12 ms·

Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

154 points by aquir 2y ago

ParanoidShroom 2y ago
Can we see the interoperability requests that meta submitted? That would clarify if the shade is legit.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  While I don't trust Meta, at all, I can see some reasons for legitimate requests. This could for API access so that the Meta VR headset could work as a substitute for Apples own, in some cases, or Facebook Messenger and iMessage interoperability. I sort of doubt that this is what Meta is trying for, but that would reasonable. It's probably a bit of both. One part Apple being monopolistic jerks and one part Meta wanting to hoover up even more private data. One issue I can see is that the EU would side with Meta, knowing that the EU privacy laws will protect its citizens, but Apple has to consider the ramification for all users, including those not protect be the GDPR. So Apple is forced to open up and Meta will start using the opening to suck up private information on its American users.
  - F7F7F7 2y ago
    Apple has shown recently that they are more than OK giving Europeans and some parts of Asia a different iOS experience than the rest of us. If they are “forced to open up” in the EU it doesn’t mean they will here.
- VertanaNinjai 2y ago
  From another comment here. https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera...
aurareturn 2y ago
Meta understands that in an AI agentic world, having access at the OS level is crucial. The AI becomes significantly more useful if it understands your digital life more. Only Apple has OS level access for agentic AI but Meta wants it too.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > The AI becomes significantly more useful if it understands your digital life more. "Useful" is misleading. It should be "useful for the big corps for entrenching you further into proprietary technology so that they can take advantage of you later".
  - reactordev 2y ago
    All so they can better target ads to you. Who needs cookies?
  - pretext-1 2y ago
    > for entrenching you further into proprietary technology But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives! Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc. Want an open source, community based, interoperable, fully local, etc. assistant/AI? It cannot exist in today's world simply because it requires what Meta asks for. I dislike Meta very much but I refuse to believe that creating or opening up such APIs would foster „entrenching you further into proprietary technology“.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      > But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives! Yes, it is. The entrenchment is an ongoing process designed to give us short-term benefits that appear harmless. But they slowly add up and produce an ecosystem that is actively harmful and not much better than before (on average). By the way, I don't argue for or against Meta having access to APIs. I am against Meta entirely -- and the only logical answer to them is to dismantle them.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
At the very least, for apps that require this much access, such "interoperability" should be off by default with a big warning that says: [ ] Check here if you want to share all your data (or something more precise) with Meta. Warning: possibly insecure. Use at your own risk.
- doodlesdev 2y ago
  Every user would just check that option and press yes. The reality is that most users don't ever read any message the phone gives to them, they just treat it like any other popup and press yes. Take a look at any normal person using a phone when a permission notification appears or an error appears: they won't even read it, just press any button that closes it as fast as possible. There's good reason to not have this prompt and not give these abilities to applications. Apple's reason to oppose the DMA and Meta here might be different, though.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > Every user would just check that option and press yes. Not if it's available in the developer options, or has more other sorts of friction to check the box. Or if it has a red warning label with the phrase "may increase the chance of hackers stealing your data and impersonating you". One just has to make it unattractive enough to most.
    - 3874744848 2y ago
      This is the heart of the issue though. Most users don't care unless you purposefully go out of your way to scare them with enough melodrama and dark patterns as to border on outright dishonesty. It's not an issue of them being informed, they just genuinely do not care about the risk when the actor is a familiar megacorp because their viewpoint is that if billions of dollars can't keep the data safe then it was never going to be genuinely safe anyway.
      - edude03 2y ago
oefrha 2y ago
The Reuters report on this is much more detailed: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerous-interoperability-requests-2024-12-18/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerou... And yes, Meta isn’t denying requesting everything under the sun. Their only retort is Apple’s privacy concerns are anticompetitive excuses. Two things can be true: Apple is only protecting their own interests, and Meta is a terrible would-be guardian of all the data they’re requesting.
- tempodox 2y ago
  The rename from Facebook didn't change the base nature of that company. Their product is selling user data. All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data.
  - paldepind2 2y ago
    > All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data. I don't think that's true for their VR/MR hardware. That's Meta's attempt to get a product that is _not_ like that, but which instead gets them in a position similar to where Google and Apple are for phones. I.e., where they own the platform and can profit off of that.
    - mort96 2y ago
      Dude they tried to force you to log in with your Facebook account to use your hardware. Everything made by that wretched company is tainted.
      - HWR_14 2y ago
        Did they back off of that? I have an older oculus I can dig out if I can safely walk its data off from Meta
        plagiarist 2y ago
        The last time I complained about this someone mentioned they "only" force a Meta account and not a whole Facebook identity. That's a distinction without a difference to me. I will not be purchasing hardware that requires a cloud account. Especially not a peripheral.
marketingtech 2y ago
Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value. They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro to show messages and other notifications, connect to WiFi, and share files with an iPhone, but Apple uses private APIs for their own devices. Meta says that is anticompetitive and the APIs should be public. Apple lays out their rebuttal in detail here and it’s clear Meta asked for everything in the hopes that Apple will settle for some of these things: https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera...
- F7F7F7 2y ago
  As someone who’s personally worked on dozens of M&A driven vertical integrations and “ecosystems” (lol)…interoperability is inherent to being a first party. 3rd parties aren’t going to get the same access or treatment for a number of reasons…many of which Apple has outlined.
  - marketingtech 2y ago
    There are several reasons for a platform to not want to offer 3p interop, from security to privacy to competition, but the DMA is targeted EU regulation to mandate interop specifically for the big tech cos’ platforms and this is one of the first major tests of the law.
- ksec 2y ago
  >Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value. >They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro Not agreeing or disagreeing but that makes much more sense.
yapyap 2y ago
Everyone wants more access to your (i)Phone
- amelius 2y ago
  Apple's iPhone.
enos_feedler 2y ago
If Meta is successful in gaining access to iPhone user data, will this be exclusive to Meta or would Apple be required to open access more broadly?
- marketingtech 2y ago
  More broadly, but not unconditionally. They can apply reasonable (definition of that can be another point of contention) restrictions via their app review process as long as the restrictions are applied consistently to all applicants.
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
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Wow. I mean, where does a company get the balls to demand total access like this to the phones, networks and data of every phone in the US? These companies have zero fear of us as a people. (They have zero respect for us as well, but that's another issue.)
  - gruez 2y ago
    I'm not sure how you read the above list and got the impression that meta wanted "total access like this to the phones, networks and data of every phone in the US". "Connectivity to all of a user’s Apple devices" probably means mDNS access for device discovery, rather than root access on all devices or whatever. Same for "Wi-Fi networks and properties". They probably want a list of wifi networks so they can connect to them, rather than low level access so they can run packet captures or whatever. Yes, even the limited access described above presents privacy issues, but there's no need to be hyperbolic and characterize it as "total access".
    - VertanaNinjai 2y ago
      “Probably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I’m not sure why Meta deserves the benefit of the doubt with a horrible privacy track record as shown in multiple judicial districts throughout the globe.
br0wnr1c3 2y ago
I think one of my personal issues with allowing Meta to access these private APIs is that they may not take "don't allow" for an answer. I have WhatsApp to talk to some family and I recently disabled allowing all contacts in iOS 18. WhatsApp now has a persistent notification at the top of messages to "Allow All Contacts". If Apple allows users to choose whether or not to give Meta access, and users choose "no", Meta can lock them out of the service entirely (e.g., "you can't use this Meta Quest headset without allowing access to your messages"). That being said, Apple is definitely fighting for its own interests here as well. It would obviously benefit them to sell their own watches, headsets, earbuds, etc.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Here's the thing, take a look at just a bit of what Meta is demanding: *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 Now ignoring the obvious societal dangers in this request. (I mean really? Should you be using a Meta headset while you're driving?) The scope of data that they are asking for is breathtaking. All the data, wifi, messages and notifications of not only every iphone in the US, but all of the user's other devices as well. To potentially include their cars. We need to really think deeply about how we set up access to Apple data and APIs. Requests like this are putting me more in the "deny all requests" camp. If tech companies can't be at least a little more reasonable, then I don't think they should have access to our data.
  - lukeschlather 2y ago
    > Should you be using a Meta headset while you're driving? The Meta HUD glasses seem like they're definitely designed to be used while driving, and provide a safer way to access info like notifications than looking down at your iPhone. That isn't "Apple data and APIs" this is a notification that someone needs to display on their HUD. Really, the fact that Apple doesn't want to allow this sort of thing pretty clearly demonstrates they're acting in bad faith.
- saurik 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yrcyrc 2y ago
I got rid of all of Facebook and Google apps and services years ago I really hope they won’t get anything as they clearly can’t be trusted with any data. See Noyb.eu for illustration.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457073
freehorse 2y ago
Well I hope all these interoperability regulations come with eventually forcing messaging services to expose their APIs and allow 3rd party clients so that we can use a crowdfunded FOSS client for messaging and ditch all this malware from our phones.
mediumsmart 2y ago
maybe the time has come for them to actually use this: https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_granted_patent_to_create_identity_clones https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_granted_patent... it will burn down their own playhouse too of course
alex1138 2y ago
I dunno, I'm sure people have beef with Apple but Zuck's always taken other people's projects and acted dishonestly and their violating the terms with Whatsapp should be cause for breakup, and something like Apple is absolutely necessary (fine grained permissions) to stop the slurp-all-your-contacts parade that Zuckerberg loves
asix66 2y ago
Seems oxymoronic as Meta doesn’t allow interoperability in order to maintain its walled garden. Apple does the same but it’s generally done in the space of privacy- security and privacy going hand in hand. I have little faith in government, any government, when it comes to technology. Either through ignorance or motive, they usually make decisions that result in less privacy, less security.
luke-stanley 2y ago
Is this Hacker News? This is way bigger than Meta. Should individuals have the freedom to access to their own phone data without needing to be a device manufacturer? Or should we depend on case by case approval of access that is outside of the users hands and something only big companies can do? Framing it as being about `Apple vs Meta` is exactly the line of thinking that Apple wants, and it does a disservice to real Apple users, who have repeatedly been locked into a ecosystem where they have little control of their own data, where even sharing photos over Bluetooth isn't even an option! It's so locked in it's really unreasonable to frame this as being about Meta. Of course users should be able to give none / empty / fake or even real data to Meta if they so choose. But really this is about Apple, user rights, the EU, and a more fair playing field. If you read the PDF Apple put out, they are not offering any kind of middle solution, they are just saying they will, as usual, review case by case device partnership opportunities as it pleases them.
Lucyj001 2y ago
[dead]

154 points by aquir 2y ago

ParanoidShroom 2y ago

Can we see the interoperability requests that meta submitted? That would clarify if the shade is legit.

mrweasel 2y ago
While I don't trust Meta, at all, I can see some reasons for legitimate requests. This could for API access so that the Meta VR headset could work as a substitute for Apples own, in some cases, or Facebook Messenger and iMessage interoperability. I sort of doubt that this is what Meta is trying for, but that would reasonable. It's probably a bit of both. One part Apple being monopolistic jerks and one part Meta wanting to hoover up even more private data. One issue I can see is that the EU would side with Meta, knowing that the EU privacy laws will protect its citizens, but Apple has to consider the ramification for all users, including those not protect be the GDPR. So Apple is forced to open up and Meta will start using the opening to suck up private information on its American users.
- F7F7F7 2y ago
  Apple has shown recently that they are more than OK giving Europeans and some parts of Asia a different iOS experience than the rest of us. If they are “forced to open up” in the EU it doesn’t mean they will here.
VertanaNinjai 2y ago
From another comment here. https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera...

aurareturn 2y ago

Meta understands that in an AI agentic world, having access at the OS level is crucial. The AI becomes significantly more useful if it understands your digital life more. Only Apple has OS level access for agentic AI but Meta wants it too.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> The AI becomes significantly more useful if it understands your digital life more. "Useful" is misleading. It should be "useful for the big corps for entrenching you further into proprietary technology so that they can take advantage of you later".
- reactordev 2y ago
  All so they can better target ads to you. Who needs cookies?
- pretext-1 2y ago
  > for entrenching you further into proprietary technology But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives! Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc. Want an open source, community based, interoperable, fully local, etc. assistant/AI? It cannot exist in today's world simply because it requires what Meta asks for. I dislike Meta very much but I refuse to believe that creating or opening up such APIs would foster „entrenching you further into proprietary technology“.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives! Yes, it is. The entrenchment is an ongoing process designed to give us short-term benefits that appear harmless. But they slowly add up and produce an ecosystem that is actively harmful and not much better than before (on average). By the way, I don't argue for or against Meta having access to APIs. I am against Meta entirely -- and the only logical answer to them is to dismantle them.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

At the very least, for apps that require this much access, such "interoperability" should be off by default with a big warning that says: [ ] Check here if you want to share all your data (or something more precise) with Meta. Warning: possibly insecure. Use at your own risk.

doodlesdev 2y ago
Every user would just check that option and press yes. The reality is that most users don't ever read any message the phone gives to them, they just treat it like any other popup and press yes. Take a look at any normal person using a phone when a permission notification appears or an error appears: they won't even read it, just press any button that closes it as fast as possible. There's good reason to not have this prompt and not give these abilities to applications. Apple's reason to oppose the DMA and Meta here might be different, though.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > Every user would just check that option and press yes. Not if it's available in the developer options, or has more other sorts of friction to check the box. Or if it has a red warning label with the phrase "may increase the chance of hackers stealing your data and impersonating you". One just has to make it unattractive enough to most.
  - 3874744848 2y ago
    This is the heart of the issue though. Most users don't care unless you purposefully go out of your way to scare them with enough melodrama and dark patterns as to border on outright dishonesty. It's not an issue of them being informed, they just genuinely do not care about the risk when the actor is a familiar megacorp because their viewpoint is that if billions of dollars can't keep the data safe then it was never going to be genuinely safe anyway.
    - edude03 2y ago

oefrha 2y ago

The Reuters report on this is much more detailed: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerous-interoperability-requests-2024-12-18/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerou... And yes, Meta isn’t denying requesting everything under the sun. Their only retort is Apple’s privacy concerns are anticompetitive excuses. Two things can be true: Apple is only protecting their own interests, and Meta is a terrible would-be guardian of all the data they’re requesting.

tempodox 2y ago
The rename from Facebook didn't change the base nature of that company. Their product is selling user data. All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data.
- paldepind2 2y ago
  > All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data. I don't think that's true for their VR/MR hardware. That's Meta's attempt to get a product that is _not_ like that, but which instead gets them in a position similar to where Google and Apple are for phones. I.e., where they own the platform and can profit off of that.
  - mort96 2y ago
    Dude they tried to force you to log in with your Facebook account to use your hardware. Everything made by that wretched company is tainted.
    - HWR_14 2y ago
      Did they back off of that? I have an older oculus I can dig out if I can safely walk its data off from Meta
      - plagiarist 2y ago
        The last time I complained about this someone mentioned they "only" force a Meta account and not a whole Facebook identity. That's a distinction without a difference to me. I will not be purchasing hardware that requires a cloud account. Especially not a peripheral.

marketingtech 2y ago

Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value. They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro to show messages and other notifications, connect to WiFi, and share files with an iPhone, but Apple uses private APIs for their own devices. Meta says that is anticompetitive and the APIs should be public. Apple lays out their rebuttal in detail here and it’s clear Meta asked for everything in the hopes that Apple will settle for some of these things: https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interoperability-Dec-2024.pdf https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/DMA-Interopera...

F7F7F7 2y ago
As someone who’s personally worked on dozens of M&A driven vertical integrations and “ecosystems” (lol)…interoperability is inherent to being a first party. 3rd parties aren’t going to get the same access or treatment for a number of reasons…many of which Apple has outlined.
- marketingtech 2y ago
  There are several reasons for a platform to not want to offer 3p interop, from security to privacy to competition, but the DMA is targeted EU regulation to mandate interop specifically for the big tech cos’ platforms and this is one of the first major tests of the law.
ksec 2y ago
>Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value. >They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro Not agreeing or disagreeing but that makes much more sense.

yapyap 2y ago

Everyone wants more access to your (i)Phone

amelius 2y ago
Apple's iPhone.

enos_feedler 2y ago

If Meta is successful in gaining access to iPhone user data, will this be exclusive to Meta or would Apple be required to open access more broadly?

marketingtech 2y ago
More broadly, but not unconditionally. They can apply reasonable (definition of that can be another point of contention) restrictions via their app review process as long as the restrictions are applied consistently to all applicants.

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

bilbo0s 2y ago
Wow. I mean, where does a company get the balls to demand total access like this to the phones, networks and data of every phone in the US? These companies have zero fear of us as a people. (They have zero respect for us as well, but that's another issue.)
- gruez 2y ago
  I'm not sure how you read the above list and got the impression that meta wanted "total access like this to the phones, networks and data of every phone in the US". "Connectivity to all of a user’s Apple devices" probably means mDNS access for device discovery, rather than root access on all devices or whatever. Same for "Wi-Fi networks and properties". They probably want a list of wifi networks so they can connect to them, rather than low level access so they can run packet captures or whatever. Yes, even the limited access described above presents privacy issues, but there's no need to be hyperbolic and characterize it as "total access".
  - VertanaNinjai 2y ago
    “Probably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I’m not sure why Meta deserves the benefit of the doubt with a horrible privacy track record as shown in multiple judicial districts throughout the globe.

br0wnr1c3 2y ago

I think one of my personal issues with allowing Meta to access these private APIs is that they may not take "don't allow" for an answer. I have WhatsApp to talk to some family and I recently disabled allowing all contacts in iOS 18. WhatsApp now has a persistent notification at the top of messages to "Allow All Contacts". If Apple allows users to choose whether or not to give Meta access, and users choose "no", Meta can lock them out of the service entirely (e.g., "you can't use this Meta Quest headset without allowing access to your messages"). That being said, Apple is definitely fighting for its own interests here as well. It would obviously benefit them to sell their own watches, headsets, earbuds, etc.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Here's the thing, take a look at just a bit of what Meta is demanding: *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 Now ignoring the obvious societal dangers in this request. (I mean really? Should you be using a Meta headset while you're driving?) The scope of data that they are asking for is breathtaking. All the data, wifi, messages and notifications of not only every iphone in the US, but all of the user's other devices as well. To potentially include their cars. We need to really think deeply about how we set up access to Apple data and APIs. Requests like this are putting me more in the "deny all requests" camp. If tech companies can't be at least a little more reasonable, then I don't think they should have access to our data.
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  > Should you be using a Meta headset while you're driving? The Meta HUD glasses seem like they're definitely designed to be used while driving, and provide a safer way to access info like notifications than looking down at your iPhone. That isn't "Apple data and APIs" this is a notification that someone needs to display on their HUD. Really, the fact that Apple doesn't want to allow this sort of thing pretty clearly demonstrates they're acting in bad faith.
saurik 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

yrcyrc 2y ago

I got rid of all of Facebook and Google apps and services years ago I really hope they won’t get anything as they clearly can’t be trusted with any data. See Noyb.eu for illustration.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457073

freehorse 2y ago

Well I hope all these interoperability regulations come with eventually forcing messaging services to expose their APIs and allow 3rd party clients so that we can use a crowdfunded FOSS client for messaging and ditch all this malware from our phones.

mediumsmart 2y ago

maybe the time has come for them to actually use this: https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_granted_patent_to_create_identity_clones https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_granted_patent... it will burn down their own playhouse too of course

alex1138 2y ago

I dunno, I'm sure people have beef with Apple but Zuck's always taken other people's projects and acted dishonestly and their violating the terms with Whatsapp should be cause for breakup, and something like Apple is absolutely necessary (fine grained permissions) to stop the slurp-all-your-contacts parade that Zuckerberg loves

asix66 2y ago

Seems oxymoronic as Meta doesn’t allow interoperability in order to maintain its walled garden. Apple does the same but it’s generally done in the space of privacy- security and privacy going hand in hand. I have little faith in government, any government, when it comes to technology. Either through ignorance or motive, they usually make decisions that result in less privacy, less security.

luke-stanley 2y ago

Is this Hacker News? This is way bigger than Meta. Should individuals have the freedom to access to their own phone data without needing to be a device manufacturer? Or should we depend on case by case approval of access that is outside of the users hands and something only big companies can do? Framing it as being about `Apple vs Meta` is exactly the line of thinking that Apple wants, and it does a disservice to real Apple users, who have repeatedly been locked into a ecosystem where they have little control of their own data, where even sharing photos over Bluetooth isn't even an option! It's so locked in it's really unreasonable to frame this as being about Meta. Of course users should be able to give none / empty / fake or even real data to Meta if they so choose. But really this is about Apple, user rights, the EU, and a more fair playing field. If you read the PDF Apple put out, they are not offering any kind of middle solution, they are just saying they will, as usual, review case by case device partnership opportunities as it pleases them.

Lucyj001 2y ago

[dead]