5 ms·
The walled garden is what makes things like this possible. If there wasn't a walled garden, Facebook would just say "we're shutting down on the Apple App Store,
by ericmay 6y ago
The walled garden is what makes things like this possible. If there wasn't a walled garden, Facebook would just say "we're shutting down on the Apple App Store, come download the Facebook App from the Facebook App Store" (or some other random third party App Store) and then all of the work Apple is doing to neuter these tracking mechanisms would go right out the window.
I view the walled garden as nothing but good. Build the walls higher. Hand me a brick and point me to the ladder.
- yyyk 6y agoAt which point almost nobody would download Facebook, just like almost nobody uses anything except the Play Store on Android. Also Apple could easily implement blocks on the OS level. The walled garden just lets Apple siphon 30% alongside anti-competitive practices.
- ericmay 6y agoUntil other companies also move to a third party App Store. Why wouldn't they? And I'm fine with Apple siphoning off 30%. Make it 40%! I'd rather developers stop developing for iOS than to see any large changes in the App Store model. There are enough apps as it is.
- idle_zealot 6y ago> Until other companies also move to a third party App Store. Why wouldn't they? While I don’t know the exact reason, this isn’t what’s happened on Android, which has always allowed multiple app stores. Everything mainstream is on Google’s Play Store, and quality FOSS apps get published to F-Droid. My theory is that users shy away from sideloading alternative app stores, even if it’s not very difficult to do so.
- ericmay 6y agoI think it's because the Google Play Store allows the behavior that Apple is banning, so why bother? I don't think users would shy away from mainstream apps like Facebook if they moved to another app store platform.
- yyyk 6y agoThe Play Store takes 30%, in addition to their own set of restrictions. Surely 30% must be a large motivator for some mainstream apps moving to another store - it just turns out few users on Android will go for that.
- ericmay 6y agoWhy would Facebook care about the 30%? They care about being allowed to track users (as Google does).
- yyyk 6y agoBecause 30% is big money. FB might be able to compensate enough, but plenty of apps can't. There should have been enough pull to have a SpotifyStore and an UberStore, or even a SpotifyUberStore. Yet it doesn't happen at all.
- ericmay 6y agoWhat is Google charging Facebook 30% for? In-app transactions?
- yyyk 6y agoEveryone will still have to use Apple's store, especially given Apple PR makes sure to promote a cult-like adherence to anything Apple. Even fortnite couldn't survive outside the Play Store. It doesn't happen on Android, why would it on iOS? The only thing a 3rd party store support will do is to ensure Apple couldn't abuse FOSS apps too much in their review process.
- fartcannon 6y agoThe app store is just wget and an install command. The permissions settings are in the OS. They could have all the same levels of security without the need to prevent competition.
- intergalplan 6y agoYou can't realistically keep apps from tracking users without permission unless you're rejecting apps that are discovered to be doing that. If they have network access, they can track. The behavior is too abstract to be handled with permissions alone.
- vetinari 6y agoThe apps cannot track if they have no permission to access the respective APIs that give them data they are tracking. What are they going to send via the network? Only things that the users specifically give to the app.
- intergalplan 6y agoLook up what the Apple's tracking-prevention policy prevents for users that don't opt-in to tracking. You cannot ban generating device or user identifiers with OS permissions alone. Prevent using the built-in ones, sure, but fingerprinting or otherwise creating device or user IDs to share with 3rd parties and other apps? I'd love to see what a permissions model would look like that could do that automatically, at the OS level. I don't think such a thing exists. Not for any app with enough access to the system to do anything remotely useful in the first place.
- zepto 6y agoCompletely false. Each app can track user behavior within the app itself, and can send this data to an aggregator who pays for it. That way you are tracked across all participating apps. This was common practice until Apple banned it.
- yyyk 6y agoApple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.