13 ms·

What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! P

by slg 4y ago

What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes. This change would shift even more power to those large developers. You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google.

satvikpendem 4y ago
> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.
- slg 4y ago
  >Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Honestly, that's fine by me. Epic made the game, they process the payments, they're not using the Google Play Store's services and storefront at all (not to be confused with Google Play Services), so why would they pay 30% simply to be on a store they don't use? Same as on a computer, I use Windows, but it'd be absurd for me to download software only through the Microsoft Store app.
    - slg 4y ago
      Couldn't Meta follow the same path as Epic? Doesn't that have potential to create a situation that is worse off for consumers because their device theoretically would be less protected in terms of both security and privacy?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        They could, but I argue that Meta requiring users to use a third party app store would likely be self-defeating for them. It could conceivably alienate a lot of users who don't want to deal with managing yet another account, let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
        judge2020 4y ago
        > let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. Why would EU Lawmakers be satisfies with some crazy process that requires rebooting the device or going through 10+ steps to enable sideloading? These EU laws will likely require low-friction alternate app stores, which means actually installing Facebook via an alternate method might mean something as low-friction as meta.com/store -> "trust Meta store" -> open and install Facebook.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        1. I don't think EU lawmakers would be opposed to sensible user flows from Apple that properly disclose the risks and provide disclaimers about the potential dangers of side loading. 2. The current Settings menu in iOS is already a jumbled mess as it is, thanks to years of layers upon layers of options added into it. Even simply getting into developer mode would cause some friction. 3. Even on Android, it's somewhat out of the way: https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-android-4684044 https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-and... 4. I'm talking about the existence of alternate app stores themselves adding friction. Meta forcing users to use their store would be adding an additional wrinkle as it is. Think about the current streaming space. Many many users are already forced to deal with multiple services and managing their accounts just to get into content. And now they're going to be doing it on their iPhones? It's quite likely that a substantial amount would just forego dealing with a Meta app store and just start using the the mobile website - or just abandon Facebook on their phones altogether, which is even worse than Meta. 5. A point I mention in the link but not above: EU lawmakers, who are already suspicious of Meta, will likely scrutinize any third party app stores launched by them or other big tech companies anyway. So it's not as if it would be unpoliced for privacy violations and the like. If anything, such app stores would be a treasure trove for regulators to inspect.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > Fortnite is the most obvious example. And? There are plenty of apps that are exclusive to F-Droid, as well, and the sky still hasn't fallen. Meanwhile, two companies have kept a stranglehold on all mobile app sales and mobile app payments, ensuring that businesses can't exist that can't afford a 30% cut into their margins. It's been over a decade of this insane profiteering on behalf of Apple, and in some respects Google, it's about time that the mobile app distribution market and mobile app payments market are allowed to compete and flourish.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Apple is blamed by Facebook publicly for a $10 million drop in ad revenue due to a change in iOS policies. Google is not.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    Just a nit-pick, but I think you meant USD10 BILLION.
  - Sirened 4y ago
    Would this change though if they were out of reach of the apple App Store? The "ask app not to track" feature is a component of the OS. The only difference is then that Facebook would be allowed to violate the user's consent with impunity, which they can already practically do given the App Store's relative inability to stop malicious software
- kilburn 4y ago
  > Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. It is very possible that this hasn't ocurred because google has not enforced the same level of privacy-related restrictions that apple has (which reportedly costed facebook ~10 billion dollars [1]). I'm a strong supporter of device owners being able to do what they please with their devices, but the risks are there and are very real. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2021/11/06/apples-new-iphone-privacy-features-cost-facebook-10-billion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2021/11/06/appl...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Spivak 4y ago
  This will absolutely occur on iOS there's too much money on the line for it to not happen. On Android it doesn't matter because Facebook can largely do what they want.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    It will not because it's the sort of underhanded tactic that will just bring regulators to Meta's door. Right now it's open season on all of Big Tech, not just Apple.
- ncr100 4y ago
  This WILL happen with https://store.epicgames.com https://store.epicgames.com
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The market will decide that. You aren't alone. Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? They'll probably just be on both with some perk incentivising a switch.
- slg 4y ago
  >Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? Moving from one store that takes a 30% cut to a store you own makes a lot of sense if you can carry over at least 70% of your paying customers.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    May not even need to be 70% of your customers if you have costs that scale with the number of customers. 30% is a fraction of revenue, not profits.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Is it worth losing the user entirely? What about putting the app on both?
- pmontra 4y ago
  A perk? The app on its own store will cost 70, the app on the Apple store will cost 100. The app will be on both stores, people will decide where to buy from.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Exactly. One perk could be to pass the savings on to the user.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive business practices are actually good for the customers that are being fleeced by them. This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores.
- atonse 4y ago
  I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
        4y ago
themagician 4y ago
I think the disabling of "secure" features will be enough of an inconvenience that people won't do this, and so mainstream apps would never bother. Some might be willing to give up ApplePay. But they could disabled FaceID as well. Or even iMessage. Whether this is "justified" or not would be a separate issue, but I can definitely see them doing it. I can see them going a step further and letting developers decide if they want to allow their software to be run on systems based on security model. Banks, for example, could simply set a flag in their app such that it will not run if the system is set to a reduced or permissive security setting.
- albert180 4y ago
  Nobody cares about iMessage in Europe, everybody uses WhatsApp or Signal. A Apple-only messenger doesn't fly in a market where apple has <20% market share
  - themagician 4y ago
    Honestly surprising to me that any application owned by Meta is even allowed in Europe at this point.
    - maria2 4y ago
      Europe is basically a U.S. vassal state, so it shouldn't surprise you.
  - moogly 4y ago
    Not sure what Europe you're part of but it's way closer than that. And in some European markets, iOS has 60-65% share (like Scandinavia).
    - albert180 4y ago
      Europe as a whole has a 35% market share of iPhones, Sweden has 55%, tbh that was a surprise to me, but Germany on the other hand is 75% Android...
aidenn0 4y ago
I'm in the fortunate position of not needing any of those apps. I have never once in the US heard anyone mention WhatsApp as a potential form of communication, and I'm way better off without FB or Instagram on my phone. And as a side note, Amazon tried this on Android (requiring it for e.g. Prime Video), but gave up at some point.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  WhatsApp is exceptionally popular outside of the US, especially in Europe. There are more people outside the US than in it. PayPal sends me MFA-ish verification codes via WhatsApp.
moogly 4y ago
I mean, if you're already using WhatsApp...
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
Expecting Apple to fight your fights isn't going to solve anything. Apple only cares about money, and they're going to obediently abide by local laws (as they do in China). We need to take the power away from Apple and put it in an entity that we en-masse have influence with - such as a democratically elected government.
amelius 4y ago
The Meta store would still run under privileges set by the user (through Apple's controls). At least, that's how I expect it would work.
error503 4y ago
> You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google. I would say this is one, and by far the most important case, where Apple's incentives aggressively oppose those of the end users'. Whether this is enough to tip the balance of which company is 'worse' is a value judgment, but I cannot fathom how people argue in good faith for this blatantly anti-consumer and anti-fundamental-freedom vertical monopoly that is enforced with strong crypto. Crypto should be working for the user, not against them to secure Apple's ability to rent seek on all economic activity that passes through the user's device. And no, the two are not fundamentally coupled, as Apple will have you believe.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  When Apple talks about security, they aren't talking about user security, but the security of their App Store profit margins.
gnicholas 4y ago
If there are other app stores, does that mean they'll be able to have different privacy rules? Or would that be blocked at the OS level? It seems like some stuff (giving the app access to your location, contacts, etc.) would be subject to OS-level control, but the recent change to opt-in personalized ads would be easily reversible by any new app store.
pantalaimon 4y ago
That’s not what we see on Android though where this has always been an option. Amazon tried to push their store hard at a time.
dbtc 4y ago
> App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes Interesting. Hadn't thought about this before. Why? Is it the app store that makes their influence possible?
smsm42 4y ago
I am not sure, what is there to worry about? So, FB is going to independently distribute their own apps. You present it as it is an obvious evil, but tbh I fail to see what's evil about it? Yes, a little power would be shifted from all-powerful-now Apple to FB. Both probably not to be trusted, but at least it would be more federated now.
saghm 4y ago
> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they have done it already on Android? > You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google This sounds like even more of an argument that your fear is unfounded. If Google doesn't care about users as much as Apple but still has managed to make it unappealing enough to have a separate Facebook app store, why wouldn't Apple be able to do the same?
rhaway84773 4y ago
Someone who’s so tied to Meta products already has Meta apps installed on their phone. All Meta would have done through this step is added more friction to the process of installing their apps. What am I missing here? What’s the problem?
Siira 4y ago
Not at all. The monolithic App Store has been terrible for users. They even impose censorship on social media apps. Having alternative stores by Meta et al is excellent. More choice, more competition, less rentseeking, more innovation.

by slg 4y ago

satvikpendem 4y ago

> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.

slg 4y ago
>Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Honestly, that's fine by me. Epic made the game, they process the payments, they're not using the Google Play Store's services and storefront at all (not to be confused with Google Play Services), so why would they pay 30% simply to be on a store they don't use? Same as on a computer, I use Windows, but it'd be absurd for me to download software only through the Microsoft Store app.
  - slg 4y ago
    Couldn't Meta follow the same path as Epic? Doesn't that have potential to create a situation that is worse off for consumers because their device theoretically would be less protected in terms of both security and privacy?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      They could, but I argue that Meta requiring users to use a third party app store would likely be self-defeating for them. It could conceivably alienate a lot of users who don't want to deal with managing yet another account, let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
      - judge2020 4y ago
        > let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. Why would EU Lawmakers be satisfies with some crazy process that requires rebooting the device or going through 10+ steps to enable sideloading? These EU laws will likely require low-friction alternate app stores, which means actually installing Facebook via an alternate method might mean something as low-friction as meta.com/store -> "trust Meta store" -> open and install Facebook.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        1. I don't think EU lawmakers would be opposed to sensible user flows from Apple that properly disclose the risks and provide disclaimers about the potential dangers of side loading. 2. The current Settings menu in iOS is already a jumbled mess as it is, thanks to years of layers upon layers of options added into it. Even simply getting into developer mode would cause some friction. 3. Even on Android, it's somewhat out of the way: https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-android-4684044 https://www.lifewire.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-and... 4. I'm talking about the existence of alternate app stores themselves adding friction. Meta forcing users to use their store would be adding an additional wrinkle as it is. Think about the current streaming space. Many many users are already forced to deal with multiple services and managing their accounts just to get into content. And now they're going to be doing it on their iPhones? It's quite likely that a substantial amount would just forego dealing with a Meta app store and just start using the the mobile website - or just abandon Facebook on their phones altogether, which is even worse than Meta. 5. A point I mention in the link but not above: EU lawmakers, who are already suspicious of Meta, will likely scrutinize any third party app stores launched by them or other big tech companies anyway. So it's not as if it would be unpoliced for privacy violations and the like. If anything, such app stores would be a treasure trove for regulators to inspect.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Fortnite is the most obvious example. And? There are plenty of apps that are exclusive to F-Droid, as well, and the sky still hasn't fallen. Meanwhile, two companies have kept a stranglehold on all mobile app sales and mobile app payments, ensuring that businesses can't exist that can't afford a 30% cut into their margins. It's been over a decade of this insane profiteering on behalf of Apple, and in some respects Google, it's about time that the mobile app distribution market and mobile app payments market are allowed to compete and flourish.
pwinnski 4y ago
Apple is blamed by Facebook publicly for a $10 million drop in ad revenue due to a change in iOS policies. Google is not.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Just a nit-pick, but I think you meant USD10 BILLION.
- Sirened 4y ago
  Would this change though if they were out of reach of the apple App Store? The "ask app not to track" feature is a component of the OS. The only difference is then that Facebook would be allowed to violate the user's consent with impunity, which they can already practically do given the App Store's relative inability to stop malicious software
kilburn 4y ago
> Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. It is very possible that this hasn't ocurred because google has not enforced the same level of privacy-related restrictions that apple has (which reportedly costed facebook ~10 billion dollars [1]). I'm a strong supporter of device owners being able to do what they please with their devices, but the risks are there and are very real. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2021/11/06/apples-new-iphone-privacy-features-cost-facebook-10-billion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2021/11/06/appl...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Spivak 4y ago
This will absolutely occur on iOS there's too much money on the line for it to not happen. On Android it doesn't matter because Facebook can largely do what they want.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  It will not because it's the sort of underhanded tactic that will just bring regulators to Meta's door. Right now it's open season on all of Big Tech, not just Apple.
ncr100 4y ago
This WILL happen with https://store.epicgames.com https://store.epicgames.com

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

The market will decide that. You aren't alone. Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? They'll probably just be on both with some perk incentivising a switch.

slg 4y ago
>Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? Moving from one store that takes a 30% cut to a store you own makes a lot of sense if you can carry over at least 70% of your paying customers.
- yunwal 4y ago
  May not even need to be 70% of your customers if you have costs that scale with the number of customers. 30% is a fraction of revenue, not profits.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Is it worth losing the user entirely? What about putting the app on both?
pmontra 4y ago
A perk? The app on its own store will cost 70, the app on the Apple store will cost 100. The app will be on both stores, people will decide where to buy from.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Exactly. One perk could be to pass the savings on to the user.

heavyset_go 4y ago

Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive business practices are actually good for the customers that are being fleeced by them. This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores.

atonse 4y ago
I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
      - 4y ago

themagician 4y ago

I think the disabling of "secure" features will be enough of an inconvenience that people won't do this, and so mainstream apps would never bother. Some might be willing to give up ApplePay. But they could disabled FaceID as well. Or even iMessage. Whether this is "justified" or not would be a separate issue, but I can definitely see them doing it. I can see them going a step further and letting developers decide if they want to allow their software to be run on systems based on security model. Banks, for example, could simply set a flag in their app such that it will not run if the system is set to a reduced or permissive security setting.

albert180 4y ago
Nobody cares about iMessage in Europe, everybody uses WhatsApp or Signal. A Apple-only messenger doesn't fly in a market where apple has <20% market share
- themagician 4y ago
  Honestly surprising to me that any application owned by Meta is even allowed in Europe at this point.
  - maria2 4y ago
    Europe is basically a U.S. vassal state, so it shouldn't surprise you.
- moogly 4y ago
  Not sure what Europe you're part of but it's way closer than that. And in some European markets, iOS has 60-65% share (like Scandinavia).
  - albert180 4y ago
    Europe as a whole has a 35% market share of iPhones, Sweden has 55%, tbh that was a surprise to me, but Germany on the other hand is 75% Android...

aidenn0 4y ago

I'm in the fortunate position of not needing any of those apps. I have never once in the US heard anyone mention WhatsApp as a potential form of communication, and I'm way better off without FB or Instagram on my phone. And as a side note, Amazon tried this on Android (requiring it for e.g. Prime Video), but gave up at some point.

madeofpalk 4y ago
WhatsApp is exceptionally popular outside of the US, especially in Europe. There are more people outside the US than in it. PayPal sends me MFA-ish verification codes via WhatsApp.

moogly 4y ago

I mean, if you're already using WhatsApp...

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

Expecting Apple to fight your fights isn't going to solve anything. Apple only cares about money, and they're going to obediently abide by local laws (as they do in China). We need to take the power away from Apple and put it in an entity that we en-masse have influence with - such as a democratically elected government.

amelius 4y ago

The Meta store would still run under privileges set by the user (through Apple's controls). At least, that's how I expect it would work.

error503 4y ago

> You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google. I would say this is one, and by far the most important case, where Apple's incentives aggressively oppose those of the end users'. Whether this is enough to tip the balance of which company is 'worse' is a value judgment, but I cannot fathom how people argue in good faith for this blatantly anti-consumer and anti-fundamental-freedom vertical monopoly that is enforced with strong crypto. Crypto should be working for the user, not against them to secure Apple's ability to rent seek on all economic activity that passes through the user's device. And no, the two are not fundamentally coupled, as Apple will have you believe.

heavyset_go 4y ago
When Apple talks about security, they aren't talking about user security, but the security of their App Store profit margins.

gnicholas 4y ago

If there are other app stores, does that mean they'll be able to have different privacy rules? Or would that be blocked at the OS level? It seems like some stuff (giving the app access to your location, contacts, etc.) would be subject to OS-level control, but the recent change to opt-in personalized ads would be easily reversible by any new app store.

pantalaimon 4y ago

That’s not what we see on Android though where this has always been an option. Amazon tried to push their store hard at a time.

dbtc 4y ago

> App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes Interesting. Hadn't thought about this before. Why? Is it the app store that makes their influence possible?

smsm42 4y ago

I am not sure, what is there to worry about? So, FB is going to independently distribute their own apps. You present it as it is an obvious evil, but tbh I fail to see what's evil about it? Yes, a little power would be shifted from all-powerful-now Apple to FB. Both probably not to be trusted, but at least it would be more federated now.

saghm 4y ago

> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they have done it already on Android? > You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google This sounds like even more of an argument that your fear is unfounded. If Google doesn't care about users as much as Apple but still has managed to make it unappealing enough to have a separate Facebook app store, why wouldn't Apple be able to do the same?

rhaway84773 4y ago

Someone who’s so tied to Meta products already has Meta apps installed on their phone. All Meta would have done through this step is added more friction to the process of installing their apps. What am I missing here? What’s the problem?

Siira 4y ago

Not at all. The monolithic App Store has been terrible for users. They even impose censorship on social media apps. Having alternative stores by Meta et al is excellent. More choice, more competition, less rentseeking, more innovation.