Buying and collecting non actionable data to your companies immediate goals is a large business expense that should actually compared to benefits it brings you. It also represents an increased liability on your part, as securing that data against malicious, including state actors, is now on you to handle.

The ideal should be to minimize data storage and collection and maximize the amount of processing done your customer’s hardware, for both reduction of CAPX and to get your time from collection to action for the customer as low as possible.

Convergent encryption with filenames/checks isn’t e2ee. Do you consider a glass bulletproof safe to be satisfactory when everyone can see how much money or what kinda of jewels and treasures (or copyrighted materials from torrents) you’re retaining? Seems kinda useless from “need to know” vantage point

As horrible as it is, that they should follow Apple’s lead.

I know people rag (for good reason!) on Apple for all the dongles and the hardware lock-in…

But dedication to selling extra hardware that’s overpriced and getting people locked into your hardware ecosystem so they keep buying your products has allowed Apple to mostly avoid having to succumb to the same business model of harvesting and selling data. (once again, mostly)

As much as that sucks in a lot of ways, companies do need to make money somewhere, and realistically, I’d be happier with companies making actual products rather than placing another roadblock to using their already existing digital services with either ads or a paywall.

Will it work for every company? No, especially not startups, who are not in a market position to fight against an entrenched Apple.

However both Microsoft and Google make hardware, and they could choose to focus on hardware as opposed to selling ads, but I think ads is “just easier” in a lot of ways for them, compared to actually needing to make quality products people want to use. (Part of the reason is it is hard to get individuals to pay for an OS, while you will always have advertisers willing to spend a buck)

Also, in general, I would advise against the push for everything to be Software as a Service. My OS doesn’t need to be a service that I pay for. An OS should be a neutral party to running services. It shouldn’t be the service itself. The “service” an OS is providing is already given by dint of being an Operating System, and by making it a subscription, you’ve actually just taken away the benefit of that service and hidden it behind a monthly paywall. It’s disgusting and pathetic and painfully obviously a money-grab. Shame on you, Microsoft, for considering it. And shame on you, Google, for pioneering an OS that makes money through ads, which set the stage for all of this.

Personal opinion, I think ads should be banned at the OS-level. It’s a serious conflict-of-interest. OS-level “advertising IDs” should also be illegal.

“Please stop spying on us”

“Oh, sorry! Didn’t mean to. Didn’t realise I was.”

…

That they stop selling our data.

I know that the VC guys are demanding constant growth and that we milk every penny; but what if…. Again IF we tried just for a minute, to not be TOTAL aholes…. You know, just kinda…. Like if we respected our users wants?

Stop spying on us.

Privacy problems are not policy problems, businesses are choosing to invasively collect data in order to pad their coffers. This is not welcome and just because you try to hide this fact in obfuscated policy language it is not ok.