7 ms·

I don't see why Apple couldn't take down _all_ Facebook apps until they comply. It seems like Apple has the real power here.

by nxc18 8y ago

perfmode 8y ago
In the press, apple might wind up taking the blame if instagram were to become unavailable.
sokoloff 8y ago
What do Apple users want? Probably not to have Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram taken away from them on their devices...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Probably not to have Facebook piss all over their privacy. I suspect there's been enough revelations about FB practices that many users would support Apple if they blocked the main apps. For a temporary block anyway.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Much of the audience here is probably much more understanding of the situation and aligned with your (presumed) position, myself included. Most of the general population probably neither understands nor cares that much if someone is watching what sites they visit or other basic privacy items and if you make them choose between privacy (especially privacy of others) and being able to post a picture of their lunch, many will choose the latter.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rahoulb 8y ago
      I have had a LOT of conversations with non technical people about this recently. “My phone is listening to my conversations” is how it goes - people know this tracking is happening, they hate it and find it intensely creepy, they just don’t know the mechanism being used.
  - andrei_says_ 8y ago
    Unfortunately fb pissing over everyone’s privacy is invisible and intangible. So for most it doesn’t exist. Disabling an app would be very noticeable and would anger many people.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > Probably not to have Facebook piss all over their privacy. Ummm, then those people don't have to side load an app that sells your data for money.
treypitt 8y ago
bit of a chicken or egg problem. if facebook/instagram wasn't on the App Store, how many people would switch phones __immediately__?
dkrich 8y ago
Not really. It’s a hard pill to swallow for Apple that most iPhone users are active Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp/Messenger users. If they took those apps down people would be super pissed. I know I’d be extremely annoyed. It would be an interesting twist of irony if they did take them down and there was a massive backlash against Apple. I have a sneaking suspicion that the media and Twitterati are more up in arms about all this than the users themselves.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Reasonable action here would be to threaten to pull the affected apps off the store if Facebook doesn't react within a few weeks. I am very confident that Facebook would not take the amount of bad press this would create. Apple has a lot of leverage here, they don't need to just ban facebook apps outright.
  - dkrich 8y ago
    I disagree. It’s a pretty equal symbiotic relationship IMO. I keep reading people saying “NO other developer would ever get away with this!” Yes they would- if they had 2.2 billion active users on their platform. This may shock a lot in the tech community, but for some companies the rules don’t apply. Ask Procter and Gamble why Wal-Mart gets better prices than a local grocery. I truly believe Apple needs Facebook at least as much as Facebook needs Apple.
    - Barrin92 8y ago
      I think you might be underestimating to what degree this behaviour actually violates the sort of standards that Apple sets out for its products. Gaining control over all information on your device, including the content of private messages of teenage users shouldn't fly. Preventing this sort of stuff is one of the reasons people pay a premium for apple products, and Cook has stressed this over the last few years. On top of this you can add the fact that they basically shipped renamed onavo code, which was already banned from the app store, so this is de facto a violation of Apple's rules. It's in the long term interest of Apple to not be soft on this stuff, it's not symbiotic.
joshstrange 8y ago
Oh they could, I mean Apple could just keep killing their accounts they create but is FB ballsy enough to keep opening them? It would be FB calling Apple's bluff. Users would riot though. Apple has to decide between supporting privacy or supporting their users' choice. Apple has made the decision to take away users' choice in the past in the name of safety/protection, I could see them doing it again. I can bet this is the LAST thing they want to see in the headlines. It forces them to address it, maybe they have a plan ready to go for this eventuality, a whole PR push and I kind of hope they do. If they don't they either look weak on privacy or have to roll out some half-baked plan/proposal/nebulous idea on how to protect users privacy better in iOS 13 or something like that. Right now Apple is doing a whole hell of a lot of taking out of both sides of it's mouth and I understand it's a hard line to walk, I'm not saying I could do it better. FB's practices in general are probably an affront to Apple in general but skirting Apple's limitations to piss all over privacy and essentially turn an iPhone into an Android-level of data collection, I can imagine Apple is PISSED. I just really hope they had something planned for this day.
- JonathonW 8y ago
  > Oh they could, I mean Apple could just keep killing their accounts they create but is FB ballsy enough to keep opening them? Enterprise developer accounts (the ones that can issue apps signed such that they can be sideloaded on any device) aren't something just anyone can go online and sign up for-- they require manual approval with proof of a business's identity before they're created. So, unless Facebook starts opening well-disguised shell companies or something along those lines to circumvent any restrictions Apple might put on them, this will be over as soon as Apple revokes Facebook's enterprise distribution account. (Or, more likely, threatens Facebook into dropping the VPN app, because FB probably doesn't want to lose the ability to distribute legitimate internal-use apps to their employees.)
  - joshstrange 8y ago
    > Enterprise developer accounts (the ones that can issue apps signed such that they can be sideloaded on any device) aren't something just anyone can go online and sign up for-- they require manual approval with proof of a business's identity before they're created. It's my understanding that faking these business identities is the entire business model of iOS sideloaded services (see the subreddit for examples [0]) so I don't think it's that difficult to do. That said, I'd be shocked if Apple let them go that far as to keep spinning out fake businesses but then again if FB thinks it can get away with it what's stopping them? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sideloaded/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sideloaded/
johannes1234321 8y ago
Do they? - Competition regulators could see this as abuse of power and use this to destroy Apple's AppStore model. Quite risky ...
- jedieaston 8y ago
  No, they can't, because there's still competition in the marketplace in the form of Android. Apple isn't a monopoly, if you don't like the App Store there's 20 other phones at your carrier you can buy instead.
dest 8y ago
Smarter, less disruptive move: block research and put all Facebook apps in some kind of security sandbox with the sole intent to slow down the experience.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  This might go against antitrust regulation.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    At least at this point, antitrust regulation hasn't prevented Apple from removing apps from its store that violate its policies. I don't see how it would be any different if they created a penalty short of removal that's only applied to bad actors with a history of needing it. This is needed for more than just Facebook's stuff, it could also apply to trojan privacy invaders like the Weather Channel app. They could slow walk updates as they do unusually thorough privacy audits, and perhaps even apply extra access restrictions (e.g. skewing location, forbid use of certain permissions, etc).
  - usefulcat 8y ago
    Antitrust? Google play still exists.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
They might get into antitrust litigation if they revoked the Developer Certificate (public apps and public betas), which was not breached, rather than just the Enterprise (used here, and for legitimate employee apps). Apparently they have done the latter causing massive chaos; the former would be an absolute nuclear option. No iPhone user could use any Facebook apps, anywhere in the world, which would make this story front page on every newspaper. Business could no longer manage their ads spots or use iOS devices for social media. They will likely be shocked at the unwarranted disruption, rightly blame Facebook for it, and cut their spend on ads. Both PR departments would be working full steam on a war of worlds, disrupting all other work. Numerous suits would be filed. Meanwhile, Facebook stock would crash, leading to numerous investor lawsuits, especially since Facebook clearly risked this by blatantly violating contracts. Institutional investors will cut losses and pull out, further driving the price down. I'd love to see it happen. But Apple doesn't want to, and honestly can't be expected to, pull the nuclear option just as a punishment for this. They would incur massive PR and legal expenses in response.

I don't see why Apple couldn't take down _all_ Facebook apps until they comply. It seems like Apple has the real power here.

by nxc18 8y ago

I don't see why Apple couldn't take down _all_ Facebook apps until they comply. It seems like Apple has the real power here.

perfmode 8y ago

In the press, apple might wind up taking the blame if instagram were to become unavailable.

sokoloff 8y ago

What do Apple users want? Probably not to have Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram taken away from them on their devices...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Probably not to have Facebook piss all over their privacy. I suspect there's been enough revelations about FB practices that many users would support Apple if they blocked the main apps. For a temporary block anyway.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Much of the audience here is probably much more understanding of the situation and aligned with your (presumed) position, myself included. Most of the general population probably neither understands nor cares that much if someone is watching what sites they visit or other basic privacy items and if you make them choose between privacy (especially privacy of others) and being able to post a picture of their lunch, many will choose the latter.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rahoulb 8y ago
    I have had a LOT of conversations with non technical people about this recently. “My phone is listening to my conversations” is how it goes - people know this tracking is happening, they hate it and find it intensely creepy, they just don’t know the mechanism being used.
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  Unfortunately fb pissing over everyone’s privacy is invisible and intangible. So for most it doesn’t exist. Disabling an app would be very noticeable and would anger many people.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > Probably not to have Facebook piss all over their privacy. Ummm, then those people don't have to side load an app that sells your data for money.

treypitt 8y ago

bit of a chicken or egg problem. if facebook/instagram wasn't on the App Store, how many people would switch phones __immediately__?

dkrich 8y ago

Not really. It’s a hard pill to swallow for Apple that most iPhone users are active Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp/Messenger users. If they took those apps down people would be super pissed. I know I’d be extremely annoyed. It would be an interesting twist of irony if they did take them down and there was a massive backlash against Apple. I have a sneaking suspicion that the media and Twitterati are more up in arms about all this than the users themselves.

Barrin92 8y ago
Reasonable action here would be to threaten to pull the affected apps off the store if Facebook doesn't react within a few weeks. I am very confident that Facebook would not take the amount of bad press this would create. Apple has a lot of leverage here, they don't need to just ban facebook apps outright.
- dkrich 8y ago
  I disagree. It’s a pretty equal symbiotic relationship IMO. I keep reading people saying “NO other developer would ever get away with this!” Yes they would- if they had 2.2 billion active users on their platform. This may shock a lot in the tech community, but for some companies the rules don’t apply. Ask Procter and Gamble why Wal-Mart gets better prices than a local grocery. I truly believe Apple needs Facebook at least as much as Facebook needs Apple.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    I think you might be underestimating to what degree this behaviour actually violates the sort of standards that Apple sets out for its products. Gaining control over all information on your device, including the content of private messages of teenage users shouldn't fly. Preventing this sort of stuff is one of the reasons people pay a premium for apple products, and Cook has stressed this over the last few years. On top of this you can add the fact that they basically shipped renamed onavo code, which was already banned from the app store, so this is de facto a violation of Apple's rules. It's in the long term interest of Apple to not be soft on this stuff, it's not symbiotic.

joshstrange 8y ago

Oh they could, I mean Apple could just keep killing their accounts they create but is FB ballsy enough to keep opening them? It would be FB calling Apple's bluff. Users would riot though. Apple has to decide between supporting privacy or supporting their users' choice. Apple has made the decision to take away users' choice in the past in the name of safety/protection, I could see them doing it again. I can bet this is the LAST thing they want to see in the headlines. It forces them to address it, maybe they have a plan ready to go for this eventuality, a whole PR push and I kind of hope they do. If they don't they either look weak on privacy or have to roll out some half-baked plan/proposal/nebulous idea on how to protect users privacy better in iOS 13 or something like that. Right now Apple is doing a whole hell of a lot of taking out of both sides of it's mouth and I understand it's a hard line to walk, I'm not saying I could do it better. FB's practices in general are probably an affront to Apple in general but skirting Apple's limitations to piss all over privacy and essentially turn an iPhone into an Android-level of data collection, I can imagine Apple is PISSED. I just really hope they had something planned for this day.

JonathonW 8y ago
> Oh they could, I mean Apple could just keep killing their accounts they create but is FB ballsy enough to keep opening them? Enterprise developer accounts (the ones that can issue apps signed such that they can be sideloaded on any device) aren't something just anyone can go online and sign up for-- they require manual approval with proof of a business's identity before they're created. So, unless Facebook starts opening well-disguised shell companies or something along those lines to circumvent any restrictions Apple might put on them, this will be over as soon as Apple revokes Facebook's enterprise distribution account. (Or, more likely, threatens Facebook into dropping the VPN app, because FB probably doesn't want to lose the ability to distribute legitimate internal-use apps to their employees.)
- joshstrange 8y ago
  > Enterprise developer accounts (the ones that can issue apps signed such that they can be sideloaded on any device) aren't something just anyone can go online and sign up for-- they require manual approval with proof of a business's identity before they're created. It's my understanding that faking these business identities is the entire business model of iOS sideloaded services (see the subreddit for examples [0]) so I don't think it's that difficult to do. That said, I'd be shocked if Apple let them go that far as to keep spinning out fake businesses but then again if FB thinks it can get away with it what's stopping them? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sideloaded/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sideloaded/

johannes1234321 8y ago

Do they? - Competition regulators could see this as abuse of power and use this to destroy Apple's AppStore model. Quite risky ...

jedieaston 8y ago
No, they can't, because there's still competition in the marketplace in the form of Android. Apple isn't a monopoly, if you don't like the App Store there's 20 other phones at your carrier you can buy instead.

dest 8y ago

Smarter, less disruptive move: block research and put all Facebook apps in some kind of security sandbox with the sole intent to slow down the experience.

saagarjha 8y ago
This might go against antitrust regulation.
- ardy42 8y ago
  At least at this point, antitrust regulation hasn't prevented Apple from removing apps from its store that violate its policies. I don't see how it would be any different if they created a penalty short of removal that's only applied to bad actors with a history of needing it. This is needed for more than just Facebook's stuff, it could also apply to trojan privacy invaders like the Weather Channel app. They could slow walk updates as they do unusually thorough privacy audits, and perhaps even apply extra access restrictions (e.g. skewing location, forbid use of certain permissions, etc).
- usefulcat 8y ago
  Antitrust? Google play still exists.

morpheuskafka 8y ago

They might get into antitrust litigation if they revoked the Developer Certificate (public apps and public betas), which was not breached, rather than just the Enterprise (used here, and for legitimate employee apps). Apparently they have done the latter causing massive chaos; the former would be an absolute nuclear option. No iPhone user could use any Facebook apps, anywhere in the world, which would make this story front page on every newspaper. Business could no longer manage their ads spots or use iOS devices for social media. They will likely be shocked at the unwarranted disruption, rightly blame Facebook for it, and cut their spend on ads. Both PR departments would be working full steam on a war of worlds, disrupting all other work. Numerous suits would be filed. Meanwhile, Facebook stock would crash, leading to numerous investor lawsuits, especially since Facebook clearly risked this by blatantly violating contracts. Institutional investors will cut losses and pull out, further driving the price down. I'd love to see it happen. But Apple doesn't want to, and honestly can't be expected to, pull the nuclear option just as a punishment for this. They would incur massive PR and legal expenses in response.