5 ms·

Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. They've forced no tracking. No individual user could EVER hope to achieve that. Fa

Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. They've forced no tracking. No individual user could EVER hope to achieve that. Facebook et al track everywhere else. This made the big player mad. Here comes DOJ to crack down on this "abuse". They force easy subscription cancellations, and remind users on app delete to cancel subs. They control app refunds on scam apps (I've had this once, refund was quick). They are forcing apps to allow for truly private signups (apple ID based). Apple's business model is to create a walled garden that appeals to users tired of the DOJ's and FTC failed efforts on the internet at large. Yes, they charge rent ON THE BUSINESSES that want to play in this garden. Because of the high user trust user spend in this garden is HUGE compared to other platforms. DOJ / FTC could take action on anything online where rampant scams (tech support) and frauds go totally unchecked. No action by DOJ/FTC. Seriously, your grandma will get bogus tech support help, they will loot her account, and you will not even get a call back. Tellingly, DOJ/FTC focus on Apple, a company with FAR higher customer approval than almost any of there folks DOJ is carrying water for (scam shopping comparison sites, scam recurring memberships / subscriptions etc). The idea that apple are "scammers" goes to show how warped the values are of the folks on the internet at large, including developers who consistently enable the many dark patterns. My elderly parents WILL NOT buy anything non apple. When they have a problem with their device, they get legit support (not always free) from apple. Meanwhile, the list of crap behavior by every OTHER player online is crazy, from the "free" email providers (who spam and scam their way with toolbars and add-ins) to all the rest. Seriously, if they were to actually trust DOJ/FTC to keep the net clean, and signed up for another free online service (with the required toolbars etc) they'd be in for another round of crazy pop-ups and pain.

candiddevmike 5y ago
Apple has search ads on the app store that can target demographic information about their users. Where do you think Apple sources that information from? It's the same crap Google does where they collect data but don't share it with other companies. The only difference is Apple hides their probably-anti-trust-worthy user tracking shenanigans behind feel good user measures that block the same tracking for competitors.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  I don't use apple app store ads, this is a relatively tiny exposure in the Apple ecosystem. I just compare this to for example buying the FTC and DOJ approved Vizio TV, which will both monitor what you watch, sell that to third parties, and start popping up ads on the device you bought. Yes, a clickthrough policy gives them the OK to do this, but my trust in them and FTC/DOJ is low. Apple ads as far as I can tell does not do the data broker buy / sell, and you can usually turn this stuff off / on here: Settings > Privacy > Apple Advertising If you want you can easily see the segments you fall into. I know you claim this is the same thing Facebook provides. I doubt it personally.
  - candiddevmike 5y ago
    Let's see what side of the argument Apple lands on when real user data protections are enacted with stiff penalties. Otherwise their entire schtick is "do as I say not as I do". They have the money and political connections to push real change through, they just profit too much by being the sole data broker on iOS (see Google paying them for preferential treatment).
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      Sure. This is an easy prediction. Because they actually CHARGE for their services, including a 30% cut of sales on app store, they don't need to sell you out. So data protection is much less a threat to them then it is to google / facebook et al. The weird thing is folks on HN have a hard-on for destroying Apple, when we know that if regulators ACTUALLY cracked down on a real abuse (Vizio selling your viewing) Apple would be unphased (they probably don't sell any data to third parties) as their ad revenue is a fraction of their overall massive revenue from actual sales.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        > Because they actually CHARGE for their services, including a 30% cut of sales on app store, they don't need to sell you out. It also means they can do both and reap double the profits. Like how they use their position as the exclusive distributor of apps to sell targeted ads to people on the App Store. > The weird thing is folks on HN have a hard-on for destroying Apple The weirder thing is how many folks on HN have a hard-on for defending Apple, despite the fact that they're pretty much the largest company in the world, full-stop. If they're not deserving of criticism for having hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash and hundreds of unsolved problems, I fail to see how the plight of Vizio or Zynga really matters by comparison.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. More accurate to say that the people they're pressuring couldn't be pressured by users because they are themselves network effect-based monopolies. Given a choice between two "Facebook providers," one that does tracking and another that doesn't, nobody would pick the first one when they're otherwise identical. But everybody does when it's the one everybody else is already using and they can't talk to each other. It's the same thing with payment processors. There should be a standard for payment processing and then the buyer gets to choose which payment processor to use of any that implement the standard. If they can choose one that makes cancellations easy, why wouldn't they? We don't need Apple to be doing the things antitrust ought to be doing. Antitrust ought to be doing it.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  The reality is we do, because on the web at large the scams are nonstop. Seriously try to unsubscribe from something. 80% of the time you have to call / reach out to someone (for no reason). Or subscriptions auto-renew PRIOR to payment or notice, and commits for another year (looking at you anydesk and friends). And you can't cancel in advance but have to cancel only in a window 90 days before expiration. If you follow the lawsuits, half the folks in the alliance against apple have been sued for just horrible practices. All the govt seems apple to do is force absolutely insane popups EVERYWHERE that seem to do nothing to stop scams.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    You're describing the effects of bad laws and a lack of competition in the payment processing industry. Here's how it should work: You go to a website and give them your payment info. They initiate a payment request. If this is the first time you've ever paid them, you have 30 days to deny payments to that merchant. They don't get paid until then unless you manually approve them sooner. Then they can make future payment requests and get paid immediately until you revoke them. Subscription scammers get revoked, bye bye subscription scammers. But we don't have working standards for payment processing (a regulatory failure) so we don't have competition and payment services don't offer this feature. Then you want Apple to do it at the cost of 30%, centralization, censorship and other costs we ought not to be paying if we fixed the underlying problems.

candiddevmike 5y ago

Apple has search ads on the app store that can target demographic information about their users. Where do you think Apple sources that information from? It's the same crap Google does where they collect data but don't share it with other companies. The only difference is Apple hides their probably-anti-trust-worthy user tracking shenanigans behind feel good user measures that block the same tracking for competitors.

tempnow987 5y ago
I don't use apple app store ads, this is a relatively tiny exposure in the Apple ecosystem. I just compare this to for example buying the FTC and DOJ approved Vizio TV, which will both monitor what you watch, sell that to third parties, and start popping up ads on the device you bought. Yes, a clickthrough policy gives them the OK to do this, but my trust in them and FTC/DOJ is low. Apple ads as far as I can tell does not do the data broker buy / sell, and you can usually turn this stuff off / on here: Settings > Privacy > Apple Advertising If you want you can easily see the segments you fall into. I know you claim this is the same thing Facebook provides. I doubt it personally.
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  Let's see what side of the argument Apple lands on when real user data protections are enacted with stiff penalties. Otherwise their entire schtick is "do as I say not as I do". They have the money and political connections to push real change through, they just profit too much by being the sole data broker on iOS (see Google paying them for preferential treatment).
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Sure. This is an easy prediction. Because they actually CHARGE for their services, including a 30% cut of sales on app store, they don't need to sell you out. So data protection is much less a threat to them then it is to google / facebook et al. The weird thing is folks on HN have a hard-on for destroying Apple, when we know that if regulators ACTUALLY cracked down on a real abuse (Vizio selling your viewing) Apple would be unphased (they probably don't sell any data to third parties) as their ad revenue is a fraction of their overall massive revenue from actual sales.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > Because they actually CHARGE for their services, including a 30% cut of sales on app store, they don't need to sell you out. It also means they can do both and reap double the profits. Like how they use their position as the exclusive distributor of apps to sell targeted ads to people on the App Store. > The weird thing is folks on HN have a hard-on for destroying Apple The weirder thing is how many folks on HN have a hard-on for defending Apple, despite the fact that they're pretty much the largest company in the world, full-stop. If they're not deserving of criticism for having hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash and hundreds of unsolved problems, I fail to see how the plight of Vizio or Zynga really matters by comparison.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Apple throws a LOT of weight around that users would NEVER be able to force. More accurate to say that the people they're pressuring couldn't be pressured by users because they are themselves network effect-based monopolies. Given a choice between two "Facebook providers," one that does tracking and another that doesn't, nobody would pick the first one when they're otherwise identical. But everybody does when it's the one everybody else is already using and they can't talk to each other. It's the same thing with payment processors. There should be a standard for payment processing and then the buyer gets to choose which payment processor to use of any that implement the standard. If they can choose one that makes cancellations easy, why wouldn't they? We don't need Apple to be doing the things antitrust ought to be doing. Antitrust ought to be doing it.

tempnow987 5y ago
The reality is we do, because on the web at large the scams are nonstop. Seriously try to unsubscribe from something. 80% of the time you have to call / reach out to someone (for no reason). Or subscriptions auto-renew PRIOR to payment or notice, and commits for another year (looking at you anydesk and friends). And you can't cancel in advance but have to cancel only in a window 90 days before expiration. If you follow the lawsuits, half the folks in the alliance against apple have been sued for just horrible practices. All the govt seems apple to do is force absolutely insane popups EVERYWHERE that seem to do nothing to stop scams.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  You're describing the effects of bad laws and a lack of competition in the payment processing industry. Here's how it should work: You go to a website and give them your payment info. They initiate a payment request. If this is the first time you've ever paid them, you have 30 days to deny payments to that merchant. They don't get paid until then unless you manually approve them sooner. Then they can make future payment requests and get paid immediately until you revoke them. Subscription scammers get revoked, bye bye subscription scammers. But we don't have working standards for payment processing (a regulatory failure) so we don't have competition and payment services don't offer this feature. Then you want Apple to do it at the cost of 30%, centralization, censorship and other costs we ought not to be paying if we fixed the underlying problems.