6 ms·

Apple has completely lost their credibility with me every time they use "privacy & security" as an excuse to exploit their users. Does anybody actually know wha

by bloppe 2y ago

Apple has completely lost their credibility with me every time they use "privacy & security" as an excuse to exploit their users. Does anybody actually know what Meta is asking for in these cases?

yalogin 2y ago
Can you elaborate on this “excuse” and “exploitation” you are talking about? I am curious because I fully believe Apple really cares about security and privacy and goes to great lengths to preserve it for their users. Sure they use it as a strategy, and that is how they justify the investment. Am curious about your opinions though since you seem to be on the other end of the spectrum
- pdpi 2y ago
  Apple likes their platforms locked down tight. Arguably this has benefits for the users both in terms of privacy/security and in terms of UX, but it does definitely come with a bunch of costs (not least of which the 30% cut from the App Store). I think describing those costs as "exploitation" is excessive, but it's not completely unreasonable. Given that context, Meta being unreasonable in what they ask for proves Apple's point that having things locked down benefits their users. While true in this instance, it's also a convenient excuse to justify retaining the level of control they want. For the record, I do agree with you: Apple's investment in on-device AI tools, their history of not training Siri using user data, etc are clear examples of them actually acting on the values they advertise on. Even if it's a cynical marketing-driven decision, they're still acting on it.
- nradov 2y ago
  Here's one example. Apple has locked down the API for replying to a text message on an iPhone using a smart watch to only their own Apple Watch. Competing smart watches like Garmin or Suunto aren't allowed to build similar functionality. This is a naked abuse of market power for product tying, exactly the type of behavior that got Microsoft in trouble with US antitrust authorities years ago. Android phones have no such artificial limitation.
  - positr0n 2y ago
    I thought Microsoft got in trouble for abusing its monopoly power.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Yes, product tying is one aspect of abusing monopoly power.
  - borari 2y ago
    Can you reply to messages in Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc., from those watches paired with an iPhone? I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m genuinely curious and an unfamiliar with the finer details of Apple’s phone/watch pairing. When replying to a text in iMessage from a paired watch, is the watch actually using internal APIs? You sign in on the watch with your AppleID, so I would assume no, the watch is just using the phones cell connection to communicate with Apple’s iMessage servers directly. If you pair an Apple Watch to an Android phone, can you still use the iMessage app on the Watch? Yes, right? If so, there’s obviously not going to be any internal Apple APIs in play.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  Not person you are replying to, but I think lack of sideloading is a big factor, since it impacts ease of doing anything outside appstore. AFA Security and privacy, I think security issues have been brought up previously on HN where the relative closed-ness of Apple and how the respond to some security reports raises questions whether the RDF is in play. I want to be clear that I trust them more than others. At the same time, while I got my dad an iPhone to replace his Lumia 640 (because Microsoft does stupid things) I still use an android phone. Why? Because for someone like him, yes, it is safer. > Can you elaborate on this “excuse” and “exploitation” you are talking about? I am curious because I fully believe Apple really cares about security and privacy and goes to great lengths to preserve it for their users. Sure they use it as a strategy, and that is how they justify the investment. Going back to windows phone, I'll give a fun example. Why didn't Windows phones get Snapchat? because MS literally would not let that be collectible by 3rd party apps (Not sure about 1st party.) and that was a sticking point. Not the best move for them at the time (definitely hurt uptake on folks still 'new' to smartphones to become a 3rd player) yet it is arguably a more strict stance than what apple did/does. I'll also note, Apple gets instant bad karma from me AFA the combination of (1) not allowing sideloading, (2) taking the cut they do on all transactions, alongside (3) still giving better deals to huge players like netflix. TBH I just want to be able to buy shit to read on my kindle account without going through a circus on my android phone, yet it's a big sign of how fucked things are in the overall ecosystem.
  - fingerlocks 2y ago
    Apple allows side loading. It’s an extra $8 a month and called a Developer Account. I have many side loaded apps on my iPhone. Stop repeating this. You can refine your argument to say “but that requires a MacBook and Xcode and two or three clicks to install” but it’s still side loading even if there’s some friction. Always has been.
    - to11mtm 2y ago
      > Stop repeating this. No, because your counterpoint is disingenuous compared to options in other ecosystems. For starters, I can't just 'side load' shit I want to FAFO with from Itch.io that way, can I? Maybe I could, if I had a Macbook, but I don't. Also that's way way way more ceremony+cost than downloading an APK. Fire Tablet sideloading is just a matter a couple flips in a settings menu. Actual 'Android' devices are typically similar or less ceremony, although some security features may? have issues depending on how dumb they are vs how dumb what you are installing is vs how dumb you are for accepting the perms it asked for. But, for either of those cases, I don't need to pay 8$ a month and buy a macbook for the 'privilege' of installing whatever app I want on hardware I purchased. Frankly it's been the main thing that has kept me personally away from iPhones for the better part of a decade.
threeseed 2y ago
Yes who should we trust here when it comes to data collection. Apple or Meta. According to Apple they are asking for effectively everything on the device e.g. all photos, emails, messages, passwords. Far beyond what is needed for WhatsApp etc to work but would be game changing for their ad and AI platforms. And plenty do let us know when Apple has used our own data to exploit us like Meta has.
- bburnett44 2y ago
  It feels like there should be a user option to allow (default deny) this. Like it doesn’t have to be that the minute you install WhatsApp it gets access to all of your texts or calls. But it sucks to be stuck w iMessage when that’s just locking me into apples ecosystem
  - threeseed 2y ago
    The problem is that we have decades of experience with your approach. And it simply doesn’t work. Users will click any dialog box especially when the app makes features conditional on its approval. The only way this works is what Apple and Google have implemented. Which is to allow access to a single photo or contact but not the entire library. But that’s not what Meta is after. They want everything.
- talldayo 2y ago
  False dichotomy. I trust neither - if Apple doesn't trust Meta to handle their APIs then I don't trust Apple to use them either.
- jsnell 2y ago
  If these APIs risk creating privacy problems, why did Apple add them to the platform in the first place? Why is Apple letting their first party apps access these dangerous APIs? If privacy and security really were the number one priority, they should immediately block access to them to their first party apps until they've figured out how to implement them safely. Obviously they're not doing that. Why? Because these APIs give Apple's first party apps a competitive advantage. It lets them leverage their control of iOS into control of more and more markets without having to ever worry about competing on a level playing field. And inversely, the users' buy-in into these markets locks them tighter into the iOS ecosystem. It's a positive feedback cycle of abuse of a dominant market position.
7e 2y ago
You admit you have no idea what the details are, yet you default to considering Apple in the wrong, for exploitation which you do not detail. Your comment is worthless.
hnburnsy 2y ago
Here are some of Meta's ask according to Apple... https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera... AirPlay Continuity Camera App Intents Devices connected with Bluetooth Apple Notification Center Service iPhone Mirroring CarPlay Connectivity to all of a user’s Apple devices Messaging Wi-Fi networks and properties
- impish9208 2y ago
  Thanks for that link! dang (if you can hear me), I think the link should be updated to this one as it has more details.
- xvector 2y ago
  So basically the permissions you need to make competent wearable AR glasses interop with your smartphone.
  - boopmaster 2y ago
    Yes and these are not new problems. I encountered showstopper limitations backgrounding processes that make use of iBeacons, back in iOS 7. The potential for data collection is massive. I was tinkering with a firechat inspired mesh messaging concept as an indie iOS dev. I could not dismiss arguments about potential privacy concerns w/ persistent background apps advertising and scanning - but the lack thereof certainly dampens innovators too.

by bloppe 2y ago

Apple has completely lost their credibility with me every time they use "privacy & security" as an excuse to exploit their users. Does anybody actually know what Meta is asking for in these cases?

yalogin 2y ago

Can you elaborate on this “excuse” and “exploitation” you are talking about? I am curious because I fully believe Apple really cares about security and privacy and goes to great lengths to preserve it for their users. Sure they use it as a strategy, and that is how they justify the investment. Am curious about your opinions though since you seem to be on the other end of the spectrum

pdpi 2y ago
Apple likes their platforms locked down tight. Arguably this has benefits for the users both in terms of privacy/security and in terms of UX, but it does definitely come with a bunch of costs (not least of which the 30% cut from the App Store). I think describing those costs as "exploitation" is excessive, but it's not completely unreasonable. Given that context, Meta being unreasonable in what they ask for proves Apple's point that having things locked down benefits their users. While true in this instance, it's also a convenient excuse to justify retaining the level of control they want. For the record, I do agree with you: Apple's investment in on-device AI tools, their history of not training Siri using user data, etc are clear examples of them actually acting on the values they advertise on. Even if it's a cynical marketing-driven decision, they're still acting on it.
nradov 2y ago
Here's one example. Apple has locked down the API for replying to a text message on an iPhone using a smart watch to only their own Apple Watch. Competing smart watches like Garmin or Suunto aren't allowed to build similar functionality. This is a naked abuse of market power for product tying, exactly the type of behavior that got Microsoft in trouble with US antitrust authorities years ago. Android phones have no such artificial limitation.
- positr0n 2y ago
  I thought Microsoft got in trouble for abusing its monopoly power.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Yes, product tying is one aspect of abusing monopoly power.
- borari 2y ago
  Can you reply to messages in Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc., from those watches paired with an iPhone? I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m genuinely curious and an unfamiliar with the finer details of Apple’s phone/watch pairing. When replying to a text in iMessage from a paired watch, is the watch actually using internal APIs? You sign in on the watch with your AppleID, so I would assume no, the watch is just using the phones cell connection to communicate with Apple’s iMessage servers directly. If you pair an Apple Watch to an Android phone, can you still use the iMessage app on the Watch? Yes, right? If so, there’s obviously not going to be any internal Apple APIs in play.
to11mtm 2y ago
Not person you are replying to, but I think lack of sideloading is a big factor, since it impacts ease of doing anything outside appstore. AFA Security and privacy, I think security issues have been brought up previously on HN where the relative closed-ness of Apple and how the respond to some security reports raises questions whether the RDF is in play. I want to be clear that I trust them more than others. At the same time, while I got my dad an iPhone to replace his Lumia 640 (because Microsoft does stupid things) I still use an android phone. Why? Because for someone like him, yes, it is safer. > Can you elaborate on this “excuse” and “exploitation” you are talking about? I am curious because I fully believe Apple really cares about security and privacy and goes to great lengths to preserve it for their users. Sure they use it as a strategy, and that is how they justify the investment. Going back to windows phone, I'll give a fun example. Why didn't Windows phones get Snapchat? because MS literally would not let that be collectible by 3rd party apps (Not sure about 1st party.) and that was a sticking point. Not the best move for them at the time (definitely hurt uptake on folks still 'new' to smartphones to become a 3rd player) yet it is arguably a more strict stance than what apple did/does. I'll also note, Apple gets instant bad karma from me AFA the combination of (1) not allowing sideloading, (2) taking the cut they do on all transactions, alongside (3) still giving better deals to huge players like netflix. TBH I just want to be able to buy shit to read on my kindle account without going through a circus on my android phone, yet it's a big sign of how fucked things are in the overall ecosystem.
- fingerlocks 2y ago
  Apple allows side loading. It’s an extra $8 a month and called a Developer Account. I have many side loaded apps on my iPhone. Stop repeating this. You can refine your argument to say “but that requires a MacBook and Xcode and two or three clicks to install” but it’s still side loading even if there’s some friction. Always has been.
  - to11mtm 2y ago
    > Stop repeating this. No, because your counterpoint is disingenuous compared to options in other ecosystems. For starters, I can't just 'side load' shit I want to FAFO with from Itch.io that way, can I? Maybe I could, if I had a Macbook, but I don't. Also that's way way way more ceremony+cost than downloading an APK. Fire Tablet sideloading is just a matter a couple flips in a settings menu. Actual 'Android' devices are typically similar or less ceremony, although some security features may? have issues depending on how dumb they are vs how dumb what you are installing is vs how dumb you are for accepting the perms it asked for. But, for either of those cases, I don't need to pay 8$ a month and buy a macbook for the 'privilege' of installing whatever app I want on hardware I purchased. Frankly it's been the main thing that has kept me personally away from iPhones for the better part of a decade.

threeseed 2y ago

Yes who should we trust here when it comes to data collection. Apple or Meta. According to Apple they are asking for effectively everything on the device e.g. all photos, emails, messages, passwords. Far beyond what is needed for WhatsApp etc to work but would be game changing for their ad and AI platforms. And plenty do let us know when Apple has used our own data to exploit us like Meta has.

bburnett44 2y ago
It feels like there should be a user option to allow (default deny) this. Like it doesn’t have to be that the minute you install WhatsApp it gets access to all of your texts or calls. But it sucks to be stuck w iMessage when that’s just locking me into apples ecosystem
- threeseed 2y ago
  The problem is that we have decades of experience with your approach. And it simply doesn’t work. Users will click any dialog box especially when the app makes features conditional on its approval. The only way this works is what Apple and Google have implemented. Which is to allow access to a single photo or contact but not the entire library. But that’s not what Meta is after. They want everything.
talldayo 2y ago
False dichotomy. I trust neither - if Apple doesn't trust Meta to handle their APIs then I don't trust Apple to use them either.
jsnell 2y ago
If these APIs risk creating privacy problems, why did Apple add them to the platform in the first place? Why is Apple letting their first party apps access these dangerous APIs? If privacy and security really were the number one priority, they should immediately block access to them to their first party apps until they've figured out how to implement them safely. Obviously they're not doing that. Why? Because these APIs give Apple's first party apps a competitive advantage. It lets them leverage their control of iOS into control of more and more markets without having to ever worry about competing on a level playing field. And inversely, the users' buy-in into these markets locks them tighter into the iOS ecosystem. It's a positive feedback cycle of abuse of a dominant market position.

7e 2y ago

You admit you have no idea what the details are, yet you default to considering Apple in the wrong, for exploitation which you do not detail. Your comment is worthless.

hnburnsy 2y ago

Here are some of Meta's ask according to Apple... https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera... AirPlay Continuity Camera App Intents Devices connected with Bluetooth Apple Notification Center Service iPhone Mirroring CarPlay Connectivity to all of a user’s Apple devices Messaging Wi-Fi networks and properties

impish9208 2y ago
Thanks for that link! dang (if you can hear me), I think the link should be updated to this one as it has more details.
xvector 2y ago
So basically the permissions you need to make competent wearable AR glasses interop with your smartphone.
- boopmaster 2y ago
  Yes and these are not new problems. I encountered showstopper limitations backgrounding processes that make use of iBeacons, back in iOS 7. The potential for data collection is massive. I was tinkering with a firechat inspired mesh messaging concept as an indie iOS dev. I could not dismiss arguments about potential privacy concerns w/ persistent background apps advertising and scanning - but the lack thereof certainly dampens innovators too.