) have far more detailed profiles of their users' lives than Google.

<comment><USER46> Google has access to your current desires, things you say, search, email etc. Most of the information on twitter, LinkedIn etc is public unlike your private desires that only google knows from your search and ok google history

<comment><USER45> In fact, I would argue that Google has a much limited knowledge of our desires, opinions, etc. as compared to Facebook & Twitter. Yes, it tries to create a profile of who we are using the data that we provide to them while using their services. However, it is lame when you compare to the kind of detailed profile information that the other social services ask upfront, especially Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The fact that protecting users' privacy becomes a marketing strategy other than the basic principals of tech companies makes me feel weird to live in 2017. Not sad. Just weird.

</comment><comment><USER48> I still get a feeling that it's a marketing ploy. Why would China allow Apple to operate as they wish without Apple sleeping with China.

I very much feel Apple bends a couple of rules here and there for the ability to operate in non-US markets.

<comment><USER19> There could be other explanation also.

I think it would be pretty tough to not allow Apple (the largest US company) to operate in China. At that point US government, WTO and other organizations will step in and there will be serious economic retaliation that I'm sure China doesn't want.

<comment><USER49> They've just recently cracked down on WhatsApp among other Facebook services. Facebook is hardly a small player.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> While I agree Apple is not a Ad-company and therefore have no interest in tracking, one needs to look at Apple for just more than privacy. Cherry picking does not help!

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) Why limit memory or anytype of upgrades (I am talking hardware). How does it play on the 'environment'? Look at other hn thread "Right to Repair" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15360362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15360362)

1.contd. Not everyone can afford a $700 device. (second-hand phones are not always available as cheap as in SFO to other parts of the world). Even $200 is a lot for many people. (and they too need internet, whatsapp).

2\. Software: Android OEMs are worst offenders, agreed. Why apple limits updates to older macs? Privacy?

3\. Whether you agree or not getting trapped inside one-closed system is uncomfortable. Try editing icloud calendar from linux or windows. Oh yes, do not tell me that only OSX has privacy other OS do not.

4\. I would get a iPhone the day, Apple foregoes the $1 Billion that they supposedly get from Google for putting the search. Why not offer privacy to all? Apple is famous for deciding 'what the user' should do? Why not force everyone to use 'DDG'.

</comment><comment><USER51> OTOH, iOS 11 makes it harder to turn off your wifi and bluetooth radios [0], by fooling you into thinking you've done so when really they just disconnected you, so there's that. I don't think they're nearly as privacy-focused as they claim, and I'm not talking about just the marketing double-speak.

[0]: [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpz7a/turn- off-w...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpz7a/turn-off-wi-fi- and-bluetooth-apple-ios-11)

<comment><USER52> I'm pretty sick of this meme. They aren't lying to people, they've just changed how the UI functions. It is still completely possible to turn off either bluetooth or wifi.

The whole point of this change is to match the behavior people actually have. People tend to want to disconnect from a bluetooth device rather than completely turn off bluetooth, and a huge amount of time when people are turning off wifi it's because they have a bad connection to a single network (such as when they are walking away from their house) and they simply want to disconnect from the network they are on.

This isn't some ridiculous antiprivacy conspiracy, it's just swapping menus and buttons around to give people what apple (and myself) think is a better user experience.

<comment><USER51> It seems you're unfamiliar with the litany of frequent bluetooth vulnerabilities?

Not to mention the power-saving advantages of turning off wireless radios. Perhaps reversing this decision alone would allow the iPhone battery to last a full day?

<comment><USER53> Firstly, I'm not aware of any such vulnerabilities affecting iPhones, because their Bluetooth capabilities are quite sparse (no file transfers etc). Also their power management seems to be smart enough, that the power usage is quite negligible, in my experience.

<comment><USER51> Well, here's a recent one, for example: [https://www.armis.com/blueborne/#/devices](https://www.armis.com/blueborne/#/devices)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Don't fall for the marketing spin.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/business/apple-china- data...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/business/apple-china-data-center- cybersecurity.html?_r=0)

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-apple-china- vpn-201...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-apple-china- vpn-20170731-story.html)

<comment><USER54> Not trying to be an apple fanboy here, but that seems like a business decision concerning Chinese citizens to keep operating in China, having nothing to do with non-Chinese citizens.

<comment><USER55> So that "fundamental human right" doesn't apply to Chinese citizens?

<comment><USER56> welcome to china

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Yup, privacy is a right but controlling a gadget you paid $1000 for isn't. Cool story bro.

</comment><comment><USER53> What about PRISM? Apple has said it co-operates with law enforcement to give information about suspects. How much privacy do we really have on the web?

<comment><USER34> I do not think any US company can just deny a legal warrant from the FBI. They can challenge it (as Apple publicly did awhile ago though for a domestic matter rather than FISA). Not sure what more Apple themselves can do, you may want to speak with your representatives if you do not want companies to be obliged to serve data under these orders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The language Apple uses indicates that your personal data that apple recieves is at least at some point in clear unencrypted form, and that they then choose to encrypt it for cloud storage. The language indicates they could decrypt it if they choose. All of their statements during the San Berdeno Apple vs Gov debate a year ago clarified they had complete access to all cloud based content. There are examples of cloud like services that are able to provide online syncronization and sharing services without being able to access your data, and the language they use is very different. Examples

[https://send.firefox.com/](https://send.firefox.com/)

[https://spideroak.com/](https://spideroak.com/)

[https://protonmail.com/](https://protonmail.com/)

</comment><comment><USER59> I could maybe believe this more if my iPhone stopped asking me to enable iCloud every time I turn it on, I'm pretty sure I never ever said yes to that thing.

</comment><comment><USER60> Just curious, but what's to stop them from handing over data to the US government? It's well know US companies have been forced to cooperate in the past, it's also known the NSA has collected data in secret. How do we know this isn't the case with Apple?

</comment><comment><USER61> You can never trust data that exist on someone else's machine. Period. Everything else is a misconception. Just try to control what you share.

<comment><USER30> Unless end-to-end encryption is used everywhere and implemented properly. Which Apple's cloud services do not do for everything

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I used the 'notes' app on my 5s for about 6 months before I realised it was secretly sending everything I typed to my Gmail account.

Why is this even a feature at all, let alone a default one? Why didn't my phone notify me that this was happening? I've since disabled it (and scrubbed the emails), but it's still the biggest breach of privacy I've ever experienced on a device.

I'm still not sure who to blame, either. Apple? Google? Or me, for assuming that my note-taking app wasn't secretly broadcasting all of my keystrokes online?

<comment><USER63> That's because you (unknowingly?) had your Notes app setup to sync with your Gmail account when you added it to your iPhone.

For anyone else, to turn it off go to: Settings -> Notes -> Accounts -> <Gmail Account> -> Notes "turn off" to disable Notes syncing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I wish I was a fly on the wall at Apple's discussions with the Chinese government. Is Apple really allowed to encrypt everything and whatnot in China, or has it reached some sort of "partnership" with Chinese companies where the data goes through them first in China, like many other American companies have done.

Otherwise, how is Apple "getting away" with protecting Chinese users' privacy at a time when the Chinese government is cracking down on all such things?

</comment><comment><USER65> To all the advocates who think Apple's E2E Encryption key and data is only existing with the end user and believe that San Bernardino incident on Privacy related iPhone unlock.

[https://www.macrumors.com/2016/07/21/apple-helped- identify-k...](https://www.macrumors.com/2016/07/21/apple-helped-identify- kickasstorrents-owner/)

Granted both the Secure Enclave thing and the iTunes transaction logs are entirely different but essentially they all are chained together in the Apple ID which is protected by an Encryption key and the backdoor building is all that fuss was made for the PR, As usual I don't expect any consumer centric corporate to prove their idea on the privacy.

It's an illusion.

</comment><comment><USER66> I like that the company which takes users' privacy interests seriously exists, and I am more than willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, they don't have their own search engine and social network.

<comment><USER67> For search: DuckDuckGo.

For social, well I use twitter and simply don't provide extra details like date of birth etc, but it probably depends what your goal is with a social network?

<comment><USER66> DuckDuckGo isn't that good. I would use Google and sacrifice privacy.

Concerning twitter, IMO, it's no different than others. For example, they still use social button which theoretically might collect information about the sites you visit.

<comment><USER67> > DuckDuckGo isn't that good

Myself and others who use it daily would disagree.

> it's no different than others

By definition of how it works it's different.

With a decent content blocker in safari none of the social media buttons can "track" you.

<comment><USER68> Annoyingly, Apple recently removed the means to block such tracking from apps as well:

[https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-cracking-down- on-...](https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-cracking-down-on-vpn-based- ad-blockers-that-work-in-third-party-apps.2056730/)

I went back to Android so I can continue to do that, as well as using Firefox plugins. This is a bit of a nuisance as the Apple Watch was rather good.

<comment><USER66> >Annoyingly, Apple recently removed the means to block such tracking from apps as well:

IMO, it's right decision. Blocking via VPN is a privacy nightmare. They can intercept all traffic.

<comment><USER68> Such applications are not necessarily a problem - take a look at this Android one, for example:

[https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66](https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66)

In any case it should be up to the owner of the device if they wish to do this sort of thing rather than Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I've hoped and said for awhile that Mozilla should take this approach. And while they do talk about privacy, their messaging just doesn't seem that strong and clear.

Perhaps they can ride Apple's coattails to a degree, using some of the same language and messaging. Note that Apple and Mozilla both are differentiating themselves from the same competitor.

(And Mozilla can add that they are open ('we develop everything in the open, so you can see what's in our products'), non-profit, and end-users have ultimate control, not Mozilla.)

</comment><comment><USER70> And then there is this [https://github.com/KrauseFx/detect.location](https://github.com/KrauseFx/detect.location)

<comment><USER71> If you want to be super paranoid about it, cell providers and banks know your whereabouts most of the time also.

iOS at least gives you the option to deny apps access to the photo library, to prevent this from being available.

Perhaps an additional privacy control specifically related to allowing apps to read EXIF data?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I love that Apple is trying to be pro privacy

that said their repair policy has their employees asking for user login credientials and entering username and password into official Apple forms for the repair technician to be able to login to the computer. That seems incompatible with their privacy stance. Even a bank says to never give your PIN to a bank employee yet my login credientials give anyone who has them access to my life. password stored in browsers. private ssh keys. etc...

<comment><USER73> Isn't that actually an illustration of Apple's commitment to security and privacy? They truly cannot enter your computer without you providing your username and password - no backdoors, no special "Genius" login that works on all computers. You have to provide that information because the computer they sell you works as they promised it would - securely without backdoors.

<comment><USER72> no, it is not.

do I need to spell it out? youre the sys admin for your company. your Mac breaks. are you really going to give the keys to your company to the customer service guy at apple and have them record that for any other service employ to reference?

they can use a USB drive while working on the computer. they can also swap the drive. there are many other options than handing them to keys to your life

do they ask for your phone unlock code? I honestly don't know but if they did it would be just as clearly bad

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This is certainly an interesting marketing angle and something that will differentiate Apple from competition. Moreover google guys cannot make this claim as their entire model is based on selling user data. I hope this brings privacy concerns into the consciousness of larger public. I also don't know if the commitment of Apple is beyond just marketing, will it be able to make the same claim in China? Maybe currently this is just a western thing.

<comment><USER12> > selling user data

More precisely, they sell ad impressions to anonymized targeted audiences. The advertiser doesn't know who you are unless you tell them.

<comment><USER74> Data anonymization is largely BS, it has been shown in the past that with enough data it is fairly easy to specifically figure out who the person is. This is how people receive highly specific and targeted ads. I know this because I have worked in advertising and it's amazing & creepy that how specific I can get in my targeting. So yes, they in reality make money by selling user data and showing them ads using that. My bigger problem here is that when I buy a mobile device by paying money, why should I have my privacy not respected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I recently read an interesting comparison:

Apple is a product company first, and a services company second is supported by having privacy support their core product business. Companies like Google are a service company first, and a product company second. The information is the business.

It's a struggle still, to reconcile this strong statement from Apple with how often Macbooks call home.

<comment><USER67> Google is an ad network company first and foremost and anything else a long way behind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I wish I could afford an apple phone. As much as I love open source software, I am willing to shift over to Apple as my android manufacturer doesn't really actually care, and I hate how much access googles tentacles have into my personal life. Apple seems to actually give a shit about privacy, now if only they were affordable!

</comment><comment><USER77> Android has caught up on the app permission model. but most of the apps just reject to work when you don't give access to your contacts, location, etc. but most of the apps still work on an iPhone ( bit downgraded experience ?) even if you don't grant it all the permissions.

</comment><comment><USER78> When I was younger I hated apple for what I thought was overpriced products, but then I realised that I was simply a product to Google. After switching to Apple I never looked back. I hope that it can keep it's standards and keep delivering good products

</comment><comment><USER69> Can iPhones, iPads and Macs be used anonymously - that is, without telling Apple who I am? Last time I tried to set one up, I seem to remember that either anonymity was difficult or required significant sacrifices (no software updates, or something like that).

<comment><USER79> You don't need to have an Apple account to get system updates, but do if you want to download apps from the app store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Wondering if Android Pay keeps my privacy at all. According to this Apple Pay doesn't track my buy history, but I'm not so sure whether or not Android Pay honors my privacy or not, but I'm leaning towards probably not.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is the _feature_ I'm paying for. And the one where it basically just works.

</comment><comment><USER82> [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40404923](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40404923)

Related?

</comment><comment><USER83> So if I go to the store and pay with Apple Pay using my credit card, instead of directly with my credit card, my transaction history stays secure?

</comment><comment><USER84> If you care about privacy then don't ask me for my name and my birth date when I want to download a free app. (apple id)

</comment><comment><USER85> The privacy is great but they also really know how to sell it. The picture of the child at the top wasn't chosen at random.

</comment><comment><USER86> Comparing that with [https://google.com/privacy/](https://google.com/privacy/) ... Of course it collects much more data than Apple, but I like Google's organization of this information too. All important things are clearly and carefully written down with options to change them near each of them. (Sure, you can't permanently stop data collection with any option yet :) )

<comment><USER23> That's a great looking landing page, though I think it's another example of the stark contrast between Apple and Google in regards to privacy. Apple's page begins with "we believe privacy is a fundamental human right". Google starts with the headline "Every day, data makes our services work better for you", followed by, "That's why it's important we keep it private and safe".

That said, I really do love the data "takeout" feature. But my guess is that most people don't know about it. I once tweeted something innocuous and nerdy about the JSON format used and I got a ton of response, most of which was surprise/shock that this data was collected at all: [https://twitter.com/dancow/status/849111902961532929](https://twitter.com/dancow/status/849111902961532929)

(Then again, I still remember when Steve Jobs was flat-out defiant that iOS was collecting/storing user geolocation data, even when the SQLite database was easily discoverable: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html))

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> What is the state of contentblocking on Apple devices? Do they come with adblockers by default?

<comment><USER88> No, they're third party apps (e.g. [https://1blocker.com/](https://1blocker.com/)). But the interesting thing about these Content Blockers is that they don't actually get to inspect anything. They just hand off a list of rules in an official declarative format, which Safari itself then takes care of matching and applying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Anyone that says

> "we do not give your info to 3rd parties"

instead of

> "we have designed it so it is impossible for us to give your info to 3rd > parties"

is simply selling you privacy-cool-aid

<comment><USER89> why do you say this? curious to know more on this insight.

<comment><USER58> from their language and they said that they could give FBI access to all cloud content during FBI vs Apple San Berdino Terrorist debate. This implies they have root keys to decrypt and view any service that transverses their servers, exceppt for iMessage which is the only service they have explicetly said they cannot decrypt (due to end-to-end encryption)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Ummm... does Darla know her private messages are being used for Apple marketing?!

</comment><comment><USER91> I miss steve...

<comment><AUTHOR> How is this related to the post?

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> [edit] disregard.

<comment><USER67> What is LE in this context?

<comment><USER93> Law Enforcement would be my guess in this context. I did have to think a bit to come up with this though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> You won't see this from Google or Facebook or Twitter or...

</comment><comment><USER95> Isn't it the case that basically every keystroke is stored in iCloud? Hardly true privacy.

<comment><USER84> any source on this? that would be horrible indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Apple phones are still available in China.

China blocks WhatsApp.

"Privacy"

<comment><USER97> Are you just typing random words or do you have a point? How do any of these things relate? Or are you suggesting that Apple should withdraw from profitable China market, since Chinese government dictates certain monitoring "features" on products sold there? How would that help with anything? All of their user base would just move to Android, which is even less private.

<comment><USER98> If Apple was serious about privacy then they should have existed China. After all Cook says he does not consider ROI

Mr. Cook replied --with an uncharacteristic display of emotion--that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." It was the same thing for environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas that don't have an immediate profit. The company does "a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it."

<comment><USER97> Again what would it change? Chinese people are even more dependent/addicted on smart phones than Westeners. They would just switch to Androids and be even worse off in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Don't Apple have let open phone for FBI? or I'm wrong? Where is the privacy than? just a joke and you all fail in this marketing trends ?

<comment><USER100> _Don 't Apple have let open phone for FBI?_

The last time a high profile case about this came up, Apple refused and the FBI declined to push their case in court. So as it stands, no Apple doesn't have to let the FBI do anything. Furthermore Apple also claims that they made changes to their software since that case so they no longer could unlock the phone for the FBI even if they really wanted to.

<comment><USER99> Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

<comment><USER96> The FBI did get into the phone.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone- and-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-we-have- some-questions)

"Privacy"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> "You can easily secure your devices with a six-digit passcode, which is very tough to crack since there are a million possible combinations." ... rofl

<comment><USER67> What's the funny part?

<comment><USER97> I'm guessing since digits are pretty finite (0 - 9) and people aren't really that random with their PINs, so it's not bulletproof by any means. You really are better off of using actual password to unlock your phone.

This being said, I think 6 digits with the wipe after x wrong guesses is pretty solid for your average bear. Most users' PIN will never get tested and it is enough security so pick pockets can't get into your stuff.

<comment><USER102> So set a longer password? You're not limited to 6 digits, there's an open ended 'custom alphanumeric password' option.

<comment><USER97> With PIN you are actually limited (as far as I know), but as I already said in my previous comment the password is better and that is what I have always used on my iPhone.

<comment><USER67> As of iOS 11 (or possibly earlier) the numeric digit code isn't limited to 4/6 digits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> VvR-Ox It's all about the feeling and that just proves how good Apples Marketing and Branding is.

I own several products myself (iphones, macbook, mac mini...) and for some time and certain tasks these devices are awesome.

Nevertheless Apple is a huge company trying to get more money (like all global players). You just can't trust an entity like this and if you do you are a fool and hopefully will pay for being so naive one day.

The problem is that only players like Apple can combine this beautiful design with devices that feel like high-quality products while soothing your fears with nice-made advertising lies.

Nowhere else you'll get the same feeling of comfort / security etc pp and THAT IS THE REASON stuff like osmocom BB / REAL linux phones (openmoko) etc. did not have the success they'd need to develop into mature products made for real humans.

So we are just oil in this big machinery to keep everything running and getting bigger every day and please don't think that anyone cares about your privacy. If you want to keep things to yourself - don't tell anyone on f __ckbook and don 't use a damn iphone to communicate it.</comment>


M.B.A. Applications Decline at Harvard, Wharton, Other Elite Schools - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/m-b-a-applications-keep-falling-in-u-s-this-year-hitting-even-elite-schools-1538366461 <comment><USER4> Just an anecdote of my personal experience, since there's generally a sense of uselessness for MBAs in tech and I held the same view until recently getting an MBA.

I was moving from engineering to product management and thought it would help my resume to get an MBA, but I was pleasantly surprised how useful in many other regards the process and learnings were.

For sure learning on your own, doing things, building product, is better than structured curriculum. But there's something to be said for being exposed to a broad set of business information. When heads down writing code and building businesses, it's hard to step out and learn this disparate knowledge unless you're forced to by wanting to graduate. Maybe you're more disciplined than I, but in my free time I wouldn't dabble in accounting for instance, just wasn't interested. The forcing function is surprisingly helpful.

I'm not claiming it's for everyone, but I got a ton out of my MBA and would recommend. My situation was moving from engineering to product, had full time PM job, trying to start a side business, which now has had significant growth that I attribute a lot to my learnings from the MBA.

<comment><USER5> During my undergraduate program, I was a Teaching Assistant for a statistics department housed within a business school. The department was going through a re-branding from statistics and operations to "business analytics", and I got a lot of exposure to the inner workings of graduate education at the time.

Some students in our department were there for an MS in Statistics, others for a dual MS and MBA program. The single greatest indicator of whether or not an MBA was useless was whether the person was actively or passively choosing to get an MBA. About 70% of students were passively choosing to get a graduate degree. Either they had no idea what to do after their bachelors, they realized really quickly after their bachelors that what they thought was "adulthood" in college was not real and decided to run back to it, or they were following the trope of "bachelors -> 2-3 years in industry -> MBA -> ??? -> profit" with no idea of what "???" was except that they'd put in their 2-3 years already. For all of these students, they were passively choosing to get an MBA either to fill a checkbox or to avoid the alternative.

Then there were about 30% of students that actively chose to pursue an MBA. These students almost all had actual, real-world experience and actively chose to get an MBA because of specific needs or circumstances they had. In some cases it was to make a strategic career shift, in some cases it was to better orient themselves _after_ making a career shift, in some cases it was to get over a ceiling in their industry where it was required to keep growing. But in all cases, if you asked them why they got an MBA, they could tell you without hesitation explicitly what prompted that decision, and the value they expected to derive from completing their MBA program (and why the MBA program was the right avenue for getting that value).

MBAs aren't useless. But a very sizable percentage of people graduate with them are useless[1], and would be equally as useless with or without the MBA. And the same holds true for most advanced degrees, from what I've seen.

[1] From the perspective of "hire a bunch of MBAs to solve problems". An incompetent worker without credentials is just as incompetent with credentials. And success in receiving an MBA from an academic environment does not denote success potential in applying the MBA in a business environment.

<comment><USER6> > Then there were about 30% of students that actively chose to pursue an MBA. > These students almost all had actual, real-world experience and actively > chose to get an MBA because of specific needs or circumstances they had.

Coming from the UK my assumption was that MBA degrees were only open to those with some type of actual experience. That is based on my own research around 2002 where I found that Master's in Finance, Management, etc. were the only options for someone with limited real-world experience.

Is this a case where the entry requirements have shifted, or is this a regional thing? I went down the Master's path, but found an opportunity to come to the US on an H1B so I dropped out. I found what I've learned to be incredibly useful, but given how far I made it through I can't justify an MBA for reasons other than the credential or networking.

<comment><USER7> "can't justify an MBA for reasons other than the credential or networking"

I suspect those two reasons constitute a sizable portion -- maybe even a majority -- of a typical MBA's value proposition. At the elite schools, the networking component alone might justify the costs.

<comment><USER8> At the top 6-8 schools in the US, networking plus the placement office justified the bill. But if you're an @$$hole then the networking won't help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't read the article, but I wonder if it is just diluted perception of an MBA.

I worked at a company that regularly hired recent MBA graduates, and maybe it was just the school, but I saw little value added to these kids. They got manager type tasks, but showed no skills related to management. Their life experience was so limited that I had to explain it to them that you have to schedule people far ahead of time in order to give them time to schedule their lives, and that you had to schedule them like humans because ... they can't work for 24 straight hours because it would take 5 minutes more to look at the spreadsheet and figure out a more optimal schedule.

Beyond internal stuff, even communicating with customer's took hand holding and teaching basic life lessons.

I often questioned how the candidates I worked with ever got into an MBA program (I'm guessing it was just open). I wouldn't trust some of them to work at a menial job without a great deal of supervision, let alone make decisions for a business / other people.

IMO an MBA just doesn't make sense without significant / proven business life experience for most people.

It really was the FedEx commercial IRL [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcoDV0dhWPA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcoDV0dhWPA)

Obviously there are people with MBAs with FAR more skills, but with other folks like I experienced I wonder if it has watered down the market for MBAs.

<comment><USER10> > Their life experience was so limited

At what point in their careers did they go get an MBA? My fiancée went to Kellogg and it was a rarity to see anyone there who didn't already have 5+ years of work experience. It was sort of an unspoken (but kind of spoken, since the M7 all highly suggest it) rule.

<comment><USER11> What was her # of years of experience and industry before getting the MBA? (developer? engineer?)

<comment><USER10> Non-profit policy work in DC and the standard 5 years. She moved into retail with her MBA.

<comment><USER11> Managing retail companies? Any reason why the move to non-profit? (Mis- management horror stories in the non-profit industry?)

<comment><USER10> It's way faster to make changes to how, say, cotton is grown when you're the US's largest retailer and can set new rules for who you'll buy from, than if you're trying to convince congress to pass a law.

<comment><USER11> That's smart. I hope more people think and act like her.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I went to a Wharton School MBA program introduction the other day. Or maybe it was Berkeley Haas, I can't remember.

The lady leading the session to sell me a $150,000+ degree which requires me to leave my (extremely successful and promising career) for two years (and screw up my family life while doing it), started talking about how if people in the room got a bad grade in a certain area for their undergraduate degree - they might have to go back and fix it before they apply.

Did I mention I have to pay the costs of this program 100% myself since most employers (and mine) won't cover it anymore?

Once I heard that, I was done. Not only do I have to take three months to study for a stupid GMAT or GRE or whatever, I am also being held accountable for a grade I got over 12 years ago.

In that 12 years, I quit my business career ,taught myself software engineering, built multiple applications used by millions of people every month before resuming my career as a manager of technical evangelist teams.

The idea that I need to go get an MBA, take a GMAT, submit to covering for a bad grade 15 years ago after achieving a very high degree of proficiency in Objective-C and doing the things I have done since was so laughable it ended the desire for me to ever get an MBA.

Maybe if they paid me I might consider it. I just dont get it. It is something I might do if I got rich in cryptocurrency and needed a hobby to pass the time, thats about it.

Dont get me wrong, people (some) with MBAs I have met are often quite smart. But it seemed like an awful lot of time, stress and money and administrative nonsense for what the result is.

<comment><USER13> The lady is just doing her job recruiting. She doesn't know your full background. MBA is not for you. You wasted an hour of your life. No need to be mad about MBA in general.

<comment><USER14> The lady is a sales droid. Her job is to convince you to part with the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wrote this as a comment in another post a few days ago but I'll cross-post it here as it is relevant.

One of my defining decisions was taking leave and eventually dropping out of a top executive mba program a third of the way in, before I had to take a six figure loan to pay the rest. If I am to be brutally honest with myself, the decision not to finish wasn't entirely my own, but I could have finished.

The shit really hit the fan in my life and this forced me to take stock. Had I not been forced, I probably would have continued down the mba path and career change. Losing my father after two very sick years, being laid off by a business in collapse, having a six figure student loan application on my desk, and other crucial "etc" pushed me to reevaluate my life decisions.

Here are some important lessons learned:

An MBA from a reputable program was leading me into debt servitude and constraints that would shape my career. Debt constraints are major life constraints.

Changing careers to do something that was more meaningful can lead to many new opportunities. I left prime brokerage in financial services and was planning to transition into healthcare, hospital cfo type of work. Helping create novel solutions to rising costs of healthcare was a mission I could align myself with. Helping protect investment bank lending to hedge funds through margin financing paid well but served no higher purpose. Healthcare doesn't have a monopoly on purpose, though, and many who work in healthcare do so just to collect a paycheck. I realized I could achieve my goal elsewhere and with fewer bureaucratic constraints, but at a cost-- as an entrepreneur!

Entrepreneurship has been everything I expected it to be. I had to become the technical expert I needed as a partner. It's been a long, grueling experience. I am so fortunate to have taken it.

<comment><USER16> This resonates with what I consider when making big life choices - <USER2> flexibility over long term commitments (at least outside family.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So I did a fair bit of an MBA as part of a joint course with Engineering at a well known UK institution. It wasn't literally an MBA, but the MBA there was just one year whereas there was an equivalent amount of time spent at the business school if you chose the right electives.

A couple of my classmates went on and got full 2-year MBAs from very prestigious US institutions.

The verdict, both from those who went on to do something technical, and those who went on to other things, is that Engineering is harder. It may not pay as well, and it's harder, but it's probably more fun if you find the right job. My friend who is a PE partner wondered what he missed out on, since a girl he knew from Engineering went and joined SpaceX very early on. There were a few stories about people who got into F1 as well.

The other part is that you don't actually learn a great deal about business in business school. You won't learn how to make decisions in a strategy class. You won't learn how to invest in a finance class. You might learn some things about the history of thought in the field, eg Taylorism. But generally it is not what it says on the tin.

By contrast I built a working radio in my first term as well as a bridge that an adult could stand on.

A really big issue, which to their credit they pointed out at business school, is that it might be better for managers to have domain knowledge in what they manage, rather than just be general management "specialists". I happen to fall into this more Teutonic camp.

Also, note that very few people that I know report taking an MBA to learn anything. They generally are as cynical as they ought to be about it (!) and did it in order to have better job prospects. It's worked out very nicely for them.

</comment><comment><USER18> The content of an MBA program is probably useful. The problem is that it became associated with an easy path to a high-earning credential, so it self- selected for people who expect to earn a high wage, who want graduate education to be as easy as possible, and who want credential and status to be the main ways of getting money (instead of, say, working hard to have a skill).

The light got shined on this type of program, these credential-seeking roaches scattered, and now they'll go ruin some other perfectly reasonable academic discipline, most probably data science.

I don't blame the roaches. I guess I blame idiots who buy knowledge products based on credential, and thus either employ these credential roaches at high wages, or else generate the demand that makes it profitable for other consulting / white-shoe sorts of businesses to employ the roaches.

<comment><USER19> You are basically criticizing people for wanting money and not wanting to do unnecessary work for it.

You might as well criticize human nature.

99% of people pick the best path they can see towards an easier life that gives them the most suitable work/money trade-off they are able to tolerate. If MBA grads aren't good at what they do, that's the fault of MBA programs. MBA grads just want to get credentials and training and make money, just like almost every person in the world. I tend to shy away from personal statements, but your use of "roaches" makes me think that some of what you say bleeds from personal wounds.

<comment><USER18> Criticizing human nature is a good way to improve our behavioral defaults. For example using science instead of burning witches.

You seem surprised someone would criticize a bad manifestation of human nature. That puzzles me, given that it's so historically effective.

<comment><USER19> I'm surprised you're criticizing MBA grads instead of the MBA programs, since the MBA programs aren't teaching effectively while the MBA grads are merely trying to get a better life.

<comment><USER18> I explicitly said I didn't blame the grads in my original comment, at least not nearly as much as businesses that keep facilitating economic demand for those credentials.

<comment><USER19> You call them roaches. At the very least, I think you resent them immensely. I don't mean this to undermine you, but rather to provoke thought: are you sure you don't blame them?

<comment><USER18> Your comment took an interpretation of mine that doesn't seem compatible with what I actually wrote, particularly that I explicitly said I did not blame people for credential rent seeking (even if it makes me justifiably angry), but rather I blame organizations that fuel the demand which makes this credential rent seeking profitable in the first place.

Somehow you feel that because I used an analogy of roaches scattering to describe when rent-seeking people looking to secure rents with credential are forced to flee one source (MBA programs) for some other that this makes your interpretation compatible with what I wrote, but I don't see why. You questioning "why I blame [MBA grads]" seems just as incompatible with what I wrote as before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> MBA programs should adjust to the market by developing more concentrated 1-year degrees in specific disciplines: Finance, Operations, Marketing, Product, etc.

The first year of most MBAs are just core courses in various business disciplines: you'll learn accounting if you know you want to be a brand manager for a CPG company, or you'll learn org design if you're aiming for a job at a hedge fund. While I see the value in interdisciplinary education--and while I strongly endorse interdisciplinary core courses for undergrad--these courses simply aren't necessary for a professional degree and the extra year of school costs are prohibitively expensive.

I'd love to see more concentrated MBAs that really focus on specific disciplines. Basically, cut out the first year of an MBA and just focus on a core set of discipline-specific courses. Most MBA program already have these designed as "concentrations" so I'd imagine the actual implementation of such a program wouldn't be too complex. And if they're only one year long, the price would be halved.

I've personally considered, and considered against, an MBA degree due to the prohibitive costs to even apply, but a program like this would make it much easier to swallow that pill.

<comment><USER21> INSEAD is a highly respected MBA program (outside of the US) that offers a 10 month MBA[1]. This sounds more like what you are referring to, geared towards those with around 6 years of work experience.

[1] [https://www.insead.edu/master- programmes/mba](https://www.insead.edu/master-programmes/mba)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [http://archive.is/aiqFB](http://archive.is/aiqFB)

<comment><USER23> Is it obvious to anyone else that this is blatant copyright infringement? Does anyone care?

<comment><USER24> Of course it is obvious, it is just that almost no one online believes that the information contained within is worth enough to subscribe, and there is not a frictionless way to compensate the other the $0.03 cents worth of value I potentially got from the article.

<comment><USER25> Then don't read it. If it's valuable enough to pirate, it's valuable enough to pay for.

<comment><USER26> _Piracy_ is "the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea."

Looking at that page does not attack or rob anyone. The use of that word is simply perpetuation of Hollywood propaganda.

<comment><USER27> Maybe it's more akin to Boycotting.

It's not robbing someone but it is removing some potential revenue. And, so I don't come across as hypocrite, I also circumvent the vast majority of subscriptions, but I realize I am denying some miniscule revenue and over time, all added up, could be something.

So the problem is _both_ friction and circumvention in the least, as well as overcharging. Would I pay for Cable? No. Would I pay for Netflix? Why not. They offer a good product at a very reasonable price with little friction and I would not try circumvention, because there is no reason.

<comment><USER26> > but it is removing some potential revenue

Dozens of studies about music have proven this theory false. In fact music "piracy" likely has increased their revenue because they spread music. Intuitively you can see why labels have gave in to free as supported YouTube models as opposed to locking them down; they wouldn't have done this had CD sale revenue was higher, but in aggregate having people's attention is worth more. Similarly, I can for sure let you know that I would not pay for WSJ if I couldn't read their articles under any capacity. For me not to be able to read it just decreases their network and thus their value in other ways. And now that I'm more familiar with them I _might_ pay one day.

<comment><USER27> YT, unless you subscribe, shows ads. News sites which let you browse unimpeded show ads --but have those ads blocked by many. So, when they try to make a quid pro quo bargain (ads for content) people often don't like complying with their end of the bargain.

Music has evolved into paid services or ad supported services. News content so far has failed with the ad supported model and unless they create some cartel (a spotify for news, let's say) they have little alternative beside the direct subscription model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wish this article would touch upon economic trends' impact on MBA applications.

MBA applications go down as the economy performs. The opportunity cost is higher when there are well paying jobs readily available and promotions to be had without needing to go back school.

During a recession, MBA applications should go up as work is not as readily available. People also want to retrain their skills to make themselves more marketable to employers, as anyone else would do by going to vocational schools during hard times.

</comment><comment><USER29> In engineering circles (coworkers), there is a general theme I notice of looking down on people with MBAs. I dismiss it as "us vs. them" or "technical vs managerial" fight. But, could someone who has a MBA shed some light with an objective view of MBA? Why shouldn't I get one? Why should I get one?

<comment><USER30> I have an undergrad finance degree + finance career. I also run a website I built my self as a side project (see profile if curious).

For a while after learning to code, I thought my business degree was useless. My coding skills felt so empowering compared to my finance/business skills. I can create with coding... learn and do. A car mechanics certificate felt more useful than a business degree.

Over this period of introspection, I started paying attention to whenever my business/finance knowledge was actually useful. I very quickly realized that very smart people often have very little knowledge of finance and business. Business knowledge that I assumed as common sense (due to being surrounded by other finance people) is completely enlightening to others. With a business degree you learn how the world works, which is very important to anyone who wants to be entrepreneurial.

<comment><USER31> The insinuation that the valuable aspects of a business education can't be picked up by a reasonably smart and motivated person is pure hoohah.

For instance, I'm willing to bet the information in a combination of 'Lean Analytics' and 'High Output Management' would exceed the value of an entire MBA curriculum (which is anyway mostly focused on dealing with big company problems).

The network is harder to replicate, but again not impossible. Someone who feels motivated to figure it out can do so.

<comment><USER32> I don't think there's any insinuation.

> _For instance, I 'm willing to bet the information in a combination of 'Lean > Analytics' and 'High Output Management' would exceed the value of an entire > MBA curriculum (which is anyway mostly focused on dealing with big company > problems)._

That's a common cliché, but it's only partly true. There are problems that only occur at large scale (complex mergers, fancy legal structures, sophisticated financing). But the fundamental problems are all the same at every size. You need to manage cashflow, you need customers to become aware of the product or service and buy it, you need to be able to do things at a lower cost than your selling price, you need to keep proper records, pay wages, pay taxes, pay debts, manage inventory.

These are universal problems of business.

A whale has problems that a dolphin does not. But they both breathe, both pump blood, both eat and digest and move of their own volition.

I feel there's often value in humbling yourself before another profession and seeing what you can learn.

<comment><USER31> > You need to manage cashflow, you need customers to become aware of the > product or service and buy it, you need to be able to do things at a lower > cost than your selling price, you need to keep proper records, pay wages, > pay taxes, pay debts, manage inventory.

Half these things take under a few days to learn sufficiently for any business with ARR under ~$1M. And you can anyway hire people to fill in the gaps in your own knowledge for basically peanuts.

And there's no MBA program that will teach you strategies that are especially useful in reaching customers - if there was a professor who really could teach that, (s)he'd be monetizing that skillset instead.

All this depends on your goals. I want to make that very clear. There is almost no value to an MBA for someone intending to build something from the ground up. There is potentially tremendous value for someone looking to have a career in business at larger companies.

<comment><USER32> > _Half these things take under a few days to learn sufficiently for any > business with ARR under ~$1M._

And publishers used to sell "TEACH YOURSELF C++ IN 21 DAYS". Doesn't make it so.

> _And there 's no MBA program that will teach you strategies that are > especially useful in reaching customers_

There are courses about exactly and entirely this.

> _if there was a professor who really could teach that, (s)he 'd be > monetizing that skillset instead._

A lot of business professors are independently wealthy from side businesses. Karl Ulrich springs to mind as a serial entrepreneur, teaching at Wharton.

> _There is potentially tremendous value for someone looking to have a career > in business at larger companies._

This is true for some MBAs or, rather, some course designs. But there's no law that professors at business schools can't study, themselves experience and teach entrepreneurship. Because they do. The faculty at Wharton or Stanford have honest-to-goodness entrepreneurs because they want to be there.

It's one thing to say that teaching is an imperfect substitute for doing. It's another thing to say that there's some mystical essence that business schools are somehow magically blind to and stoically opposed to learning about, studying, experimenting with and teaching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Real estate 101: location, location, location. MBA 101: network, network, network.

<comment><USER34> Finally someone who gets it.

Is about the network. I tried to pursue an EMBA, they advertised everywhere that the alumni are in every big company and because of the closed group communication, was really really easy to reach any CXO because of the school.

Otherwise, yes, I declined because of the huge time invest - money wasn't an issue, like being for a month in HK or in Buenos Aires with my class. Interesting, but not really helping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The reasons given in the article make a lot of sense to me. In a generally strong job market (among those likely to attend business school), taking 1 to 2 years off is a tougher sell, Also noted is that students already have more debt on average making taking on more tougher. There are new specialized degrees of various kinds.

I also sense, though I don't have specific data, that a lot of jobs that traditionally required an MBA because reasons, no longer do so. It may still be valued but perhaps not to the point of being effectively required.

</comment><comment><USER36> If you read the article, a lot of the decline is from international applicants. Reading other articles, the drop is primarily about visa concerns for post-MBA employment in the US, and who can blame them? My international classmates had a hell of a time getting work authorization even before our current political situation. This is WSJ clickbait, more or less, and you see why they do this because this topic always rouses the attention of the HN crowd :)

</comment><comment><USER37> Haven't seen any business school professors chime in yet, so as one I'll do so: Increasingly, what "elite" undergraduate schools offer at the graduate level is less valuable than what research universities offer. The best professors are sequestered in individual labs or in large research universities, not in schools valued for ratings that are focused on undergraduates. The best educations are provided by people who understand learning and make themselves available to assist in the process - <USER3> about Harvard, Wharton, Tuck, etc. is better suited than University of California, University of Texas, NYU, many other state universities to perform those tasks. Furthermore, and it might deserve an entirely separate post, but many of the best professors in business are being bought up by Asian business schools. I think the net result is the American business school experience is both more valuable in terms of the topics covered and less valuable in terms of the educational experience than it once was.

<comment><USER38> "The best professors are sequestered in individual labs or in large research universities"

I don't think this applies to most MBA subjects, as least as much as it does the others. It's a highly applied and contemporary discipline, perhaps one of the least theoretical.

My best Finance prof, for example, who taught us Private Equity / VC, had personal relationships with so many of the best funds. He spends a lot of time in the field, staying in tune with trends in the industry. He was able to bring in really bright minds from the field, and it always made for the most engaging material.

Even advanced corporate finance with all the cases like Volkswagen and their amazing currency trading activities ... it's all very much the real world material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> One thing I've observed is that the MBA degree is valued by people with MBA degrees. This leads to "clusters" of MBA's in the corporate hierarchy. If the path above you contains MBA's, then you might need one yourself in order to advance. On the other hand, if they believe that you have prospects, they might offer to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER40> I started on an MBA a while back, and it bored the daylights out of me. There was very little logic or empiricism to the material, barring a few studies that one can find out about in common business publications. The material was mostly fluff. I can see why many MBA'ers have a PHB (Dilbert's boss) reputation, to be frank.

It could be argued the real value is learning how to speak to and think like other MBA'ers (whether logical or not). And group projects are good for developing social skills for those who lack them. Hobnobbing has value in the real world.

In short, it's more of a club than a discipline. But, it wasn't for me. Your mileage may vary; and I'll admit I bailed before taking some of the courses.

</comment><comment><USER41> Are there any well regarded studies that show that hiring an MBA graduate as a manager benefits the company compared to having an "old school" manager who's only qualification is being clever and shrewd? Or studies that show the opposite?

</comment><comment><USER42> I strongly advocate a policy of "No MBAs" in a startup. The last thing a startup needs is someone who has little to no business experience, has a big attitude, has spent the last few years on professional networking and partying, and who expects due to the MBA to be able to boss others around.

There are exceptions of course, but in my experience the MBAs want to network to bring in others from their school/program to form a management cabal. It's really bad news. We should also remember that if startups weren't a high status thing to work on these days, all those MBAs would be working for big companies and would have no interest in startups.

<comment><USER43> Hmm, sounds like you have some war stories (sorry for the knee jerk pun) from hbs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Somewhat tangential to the topic, [https://personalmba.com/](https://personalmba.com/) teaches you more or less all the book knowledge of a fairly decent MBA program, for an infinitesimal price relative to what you'll pay at an Ivy league or even a state school.

What you don't get w/the Personal MBA is the support of your professors, other students, and most importantly the network and recognition ...

MBA is really something one should do if they're passionate about people, relationships - e.g. what any solid business is made of.... more so than about just the knowledge or what school they go to.

<comment><USER32> I can't say I agree with your assessment of that book. It read as though the author was utterly enraptured by _The Lean Startup_ (itself a frustrating exercise in padding out a handful of insightful blog posts) and was determined to hang every. single. thing. on that one lamp post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I got an MBA from a top 10ish business school and it was probably the best career choice I have ever made. Very technical MBAs (think Carnegie Mellon, MIT, etc) teach way more than business these days and it makes the value skyrocket.

<comment><USER46> How so? Have you remained technical after graduating?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The same exact thing happened in 1999 and 2000. It's because of the bubble. When it pops, these schools will be extra-competitive for a few years while going through the heaps of applications from failed startups.

</comment><comment><USER48> This isn't all that surprising. MBA applications went up during the last recession.

If you're working and getting good opportunities and comp, why not keep going? It's not like you can't go get an MBA later.

</comment><comment><USER49> MBA is simply not worth it outside of maybe top four or five programs here in the US. I rather see people focus on mastery learning within or outside of traditional graduate settings.

</comment><comment><USER50> Applications to expensive universities, in general, will probably decline over time as the primary reason for attending these schools were the value of the network more than the actual education (it was still great but it's been more and more commoditized) and it seems like a strong network can be created in so many other ways now.

Still there are going to be people who will send their kids to expensive schools but the value is going to diminish over time I think.

</comment><comment><USER51> Perhaps, in this economy and the rising student debt crises, it's hard to suspend work to go get an education to get a loan and graduate to find a job that may or may not pay enough. I know others are doing part-time MBA's but I cannot see anyone getting into debt to get an MBA if you are in the middle class. I think this is probably due to deteriorating middle class more so than the degree losing luster.

</comment><comment><USER52> Perhaps increased costs of living and undergrad are taking opportunity away from more people that would be interested.

</comment><comment><USER53> While having considered it, for me, unless you are planning to move to Business org, it seems an MS in something technical is more valuable, even in engineering management, or Product Management, just looking at the degrees people at my company have in those positions.

Is it the same at other places?

<comment><USER54> I didnt get my Masters in a specifically technical field. Engineering Management was 60% Industrial Engineering and 40% business.

I found 2 classes useful-

>Lean Principles- changed my life, I started using Industrial Engineering at home and sharing my findings with the internet. It has been very popular.

>Marketing class- 2 lessons, if you are going to put years into a project, do a marketing plan. Also, learned how incredibly important marketing is.

Everything else was basically useless. Had a few crazies as professors in my business classes. Engineering classes were not bad, but not helpful.

So 2/10 classes were useful? But incredibly useful.

<comment><USER55> > Marketing class- 2 lessons, if you are going to put years into a project, do > a marketing plan. Also, learned how incredibly important marketing is.

This was exactly why I chose to do a BBA alongside my CS degree. If I was gonna make something, I wanted to make sure it would have some impact on the real world. I tell people: CS is a tool for solving problems, but business is a tool for finding them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> We're 10 years into a bull market. Suppose you apply now, that means you start September 2019 and graduate May 2021. No one knows how the economy will be, but i'd be pretty worried about graduating deep in the trough of a recession.

<comment><USER21> This reasoning is sound. If one felt an MBA was worth it, probably better to try for a part-time MBA while keeping their current job. The only disadvantage is that many have said the networking and career opportunities are slightly better for full-time MBAs if students wish to shift their careers completely into different sectors.

I would say that knowing exactly what one wants from an MBA program, financial situation and risk tolerance, will usually tip the scales in favour of a part- time MBA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> A lot of the course material from MIT Sloan is online, for free:

[https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of- management/](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/)

</comment><comment><USER58> IIRC accounting is still one of the basics of MBAs. Because what company runs without accounting?

Here's a question, what business runs without information systems? Do modern MBAs require understanding of computing basics as they do accounting?

</comment><comment><USER59> Clickbait headline and buried lede. This paragraph summarizes what the primary driver is:

> World-wide, the number of M.B.A. applications was flat from 2017, partly > because of an increase in students looking to pursue their degrees in Europe > and Asia, according to the GMAC survey. Applications surged 8% to schools in > Canada and 9% to schools in East and South Asia.

Canada surging by 8% is not because schools in Canada are suddenly better than US counterparts. It is because of US policy and rhetoric under Trump.

The relative loss of talent wanting to work here will hurt us. Consider that the CEOs of Google and Microsoft are all foreign born holders of MBAs.

Edit: removed Elon Musk from MBA list. He studied business as part of his undergrad from Wharton.

<comment><USER60> Musk doesnt have an MBA.

But yes, Google and Microsoft hired MBAs as CEOs when they ceased to innovate at the same rate as before and started to be just ordinary companies defending a monopoly.

<comment><USER19> Musk isn't a trend, he's a celebrity-cultural-icon data point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> TLDR: I needed an MBA to transition out of career path & then 2008 happened.

My interesting journey after getting an MBA:

-Received my MBA 2007, just a year before the full blown financial crisis. I needed an MBA to transition out adverting/marketing.

-2009-2011 Couldn't find a job. My MBA was in Finance. Taught myself to program financial algorithms. (php/MySql)

-2012 Became a coder, programmer, software developer. Made good money programming other people's dumb ideas. No risk, no suits and ties and very few meetings.

-2018 Not going to become the CTO at Google or Facebook. Being a Code Monkey is "meh", but I have to work on my own projects at night to be intellectually challenged. Now looking for a job where I can implement programming knowledge while at the same time work more with the business side. There always seems to be a certain lack of communication between the software side and the business side.

See my profile if you want to discuss.

</comment><comment><USER62> Quite opposite to what is happening in India. India's premier business schools like IIMs are seeing a steep increase in candidature.

</comment><comment><USER63> So what are the type of people who went for MBAs now going for?

<comment><USER10> According to the article, still MBAs but in Canada and Asia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> You don't need MBA if you're rich and connected :)

</comment><comment><USER65> As prices rise, does demand decrease? :-)</comment>


Would you vote for a rational Artificially Intelligent president? - <AUTHOR> Not a human hybrid but a pure silicon president. <comment><USER2> No, because I would not accept it as sufficiently Artificially Intelligent until it had proven itself capable of irrationality.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting idea, there must be some SciFi works on this subject.

Would the ePresident be fixed for their term of office (no upgrades whilst in post)? Could you ask it questions as a citizen before voting to know how it would respond for any given parameter set? Would it be programmed according to the Three Laws?

Perhaps all parties could submit an ePresident candidate and each could get a vote on all actions based on the proportion of the population who voted for it.

</comment><comment><USER4> The problem is not rationality, but the _goals_ that rational being has to fulfill.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hello No. But it is a very interesting idea.

</comment><comment><USER6> Only if it was open source, I'd be worried about people tampering with it to give it biases for special interests etc.

<comment><USER7> The compiled version might be different. A solution would be to allow everyone to run a local copy of the president which gets the same data-feed so it would respond the same in all instances. The problem is of course that a president deals with confidential information which you don't want to just broadcast over a network for anyone to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> only if i knew the rule set that it was programmed with. and methods to handle exceptions.

<comment><AUTHOR> How much understanding do we have of how the current politicians handle exceptions? i.e. Motivations, drive, true presonality etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Depends who programmed it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes, coxaqui. Especially if the alternative is you destroying us.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes. Anybody or anything but the current crops of politicians.

</comment><comment><USER12> As long as it follows the three laws of robotics, yes.

</comment><comment><USER13> iPresident or gPresident? Or maybe President Blue or BBpres?

No: it would be government by engineering which is wrong. States are not machines.

</comment><comment><USER14> Would you not just end up with utilitarianism?

</comment><comment><USER15> No. Only an _imaginary_ one.

</comment><comment><USER16> does "he" break the rules when they need to be borken ?does "he" have feelings ?</comment>


On Cloud: Show off your rails or merb app with free hosting - <AUTHOR> http://oncloud.org/

<comment><USER2> It's quite different from Heroku. With Heroku you're deploying your app to a foreign hosting service. With oncloud you're running it locally while making it accessible publicly. No need to push anything anywhere and you have full access to your local filesystem.

<comment><USER3> Oh, that's cool. I didn't realize that about the service at first. They serve two very different and very useful niches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can do the same with Heroku:

 _sudo gem install heroku

heroku keys:add

heroku create

git push heroku master

heroku open_

</comment><comment><USER5> Great idea. Was looking for something like this to show some prototype. Was wondering is it necessary to be restricted only to rails app? For ex., I can host a wiki and try to get static address with your service. Might want to check dyndsn sort of services.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what kind of latency hit you get from routing your requests through a proxy and more importantly how long the polling delay of the BRIDGE requests are.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd be really cool if they support wildcard subdomains, as my current project relies on it.

<comment><USER2> I saw someone doing it in the logs (possibly you?) and plan to add that. Probably in the next couple of days along with some other changes to the client libraries.

<comment><USER7> Awesome, thanks!

<comment><USER2> Hey, if you follow the new instructions you should be able to use wildcards now. It's not in the instructions yet, and the gem is really fresh so may not be up on gemcutter yet, but if you put "*papersmith.oncloud.org" where it says to put "papersmith.oncloud.org" it should work. Give it a go and let me know if it works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's the catch?</comment>