46 ms·

Facebook says Apple is too powerful – they're right

• ginko 4y ago
  Who keeps adding question marks to titles on HN? I understand it's to soften strong statements, but it's clearly the EFF's opinion that they are right, why put words in their mouth? At the very least make it "Are they right?" so it's a correct sentence.
• zeepzeep 4y ago
  weird that Facebook would say that
  • nowherebeen 4y ago
    They are being squeezed by Apple. They are used to be the one squeezing others, not the other way around. Even though Apple stands to gain from this, I am glad they are using their weight take on Facebook.
  • moffkalast 4y ago
    "Takes one to know one"
  • mymilacct 4y ago
    Totally agree. I have adblockers on my browsers (FireFox - uBlock Origin, Safari - 1blocker) and don't remember the last time I saw an ad (even on YouTube). Been years since I last logged on to any Facebook property. Switched to mostly using Safari after iCloud Private Relay came out. Thought I was following good privacy hygiene. Covid lockdown freed up some time to focus on health so started consuming strength training/workout content on YouTube and blogs. Logged into Facebook on my Mac a couple weeks ago to view a family video that a relative forwarded. The first ad I see on my feed is for protein powder. Totally blew my mind! There is no escaping Facebook surveillance.
• mnw21cam 4y ago
  A case of the pot calling the kettle black. It takes one to know one. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
  • nowherebeen 4y ago
    I came here to say the exact same thing.
  • KaiserPro 4y ago
    or the competitions regulators that were setup to stop another standard oil, should have come in a long time ago and sorted out this monopoly. Along with the horrifically shite ISP situation the US has.
  • Hellbanevil 4y ago
  • nirse 4y ago
    Indeed, any debate over who of the two is more powerful doesn't make sense. And the debate about who of the two (or 5 if we want to draw all of FAANG into it) is pointless, as they are powerful in different ways over different domains. And, second, I don't think the article claims that Facebook's power is ok, it just affirms Facebook's claim that Apple is too powerful.
  • runevault 4y ago
    Yup BOTH need to get smacked with the regulation hammer. Not that they will.
• henvic 4y ago
  Apple ascension has to do with satisfying customers' demands. Intervention the way Facebook seems to be promoting is crony capitalism, and is powers of magnitude more powerful than that... and in a very grim way.
  • ig-88ms 4y ago
    Apple's success lies in forcing customers to stay and do as they're told. Come hell or high water.
    • samwillis 4y ago
      Apple’s success lies in creating the best ecosystem of products that work together. The individual products may not be best on the market at times, but by buying into the system as an individual or family, you gain access to the based collaborative ecosystem of products that work together. That’s why they have the market dominance across such a broad range of products. No one else come close.
      • ig-88ms 4y ago
• henvic 4y ago
  So what?
  • rglullis 4y ago
    Every corporation that gets too much unchecked power will eventually abuse it. Why should Apple get a free pass?
    • ig-88ms 4y ago
      We'll because Apple is a way of life. A religion. Religions aren't bad, are they?
  • jraph 4y ago
    So, Apple wants to control what people can run on their devices and Facebook wants to track their users. Both are right about the other on these topics. As soon as Apple allows / is forced to allow other app stores, if ever, Facebook might tell their users "for the full experience, install Facebook from this alternative app store that allows tracking". It seems to me there's no good ending for this story. The choice for me is obvious and simple. Avoid both of these companies.
• samwillis 4y ago
  Both Apple and Google have successfully “owned the platform” they rely on for revenue, Google with Chrome, Apple with iOS. Facebook have tried but never succeeded in owning the platform, it’s the biggest risk to their position. Their strategy to owning the platform now seems to me not to be “owning” the legislative and political platform through lobbying. If they can’t own the OS/Browser they are running on, then they want to “own” the legislation that governs it. If your competitors own the platform better to leapfrog them and attempt to gain control though lobbying for legislative limitations. Having your no2/3 in the company being a former Deputy British Prime Minister, only shows how important the political and legislative situation is to the long term stability of them as a company.
  • oblio 4y ago
    > Google with Chrome Or, you know, Android.
    • samwillis 4y ago
      Quite right, where I live, among the people I know, Apple have maybe 95% of the market. That’s obviously not true globally or even nationally (I’m in the UK). But it does lead to carelessly forgetting the size of the Android market share globally some times. Thanks for the nudge!
      • oblio 4y ago
        Let me guess, 95% of the people around you also have Apple laptops? :-)
        • samwillis 4y ago
          Strangely, I have no idea. I work from home (and have for 10 years) and so the only other person I regularly see using a laptop is my wife, who does use a MacBook... so 100% of people around me use a MacBook...
      • whimsicalism 4y ago
• ig-88ms 4y ago
  Apple is way too powerful. Not that Facebook is any better, but Facebook is not the gatekeeper for millions of peoples lives. When Apple boots you as a customer, you most likely will lose everything about your digital life. If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but recoverable. Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your photos, your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment methods. And you can backup nothing of it in a usable way. Without a working Apple account any iPhone is as good as a brick.
  • beachy 4y ago
    Apple doesn't harm your mental health or facilitate threats to democracy though. They just want your money, and they'll sell you beautiful gadgets to get it.
    • rglullis 4y ago
      "Brave New World" is also a dystopia. The more unchecked power Apple gets and the more Apple zealots think that it is okay, the closer we get to live in it.
  • 988747 4y ago
    Apple is not in control of your credit cards - it just allows you to use them more conveniently. And for photos and music, and even passwords there are alternative services, no one forces you to use Apple provided ones.
    • moonchrome 4y ago
      > Apple is not in control of your credit cards Maybe OP was referring to https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ ? > And for photos and music, and even passwords there are alternative services, no one forces you to use Apple provided ones. Apple has a real tight lockdown on what gets published to iOS devices and ships defaults built to the OS so I don't really buy this argument. Microsoft got punished for way less back in the day (eg. IE bundling vs being forced to use webkit for your rendering engine...)
• carlycue 4y ago
  The iPhone is unironically the greatest product in human history. It's the most important piece of belonging in a persons life and it's the last thing they'll give up. They can be one misstep away from homelessness but they still buy a new iPhone. This gives Apple an incredible amount of power. The iPhone has built up a ton of goodwill that extends to everything Apple sells.
  • V-2 4y ago
    That strikes me as a very US-centric point of view.
    • moffkalast 4y ago
      Very much so, Apple market share: - US: 51% - EU: 30% - Asia: 17% I suppose that makes sense since it's the main local manufacturer, whereas in Korea that would be Samsung with a whopping share of 65%. Apple would probably be way higher in the US if they didn't make overpriced closed-ecosystem stuff.
  • capableweb 4y ago
    > The iPhone is unironically the greatest product in human history Which "products" are you comparing iPhone to that makes you believe it's the greatest product in human history? Granted, human history is not that long in perspective, but I can think of countless of other things that are "greater", so curious what your perspective is on this.
  • arethuza 4y ago
    "It's the most important piece of belonging in a persons life" I'm a long term Apple user and but I think this is rather overstating things - do people really feel so strongly attached to what is, after all, a manufacturer of rather nifty gadgets, not a way of life.
  • ecmascript 4y ago
    lol, I think plumbing is the greatest product in the human history. It prevents us from getting sick and die, which is way more important than a slightly better mobile phone.
• submeta 4y ago
  In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology of the masses have been negatively effected. So them being in a strong position harms society and individuals alike. - In the case of Apple we are talking about a company that dominates a market and harms its competitors and has the power to be the gatekeeper. Yes, that‘s power that should be limited, but it‘s a company that produces goods that their customers love. I don‘t see any harm in their products and services at all. Au contraire.
  • rglullis 4y ago
    A golden cage is still a cage. No matter how comfortable they make your life, we can not look only at the services they provide, we need to also look at the restrictions they impose.
    • Gigachad 4y ago
      The iPhone is like a service. I don’t see a restaurant as a cage because I didn’t control exactly how my food is made. I don’t want to deal with that, I want to build trust with a business and get the service I want. When I stop getting satisfactory service, I pick a different business.
      • rglullis 4y ago
        In your scenario, Apple is not a restaurant. Apple is the tomato farmer that makes perfectly genetically engineered red tomatoes, with extra vitamins and whose yield is unmatched by any other. It seems great, until you realize that all restaurants end up buying from them and after some years they put all other farmers out of business and you have no other choice in the market. Now they can charge whatever they want, and if you are a cook who would like to use some different variety of tomato, you are kindly told to get lost. Also, we all have to spend the rest of your lives praying that there is no new disease that can come up and affect the tomatoes sold by them.
  • sgregnt 4y ago
    > In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology of the masses have been negatively effected. In my opinion facebook is very beneficial to society, so I find it strange that such a strong negative claim, stated as a fact, yet only a matter of personal opinion is left unchallenged.
• drawingthesun 4y ago
  Powerful company complains competition is too powerful, needs regulators to take sides. The issue of wether or not tech companies are too powerful should be one of "The People" vs these companies and we collectively decide what should be and should not be allowed. Facebook's only interest is reducing any competitors power as much as possible and whilst their argument might have a point, they might not have a point. This discussion needs to happen and if necessary laws changed but I feel Facebook spearheading this weakens the points made due to their clear conflict of interest. We as a society need to decide if the benefit of these large tech companies in their current state is truly worth the societal cost. Facebook being involved in such a fundamental discussion dilutes its importance. Also funny Facebook calling out another company as too powerful when they have one of the largest databases of personal information that has ever existed. Arguably much larger than the personal information Apple has collected on the world’s population.
• Hard_Space 4y ago
  I'm guessing that the sub-editor, inspired by legal, added the question-mark at the end of this headline. To everyone pointing out the hypocrisy, please read the whole article. The balance of blame and level of mutual hypocrisy is established pretty early, and reiterated throughout.
  • sprayk 4y ago
    The '?' was removed from the title some time in the past 6h, making "They're right" much stronger. Why do you think the '?' would be "inspired by legal"?
• alexb_ 4y ago
  It's worth mentioning the case of tumblr - a giant social media company that was literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. People remember the whole "wow, tumblr was so stupid for banning porn" but forget that the reason they did so was because Apple threatened to remove all of their users from tumblr if they didn't. Apple gave tumblr unreasonable "safety standards" that almost single-handedly killed a gigantic site for the vast majority of users. Apple should not have this type of power. Maybe they used it for good with Facebook, but I wouldn't count on it always being the case. Apple can kill entire social media platforms if they want to. IMO, it's a matter of time before they start charging an "adult tax" (that just so happens to be barely below the profits a company makes from adult content via Apple users). Maybe the only thing preventing them from doing so is regulatory pressure.
  • kmlx 4y ago
    > Apple should not have this type of power. wait a minute, that's only because Tumblr wanted to be on the App Store. they've could've just as easily provided a web app and easily instructed their users to have a link on the ios home screen. but they wanted to be on the App Store, so of course they had to follow Apple's rules.
    • majani 4y ago
      And for Tumblr (and most apps out there), they took on on all this headache just for some push notifications and fancy animations. They clearly didn't do their cost-benefit analysis when deciding to make their app
    • christkv 4y ago
      They could have just enforced a age limit on the app instead and let the platform decide if they were ok with 18+ or not
      • Mindwipe 4y ago
        No, they couldn't. Multiple developers have said that Apple did not consider this acceptable. The Apple app review team is capricious and does not follow their own published guidelines, and that is not news. This was also an issue with Discord - Discord still doesn't (by Apple didact) permit some servers with adult content in the iOS app, because Apple said there was no way to do so and remain in the store.
• jakey_bakey 4y ago
  The worst person you know just made a great point.
• bilekas 4y ago
  > the company’s executives, project managers and engineers frankly discuss plans to design Facebook’s services so that users who leave for a rival pay as high a price as possible Serious question: What are some of the rivals of FB these days ? As for Apple, at least there are other, in many cases more powerful, mobile devices available, making the jump to Android from Apple isn't the big learning curve it once was. From a users perspective it's not that big of a deal usually. From a developers point of view - there is a discussion Apple need to consider around how much they gatekeep developers. Anyone who's developed for the AppStore knows the pain. And to add on top of that extremely high fees, it's a wonder there are any 'indie' / smaller developers at all.
  • ohlookcake 4y ago
    Tiktok, Snapchat, Twitter - all to varying degrees. More in other aspects of Meta's businesses
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • whimsicalism 4y ago
    > What are some of the rivals of FB these days ? Google, other major ad exchanges. Consumer facing: Tiktok, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn
• prmoustache 4y ago
  I personnally feel that Facebook is way too powerful. I don't want to use whatsapp, I could use any other messaging app and I'd rather use something open that is decentralized. But nowadays if you have to work with small business, it is either inconvenient by phone, or text based through whatsapp, many have abandonned the email (I can understand why). If you have kids, all the associative world use whatsapp by default to keep track of all the details about your kids activities/training/competitions. Nobody update their basketball club web page anymore. Heck, they don't even update or post on their facebook page, all his done on messy whatsapp groups these days. If you refuse to use whatsapp you can just tell your kids no more sports in a club for you. If you have remote friends and you stop using whatsapp, you can still call them once in a while but good luck convincing them to call you on a regular basis. Some may do but most won't. People have forgotten what a written letter or a regular non video phone call was. It is not that you count less than their other relatives, but they will reach other people so easily you will just disappear from their life natuarally and gradually if you are too far away. It is either you swallow it or you live like with only a tiny and very local social life.
  • prmoustache 4y ago
    Maybe argument if you are downvoting?
    • tcfhgj 4y ago
      They don't need to, because they can just push you out of the line of sight without bothering
    • zamalek 4y ago
      > Please don't comment on voting about comments. It makes for boring reading.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • smoldesu 4y ago
    The same thing could be said about Apple though, which is why both of these companies deserve to be heavily regulated. I don't understand why people have to take sides here: both Apple and Facebook are horrible companies who don't care about (You), the end-user. It shocks me to see how many people are taking bullets for either company in this thread.
• jleyank 4y ago
  Log out of iCloud and see what does or does not work. Find alternative services for what broke, such as iMessage, and keep going without strong apple control. As others have said, use web pages rather than apps. Or get an android phone. Or a flip phone if you don’t like google either. Nobody in the smartphone ecosystem is on your side. They see all your packets, they monitor your web usage, they track your movements, …. Some sell hardware and they all “provide services” that exist to scrape data and sell ads.
  • kevincox 4y ago
    Can you even install apps without being signed in? Certainly not purchased ones.
    • jleyank 4y ago
      Apple store account required, which is different than iCloud. I thought you have to have a store account for any phone from any vendor? Don’t have to use their services though. This level of control is why people have gone back to (or never left) flip phones. All you really need is a web browser and a phone and I thought both could,e with all smartphones?
      • kevincox 4y ago
        You need a Google account to install from the Play Store, but you can also directly install apps or use stores that don't require an account (like f-droid) or use stores that use different accounts (Amazon, Samsung).
• faangiq 4y ago
  Facebook is one of the most objectively evil companies on earth. So they can f right off.
  • whimsicalism 4y ago
    This is a common sentiment in the anti-FB media blitz era, but I find that people have wildly different (and often conflicting) reasons they think FB is evil. What is yours?
• kareemsabri 4y ago
  Yes, you should be able to install any app you want, there should be many app stores, and the 30% cut should be more like 3%.
  • ben_w 4y ago
    I think it’s possible to make other App Stores work, but they need to be regulated. Some of the things which 3rd party developers complain about Apple requiring are basically "comply with GDPR and no you can’t spam popups to try and bore people into assenting that’s not even allowed by GDPR". Without Apple gatekeeping, I think dark patterns would be the first thing to go wrong. The "no adult content" rule seems very weird given that web browsers exist, even though I can understand why they would want to project a “family friendly” corporate image. That said, I am aware that my Overton window isn’t going to match America: I live in Berlin, and the spinning billboards here sometimes put erotic massage between family dentists and car repairs. But such things varying by county is still a good reason to have multiple stores with different rules, not just multiple availability zones for the same store. The encryption rules… well, that’s a USA export requirement, even when neither the developer nor any of the end users is in America, and while I can easily see why the US wants to require it, that’s not going to be acceptable to other governments in the long term. I can easily believe that the EU would demand an EU App Store that has an equivalent requirement but reporting to the EU instead of to the USA, and so on. That said, the fees structure is likely to be massively complicated by all this. The payment processing fee may be 3% (last time I looked was when Kagi was a payment processor and not a search engine), but the 15/30% that Apple (and on Android, that Google takes even though Android does allow other app stores) charges, also covers free use of iCloud databases, makes Xcode a free download, and likely helps pay for the development of the iOS/iPadOS/watchOS family the same way the same fees on the Play Store probably help develop Android.
    • kareemsabri 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm not saying it would be simple or even that the experience in alternative app stores / apps wouldn't be much worse. I expect it would be worse. I just think if I buy a phone I should be able to run what I want on it, without unreasonable impediment. I appreciate the App Store, app review and the relative thoroughness of it (though it hasn't really scaled) and am not suggesting they abandon it. There's room to quibble with my 3% number, but it can't stay 30%, that seems obvious at this point. I disagree that the 30% charge is what makes Apple able to provide those free things. I pay for my Apple Developer Account annually, so while XCode is free to download, distributing my app is not. Apple's hundreds of billions in idle cash to the point where they are flirting with becoming a bank also begs to differ that these fees are necessary to keep the App Store affordable. It's a very profitable business, and I don't begrudge them wanting to keep it, but I would support pressure to reduce fees.
• alfor 4y ago
  I just ’fixed’ a iMac that had half of the internet not working on it. The reason: Apple stopped updating it, a certificate on it had expired making half of websites blocked by Chrome. The hardware is still working fine, but Apple want to retired it’s own hardware so they can sell more.
• hericium 4y ago
  Powers Apple should not, in my opinion, have are: - slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can afford new phone every year or two - forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, against the customer - blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the newest one crashes at the very end) - pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will remember Tim Cook for the most. Jobs was not ideal but he had drive and imagination. The company he largely participated in building was something different than your usual corporation. Cook is just an unimaginative pencil pusher.
  • ig-88ms 4y ago
    Jobs was a fucking monster, but people got brainwashed to love him.
    • jansan 4y ago
      Or as James Gosling put it: "He was a jerk." https://youtu.be/IT__Nrr3PNI?t=3115 https://youtu.be/IT__Nrr3PNI?t=3115
    • dehrmann 4y ago
      He was a brilliant asshole. He's like Elon Musk, but with focus and maturity.
    • KerrAvon 4y ago
      You really need to get some perspective if you think Steve Jobs was the biggest asshole of the last 40 years.
  • Gigachad 4y ago
• tcfhgj 4y ago
  Yes, it is, and so is Facebook
• SilverBirch 4y ago
  I just... don't see why you would frame an argument in this way? Are there problems with the way Apple operates? Sure. They've made some trade offs and some business decisions that I disagree with but often I can see the logic. There is value to having a single App store controlled by Apple. There are also downsides, and pretty much the only reason that it's a serious problem is that Apple's products are so great that there's very little competition. That's about the long and short of it. Apple has no control over which Apps you run. It has total control over which Apps you run on an iPhone. Which you know when you buy the phone. I'm as much of a hostage to Apple as I am a hostage to my local pub in terms of which Beers they have on tap. I knew that when I walked into the pub. You know what isn't helpful in discussing these issues, framing the entire argument around a malign competitor of Apple. This article does a great job of presenting the arguments against Apple in the least helpful way possible.
  • Mindwipe 4y ago
    > That's about the long and short of it. Apple has no control over which Apps you run. It has total control over which Apps you run on an iPhone. Which you know when you buy the phone. I'm as much of a hostage to Apple as I am a hostage to my local pub in terms of which Beers they have on tap. I knew that when I walked into the pub. This isn't true, because Apple's influence means that developers on other platforms based on Apple's requirements because moderating in different fashions depending on reception device is basically impossible. Lots of social networks actively discriminate against groups in society due to the Apple App Store terms across the entire service, and have for years.
  • howinteresting 4y ago
    Imagine if your bar was instead a chain of bars, and they didn't stock (for example) Belgian ales, and they were so powerful a bunch of Belgian ale makers have gone out of business due to that decision. That's a more accurate analogy.
• simondotau 4y ago
  It's a good article in many respects, but its logic unwittingly falls down when they try to have it both ways, advocating for an outcome that is functionally impossible. From the article— "It’s great when Apple chooses to defend your privacy. Indeed, you should demand nothing less. But if Apple chooses not to defend your privacy, you should have the right to override the company’s choice. Facebook spied on iOS users for more than a decade before App Tracking Transparency, after all." The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code. It's not an API or operating system feature which shields users against tracking. Enforcement is purely the threat of retribution by Apple, made legal by the terms of the agreement which all developers sign. Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution means that a wilful breach of Apple's privacy policies is a dangerous path for any developer to take. I cannot see any plausible scenario where an Apple made impotent through legislation could possibly result in a net gain of privacy control for consumers. And even if there is a better way, how about we get that working BEFORE tearing down the current imperfect system? That paragraph is a layer cake of wishful thinking. How does the EFF propose to enforce a consumer right to override Apple's choices over privacy within iOS? This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, eliding reality on so many levels. The notion of consumers self-policing their own privacy is a nice sentiment, but as an idea that must be implemented in reality... rather optimistic.
  • Jcowell 4y ago
    Exactly. The US needs strong, sensible, strict privacy laws before they pass legislation that would be detrimental to millions of Apple consumers who bought the iPhone for Apple’s monopoly.
    • corrral 4y ago
      Yep. Buying iDevices is the libertarian dream of buying into private regulatory environments. I hate it, but it's the best we have until/unless government improves our terribly weak consumer protection & privacy laws. I really hope the option's not taken away, nor Apple's position as a regulator significantly weakened, until/unless government steps in and solves the problems Apple's currently solving. At that point, sure, break them up, ban app store platform monopolies, whatever, fine, go for it. But please not yet.
• hnplj 4y ago
• Tycho 4y ago
  Selling your user information/attention for ad revenue is quite a scummy business model when it comes down to it. I quite enjoy the fact that Apple could pull the plug on Google, FB etc. any time it wanted to by announcing steps to make their devices “ad free.” Apple makes its money selling hardware and software and content, they have no need for ads. They basically have a gun to the head of the internet companies.
  • cloutchaser 4y ago
    Wrong. The rules apple is forcing on Facebook are not something it itself will obey. Apple is PR-ing privacy yet its own ad network will have access to vastly more data than FB. It's all a con, to make more apple profits. Its nothing to do with protecting your data, its about storing it with Apple not Facebook.
• parkingrift 4y ago
  On one hand we have Facebook. A company with billions of users that is routinely used to destabilize democracy and spread propaganda. On the other hand we have Apple. A company with a 14% market share in the mobile market that has restricted Facebooks ability to track users outside of Facebook. For the good of Facebook, Apple must be stopped. -Putin, probably.
  • splistud 4y ago
  • whimsicalism 4y ago
    Is it Facebook you don't like or the ability for billions of people to communicate with each other without an intermediary you dislike? When I hear people criticize FB for "destabilizing democracy" or "spreading propaganda" what I generally hear is: "Having ordinary people able to communicate to each other without review by media &/or government is dangerous for our society." Can you distinguish your critique from that?
    • parkingrift 4y ago
      WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram are places for people to communicate without review. Facebook is a place for a corporation to decide what you see, regardless of the impact on society. Maximum engagement at all costs. I would be happy to see Facebook revert to their original feed which only showed you content from your direct friends and in reverse chronological order. Facebook is indistinguishable from opinion journalism but they’re allowed to masquerade as a social media site to avoid being treated as the news publisher they undeniably act as.
      • whimsicalism 4y ago
        > A company with billions of users that is routinely used to destabilize democracy and spread propaganda. People criticize Whatsapp for this same thing even though it is merely messaging. Whatsapp is owned by FB. But okay, your problem is with the algorithmic feed - that is a good distinction. I will say that there seems to be substantial consumer appetite for algo feed given the success of TikTok. It also seems natural to me that they would want to maximize engagement - this is a proxy for the value that the user gets out of the platform.
• lizknope 4y ago
  I like my iPhone. I've got nothing against Macs but I prefer Linux/x86. Facebook can die in a fire and the world would be better off. I was barely using my account before and I deleted it 4 years ago after all the Cabridge Analytica stuff came out. I haven't missed it at all. In fact I think my mental health improved.
  • AlexandrB 4y ago
    I agree. Apple might need some regulatory action, but Facebook just needs to go away.
  • leodriesch 4y ago
    That’s the thing with iOS, I feel like it is really built around the user and what the user wants. Less so around what companies want. Users love the product so it grew it’s enormous userbase to what it is today. Companies have to comply to the restrictions that Apple imposes on them, because they can’t miss out on the userbase as their customer. As a user I can’t really think of any guidelines that I’d want to be changed or doors to be opened, I feel like it’s mostly non-users or companies requesting them.
    • whimsicalism 4y ago
      I want to be able to use iMessage with Android users. Apple doesn't want me to do that. It is not "built around ... what the user wants."
  • misiti3780 4y ago
    I feel the same way, deleted my account about 5 years ago and dont miss a thing.
  • fumblebee 4y ago
    This x100. Sure, Apple have a disproportionally large power that should be acknowledged and stifled sensibly by regulators, but man do they create truly beautiful products that make my life better in myriad ways. Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill societal outcomes. It's exhausting (pun intended), and I've certainly felt my mental health crack slightly under the burden of some of their products (not WhatsApp, which is fantastic and I hope isn't integrated further into their ecosystem from a user perspective).
• blurrybird 4y ago
  Ok so what happens when I choose iOS for myself and my closest family members specifically because of its inability for someone to coax you into installing a dodgy app? If 3rd party app stores are introduced it’ll just create fragmentation, a race to the bottom on App Store commissions, and significantly reduce the quality and quantity of apps available on the 1st party store - which I would very much prefer to stay locked in to. This scenario creates more problems than it solves.
• mark_l_watson 4y ago
  I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this article. As a consumer, I like Apple’s App Store. In general I don’t like 3rd party apps and prefer web apps but when I do install a 3rd party app I feel that I am not loading malware. Also, when I buy books, audiobooks, and movies from Google Play I don’t mind buying from a web site and then having the content available from the apps. I would like to see maximum support for web apps for too many reasons to list here. Apple should do better. I also don’t like Apple not holding themselves to the same privacy standards as other companies and platforms. One thing that irritates me is not having easy access to books and movies bought from Apple on my Chromebook. I should re-check this, but except for going through the iCloud.com web portal, I am stuck. BTW, there is so much I like about the Chromebook model, especially because of built-in Linux containers. Apple is definitely a compromise, at least in my opinion.
  • seabriez 4y ago
    Apple is not compromise of anything. It's a company that is evil, but only isn't yet because it didnt win in all the market segments. But as soon as it gains majority share they will fuckover all their customers, because they are evil and they can. iPhone is already a hell hole from a lockin and customer freedom perspective.
• Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Yes, they're 100% right. We should put all entities that hold monopoly or oligopoly power over someone's daily life, access to essential services, or access to their social graph under democratic control. After apple and google, facebook can be next on the list.
• LightG 4y ago
  Translation: "Apple has the power to materially impact our business in a one-on-one competition" True. Good. It's called competition and strategic positioning. I'm willing to entertain that Apple have too much power. But to hear this coming from Facebook? * throws complaint out * * case dismissed *
  • bee_rider 4y ago
    This article was written by somebody at the EFF. They are pointing out that, while Facebook is basically bad, they have some point in this situation. I think it is a sensible take. Facebook is basically rotten to the core. Apple engages in lots of not-so-great behavior. If Apple had some non-evil competition, I'm sure we'd be less forgiving of them.
• annoyingnoob 4y ago
  I'll take Apple over advertising rapists like Facebook any day. Advertising the data scraping that goes with it are way out of hand, and far too intrusive. You don't need to track and sell every aspect of everything I ever do in life.
• sprayk 4y ago
  the '?' is not present in the title of the linked article. please remove it from the title. From the guidelines[0]: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." EDIT: looking through older comments, it sounds like it originally had a '?' that they later replaced with a '.' . [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• s3p 4y ago
  >...and one of the solutions they’ve proposed is to order Apple to carry apps it doesn’t like in its App Store. This isn’t how we’d do it. There are lots of ways that forcing Apple to publish software it objects to can go wrong. The US government has an ugly habit of ordering Apple to sabotage the encryption its users depend on. > But Apple also sometimes decides to sabotage its encryption, in ways that expose its customers to terrible risk. Somewhat tangential note but this level of nuance in an article is just confusing. Why are they presenting an entire new argument (in the second quote) to refute the premise of their basis for rejecting the previous one? They dump this argument and move on to a completely unrelated point in the next paragraph, which frustrates me. Also, the second quote has "sabotage its encryption" and "expose its customers to terrible risk" as hyperlinks, meaning they are linking to entire write ups of why they believe this. I'm sure there is merit to the point, but why briefly mention such a bombshell point as an offhand comment in this article? Makes it much harder to read-- I feel like my attention is being pulled in a lot of different directions.
• matwood 4y ago
  The point is big tech has too much power. Apple, Facebook, Google all have too much power. Unfortunately the US government can't pass any reasonable laws around technology so we end up relying on these companies with too much power to be (hopefully) a positive for the users. It's different for everyone, but for me in order of trust its Apple, Google, and FB is a distant distant last with almost anyone else you throw in there.
  • randoglando 4y ago
    Why do you choose that order?
    • HWR_14 4y ago
      Do you not order them that way? That's my assumed ranking of trust.
    • hutzlibu 4y ago
      Apple has some incentive to protect its users, as they are real customers. Google is at least clear, that they will suck in any data, they can get. But most of their clients are rather the product and not customers. And Zuckerberg has literally stated his disrespect for his users from the very beginning. "Dumb fucks to trust him".
      • bogwog 4y ago
        Yeah Facebook and Google are both in the same business of sucking up as much data as possible, but Zuckerberg has consistently proven himself to be a menace to society.
    • babypuncher 4y ago
      Not the original commentor but I have the same order. For me it boils down to these companies' business models. Google and Facebook make their money by providing a free service and selling access to the data of their users. In that sense, I am not their customer, but rather their product, being sold to advertisers. My use of Google and Facebook services mostly boils down to a lack of viable alternatives, because nobody can really compete with "free" on the scale these players operate at. Apple's business model is very different. Apple makes their money by selling me hardware, and access to their ecosystem through that hardware. I am the customer, not the product, and that is reflected in how Apple treats their users. Apple are big fans of creating vendor lock-in with a walled-garden approach to their ecosystem, but they also know that they only get away with this as long as their customers are satisfied enough not to look for alternatives. So while I do not find this arrangement ideal, I do find it considerably more honest and palatable than what Facebook is offering.
• jackallis 4y ago
  this borderline appears to be "thief calling another theif, theif".
• ArrayBoundCheck 4y ago
  Right or wrong, when it comes from fb I don't care. Meta has 0 credibility to me
• holoduke 4y ago
  These statements true or false are only said by companies in decline. Meta/Facebook is dying. And they know it. A new player lures around the corner to become the new dominator of social networks
  • whimsicalism 4y ago
    In what world are they dying?
• danschumann 4y ago
  how is there not a decentralized social network yet? Maybe a similar interface, like the main operating system, and maybe multiple 3rd parties hosts, but something like wordpress for social networks... like if everyone's facebook page were merely hosted on their own server ( or they paid a 3rd party a couple bucks a month ). Then, no more ads, and we get more of the geocities guestbook appeal.
• fritigern 4y ago
  I can't believe I'm saying this, but Facebook is right. Apple should be given a massive punitive fine for preventing app sideloading. This is disgusting anti-competitive behaviour.
• 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  “Ask app not to track” is great. Any solution to apple’s power that means this privacy improvement couldn’t have happened is a bad solution. That’s the issue here. The only way to defeat network effects (like facebook’s surveillance) is with other network effects (like apple’s app store). To be clear, I’d love a less powerful apple, but it has to be a solution that can still lead to users actual wants overriding a behemoth like facebook. I don’t know if that’s asking to have my cake and eat it too.
• bastardoperator 4y ago
  I'm feeling good about seeing the demise of Facebook in my lifetime.
• anonymousiam 4y ago
  Nice to see an EFF article here. I'd like to point out that they are a wonderful non-profit organization that supports digital rights, and you can donate to their cause here: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-m--h https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-m--h I've been a "member" myself for over 10 years.
• mattanimation 4y ago
  Remember when Apple killed Flash?
• baskethead 4y ago
  It's Facebook's job to convince users that allowing access to the data is worth it to the users. It's not Apple's obligation to give free reign to companies to their users' data. Their obligation is to their users and I'm happy that they decided to do it. Facebook should instead spend more money and more effort to entice users to give this data that they used to get for free. To say that Apple has too much power is ridiculous. Apple and Facebook are orthogonal to each other in terms of markets so it's not even an anti-trust issue, it affects all companies that were used to this free data.
• DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
  I don't feel Apple's "power"... I use an iPhone and Macbook Pro right now, but I could ditch them just like I did a few years ago when Macbook Pro was junk. I went to a LG Gram laptop, linux desktop (others could go to Windows and the wide variety of hardware available). I'm in Apple's ecosystem because I prefer to be, not because I have to. Same with mobile phones - could switch to Android. I appreciate they don't get along with the FaceBook and FBI.
  • spaced-out 4y ago
    The counter-argument people will make, which I'm not sure if I agree with or not, is that regardless of what Apple's customers want, one company having that much power over its own ecosystem is bad for the market as a whole.
    • DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
      Apple should be able run it's ecosystem however they like, I just need to be able to leave when I want to. No Berlin Wall situations.
  • sneak 4y ago
    Apple gets along very well with the FBI. That whole "we won't unlock the phone" thing was simple marketing, which you (and many others) fell for. Apple preserves a backdoor in the end to end encryption of iMessage at the FBI's behest. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
• tannhaeuser 4y ago
  It's really pathetic to see EFF side with the likes of Fb and Zuckerberg. They seem like a one-trick-pony only caring about vintage software licenses, everything else be damned, like compensation for F/OSS developers and artists, innovation, developers sick of giving "cloud providers" tools for mass surveillance and monopolization (and for free), and focusing on open standards as opposed to open-source implementations. They should wake up to the world they themselves and their attitudes and outdated pseudo-socialist dogma have created in the first place, or make place for younger people to care about problems we have today.
• spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Bring back meaningful antitrust regulation. No FAANG left behind.
• ec109685 4y ago
  This point is wrong: “Nearly all iOS users opted out of tracking” It’s 86%, not 96% as mentioned in the linked article: https://www.flurry.com/blog/ios-14-5-opt-in-rate-att-restricted-app-tracking-transparency-worldwide-us-daily-latest-update/ https://www.flurry.com/blog/ios-14-5-opt-in-rate-att-restric...
• r00fus 4y ago
  I can listen to nothing that Facebook says without wondering how it benefits Facebook. They may be correct, but their credibility is negative in my opinion.
• 1970-01-01 4y ago
  "Oho!" said the pot to the kettle; "You are dirty and ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, Except when you're given a crack." "Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot; "'Tis your own dirty image you see; For I am so clean – without blemish or blot – That your blackness is mirrored in me."
• a-dub 4y ago
  it seems to me like the obviously correct policy intervention would be to legislate a reduction in switching costs/friction across the industry, as that is literally a cornerstone of how free markets are supposed to work. that said, easier said than done... but at least the ideal we should probably be striving for.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > it seems to me like the obviously correct policy intervention would be to legislate a reduction in switching costs/friction across the industry, That's not a policy intervention, that's a potential goal of a policy intervention.
    • a-dub 4y ago
      thanks. can you recommend a good introduction to policy terms and associated wonkery for computer types? ... like some kind of policy in a nutshell ora book?
• _abox 4y ago
  The problem they have is not that Apple is too powerful. It's that they're more powerful than Facebook in this case. Though I totally agree that Apple is not the privacy deity they claim to be, it's funny hearing complaints from Facebook which is far worse. It says several times that Facebook is totally right. Which is true but it ignores the bigger picture here. Facebook is by far the worst actor out of the two and their arguments are total hypocrisy. I also don't like their approach around do not track which aimed at trying to find a middle ground between us and the advertisers that have been abusing our privacy for years. For me it's gone far beyond collaboration and trust. I don't think anything will come from this.
• dTal 4y ago
  Another HN title weirdly editorialized to have a question mark. What is this?
• whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  Think few people realize how bad the Apple situation is. If your company just ships like an iOS app and an Android app maybe you don't really notice or maybe don't care. But work at a company where you try to build something like new hardware devices or systems without having to resort to building either an iOS app or handing over 30% to Apple and the situation becomes very worrying to dire. Simple things suddenly become impossible or have workarounds piled on top to get their browser to function in the ways their desktop one does or Android's browser does. You can feel some of their engineering choices are actively hostile against anyone trying to exist outside the App Store ecosystem. Sure I know some advocates push this as a good thing but I think they'll disagree when the endgame plays out. Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. There is a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the iPad feel more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like iPadOS. I used to be a huge Apple advocate but I'm really worried with where they're heading as I'm trying to create new technology and Apple causes so much pain when you try to make anything other than an iOS app. I do love my M1 MBP, have a lot less love for my iPhone these days but I'm worried where the tide is moving. It's all absolutely fine, until it isn't and then the problem is it's completely locked down from the touch screen to the silicon...
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    They were a great company that had the misfortune of making a shitload of money that now overrides everything else.
    • hirvi74 4y ago
      It's a progression as old as time, is it not? This can be applied to so many other companies and even people in general. What's the saying? Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain?
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Sort of. As an example I'm talking about Skyrim making $450m-$620m over 11 years and Fortnite making $3.7b in one year.
• kderbyma 4y ago
  they are both too powerful....
• tomp 4y ago
  Cry me a river. Facebook was banning people for suggesting that the "lab leak" COVID theory has merit. It was recently endorsed by the WHO. A taste of their own medicine. Hopefully they choke and die (the company, not the people).
  • cloogshicer 4y ago
    This is because people (even in communities like HN here) are asking for this kind of censorship (guised as "combatting misinformation"). In my opinion, social networks should only censor what is illegal, where ordered by a judge, and leave everything else alone. Otherwise we have private entities like Facebook making these kinds of decisions for us - why would anyone want that?
• api 4y ago
  Facebook doesn't want Apple cut down to size for you. They want them cut down to size so they can get around their privacy controls to spy on you.
• quantum_state 4y ago
  Meta should try to balance with its own mobile platform: devices, OS, app & dev ecosystem, etc.
• cynusx 4y ago
  Facebook is such a misunderstood company, I really wonder when and how they are going to communicate what they actually do to a sea of people who think they "spy" and "sell" data rather than guarding data religiously and enabling advertisers to feed data back to them so their ad placement algorithms can optimize for results that their clients tell them to look for. I guess highly personalized ads are too scary to see
  • nicce 4y ago
    Its not the ads only - there is huge power over people when they can’t sort their feed and instead all they see is forced by an algoritm. It shapes people. Similarly how they recommend groups and people.
    • frozencell 4y ago
      They could have made the world a better place clearly. I guess when your father is a chirurgian, it's harder to have empathy for other people.
  • bamboozled 4y ago
    Yeah right, what about when I'm an unwilling participating, being tracked because I visit a web page with a Facebook pixel on it? Give me a break please...
• jti107 4y ago
  they're a private company, i don't see why they can't dictate the rules for their platform/app store. facebook essentially will do the same thing with their occulus store once they gain enough market share to dominate. physical stores like target and walmart use their pricing power all the time. the issue seems to be companies like capitalism when its working in their favor but complain and ask for regulation when they dont have the upper hand. the first step would be introduce rules that limits the amount on money going into politics and then change rules that encourages competition and stifle monopolies. which is fundamentally very difficult to do in a globalized free market capitalistic economy.
• ubermonkey 4y ago
  It's not a super convincing argument. iOS is a closed, walled-garden platform. This is by design. It is also, however, a minority player in mobile computing. As long as there remain other platform options -- MacOS, Windows, Linux, Android -- those who WANT a different experience have many other choices.
• beloch 4y ago
  When Microsoft built Internet explorer into the foundations of their OS, they got slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit because, it was argued, they were denying users their choice of web browser and, in effect, monopolizing that sector[1]. Nevermind that users could still install other browsers and use them. You just couldn't uninstall internet explorer. In 1948, the government brought an antitrust lawsuit to trial against Paramount pictures [1] in order to address vertical integration in the movie distribution system. At the time, theatres were either owned by studios or had to buy "packages" of films. In effect, no theatre could show the best films from multiple studios. They had to choose one production company to buy a package from and that was that. Small studios and independents were effectively blocked from showing their films. The government won, and that's why cinemas can actually show films from multiple studios and independents today. Apple now owns their platform down to the chipset and CPU. They jealously guard their spare parts supply chain and have tried to muscle out independent repair services, while designing their products with planned obsolescence as a main goal. The same sort of anti-competitive practices that once kept indie films from being shown are now used to stifle competition for Apple's offerings in multiple spaces. They even produce their own films and TV shows now! Want to watch them someplace other than Apple TV? There are no legal alternatives to installing Apple TV. The vertical integration in Apple is just as bad as it was in 1940's hollywood, but movies are just one of the spaces Apple is trying to dominate. We can argue that users still have choice. They can choose to use alternative streaming services. (They just can't watch anything made by Apple Studios). They can choose alternative hardware or OS's. etc. However, it's clearly not Apple's preference that users have those choices. They just have succeeded in squeezing out the competition yet. If Microsoft building Internet Explorer into Windows merited an antitrust suit just twenty years ago, why haven't we seen an antitrust suit brought to bear against Apple for doing far worse? Given what companies like Apple and, yes, Facebook have done in recent years, perhaps it's time for governments to, once again, start advocating for the consumers that vote them into power. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
• willi59549879 4y ago
  It is apple's platform, that is the problem. I believe it would probably be better if the appstore was more open, but if someone puts out malware it is good that apple can take care of it for its users. But Facebook is the bigger evil of these two, so i'd want to have that broken up first.
• rdxm 4y ago
• deprave 4y ago
  I have been a member of and donated to the EFF since 1998. After reading this article, I have decided to not renew my membership and not donate again. My criticism isn’t about right or wrong. It’s about priorities and weaponizing the corporations and business practices the EFF should work against.
• bloodyplonker22 4y ago
  This is exactly the same as when Emperor Palpatine begged "help me, I'm too weak". We all know what happened next after he received help.
• graylien 4y ago
  Apple probably the lesser evil, I mean at least they make products that help us create
• hankman86 4y ago
  I’m all for letting the market sort this out. Provided that a market exists in the first place. With mobile OSes that’s hardly the case. We need regulatory legislation that curbs the power that platform owners like Apple wield.
• jollybean 4y ago
  The value chain is: carriers -> hardware -> OS -> platforms / services -> apps. People forget about the carrier bit. Whatever happens on the 'internets', well, carriers can bill for. If the 'internets' becomes all that more indispensable, your MB/s rate just doubled. It's not particularly competitive, and those carriers also own content, and other parts of the value chain. Though their profitability may be lower, their revenues are not, they are just as powerful as Apple. There needs to be more competition among carriers. Then we can also apply some rules to Apple and Google about dividing up the value chain so that 'apps' and 'hardware/os' compete on independent layers.
• bamboozled 4y ago
  For years, Facebook - and the surveillance advertising industry - have insisted that people actually like targeted ads, because all that surveillance produces ads that are “relevant” and “interesting.” Enough said... "Facebook says x is too powerful"...get out of my face, if FB could've been they would have been the most powerful, unethical company imaginable. Facebook is winging because they're losing, good. People choose to buy iPhones, they generally don't choose to be tracked and targeted in a predatory manner online. If people want different app stores (I've almost never heard anyone say they do), they can buy another phone from another vendor.
• plaguepilled 4y ago
  Articles like this frustrate me because while they're right, they skip addressing why people buy products like Apple, Google, and Microsoft: convenience. If you want your 'secure' alternative to gain traction, it has to be less work. I agree security is more important than convenience in a moral sense, but not when influencing large bodies of people.