As part of the legal dispute between the US and Google, the expected disclosure of Apple’s period presentation from 2013 took place. It is evidential material and could therefore be published after redaction. And this despite the fact that it is an internal classified presentation that only a select few Apple employees could see at the time. The presentation (download here) compares privacy on mobile platforms from Apple and Google and ends on an unflattering note – “Android is one big tracking device”.
Apple was already clear about this in 2013. According to a contemporary presentation, “Android is one big surveillance device” (Source: Justice)
The presentation covers the market situation (in 2013) and specifically focuses on individual competitors. Apple compares with Google in several categories, for example in the area of accounts, voice search, maps, text search and advertisements. From a historical comparison, Google sounds much worse, because already 10 years ago it was tying voice and text searches to specific accounts, offering targeted ads for mobiles for which it aggregated user information from various sources, linked map searches to the account itself, and on top of that, to maps added ads.
Apple makes it sound better from the presentation because it didn’t link app usage, search queries, or voice interaction to the Apple ID in any way. And when data from multiple services started to be combined at once, it was only to provide a “better user experience” (whatever that means). A certain decentralization was recorded by the fact that iPhones could have separate accounts for iCloud, App Store and iTunes Store.
Apple only started promoting privacy on iPhones in 2019. He borrowed the well-known saying “What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas”…
Even though Apple clearly had the upper hand over Android in the area of privacy in 2013, it wasn’t until 2019 that Apple built a marketing campaign on it. The published presentation itself points out that Google had a long time ago set up user privacy quite inappropriately, and obviously with the aim of profit and the combination of all possible information.
In the event that the court proves that Google has violated antitrust laws, in addition to heavy financial fines, it is threatened with a forced division into several smaller companies that could not have such close ties with each other.