4 ms·

Apple vs. Facebook Is Kayfabe

72 points by pchristensen 1y ago

isodev 1y ago
I just saw the post surface on Mastodon with some extra [0] context [1]. As an app developer, I need to keep such stories on the sidelines of my focus because otherwise it's practically impossible to do my job. Every single claim from Apple about privacy over the years has proven to be sales theatre. [0] https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/ [1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked-together_id141910 https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked...
kg 1y ago
The adventure involved in disabling Facebook's in-app browser is genuinely funny to me. Some people worked hard to bury it like that.
etchalon 1y ago
Just so I'm clear, this article's contention is that, because Apple doesn't restrict in-app browsers in the same way they do iOS Safari, they're just pretending to be mad at Facebook?
- bitpush 1y ago
  Apple has been all about contradictions, and somehow that works for them. They strategically make a big deal about things, and then when silently does what every company is doing. The impressive part is they get away with it. For instance, everybody thinks Apple hates advertising, esp user-tracking. The interesting thing is Apple themselves run a $6B+ ads businsess, which does first-party user tracking - which is the nuance. Similarly, if Apple truely wanted user privacy, they'll outright ban Facebook from their platform. Or most egregious is Apple "stands up to government" (famously with FBI) but is more than happy to bend the knee to Chinese government, or most recently with the gold plaque with Trump.
wnevets 1y ago
Is it that hard believe after Apple & Google conspired to artificially suppress developer wages?
- skygazer 1y ago
  For those that weren't around a decade ago, this is a reference to Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe having conspired to not actively recruit each other's employees, for which they settled a $415 class-action lawsuit and agreed to end the prohibition.
socalgal2 1y ago
I've long held that this is one of those areas that if Apple really cared about privacy they'd disallow in-app browsers. They'd add the rule that an app that is not a browser must list in its manifest 10 or fewer domains that its webview is allowed to access. All the rest would be denied. This would mean many apps like the Facebook App, Messenger, Google Maps, GMail, Line, WeChat, Slack, Discord, etc would effectively not be allowed to open links to the entire internet but only domains directly related to the app and would be a privacy win. They'd have to have some wording that would have to distinguish between a browser app and a non-browser app but i'd argue that's probably not that hard to do.
- eru 1y ago
  Couldn't Facebook just proxy external websites through their own domain?
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  If they cared about privacy they could also not sell search traffic to Google for billions of dollars a year. But to be fair, for billions of dollars I would stop caring about privacy too.
  - azinman2 1y ago
    They sell being the default, but you can change it.
    - hu3 1y ago
      If most people changed the default, it wouldn't be worth billions.
      - georgeecollins 1y ago
        If most people changed the default they would add steps to make it harder to change. Saying something an option is just a fig leaf if the company is allowed to tip the scales. That's why a regulator can be effective. You can have a regulation that A has to be as easy to do as B and enforce it. Think of browser choice in on PCs in Europe or (briefly) the rule that it should be as easy to unsubscribe in the US as it is to subscribe. People have different feelings about regulations, but I think in places where everyone converges on a single platform pregulation that is protective of the individual makes sense.

72 points by pchristensen 1y ago

I just saw the post surface on Mastodon with some extra [0] context [1]. As an app developer, I need to keep such stories on the sidelines of my focus because otherwise it's practically impossible to do my job. Every single claim from Apple about privacy over the years has proven to be sales theatre. [0] https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/ [1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked-together_id141910 https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked...

kg 1y ago

The adventure involved in disabling Facebook's in-app browser is genuinely funny to me. Some people worked hard to bury it like that.

etchalon 1y ago

Just so I'm clear, this article's contention is that, because Apple doesn't restrict in-app browsers in the same way they do iOS Safari, they're just pretending to be mad at Facebook?

bitpush 1y ago
Apple has been all about contradictions, and somehow that works for them. They strategically make a big deal about things, and then when silently does what every company is doing. The impressive part is they get away with it. For instance, everybody thinks Apple hates advertising, esp user-tracking. The interesting thing is Apple themselves run a $6B+ ads businsess, which does first-party user tracking - which is the nuance. Similarly, if Apple truely wanted user privacy, they'll outright ban Facebook from their platform. Or most egregious is Apple "stands up to government" (famously with FBI) but is more than happy to bend the knee to Chinese government, or most recently with the gold plaque with Trump.

wnevets 1y ago

Is it that hard believe after Apple & Google conspired to artificially suppress developer wages?

skygazer 1y ago
For those that weren't around a decade ago, this is a reference to Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe having conspired to not actively recruit each other's employees, for which they settled a $415 class-action lawsuit and agreed to end the prohibition.

socalgal2 1y ago

I've long held that this is one of those areas that if Apple really cared about privacy they'd disallow in-app browsers. They'd add the rule that an app that is not a browser must list in its manifest 10 or fewer domains that its webview is allowed to access. All the rest would be denied. This would mean many apps like the Facebook App, Messenger, Google Maps, GMail, Line, WeChat, Slack, Discord, etc would effectively not be allowed to open links to the entire internet but only domains directly related to the app and would be a privacy win. They'd have to have some wording that would have to distinguish between a browser app and a non-browser app but i'd argue that's probably not that hard to do.

eru 1y ago
Couldn't Facebook just proxy external websites through their own domain?
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
If they cared about privacy they could also not sell search traffic to Google for billions of dollars a year. But to be fair, for billions of dollars I would stop caring about privacy too.
- azinman2 1y ago
  They sell being the default, but you can change it.
  - hu3 1y ago
    If most people changed the default, it wouldn't be worth billions.
    - georgeecollins 1y ago
      If most people changed the default they would add steps to make it harder to change. Saying something an option is just a fig leaf if the company is allowed to tip the scales. That's why a regulator can be effective. You can have a regulation that A has to be as easy to do as B and enforce it. Think of browser choice in on PCs in Europe or (briefly) the rule that it should be as easy to unsubscribe in the US as it is to subscribe. People have different feelings about regulations, but I think in places where everyone converges on a single platform pregulation that is protective of the individual makes sense.