[HN Gopher] Facebook reportedly prepping antitrust lawsuit again... ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook reportedly prepping antitrust lawsuit against Apple on App Store rules Author : PieUser Score : 145 points Date : 2021-01-29 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.businessinsider.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.businessinsider.com) | wayneftw wrote: | I just want to be able to build an app and put it on my phone, | which I supposedly own, without having to jump through any of | Apple's hoops. | | Is this lawsuit going to help me in any way? | utiac wrote: | Please don't link to paywall information. | outside1234 wrote: | Sounds great. Let's break up Facebook AND unbundle the iOS app | store. | woah wrote: | So refreshing to see Facebook fight for the little guy for once | rtx wrote: | Yes, this is great for my specific use case. | mrkramer wrote: | I still don't understand is Apple conservative about AppStore | because of security reasons or like Zuck said they prefer their | own apps and services. I mean if Google open sourced Android why | wouldn't Apple ease their AppStore policies? | sjwright wrote: | Apple sees privacy as a marketable point of differentiation to | its competitors. I for one appreciate that Apple's approach is | a choice available to me as a consumer. | | Meanwhile, the arc of Google's Android platform has been | steadily bending away from open source, not towards it. | mrkramer wrote: | I understand that privacy is point of differentiation but on | Android you can still load any .apk file on any Android | device on iOS devices not so much. | sjwright wrote: | Effective privacy protection means that app developers need | strong incentives to follow strict rules. I for one | appreciate that Apple's approach of enforcing strict rules | is a choice available to me as a consumer. | ogre_codes wrote: | I think Facebook has 2 or 3 targets here. | | They want to force Apple to open up the restriction on the App | Store. Apple has been slowly turning the screws making it more | and more difficult to get information out of the phone. I'm not | sure Facebook is going to be able to get that, but I suspect they | have a plan B which is iMessage. | | iMessage is Apple's secret "Social Network". When I quit | Facebook, it's what I turned to, and I know a lot of people who | rely on it as their primary way of keeping in touch with friends/ | family and the increasing functionality of iMessage is becoming | more of a threat to FB. | | While Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and all the other messaging | apps have to beg to get access to Photos, Location, ApplePay, | cameras, FaceId, etc, with iMessage everything is permitted out | of the box. Apple has a whole mini-App Store for iMessage which | isn't really possible with Facebook. | | Finally, I'm sure Facebook would absolutely love to open up their | own Ad-supported App Store which tracks everyone to their hearts | content. Piles of money building an App Store, particularly when | someone else is building the whole tool-chain to make it work and | you just have to serve up the content. | mercurialshark wrote: | It is entirely appropriate to consider Apple's conduct as anti- | competitive and/or acting as part of a cartel, without asserting | that the appropriate remedy is an injunction allowing Facebook to | utilize user's unique device ID's to the benefit of Facebook's | ads systems for ad targeting. | | In other words, this particular case may help elucidate Apple's | dominance/influence on the market, but that does not necessarily | mean that the privacy changes in and of themselves are the | foundational antitrust issue. | sjwright wrote: | That makes no sense. Apple is guilty for doing the right thing? | | If you want to demonstrate market dominance, write a clear | definition into the law and enact it. | mercurialshark wrote: | I'm not addressing guilt, but to your point, it may be but | one way to demonstrate their market dominance (even if the | consequences are beneficial for consumers). | | If you spent illicit funds on a good cause, it can still be | used as proof of your control over the funds. | | So Apple's position and influence over the market may raise | antitrust concerns, but that doesn't mean I don't want | privacy protections (I do!). | | As an example, a drug dealer can give money to their | community and while it's going towards a good cause, that | doesn't change who/how they are donating. Companies can have | similar conduct in hopes that an enforcement action would be | perceived as harming the consumer/retail investors. | jswizzy wrote: | The pot calling the kettle black | [deleted] | newbie578 wrote: | While I might not like Facebook, I am supporting them on this | decision. It is dire time to get rid of the App Stores, Google's | and Apple's, they are a net negative for everyone except them. | | If you are a small developer, you can get review bombed and your | app download rate can take a drastic hit, while if you are cozy | with the big players ( _wink wink_ RobbingHood) Google will take | down your 100k negative reviews. | | They keep reaping the rewards for doing absolutely nothing, | except having the app be searchable. | | You do your own marketing, you develop your own app, you design | your own app, you have nothing from Apple except that you need to | ask for their permission to push your product on their walled | garden. | | Of course I would love not to push it on the App Store, but they | do not allow competition on iOS, which is the prime case for | anti-trust. | | iOS does not make the smartphone experience, the apps make the | smartphone experience. The order of priority should not be | forgotten. | | If Spotify, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Amazon disappeared | overnight from the App Store, I would love to see how willing | would people be for their "eco-system" (walled garden)?? | birdyrooster wrote: | There is a symbiosis between Apple and its developers, both are | responsible for the experience and Apple reviews apps and | maintains submission standards for that reason. | Mc_Big_G wrote: | Makes sense that Facebook would fight anything that helps people | realize how many ways they track and manipulate users. | chairmanwow1 wrote: | Wow. I didn't realize that all we needed to bat back the absurd | monopolistic practices of the tech giants was a big tech civil | war. | | The absurdity is compounded by the fact regulators never had the | gumption to hunt the tigers themselves. | benrapscallion wrote: | As if we needed further proof of exactly what kind of a company | Facebook is and what their core business is. | eznzt wrote: | >the iPhone-maker abused its power in the smartphone market by | forcing app developers to abide by App Store rules that Apple's | own apps don't have to follow | | Yeah... So? | damagednoob wrote: | That could be seen as abusing their monopoly. Judges tend to | take a dim view of that. | dleslie wrote: | Apple does not have a monopoly any more than Ford or Toyota | do. | damagednoob wrote: | Using your analogy, Ford/Toyota would own the roads. IANAL | but this strikes me a lot like the lawsuits Microsoft was | being slapped with in the 90s/2000s[1]. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Comm | issio... | dleslie wrote: | Er, no. Using my analogy T-Mobile et al own the roads. | threeseed wrote: | Microsoft had a dominant market share within the | computing industry. | | At one point it was as high as 95%. Apple is not remotely | close to that. | roywiggins wrote: | First Apple needs to be found to have a monopoly. | izacus wrote: | Didn't Apple fans happily report that Apple collects 120% | of all mobile profits? | | That majority of phones sold in US are iPhones? That Apple | market share became majority last year in US? | roywiggins wrote: | I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that arguing Apple | really is a monopoly is going to be a large part of | Facebook's case. | viscanti wrote: | Second, consumer harm needs to be proven. | eznzt wrote: | Where is the consumer harm in not allowing Facebook to | track users between apps? | jandrese wrote: | Facebook is fighting the good fight for evil reasons. They | complain that Apple's restrictions on apps are not applied to | their own apps, given them an unfair advantage and also | preventing people from developing real QoL improving apps for | iPhones. That sounds reasonable. But then the stated reason is | that Facebook wants to be able to better track what people are | doing with their phones, so now I want both sides to lose. | zpeti wrote: | Shame on people for downvoting you. You are 100% correct | factually, and imo morally too. | sjwright wrote: | Apple apps don't do what Apple is restricting other developers | from doing here, so any claim that these restrictions aren't | applied to their own apps is moot. | lmilcin wrote: | Let's not forget, that Facebook also owns its own platform. And | Facebook has long tradition of doing basically the hell they | want with it including whatever they want with user data, | offering products aimed at influencing election results, | building products to compete with existing businesses on their | platform and then deplatforming competitors, etc. | jandrese wrote: | Yes, it would be deliciously ironic if Facebook won the case | and was then forced to abide by the same mandate of openness. | mrtksn wrote: | Any chances of having juicy revelations like those we had with | Apple v.s. Samsung? I loved the early prototypes and Samsung | "Apple did this, we did this, fix it to make ours the way Apple | is" documents that came out as evidence in the court. | davzie wrote: | Apple are a private company and can do whatever they want... | ziftface wrote: | Why is hacker news full to the brim with this exact comment? | This is a flawed worldview. Private companies cannot do | whatever they want. When they are as big and their reach is as | far as Apple's they have a further responsibility to society. | What that is exactly can be decided in court, but the limit to | their power isn't "whatever they want". | Nasrudith wrote: | Well established legal principles - ones old enough to be in | Latin. "Nullum crimen sine lege" or "no punishment without | law". Despite prevalent feelings of how it should be there | needs to be an actual law broken to say they can't do that. | Being a jerk isn't a crime. | | Anything isn't literally correct - if Apple decided and | openly "we don't serve Jews" they would rightfully get in big | legal trouble from several fronts from Civil Rights to | shareholder lawsuits angry about the needless illegal mess | they just made. But if there is no law it really is against | them. | | Responsibility to society is a dangerously vague term and not | backed by force of law for reason. Laws may fall under that | as a label such as legally defined minimum of taxes but so do | any number of potentially mutually exclusive opinions. | | I have yet to see a coherent proposal for defining a remotely | popular new law to restrict undesired behaviors - let alone | one that would be constitutional as well. | zepto wrote: | I'd like to see Facebook's 'responsibility to society' | examined first. | davzie wrote: | I was being contrarian hoping that someone posted the gold | that was the person you replied to. The irony in that | comment is incredible! | ziftface wrote: | I aim to please. Now tell me: what about my comment is | wrong? | whoisjuan wrote: | A very original take on this situation. | barneygale wrote: | The rallying cry of the apocalypse | akmarinov wrote: | Facebook: "Your honor, Apple implemented a prompt to ask people | whether they want 3rd parties to track them, using their own | data." | | Judge: "Case closed." | izacus wrote: | Well, it can be more like "Your honor, Apple demanded that all | their competitors implement a prompt to ask people whether they | want tracking, but their own tracking is hidden under "System | services" [macOS] or under another separate, by default | enabled, switch [iOS]. | | They also demand that our Messenger discloses list of collected | data, while apple's iMessage messenger does not disclose the | data collected by Apple corporation as part of their iCloud | service suite." | | Facebook is a scummy company. But Apple is hiding their own | tracking under default opt-in switches and using double | standards as well. It's funny that their own apps don't | disclose all the data that iCloud collects and uses for basic | functionality like messaging. | | Having BOTH corporations honestly disclose what they collect | would be the biggest win for us. | Dirlewanger wrote: | I get FB's argument, but I have little sympathy. Apple | doesn't sell user data unlike FB. | viscanti wrote: | This feels like false equivalency. Sure, it would be great if | consumers had better visibility into how data is used, but | one company is an ads company where the users are the product | and the other sells hardware and services. | izacus wrote: | When it comes to antitrust for platforms, equivalency is | exactly what's being tested. That is: are 3rd party | applications treated the same as 1st party ones? | viscanti wrote: | No it doesn't. Antitrust comes down to if there's harm to | the consumer from the behavior of the company. If Apple's | tracking is sufficiently different than Facebooks | (because one is a hardware and services company | collecting data to improve the hardware and services and | the other is selling the data for ads), then it's a false | equivalency to group them together. | quickthrowman wrote: | Apple doesn't sell user data, totally different than | Facebook. | justapassenger wrote: | They "sell" user data in exactly the same way, just on | smaller scale. They have ads in appstore, that are based on | your behavior. | zepto wrote: | "But Apple is hiding their own tracking under default opt-in | switches and using double standards as well." | | This is, as far as I can tell, completely false. | | Apple has been asking for explicit opt-ins for years, and is | only now requiring apps to follow suit. | izacus wrote: | That's not the case on my macOS MacBook or my iPad. | threeseed wrote: | You were asked on every single OS update whether or not | you wanted to share usage and crash data with Apple and | third party developers. | | And it is opt-in. | zepto wrote: | If you do a clean install, you'll find that you are asked | to opt-in to all the services that collect personal data. | | You may not remember it, and I think that some of the | opt-ins persist across device restores, but all the data | collection is through explicit opt-ins. | bilbo0s wrote: | This is the difference. Apple is explicitly opt-in. (In | fact, a very large number of people opt-out of Apple's as | soon as they get the prompt.) The non-Apple ones are | completely opaque to the user. | | They should _all_ be opt-in. | krrrh wrote: | Except Apple does provide very detailed information about the | sorts of data it collects, why it collects it, and how it | uses it. | | https://www.apple.com/privacy/ | | It's bundled apps do not track users across the internet, | which is the crux of Facebook's issue. | | Just because Apple's bundled apps aren't on the App Store and | don't have the same nutrition facts scorecard it doesn't mean | that they aren't communicating their approach to privacy | loudly and in detail elsewhere. | izacus wrote: | The question is - is that shown next to iMessage with the | exactly same dialog and messaging as for all their | competing apps? Same UI location? Are Apple's first party | apps treated the same as their competitors? | | Because there's a difference between a big in-your-face | popup and a website far away from the device actually | running iMessage. | threeseed wrote: | Apple specifically details what data is collected under the | "About iMessage and FaceTime & Privacy" link within the | Messages preferences. | | And their description listed under the Privacy section, "The | Apple advertising platform does not track you" couldn't be | more clear. | | Maybe you can outline exactly how Apple is tracking you ? | izacus wrote: | > Apple specifically details what data is collected under | the "About iMessage and FaceTime & Privacy" link within the | Messages preferences. | | So does Facebook. But Apple then demanded that everyone | except them shows a big disclosure popup in AppStore which | doesn't appear for their apps since they're preinstalled. | | > And their description listed under the Privacy section, | "The Apple advertising platform does not track you" | couldn't be more clear. | | Note the weasel phrase "Advertising platform". Remember, | Apple keeps all of our private data, messages and even | locations stored on their servers. Well, at least from most | of us that use iCloud. | threeseed wrote: | The world doesn't revolve around Facebook. | | Almost every single app on the store doesn't have a | comprehensive Privacy section. And so enforcing this on | behalf of users is a very positive and important step. | | And yes in order to offer backups, have a cloud-based | Messages service and offer features like Find My they | will need to collect data. | | But all of that can be switched off and Location Services | for example is opt-in by default. | kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: | > The world doesn't revolve around Facebook. | | Well said. However, if you are a business owner today who | wants to be able to put out their app to half their | customer base, your world does revolve around Apple, | which is what those of us who don't agree with the way | Apple runs its App Store hegemony don't want to happen. | tyfon wrote: | > Note the weasel phrase "Advertising platform". | Remember, Apple keeps all of our private data, messages | and even locations stored on their servers. Well, at | least from most of us that use iCloud. | | Isn't all this private data encrypted with the user keys? | | That's the impression I have gotten at least and I hope | I'm not wrong. | ardit33 wrote: | if apple does similar tracking themselves, but don't allow | third parties, then FB might actually have a case there... | zepto wrote: | They don't | m00x wrote: | Source? | zepto wrote: | It's widely known that Apple asks for an opt-in | explicitly for user data collection. | | It doesn't require a 'source' to check this. | | If you have a source showing that they are doing tracking | without consent, _that_ would be relevant, and would | indeed favor facebook's case. | shuckles wrote: | None of their apps use data for tracking according to | their nutrition labels. | loceng wrote: | Let Facebook and Apple fight to educate the masses on their | bullshit - while hopefully one or more strong competitors start | scaling? | ve55 wrote: | Note that it _is_ possible for these accusations to have some | merit even if the accuser has engaged in similar things on their | own. | | There's no need to group every interaction into political | dichotomies. | lmilcin wrote: | Up to some point. | | But once you are well known for abusing power your own cries | when you are on receiving end of abuse kinda loose their power | to get me motivated to defend you. | | For me it is rather clear case of wrestling between large | corporations to see how much they can push the balance of | power. | | FB was quite happy to be pre installed on many an Android phone | and enjoy preferential treatment. I don't remember them crying | for equal treatment then and if not being able to uninstall FB | from a phone is not a preferential treatment then I don't know | what is. | | https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ | zepto wrote: | Yes, but in this case it's obvious that the only reason they | are doing this is because of Apple's requirement for people to | consent to tracking. | | There is every reason to believe that this case is being shaped | either a shakedown or to shape the market to facebook's wishes, | and not to serve an idealistic public good. | | Pretending this is not the case would be willful ignorance that | nobody should engage in. | ve55 wrote: | It may be in FB's best interest, but I would prefer we | approach it by asking "Will this help consumers, users, and | independent developers?", instead of "Will this help FB? | Because if so, count me out". | zepto wrote: | It's not going to help consumers and independent | developers. | | Facebook and a preparing the case and does not care at all | about either group, except perhaps to be able to take a | slice of the action themselves. | | If the Facebook app was also an App Store, we'd be in a | much worse situation than we are now. | | _Some_ kind of intervention in the market might help those | groups. | | This has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's just | dressed up in that language to mislead people about what | it's intent is. | dhnajsjdnd wrote: | One can just as easily say "Apple doesn't care about the | users, they're just trying to make money selling phones | and getting a bigger cut of transactions that happen on | the phone". These sorts of statements are somewhat true, | but ultimately not relevant to law or public policy. In | reality you'd find that companies are composed of | individuals with a diverse range of motivations. | | If you find yourself unable to contemplate that the | thousands of people at company X as something other than | a unified blob of evil, it might be a useful exercise to | seek other perspectives and practice some empathy. It'll | make the world easier to understand. | zepto wrote: | 'One can just as easily say "Apple doesn't care about the | users, they're just trying to make money selling phones | and getting a bigger cut of transactions that happen on | the phone".' | | Yes one can, and one can make a case for that based on | the aggregate of the companies behavior and statements of | their executives. | | If you don't look at the actual companies, it's easy to | make a false equivalence like this. | | In this case actually looking at Facebook's behavior, | incentive structure, and the statements of its executives | support the position I have taken. | dhnajsjdnd wrote: | Looking at the company's behavior and incentive structure | is definitely more relevant than trying to read the tea | leaves of motivations. | | Facebook's business is getting paid by companies to help | them sell goods and services to consumers. Facebook is | claiming that Apple's changes make it harder for them to | do that. Don't Facebook's claims match its incentives | here? | zepto wrote: | Your description of Facebook's business is incomplete. | | Facebook's business is getting paid by companies to help | them sell goods and services to consumers _by tracking | user behavior without consent so that they. can sell | targeted ads, and by keeping users engaged with the ad | delivery platform by presenting content algorithmically | selected to provoke emotional reactions._ | | Those are the incentives. | zepto wrote: | Each time the issue of action to force Apple to open the App | Store comes up, I usually mention that Facebook will be the first | to open a store. | | If Facebook prevails, at the very least every developer and every | user will have to deal with both Apple's store _and_ Facebook's | store. | | We know that Facebook will permit apps which do tracking without | consent. | | This situation is objectively worse for both consumers _and_ | developers than what we have now. | | It's also worth pointing out that Facebook would be unaffected, | or indeed May even benefit if the overall app marketplace | contracted due to erosion of user trust. | chairmanwow1 wrote: | Dev's taking a 30% slice of revenue is abject absurdity and | multiple stores would force competition on this front. | zepto wrote: | That may be true, but this remedy would still harm both | developers and users much more than the 30% does. | | Having to support multiple stores will cost small developers | much more than it does large ones. | | And having to deal with more scammy apps, and the loss of any | tracking prevention will be a pure step backwards for users. | | Nobody should support this move by Facebook, even if you | believe the app market needs reform. | | A Facebook App Store is obviously not the solution. | | There is actually no reason why the 30% couldn't just be | regulated directly, e.g. in the way that music performance | royalties are regulated. | dylan604 wrote: | Even if FB does open a store, the apps released on it will | still be controlled by the OS of the device. So if iOS still | says you can't track, you must get permissions for specific | access, then that's how it will be. FB has no control over | that. | zepto wrote: | This is just not how it works. | | Apple's rules relies on both controlling the API _and_ the | App Store rules, to prevent tracking and other kinds of | misuse. | | Facebook's store simply wouldn't have rules against | fingerprinting etc, and of course the Facebook store app | itself could issue and manage tracking identifiers. | dylan604 wrote: | So you're saying that even if a developer doesn't want to | bother with the tracking, the FB store will demand you put | stuff in to feed their beast? Again, I still say that the | device itself will need to grant an app access to things | like GPS, etc. If the user says OK to that request, then | whatevs, but the OS will still force the app to request | permission. | zepto wrote: | > So you're saying that even if a developer doesn't want | to bother with the tracking, the FB store will demand you | put stuff in to feed their beast? | | No - why would this conversation have anything to do with | developers _who don't want to do tracking_? | | I'm saying that developers who _do_ want to track users | across apps (including anyone who used the Facebook api) | would be able to do so without getting user consent. If | they couldn't get an identifier from the OS, they would | be able to get one from the store app, _so OS based | permissions would be irrelevant_. | | > Again, I still say that the device itself will need to | grant an app access to things like GPS, etc. If the user | says OK to that request, then whatevs, but the OS will | still force the app to request permission. | | This is irrelevant to preventing tracking of user | behavior across apps without consent _which is what | Facebook is arguing for_. | | However you raise a good additional point. An app which | asks for GPS to provide a local feature would _also_ be | able to sell that data behind the scenes without consent, | if the app was sold on a store other than Apple's. | | None of this is good. | paxys wrote: | A Facebook store would be an instant flop because it adds | nothing of value to the ecosystem. By your logic why aren't | they running a successful store on Android? | zepto wrote: | Facebook makes a bunch of profit right now from selling app | install ads. | | They would instantly start selling those apps themselves. | | They would also instantly start selling apps that collect | user data without consent. | | Tell me again how that would be a flop? | shuckles wrote: | Facebook is more popular than iOS, and they maintain a developer | platform as well. What kinds of distinctions could they draw | which force Apple to open up its platform without also having to | open up the Facebook SDK? Should courts force Facebook to allow | apps that populate newsfeed? | axlee wrote: | This is a bad faith argument: an operating system is | fundamentally different from an application. | ogre_codes wrote: | Not at all. | | What is Apple's monopoly? It is not in Smartphones, they | barely have 50% share. Their monopoly is on access to iOS | users. | | You cannot claim iOS is a monopoly without saying the same | thing about Facebook. Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook | users. | mhh__ wrote: | Monopoly != Trust | shuckles wrote: | Web browsers are applications where similar arguments apply. | Facebook once had thousands of 3rd party applications running | on their platform and has steadily removed support for most | of them. I'm not asking on behalf of a random weather app; | I'm asking on behalf of an application with more users than | iOS. I don't think there's a universe where Apple removes | Facebook from the App Store. At that point, why are you a | mere app developer or why should you be treated as such? | | As an aside, I'm asking the question very sincerely. I'm | always open to more developer platforms - it's in my | professional interest. | dleslie wrote: | Indeed. Where is my ability to run my own ad service, payment | processor, et cetera through Facebook's servers? | shuckles wrote: | I'm sure Google would love to let users choose whose ad | network delivers them ads on Facebook properties. There might | even be room for innovation here. | ogre_codes wrote: | Facebook is more prevalent/ ubiquitous than iOS. | | I'm not sure I'd agree it's more popular. | shuckles wrote: | Sure. My question still stands with your framing. | ogre_codes wrote: | It's a neat question, I wish I had a good answer. | msoad wrote: | I think this is going to _protect_ Apple from antitrust lawsuits. | Nobody like Facebook in the current government. They certainly | won 't help Facebook in this case. This is all on top of how | absurd and unpopular this lawsuit is to begin with. | ralmidani wrote: | I try to evaluate these BigCo vs. BigCo battles individually | rather than always dissing one company or being a fanboy for | another. In that vein, I support Apple in its attempts to clamp | down on FB's egregious tracking and data collection. At the same | time, I support Epic's attempts to break up Apple's stranglehold | on in-app payments. On that last issue specifically, I am even | sympathetic to FB's claim against Apple. | root_axis wrote: | I appreciate your appeal to nuance. | fossuser wrote: | The best analysis of this is from Stratechery: | https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-au... | | -- | | "Amazon, meanwhile, is increasingly where shopping searches | start, particularly for Prime customers, and the company's ad | business is exploding. Needless to say, Amazon doesn't need to | request special permission for IDFAs or to share emails with 3rd | parties to finely target its ads: everything is self-contained, | and to the extent the company advertises on platforms like | Google, it can still keep information about customer interests | and conversions to itself. That means that in the long run, | independent merchants who wish to actually find their customers | will have no choice but to be an Amazon third-party merchant | instead of setting up an independent shop on a platform like | Shopify. | | This decision, to be clear, will not be because Amazon was acting | anticompetitively; the biggest driver -- which, by the way, will | also benefit Facebook's on-platform commerce efforts -- will be | Apple, which, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically | destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to | compete with the Internet giants." | | -- | | FB has a point here, but I'm still hoping Apple wins - I'd rather | the tracking model not be viable. | saltedonion wrote: | This is true but the solution should be anti trust action | against amazon as well, as opposed to let fb be monopolistic | and "give small business a chance" | dalbasal wrote: | There is the "technically true" way of looking at this, and | there's the non-legalistic, subjective judgement of these | companies. | | FB, their business model and modus operandi is filthy. They | really moved the overton window on what is morally normative in | terms of advertising... and then applied those norms to | everything... content, not just advertising. | | Apple do stuff you might disagree on. They normalised demoting | applications to "apps," which exist inside a walled garden, pay | rent and play by Apple's rules. This might not be a good vibe. | But, the app store isn't their product. | | Monopoly, by and large, is not Apple's business model. Apple | are big enough that they do monopolize markets, like the app | store. But the app store isn't the product or business model. | Selling phones is. They don't generally pursue dominant market | shares, prefering to cream the high end. | | A business model that isn't inherently monopoly seeking at its | core, isn't mostly about data, advertising or somesuch... that | basically makes Apple a shining example. Everything is | relative. | | That said, despite hoping FB lose generally, I do hope that | antitrust builds up to something meaningful. I'll be hoping for | a guilty. | walrus01 wrote: | > FB has a point here, but I'm still hoping Apple wins - I'd | rather than tracking model not be viable. | | I think it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously: | | a) it's bad and wrong for apple to demand 30%, or whatever it | is, as a cut of any payment made inside an app distributed | through their app store | | b) apple blocking tracking and advertising networks at the | operating system level (API calls between the app running on a | phone or tablet, and the underlying OS) is a net benefit for | the consumer end user. obviously apple has a very different | perspective on this since they are not facebook, or google, and | not dependent upon advertising revenue. | pradn wrote: | b) Apple blocking tracking is only a net benefit if you value | privacy enough to overweigh the drop in customers for niche | businesses well served by targeted ads. | Forge36 wrote: | What's up stop b) from being "goodbye api" and completely | removing it? I'd assume at some point any App could be | expected to make required updates for a variety of reasons. | Like any other tool: what obligations does a manufacturer | have to continue creating replacement parts? | dylan604 wrote: | If it is truly a manufacturer making replacement parts, | then they have to have enough stock to fulfill warranty | requests for the life of the warranty. Otherwise, they have | to replace the entire thing. | m-ee wrote: | This presupposes that this tracking heavy targeted advertising | has positive ROI for these small businesses. Is there any | evidence this is actually true? | llbeansandrice wrote: | Yes. I know someone who runs a blog that shows ads. Since | Google adwords/sense and modern targeted ads became a thing | their revenue from the business has basically doubled if not | more. | manigandham wrote: | Yes. This question seems to come up constantly as if | advertising is still some arcane art. Facebook and Google are | incredibly good at this and have the valuations to show for | it. | | Highly targeted advertising can produce great results and | there was a time where Facebook was basically a money- | printing machine for affiliate and ecommerce because it was | so good at finding and reaching the perfect customer. This | has become saturated and results have dissipated somewhat but | it's still very strong. | newfeatureok wrote: | I'd love to see some research about this from an unbiased | source showing that targeted advertising produces great | results in small businesses (<100 employees, or <5M revenue | yearly). | aardvarkr wrote: | Anecdotal but I've always heard from marketing friends | that Facebook ads are hands down the best ads and yield | many multiples of the cost of the ads | manigandham wrote: | What about all the actual small businesses that have | positive ROAS? There are millions of them on Facebook's | platform. What kind of other research are you looking | for? | ta1234567890 wrote: | It would also be important to know, not if ads can | produce great results, but how many companies do they | provide great results for? Even better, what percentage | of all business that run online ads get a positive return | on their investment, and what is the average of that | return. | | My personal experience is that it is pretty hard to get | consistently good performance running campaigns on FB or | Google. It requires a lot of learning and a lot of trial | and error. On top of that, they constantly push you to | spend more by giving you dubious recommendations on how | to "improve" your campaigns. Very hard to believe that | the average small business is actually capable of running | good campaigns and consistently make money from them. | Retric wrote: | Small business are well known for making very poor | decisions on average. Just look at Groupon and Food | Delivery App XYZ. Moving lots of inventory at negative | margins is much easier than doing so profitability, which | is one of the reasons they so frequently fail. | manigandham wrote: | Sure, nothing prevents a business from making poor | decisions that puts them out of business. Why is that | specific to ads? | mattkrause wrote: | I'm not sure that answers the question. | | It's not impossible that Facebook and Google capture all of | the value--or more--that their clients generate by running | ads: Bob's Burgers runs $500/mo worth of ads, only | generates $400 in (new) profit from them, but is afraid to | stop because Paul's Pizza is also running ads and they | might lose even more marketshare. | jamiequint wrote: | That's theoretically true but not true in reality, ask | one of any of the thousands of new (in the last ~8 years, | since FB launched lookalike targeting) businesses that | grew to millions of dollars of revenue off of FB ads. I | personally know at least 10 whose primary early growth | mechanism was Facebook ads. They work. | mrtksn wrote: | So to break Amazon monopoly, the users must be tracked all day | long, have complete profile of every living person and these | people should not be asked first? | | Why not break Amazon through regulatory power instead of total | population tracking? | | I alo don't buy the small local business argument. If a local | bakery wants to reach me, they can put a sign or do a promotion | like giving a free cookie with the coffee on my way to work. It | will also benefit the local community instead of a soulless | corporation in SV. | | When there's no Facebook, there's no FB for all of these | bakeries. I don't die out of hunger because I failed to see | targeted ad, instead I look at the maps or walk around and find | the shops or ask a friend for a recommendation. The bakeries | can excel in quality, have amazing prices etc. to reach me, | like the old days. | | An optimised version of FB's business is one where all the 3 | bakeries in my neighbourhood give all their margin to FB in | attempt to sell me cookies. Even better for FB if they optimize | their cookies for lowest possible quality, just enough that the | ads can drive me to buy one. | dereg wrote: | I do not agree with the quoted train of logic in the context of | an antitrust suit. It leads to the conclusion that X (Facebook) | should wage an antitrust lawsuit against Y (Apple) in order to | achieve an outcome that would help tame the growth of Z's | (Amazon) market position. | | If the United States feels that Amazon is an anticompetitive | company, then that position should be litigated in and of | itself. | | It's understandable that Facebook feels righteous in filing a | proxy lawsuit for its advertisers. They've had their hand in | the cookie jar of so many internet transactions for so long | that they cannot imagine the horror of not knowing about any of | them. | fossuser wrote: | It's worth reading the entire blog post I linked - it's good | and provides more context. | | I only quoted a relevant subsection because I know otherwise | 99% of people won't click through to read any of it. | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | The solution is this: | | 1. Apple iPhone needs to be an open platform. Users can install | apps from wherever and don't have to go through Apple | distribution. (But Apple can still provide this for convenience | and discovery, and still charge a fee.) | | 2. Installing apps includes a strong permissions API. The | filesystem, sensor access, GPS, etc. can be cordoned off and | requires user intervention. Heuristics and isolation can | prevent apps from sharing data for tracking/identification. | | The reality is that Apple outgrew their platform and it can't | continue to exist as a walled garden without being a monopoly. | They can't have their cake and eat it too. Otherwise Facebook | has a case. Epic has a case. Etc. | design-material wrote: | Isn't this essentially saying: | | 1. Make Apple build a strong permissions API that covers the | filesystem, sensors, GPS, isolation, privacy, tracking | protection etc. | | 2. Force Apple to provide this for free to all developers | (allowing them to charge for access to list on the App Store) | | ? | Rumudiez wrote: | They already do. It's called Safari | fossuser wrote: | I don't agree with this or want this. | | I like that Apple has leverage to tell app developers to | adhere to their platform rules in ways that benefit Apple's | users. | | If Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one thing, | but they're not, they wield it to prevent spammy crap, to | make it easy to subscribe and unsubscribe, to prevent spying | and tracking, etc. | | That's why I value and buy Apple products, if someone wants | an open platform they can buy something else. They're not a | monopoly and they don't act in a way that harms their users. | Barrin92 wrote: | >if Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one | thing | | walled gardens harm users by definition because they reduce | competition. Forcing an open API would immediately create | the opportunity for people to offer competing clients for | any Apple (or Facebook etc) service, drive down costs, | produce new ways to interact with the services of large | companies and so on, it would immediately unlock the | ability of countless of independent creators to produce new | products. | | In fact if you were to open up Facebook, Apple's apis and | so on and turned them into open protocols you would not | even necessarily need invasive privacy regulation, people | could just build a privacy respecting Facebook client that | lets people interact with the service in a way _they_ want, | getting an algorithm free news feed if they want, stripping | out baggage they don 't need. It would solve a large | majority of the exact issues that we have with large tech | companies. | | Apple does hold a monopoly over all Apple users, which | gives them market power the same way a monopolistic company | in a larger market exercises power. It's actually straight | up depressing for someone to say "well I benefit from the | walled garden". It's no different than someone saying "I | like the oligarch because he treats _me_ nicely " | spideymans wrote: | Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision | themselves. The government shouldn't force it upon them. | | Apple has not deceived consumers with regards to their | App Store practices. On the contrary, they've been quite | boastful about it. There are (and were) plenty of open | computing platforms, allowing consumers to experience | their benefits and tradeoffs. If consumers prefer to use | a more locked down platform, then so be it. | Mindwipe wrote: | > Sure, but consumers should be free to make that | decision themselves. | | Why? The state makes a variety of judgements that | corporations cannot leave things up to user choice | because that's too dangerous to wider society. | | Apple can't sell an iPhone that occasionally electrocutes | users and out it down to "user choice." We rightly ban | that. | spideymans wrote: | >Apple can't sell an iPhone that occasionally | electrocutes users and out it down to "user choice." We | rightly ban that. | | That is indeed not banned. You can find many such toys on | Amazon. | Barrin92 wrote: | Most people don't even know what a world would look like | in which power was taken away from large companies and a | genuine market of services would exists that gives power | back to the users and developers rather than platform | owners. The hold that Apple has on its billion users and | that Facebook has on its 2 billion is too strong to be | solved by some magical third party. None of the large | firms which control our digital infrastructure provides | an actual protocols. | | The government should absolutely force it on Facebook and | Apple and Google the same way the American government | forced it on railroad barons a hundred years ago, when | they were forced to make their networks interoperable. | | Imagine if Volkswagen owned the streets and you could | only drive your car on 30% of all roads. Sure you can go | to Toyota, you just have to drive in circles. We'd laugh | anyone out of the room who actually defended this. Yet | this is literally how the internet is structured right | now. We live in little fiefdoms where Android users can't | talk to imessage users because feudal lords have decided | to draw a line across the territory. | spideymans wrote: | >Most people don't even know what a world would look like | in which power was taken away from large companies and a | genuine market of services would exists that gives power | back to the users and developers rather than platform | owners. | | Consumers knew exactly what more open computing was like | prior to the App Store. There were no App Store for | Windows or OS X back in 2005, and you could largely | install whatever applications you like onto the | smartphone operating systems of the day. Evidently, a | pretty large chunk of users decided the preferred the | more restricted operating system with the "curated" | store. | Mindwipe wrote: | > If Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one | thing, | | The ones who have been killed in Hong Kong by Apple | throwing protestors under a bus might disagree with this. | | Or a variety of sexual subcultures, or sex workers, who | Apple relentlessly attack. | fossuser wrote: | You won't find any disagreement from me on this. Western | company deference to China is wrong: | https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html | fiddlerwoaroof wrote: | I dunno, hasn't Apple always been the choice for people who | want a walled garden? Whether it was the old Macs, iPod or | iPhone, Apple's value proposition has always been a curated | experience. Given the availability of Android, I have very | little sympathy for claims that Apple is doing something | wrong by setting the terms of access to its user-base. | dleslie wrote: | Besides payments, this is essentially over Apple's privacy | demands isn't it? | | If so, I sincerely hope that Facebook loses. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-29 23:00 UTC)