It is a similar argument, but I think there is an important qualitative difference between TVs and smartphones. One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms. The worst case is they show too many ads and I get pissed and cancel my service. I have some power in the relationship, they need my money month to month.
The other is an integral part of my daily life and knows virtually everything about me, who I communicate with, where I go, and is almost mandatory in modern society. I have no control over the software that runs on it, and the organization that does control it already has my money. If I want to exit the relationship, there are maybe one or two serious competitors (depending on if you include non-google android).
> One is inherently passive, I interact with it on my own terms.
No one is forcing you to interact with Google. You choose to interact with them because they have the content that you want, or they provide a service that you like.
And more importantly, you've accepted their privacy terms by using their service. In other words, you have interacted with them on your terms.
Legally, possibly, but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No. Google (and many other web services) do all sorts of tracking, even if you aren't using their services directly, particularly with Web ads, tracking via social integration buttons, etc, which I would argue is much less than consensual. This can even happen without their having to agree to having a Google account, let alone reading (and understanding the legalese in) their privacy policy (and all of its implications for what they can do with their data). I highly doubt the vast majority of Internet users know how much information and value is being extracted by private companies from their just being on the web.
> but ethically and from the position of most consumers? No.
I once had a friend frequent this record store, because every time he walked in the store, the owner would tell him, "You need to listen to this." And my friend would walk out of the store with a fresh vinyl pressed record with songs that he would spend hours listening to.
Was my friend be tracked? Yes. Did he experience targeted advertising? Yes. Was he subjected to unethical or immoral behavior? I don't know, but he kept coming back.
If you are the one opening up the browser and going to websites that do such unsavory things, such as trying to understand their customers to provide better content, then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?
> then isn't the onus on you to not visit those sites?
Not what the discussion was about. The question was which business model was more 'honest'. And I'm not sure you can fairly say that bulk data collection across most parts of the Web which most people are unaware of, is an honest way of conducting business (Not to mention shit like [1] and [2]).
And my argument is that content and advertising and consumer tracking has been accepted behavior by corporations for a long time now. You may not like it, may think it's kind of "Nazi"-ish. But it's been a valid business model for decades.
But if you feel Apple's business model is truly more honest, here's a wikipedia page you should go read:
The other is an integral part of my daily life and knows virtually everything about me, who I communicate with, where I go, and is almost mandatory in modern society. I have no control over the software that runs on it, and the organization that does control it already has my money. If I want to exit the relationship, there are maybe one or two serious competitors (depending on if you include non-google android).