4 ms·

Facebook is evil. But Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor should equally terrify us all. Apple has made it clear that they prioritize “privac

Facebook is evil. But Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor should equally terrify us all. Apple has made it clear that they prioritize “privacy” as long as it aligns with their profit making interests with actions not least including the attempt to scan on device content recently and their move to have different standards of compliance with the regime in China. They are consolidating significant technical power over people’s lives and it’s amazing how little concern there has been to them rolling out their own private network between devices without consent or opt out.

MBCook 5y ago
I don’t think Apple is trying to hurt a competitor. This is all very consistent with the stance they’ve been taking for a very long time. I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.
- wmeredith 5y ago
  I agree. Apple is doing right by their users by empowering them and informing them. This hurts Facebook because their business model relies on ignorance and obfuscation. It's collateral damage.
  - lmm 5y ago
    When developers inform users how big Apple's cut of IAPs is, and empower them to pay a different way, we see how much Apple actually cares about empowering and informing users. This is a business move plain and simple.
    - cronix 5y ago
      I really doubt most users have even thought about or give a hoot about where fees are going for products they are buying on Apples platform. If the argument is "the product would cost 30% less" sure, they'd probably care. But that's not the argument. It's the relatively few (compared to users) developers and companies selling apps that are losing that money that care and are vocal about it. They would rather keep it for themselves. The end user really doesn't even figure into the equation when it comes to Apple transaction fees on their platform, because it doesn't affect them.
      - chillacy 5y ago
        I think the parent poster is pointing out an apparent hypocrisy: Apple has rules which prohibit app developers from disclosing the apple cut in their apps, or even offering discounted off-platform purchase options within the app. Apple I think wants to keep their experience very high quality, but this could be interpreted as not "empowering" or "informing" them.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers. This cut is a business relationship between Apple and the developer. Apple's developer contracts mean that Apple is entitled to a cut of revenues even if a different payment gateway is used. So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. This was affirmed by the Judge in Epic v Apple recently.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers. I've often bought something off Amazon (or even in a physical shop) and had it come with a flyer for the manufacturer's own site, or a catalogue for ordering accessories from them directly. Plenty of hotels make a point of saying "this is what it costs if you book with us directly". > So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. Then why are Apple so scared of letting customers know the facts?
        simondotau 5y ago
        Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers. I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes. It’s all well and good to argue the reasonableness of such allowances in theory, but here, context is everything.
        DisjointedHunt 5y ago
        If it's disingenuous, LET THE USERS DECIDE ! Like Steve Jobs said. . . Ask them! Every time! And make it clear! What's disingenuous to you is remarkably a standard business practice for a tax or a fee of any kind. Buying an airplane ticket? If there are fees and charges , guess what? They get called out so you have a choice. Buying an iPhone in most parts of the world? Guess what happens when you go to check out? You see the "Includes Tax of xx%" there so you have the information. This should not even be an argument in this day and age, but unfortunately, here we are. Market conditions and rules of engagement around competition should NOT be dictated by large companies. There is a line in the sand where Apples platform ends and the real world begins. It's ridiculous that they have been allowed to get away with saying "If you do ANYTHING on our platform, you agree to hamper your business voluntarily in EVERY OTHER PLATFORM you choose to participate in". Do it, or don't do business with us. That's anti competitive and has been finally called out by at least one judge so far in the Epic case.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    I used to believe that but after their latest privacy debacle with the CSAM stuff and their tone deaf responses, it’s clear to me that Apple used other act as a marketing shtick and nothing more.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Why Apple didn’t then restrict the use of the clipboard and make no fuss about it after TikTok was found to be sniffing the user clipboard, astounds me.
  - sosborn 5y ago
    https://mobilesyrup.com/2020/07/23/ios-14-clipboard-apps-snooping/ https://mobilesyrup.com/2020/07/23/ios-14-clipboard-apps-sno...
    - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
      Yes, a link without a statement is not helpful. I’m fully aware of Apples response to TikTok’s use of user clipboards without their knowledge. All Apple did was incorporate a snitch notification for when an app pasted from clipboard. Contrast that with their approach to permissions and privacy in developer documentation which gates sensitive functionality behind dialogs that let users “Allow”, “Allow while using” or “Don’t allow” No criticism, nothing. Even the change is not very helpful if it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the abuse, only throws a temporary pop up when abused.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  > I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity. No no, its a definite move to kneecap a competitor. Facebook has _the_ corner in high value mobile advertising. Apple wants some of that. People don't like facebook, so will cheer when Apple does anything too them. They are doing the same thing to the maker of fortnight. The problem for the wider computing populace is that Apple is currently the best experience for users. It doesn't mean they are the best for competition. People have seen that Apple can get away with a semi curated capricious ecosystem, and will copy it. The future is apple shaped App stores. I'm not sure thats good for everyone.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
GeekyBear 5y ago
>Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor Steve Jobs in 2010 being asked how Apple's view on privacy differs from Facebook's view (right after one of the early Facebook scandals) >Privacy means people know what they’re signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. That’s what it means. I’m an optimist, I believe people are smart. And some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you’re going to do with their data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
- gigel82 5y ago
  They should get off their high horse for a bit, or at least level the playing field: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on-ios14/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    They've already added an explicit prompt for that.
mpalmer 5y ago
Are you saying you don't support a user's ability to opt out of tracking?
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Why would you draw that conclusion unless you want to pigeon hole a complex position into a boolean strawman? Do i support a users ability to opt out? Of course. I could pose the same question to you: Do you support a users ability to opt out of Apples tracking in the same way they opt out of App tracking? The App tracking guidelines mandate that multiple apps owned by the same developer still need to ask for permissions EVERY SINGLE TIME. Contrast that with Apple only asking for a soft share permission once during device setup and extending that across a wide swath of apps within a category like "Device analytics" which covers everything from what apps you're using, what networks you're connecting to, your use of the one device radios etc. App tracking transparency also forces the big default button in the permission flow being the "Ask App Not to track" link. While, for their own permission requests, Apple has a big blue button that opts users in. This by itself causes an opt-in rate of <10% for external apps and near 90% for Apples internal dialogs. Lets place the same UX requirements for Apples own internal tracking dialogs please. And we haven't even begun to discuss the undocumented services or APIs that have no permissions gating them. The "Find My" network? Do you know how Apple uses data of nearby devices? Isn't that EXACTLY what they're claiming to clamp down on from the likes of Google And FB cross device tracking while doing it themselves for a different end outcome seemingly justifying it?
- beardyw 5y ago
  If Facebook no longer find providing a service on that platform to be profitable, they could just stop providing it, or more likely, corner Apple into banning them. I think at that point people might realise that tracking is a form of payment that they have opted out of.

MBCook 5y ago

I don’t think Apple is trying to hurt a competitor. This is all very consistent with the stance they’ve been taking for a very long time. I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.

wmeredith 5y ago
I agree. Apple is doing right by their users by empowering them and informing them. This hurts Facebook because their business model relies on ignorance and obfuscation. It's collateral damage.
- lmm 5y ago
  When developers inform users how big Apple's cut of IAPs is, and empower them to pay a different way, we see how much Apple actually cares about empowering and informing users. This is a business move plain and simple.
  - cronix 5y ago
    I really doubt most users have even thought about or give a hoot about where fees are going for products they are buying on Apples platform. If the argument is "the product would cost 30% less" sure, they'd probably care. But that's not the argument. It's the relatively few (compared to users) developers and companies selling apps that are losing that money that care and are vocal about it. They would rather keep it for themselves. The end user really doesn't even figure into the equation when it comes to Apple transaction fees on their platform, because it doesn't affect them.
    - chillacy 5y ago
      I think the parent poster is pointing out an apparent hypocrisy: Apple has rules which prohibit app developers from disclosing the apple cut in their apps, or even offering discounted off-platform purchase options within the app. Apple I think wants to keep their experience very high quality, but this could be interpreted as not "empowering" or "informing" them.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers. This cut is a business relationship between Apple and the developer. Apple's developer contracts mean that Apple is entitled to a cut of revenues even if a different payment gateway is used. So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. This was affirmed by the Judge in Epic v Apple recently.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers. I've often bought something off Amazon (or even in a physical shop) and had it come with a flyer for the manufacturer's own site, or a catalogue for ordering accessories from them directly. Plenty of hotels make a point of saying "this is what it costs if you book with us directly". > So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. Then why are Apple so scared of letting customers know the facts?
      - simondotau 5y ago
        Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers. I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes. It’s all well and good to argue the reasonableness of such allowances in theory, but here, context is everything.
        DisjointedHunt 5y ago
        If it's disingenuous, LET THE USERS DECIDE ! Like Steve Jobs said. . . Ask them! Every time! And make it clear! What's disingenuous to you is remarkably a standard business practice for a tax or a fee of any kind. Buying an airplane ticket? If there are fees and charges , guess what? They get called out so you have a choice. Buying an iPhone in most parts of the world? Guess what happens when you go to check out? You see the "Includes Tax of xx%" there so you have the information. This should not even be an argument in this day and age, but unfortunately, here we are. Market conditions and rules of engagement around competition should NOT be dictated by large companies. There is a line in the sand where Apples platform ends and the real world begins. It's ridiculous that they have been allowed to get away with saying "If you do ANYTHING on our platform, you agree to hamper your business voluntarily in EVERY OTHER PLATFORM you choose to participate in". Do it, or don't do business with us. That's anti competitive and has been finally called out by at least one judge so far in the Epic case.
- busymom0 5y ago
  I used to believe that but after their latest privacy debacle with the CSAM stuff and their tone deaf responses, it’s clear to me that Apple used other act as a marketing shtick and nothing more.
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Why Apple didn’t then restrict the use of the clipboard and make no fuss about it after TikTok was found to be sniffing the user clipboard, astounds me.
- sosborn 5y ago
  https://mobilesyrup.com/2020/07/23/ios-14-clipboard-apps-snooping/ https://mobilesyrup.com/2020/07/23/ios-14-clipboard-apps-sno...
  - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    Yes, a link without a statement is not helpful. I’m fully aware of Apples response to TikTok’s use of user clipboards without their knowledge. All Apple did was incorporate a snitch notification for when an app pasted from clipboard. Contrast that with their approach to permissions and privacy in developer documentation which gates sensitive functionality behind dialogs that let users “Allow”, “Allow while using” or “Don’t allow” No criticism, nothing. Even the change is not very helpful if it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the abuse, only throws a temporary pop up when abused.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity. No no, its a definite move to kneecap a competitor. Facebook has _the_ corner in high value mobile advertising. Apple wants some of that. People don't like facebook, so will cheer when Apple does anything too them. They are doing the same thing to the maker of fortnight. The problem for the wider computing populace is that Apple is currently the best experience for users. It doesn't mean they are the best for competition. People have seen that Apple can get away with a semi curated capricious ecosystem, and will copy it. The future is apple shaped App stores. I'm not sure thats good for everyone.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

GeekyBear 5y ago

>Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor Steve Jobs in 2010 being asked how Apple's view on privacy differs from Facebook's view (right after one of the early Facebook scandals) >Privacy means people know what they’re signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. That’s what it means. I’m an optimist, I believe people are smart. And some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you’re going to do with their data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo

gigel82 5y ago
They should get off their high horse for a bit, or at least level the playing field: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on-ios14/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  They've already added an explicit prompt for that.

mpalmer 5y ago

Are you saying you don't support a user's ability to opt out of tracking?

DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Why would you draw that conclusion unless you want to pigeon hole a complex position into a boolean strawman? Do i support a users ability to opt out? Of course. I could pose the same question to you: Do you support a users ability to opt out of Apples tracking in the same way they opt out of App tracking? The App tracking guidelines mandate that multiple apps owned by the same developer still need to ask for permissions EVERY SINGLE TIME. Contrast that with Apple only asking for a soft share permission once during device setup and extending that across a wide swath of apps within a category like "Device analytics" which covers everything from what apps you're using, what networks you're connecting to, your use of the one device radios etc. App tracking transparency also forces the big default button in the permission flow being the "Ask App Not to track" link. While, for their own permission requests, Apple has a big blue button that opts users in. This by itself causes an opt-in rate of <10% for external apps and near 90% for Apples internal dialogs. Lets place the same UX requirements for Apples own internal tracking dialogs please. And we haven't even begun to discuss the undocumented services or APIs that have no permissions gating them. The "Find My" network? Do you know how Apple uses data of nearby devices? Isn't that EXACTLY what they're claiming to clamp down on from the likes of Google And FB cross device tracking while doing it themselves for a different end outcome seemingly justifying it?
beardyw 5y ago
If Facebook no longer find providing a service on that platform to be profitable, they could just stop providing it, or more likely, corner Apple into banning them. I think at that point people might realise that tracking is a form of payment that they have opted out of.