Literally all Apple needed to do was not have it enabled by default. Sending stuff over the network without asking is why trust in Apple is reduced further and further.
Not enabling something by default is pretty close to not having it at all. Accessibility is a reasonable exception where it makes sense to have the features even though they are off by default.
I mostly think the reaction to this article is overblown because it appeals popular ideas here about big tech. I think one should be wary of Apple’s claims about privacy: the reason is competition with Google and so they want users to be distrustful of the kinds of features that Google are better at implementing (I don’t want to say Apple isn’t trying to do the right thing either – if you look at accessibility, the competition was very bad for a lot of things for a long time and Apple was good despite the lack of commercial pressure). But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group.
> But I think one should also be wary of articles that make you angry and tell you what you suspected all along. (eg see the commenter elsewhere who doesn’t care about the details and is just angry). It’s much easier to spot this kind of rage-bait piece when it is targeting ‘normal people’ rather than the in-group.
The article was published by an Apple developer and user, i.e., myself, on my personal blog, which is followed mainly by other Apple developers and users. My blog comprises my own personal observations, insights, and opinions. If you see any rage, it would be my own personal rage, and not "bait". Bait for what?
I’m not interested in telling you what to put on your blog. Do whatever you like.
The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised. People are likely to interpret it as being for an article making much stronger claims than the article actually does. I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents. I think if one is interacting with some submission here due to a maddening headline, one should be wary about such interactions being driven by emotion, leading to poor discussion that is not particularly anchored to the topic of the article, rather than being driven by curiosity.
> The headline is defensible but, in my opinion, quite sensationalised.
How would you write the headline?
There's always a criticism of headlines, but headlines are necessarily short. It's like critics want the entire article text to appear in the headline, which is impossible.
I don't know what defensible but sensationalized is supposed to mean.
> I think a lot of the interactions people had with this submission, especially early on, were because the headline made them mad, rather than because of its contents.
That's pure speculation on your part, because the headline is very short and vague. In any case, it's not my fault if people read the headline but not the article. I want people to read the article, not just the headline.
I would probably aim for a title like ‘what does the “Enhanced Visual Search” feature do in iOS 18 and MacOS 15?’ Or ‘how much data is sent to Apple for the new “Enhanced Visual Search” in Photos’.
I think the early comments on this submission were because the headline made them mad because they were incurious and not particularly related to the topic of the article making – most could be under any article about Apple Photos. One early comment was about switching to alternatives to Photos and another was, paraphrasing, ‘I’m so angry. I don’t care about homeomorphic encryption or differential privacy’. Others seemed to follow the theme of the latter. After a while a comment attempted an overview of some of the technical details, which I thought was better.
Perhaps a more precise complaint is that many of the early comments didn’t really depend on the contents of the article – they could go under many Apple submissions – and I think it’s more likely for comments like that to be written while incensed.
I don’t think you’re to blame for the comments people choose to leave.
> I would probably aim for a title like ‘what does the “Enhanced Visual Search” feature do in iOS 18 and MacOS 15?’ Or ‘how much data is sent to Apple for the new “Enhanced Visual Search” in Photos’.
In my opinion, these are actually misleading headlines that don't represent the content of the article. In fact, I've never used the Enhanced Visual Search feature, nor do I know exactly how much data is sent to Apple.
My article was never intended as a kind of feature introduction that you might see in the news media. The main point was always about user consent for uploading data to Apple. To be clear, my article is and has always been a complaint. Thus, I think the headline is accurate. I am complaining, and readers should know that.
> another was, paraphrasing, ‘I’m so angry. I don’t care about homeomorphic encryption or differential privacy’.
> many of the early comments didn’t really depend on the contents of the article
The headline of the article didn't mention homeomorphic encryption or differential privacy, so they must have read the contents.
In the comment you are replying to, I’m trying to explain some of the reasons for the world being the way it is. I’m not trying to convince you to be happy about it.
Apple already communicates home by default. They never even fixed the macOS app signature check that they said they would, and yet people still choose to use the OS.
(And to be clear I’m not even bothered by the signature check)
At a certain point you have to figure that they realize it doesn’t matter short of some government entity forcing them to stop. At the very least the protections they put in place (homomorphic encryption, etc) are more than I think most other companies would ever bother doing.
The OP is evidence. My phone had it turned on which I think is evidence. Together this feels like reasonably strong evidence but maybe something even stronger is easy to find. Vaguely related: https://markxu.com/strong-evidence
I think both of you had it turned on from past OS installs - it's bundled under other search metadata, the config isn't new to 18. And "it's on and I don't remember agreeing" is absolutely not evidence. This is super common - nobody remembers what they enabled a year ago.
Think about it this way: for people who turn off any & everything that phones home (aka anyone who is frustrated by this new "feature"), the chances of them having turned on something like that upon install is almost nil.
