On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
>> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?
>
> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.

The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

On 2022-11-14, Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
>>> more private and yet they were actually much less private, are they
>>> then harmed?
>>
>> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
>
> The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.

Nope, that's not evidence that Apple devices are supposedly less private
or that anyone was supposedly harmed. You guys are having a *really*
hard time backing up your own words. "Trolling is hard, y'all!!1!" ; )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2022-11-14 09:21, Calum wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
>>> more
>>> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
>>> harmed?
>>
>> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
>
> The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
> https://www.apple.com/privacy/
> https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

You realize that the word "less" requires a comparison, right?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:21:43 +1100, Calum
<com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
>>> more
>>> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
>>> harmed?
>> There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
>
> The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
> https://www.apple.com/privacy/

> https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558

That provides NO evidence that they are less private, JUST
that apple does keep track of how you use the app store so
that they can make it more useful to app store users.

On 2022-11-14 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:21:43 +1100, Calum
> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
>
>> On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>>> If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
>>>> more
>>>> private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
>>>> harmed?
>>>  There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
>>
>> The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
>> https://www.apple.com/privacy/
>
>> https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558
>
> That provides NO evidence that they are less private, JUST
> that apple does keep track of how you use the app store so
> that they can make it more useful to app store users.

Like the rather obvious information that the keyboard layout you're
using probably let's them know what language to respond to your requests in.