Google One VPN is a big deal, and potentially as big a nightmare for shady data brokers as the iOS cookie apocalypse was for Facebook and others. Google One was available to paid subscribers on Android, then on Windows, and Mac. Now some Pixel owners can use it. Imagine if they turn it on for all Chrome OS users, or all Chrome mobile users, or all Chrome users period. You can have your suspicions about Google, but I'd trust them over any other tech company or VPN provider.
People somehow end up thinking Apple cares deeply about their private but AFIK Apple only cares about privacy because it makes them money. Or more specifically the
image it creates helps them in selling phones.But the
moment the _long term_ cost outweighs the benefits they
also have shown to bail. (I highlighted long terms because there had been case where short term it was more expensive because it e.g. involved legal cases, but especially this legal cases are a grate image profit form them as people will use it like "don't worry see they didn't even brake their security to help the police with <insert arrested very bad person>").
Now that doesn't mean Apple is bad to some degree it's a win win for the user: They get better privacy and Apple gets more users. But it doesn't mean you can fully trust Apple (or IMHO any Company).
Google’s approach to China is the same realpolitik as Apple and privacy.
Google was never going to get what it wanted/needed in China, so walking away was a pragmatic stance projected as an act of courage, etc.
Google and Apple are actually more similar than one would thing. They are both leveraging their ownership of powerful segments, and they are both threatened by integrated software stacks. The big difference is that Google does creepy shit as a first party, and Apple outsources that to third parties.
Google’s ad business was hurt by Facebook/Instagram and the dearb of the web. Apple’s existential threat is someone making WeChat for the US.
> Google was never going to get what it wanted/needed <with the CCP>
That is not at all accurate. The CCP attempted to infiltrate Google's internal systems by having spies get jobs inside of Google. The CCP also blocked all google services and then developed identical ones to compete with Google globally.
The CCP is extremely nefarious. Any government that blocks children from reading an encyclopedia should be considered to be committing a crime against humanity.
no, if you look at relevance today Signal is not relevant.
The technical excellency is lost on most users.
The demography which cares about that excellency also has a large degree of people which don't want a future with a western variant of WeChat. Because it's basically only working with monopolization.
And the fact that signal pushed some crypto is not helping it either. Firstly to many non technical people have lost too much money by either crypto scams or crashes. Then their crypto currency had some questionable technical details AFIK, but I forgot the details. Then regulatory capture of crypto currencies is guaranteed incoming in the coming years (to many scams, market manipulation, hidden high risk investment and usage for crimes especially money laundering) and as far I can tell their coin will likely not get a pass.
I personally trust Apple, because for them _I_ am the customer. They get their money from selling devices and software for said devices. Thus they want to keep _me_ happy. Ad income is a rounding error in their yearly revenue.
Google is an ad company with a side business in making hardware, software and web services. Advertisers are their clients, they do everything they can to keep the advertisers happy.
...and the one big thing that keeps ad people happy is knowing as much as possible about their customers, which is completely antithetical to user privacy.
You can't judge Apple's views based on this matter in the short term. Apple has strategic investments in China and can't just tell CPC to go pound sand.
However, if Apple still is critically dependent on China in say 5 years, then it would be fair to look at the corporate response to Chinese demands and reach conclusions. If they truly care about privacy and the rest of it, they should be well into their transition plans to other locations about now. And industry expert would be able to tell if the effort, e.g. to use India instead, failed due to an insincere effort on the part of Apple (for PR), or the unpleasant fact that China is not a commodity resource pool, yet.
People always make this argument, for at least the last 10 years. Since Apple has not yet shown any real action towards reducing their dependency on China, why would it be any different 5 years from now?
I don't know the specifics of Apple's case. There is no real need, imo. I'll elaborate why I say that.
Apple, an American company, made critical decisions based on what was said, disclosed, or strongly implied publicly and privately regarding both national and international political (leadership) consensus on globalization and China. Disregarding orthogonal ideological e.g. "(American/x) corporations are inherently bad", considerations, -imo- fair minded evaluation of Apple (or any ~Western company) would need to give weight to what political leadership, at both national and international levels, have done and are doing.
Let's say Apple leaves China cold turkey, on principal. The abrupt and unprepared move ultimately ends the golden ride and Apple is out of the handset market. Who are we then buying our smart spyware/assistants from? Some company in Asia, correct?
If the principal is truly that important (and I am -not- saying it isn't) then political leadership has to uniformly decouple from China. Why should Apple shoulder what is ultimately a geopolitical cost? And yes, you and me desiring a world according to our value system where the state can not illegally force private organizations to violate human rights is a geopolitical desire. So Apple should do certain things, but political leadership, and consumers, also need to do their bit as well.
Apple has already started moving iPhone production to India/Vietnam with the goal of having 40-45% of their iPhones being produced there. It's far from a trivial move.
I'd suggest that had less to do with potential CCP interference than it did with hedging against the massive tariffs on threatened in 2019 during the height of the US<->China "trade war"
Which means it took them over a decade to start moving their assembly lines out of China. The GP comment still stands, Apple clearly had no urgent interest in ending their relationship with China. A cynic might even suggest that they're only doing it now that the geopolitical tensions are favoring the US...
Yes and trusting Google who convinced consumers to install what was suppose to be an internal iOS development certificate so they could track them isn’t a bridge too far?
Probably a tie with Apple. I like that Apple isn't trying to sell my attention (yet), but I do prefer the higher level of openness from Google (Android, Chrome, open source contributions, etc.)
+1, and I would have given you +2 if I could. Google One 2TB is about $10/month so you are also paying for the VPN. The cheaper Google One plans (I use the cheapest) do not include VPN.
I was thinking this morning of updating to Google One 2TB to get the VPN since I just stopped using ProtonMail Premium that included VPN (I decided that Apple Mail with Apple+ family plan met my needs). I forgot that iCloud Private Relay is on, and probably good enough for my needs. Thanks!!
Internet’s bandwidth has to literally grow by something like 70% as everything would need two hops if it was to be implemented. Also it would be spammer’s dream, as IP is the number one factor that is used in spam detection.
You pay for other services (or devices in the case of pixels) and happen to get the VPN as well. AFAIK there is no way to directly pay for just the VPN.
Point being, there's not currently any extra "VPN-only" revenue and no one is entitled to a VPN because they're not actually buying a VPN from Google.
That's semantics. If I buy a TV subscription bundle that includes internet, am I paying for internet?
I would argue what matters is the breakdown. I would agree that a vpn is auxiliary to the pixel, but it seems like a pretty core part of the Google One or w/e subscription.
With that kind of service you'd be signing a contract that guarantees you internet and cable within whatever level of service you've both agreed on (residential, business etc). You're explicitly being charged for both services from day one, the cost of operating both has been factored in by the vendor.
Compare that to Google's VPN, which is nothing more than a value add to existing subscription arrangements that have nothing to do with VPN's.
Not to say it isn't a good service - I like it and use it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Google either split it out, jack up their prices to cover it, or just can it altogether.
