[HN Gopher] Facebook says Apple is too powerful - they're right ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook says Apple is too powerful - they're right Author : Trouble_007 Score : 360 points Date : 2022-06-20 08:35 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.eff.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org) | sprayk wrote: | the '?' is not present in the title of the linked article. please | remove it from the title. From the guidelines[0]: | | "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading | or linkbait; don't editorialize." | | EDIT: looking through older comments, it sounds like it | originally had a '?' that they later replaced with a '.' . | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tannhaeuser wrote: | It's really pathetic to see EFF side with the likes of Fb and | Zuckerberg. They seem like a one-trick-pony only caring about | vintage software licenses, everything else be damned, like | compensation for F/OSS developers and artists, innovation, | developers sick of giving "cloud providers" tools for mass | surveillance and monopolization (and for free), and focusing on | open standards as opposed to open-source implementations. They | should wake up to the world they themselves and their attitudes | and outdated pseudo-socialist dogma have created in the first | place, or make place for younger people to care about problems we | have today. | spacemanmatt wrote: | Bring back meaningful antitrust regulation. No FAANG left behind. | jakey_bakey wrote: | The worst person you know just made a great point. | ubermonkey wrote: | It's not a super convincing argument. iOS is a closed, walled- | garden platform. This is by design. It is also, however, a | minority player in mobile computing. As long as there remain | other platform options -- MacOS, Windows, Linux, Android -- those | who WANT a different experience have many other choices. | anonymousiam wrote: | Nice to see an EFF article here. I'd like to point out that they | are a wonderful non-profit organization that supports digital | rights, and you can donate to their cause here: | https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-eff-m--h | | I've been a "member" myself for over 10 years. | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | This is exactly the same as when Emperor Palpatine begged "help | me, I'm too weak". We all know what happened next after he | received help. | tcfhgj wrote: | Yes, it is, and so is Facebook | kderbyma wrote: | they are both too powerful.... | mattanimation wrote: | Remember when Apple killed Flash? | quantum_state wrote: | Meta should try to balance with its own mobile platform: devices, | OS, app & dev ecosystem, etc. | beloch wrote: | When Microsoft built Internet explorer into the foundations of | their OS, they got slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit because, it | was argued, they were denying users their choice of web browser | and, in effect, monopolizing that sector[1]. Nevermind that users | could still install other browsers and use them. You just | couldn't uninstall internet explorer. | | In 1948, the government brought an antitrust lawsuit to trial | against Paramount pictures [1] in order to address vertical | integration in the movie distribution system. At the time, | theatres were either owned by studios or had to buy "packages" of | films. In effect, no theatre could show the best films from | multiple studios. They had to choose _one_ production company to | buy a package from and that was that. Small studios and | independents were effectively blocked from showing their films. | The government won, and that 's why cinemas can actually show | films from multiple studios and independents today. | | Apple now owns their platform down to the chipset and CPU. They | jealously guard their spare parts supply chain and have tried to | muscle out independent repair services, while designing their | products with planned obsolescence as a main goal. The same sort | of anti-competitive practices that once kept indie films from | being shown are now used to stifle competition for Apple's | offerings in multiple spaces. They even produce their own films | and TV shows now! Want to watch them someplace other than Apple | TV? There are no legal alternatives to installing Apple TV. The | vertical integration in Apple is just as bad as it was in 1940's | hollywood, but movies are just _one_ of the spaces Apple is | trying to dominate. | | We can argue that users still have choice. They can choose to use | alternative streaming services. (They just can't watch anything | made by Apple Studios). They can choose alternative hardware or | OS's. etc. However, it's clearly not Apple's _preference_ that | users have those choices. They just have succeeded in squeezing | out the competition yet. | | If Microsoft building Internet Explorer into Windows merited an | antitrust suit just twenty years ago, why haven't we seen an | antitrust suit brought to bear against Apple for doing _far_ | worse? Given what companies like Apple and, yes, Facebook have | done in recent years, perhaps it 's time for governments to, once | again, start advocating for the consumers that vote them into | power. | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.. | .. | | [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.. | .. | rdxm wrote: | bilekas wrote: | > the company's executives, project managers and engineers | frankly discuss plans to design Facebook's services so that users | who leave for a rival pay as high a price as possible | | Serious question: What are some of the rivals of FB these days ? | | As for Apple, at least there are other, in many cases more | powerful, mobile devices available, making the jump to Android | from Apple isn't the big learning curve it once was. From a users | perspective it's not that big of a deal usually. | | From a developers point of view - there is a discussion Apple | need to consider around how much they gatekeep developers. Anyone | who's developed for the AppStore knows the pain. And to add on | top of that extremely high fees, it's a wonder there are any | 'indie' / smaller developers at all. | whimsicalism wrote: | > What are some of the rivals of FB these days ? | | Google, other major ad exchanges. | | Consumer facing: Tiktok, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn | ohlookcake wrote: | Tiktok, Snapchat, Twitter - all to varying degrees. More in | other aspects of Meta's businesses | [deleted] | SilverBirch wrote: | I just... don't see why you would frame an argument in this way? | Are there problems with the way Apple operates? Sure. They've | made some trade offs and some business decisions that I disagree | with but often I can see the logic. There _is_ value to having a | single App store controlled by Apple. | | There are also downsides, and pretty much the only reason that | it's a serious problem is that Apple's products are so great that | there's very little competition. That's about the long and short | of it. Apple has no control over which Apps you run. It has total | control over which Apps you run on an iPhone. Which you know when | you buy the phone. I'm as much of a hostage to Apple as I am a | hostage to my local pub in terms of which Beers they have on tap. | I knew that when I walked into the pub. | | You know what _isn 't_ helpful in discussing these issues, | framing the entire argument around a malign competitor of Apple. | This article does a great job of presenting the arguments against | Apple in the least helpful way possible. | Mindwipe wrote: | > That's about the long and short of it. Apple has no control | over which Apps you run. It has total control over which Apps | you run on an iPhone. Which you know when you buy the phone. | I'm as much of a hostage to Apple as I am a hostage to my local | pub in terms of which Beers they have on tap. I knew that when | I walked into the pub. | | This isn't true, because Apple's influence means that | developers on other platforms based on Apple's requirements | because moderating in different fashions depending on reception | device is basically impossible. | | Lots of social networks actively discriminate against groups in | society due to the Apple App Store terms across the _entire | service_ , and have for years. | howinteresting wrote: | Imagine if your bar was instead a chain of bars, and they | didn't stock (for example) Belgian ales, and they were so | powerful a bunch of Belgian ale makers have gone out of | business due to that decision. That's a more accurate analogy. | Schroedingersat wrote: | Yes, they're 100% right. We should put all entities that hold | monopoly or oligopoly power over someone's daily life, access to | essential services, or access to their social graph under | democratic control. | | After apple and google, facebook can be next on the list. | baskethead wrote: | It's Facebook's job to convince users that allowing access to the | data is worth it to the users. It's not Apple's obligation to | give free reign to companies to their users' data. Their | obligation is to their users and I'm happy that they decided to | do it. | | Facebook should instead spend more money and more effort to | entice users to give this data that they used to get for free. To | say that Apple has too much power is ridiculous. Apple and | Facebook are orthogonal to each other in terms of markets so it's | not even an anti-trust issue, it affects all companies that were | used to this free data. | mark_l_watson wrote: | I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this article. | | As a consumer, I like Apple's App Store. In general I don't like | 3rd party apps and prefer web apps but when I do install a 3rd | party app I feel that I am not loading malware. Also, when I buy | books, audiobooks, and movies from Google Play I don't mind | buying from a web site and then having the content available from | the apps. | | I would like to see maximum support for web apps for too many | reasons to list here. Apple should do better. I also don't like | Apple not holding themselves to the same privacy standards as | other companies and platforms. | | One thing that irritates me is not having easy access to books | and movies bought from Apple on my Chromebook. I should re-check | this, but except for going through the iCloud.com web portal, I | am stuck. BTW, there is so much I like about the Chromebook | model, especially because of built-in Linux containers. | | Apple is definitely a compromise, at least in my opinion. | seabriez wrote: | Apple is not compromise of anything. It's a company that is | evil, but only isn't yet because it didnt win in all the market | segments. But as soon as it gains majority share they will | fuckover all their customers, because they are evil and they | can. iPhone is already a hell hole from a lockin and customer | freedom perspective. | zeepzeep wrote: | weird that Facebook would say that | mymilacct wrote: | Totally agree. I have adblockers on my browsers (FireFox - | uBlock Origin, Safari - 1blocker) and don't remember the last | time I saw an ad (even on YouTube). Been years since I last | logged on to any Facebook property. Switched to mostly using | Safari after iCloud Private Relay came out. Thought I was | following good privacy hygiene. Covid lockdown freed up some | time to focus on health so started consuming strength | training/workout content on YouTube and blogs. Logged into | Facebook on my Mac a couple weeks ago to view a family video | that a relative forwarded. The first ad I see on my feed is for | protein powder. Totally blew my mind! There is no escaping | Facebook surveillance. | nowherebeen wrote: | They are being squeezed by Apple. They are used to be the one | squeezing others, not the other way around. Even though Apple | stands to gain from this, I am glad they are using their weight | take on Facebook. | moffkalast wrote: | "Takes one to know one" | kareemsabri wrote: | Yes, you should be able to install any app you want, there should | be many app stores, and the 30% cut should be more like 3%. | ben_w wrote: | I think it's possible to make other App Stores work, but they | need to be regulated. | | Some of the things which 3rd party developers complain about | Apple requiring are basically "comply with GDPR and no you | can't spam popups to try and bore people into assenting that's | not even allowed by GDPR". Without Apple gatekeeping, I think | dark patterns would be the first thing to go wrong. | | The "no adult content" rule seems very weird given that web | browsers exist, even though I can understand why they would | want to project a "family friendly" corporate image. That said, | I am aware that my Overton window isn't going to match America: | I live in Berlin, and the spinning billboards here sometimes | put erotic massage between family dentists and car repairs. But | such things varying by county is still a good reason to have | multiple stores with different rules, not just multiple | availability zones for the same store. | | The encryption rules... well, that's a USA export requirement, | even when neither the developer nor any of the end users is in | America, and while I can easily see why the US wants to require | it, that's not going to be acceptable to other governments in | the long term. I can easily believe that the EU would demand an | EU App Store that has an equivalent requirement but reporting | to the EU instead of to the USA, and so on. | | That said, the fees structure is likely to be massively | complicated by all this. The payment processing fee may be 3% | (last time I looked was when Kagi was a payment processor and | not a search engine), but the 15/30% that Apple (and on | Android, that Google takes even though Android does allow other | app stores) charges, also covers free use of iCloud databases, | makes Xcode a free download, and likely helps pay for the | development of the iOS/iPadOS/watchOS family the same way the | same fees on the Play Store probably help develop Android. | kareemsabri wrote: | Yeah, I'm not saying it would be simple or even that the | experience in alternative app stores / apps wouldn't be much | worse. I expect it would be worse. I just think if I buy a | phone I should be able to run what I want on it, without | unreasonable impediment. I appreciate the App Store, app | review and the relative thoroughness of it (though it hasn't | really scaled) and am not suggesting they abandon it. | | There's room to quibble with my 3% number, but it can't stay | 30%, that seems obvious at this point. I disagree that the | 30% charge is what makes Apple able to provide those free | things. I pay for my Apple Developer Account annually, so | while XCode is free to download, distributing my app is not. | Apple's hundreds of billions in idle cash to the point where | they are flirting with becoming a bank also begs to differ | that these fees are necessary to keep the App Store | affordable. It's a very profitable business, and I don't | begrudge them wanting to keep it, but I would support | pressure to reduce fees. | ben_w wrote: | I'm definitely willing to believe 30% is higher than it | needs to be, and while it could probably be argued either | way for various reasons, Apple's large pile of cash is my | main reason for anticipating that I would agree with you. | | However: | | > I pay for my Apple Developer Account annually, so while | XCode is free to download, distributing my app is not. | | It's a nominal fee, and judging by how often the apps on my | devices announce new updates, probably covers 15 minutes of | human time in the average update/release review process. My | guess is that's probably going to be the minimum App Store | membership fee regardless of commissions. | alfor wrote: | I just 'fixed' a iMac that had half of the internet not working | on it. | | The reason: Apple stopped updating it, a certificate on it had | expired making half of websites blocked by Chrome. | | The hardware is still working fine, but Apple want to retired | it's own hardware so they can sell more. | simondotau wrote: | It's a good article in many respects, but its logic unwittingly | falls down when they try to have it both ways, advocating for an | outcome that is functionally impossible. From the article-- | | _" It's great when Apple chooses to defend your privacy. Indeed, | you should demand nothing less. But if Apple chooses not to | defend your privacy, you should have the right to override the | company's choice. Facebook spied on iOS users for more than a | decade before App Tracking Transparency, after all."_ | | The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking | Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code. It's | not an API or operating system feature which shields users | against tracking. Enforcement is purely the threat of retribution | by Apple, made legal by the terms of the agreement which all | developers sign. Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution means | that a wilful breach of Apple's privacy policies is a dangerous | path for any developer to take. | | I cannot see any plausible scenario where an Apple made impotent | through legislation could possibly result in a net gain of | privacy control for consumers. And even if there is a better way, | how about we get that working BEFORE tearing down the current | imperfect system? | | That paragraph is a layer cake of wishful thinking. How does the | EFF propose to enforce a consumer right to override Apple's | choices over privacy within iOS? This kind of rhetoric is | unhelpful, eliding reality on so many levels. The notion of | consumers self-policing their own privacy is a nice sentiment, | but as an idea that must be implemented in reality... rather | optimistic. | dillondoyle wrote: | Besides laws regulating tracking (good or bad). | | There could still be a net benefit while also increasing choice | and competition. By allowing 3p app stores. | | each app store competitor could create their own privacy | policies, quality requirements, or maybe manual curation. | whatever differentiation. | | Apple would still surely capture a large % of average consumers | whose privacy would be protected. But those who care could seek | out and customize their experience and chose a different | privacy policy. | onphonenow wrote: | We ALREADY know how EFF / the govt protects privacy outside of | Apple - they don't period. You are scammed and ripped off | everywhere online with no consequence. | | Ironically, it's because Apple have kept EFF / Govt OUT and | enforced their own rules in this walled garden that we all are | rushing into it. We wouldn't need to if EFF / govt / developers | did a fairer job outside of Appleworld. | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | > The important thing to appreciate is that App Tracking | Transparency isn't something Apple can enforce with code | | Wait - why not? Apple controls iOS, they control the sandbox | apps run in. Of all protections, app tracking seems like they | aren't really fixing the problem by using monopoly power and | threatening to pull apps. | simondotau wrote: | The entitlement cannot be enforced by the kernel. There is | literally no API call associated with it. If the user | requests no third-party tracking, there's literally no API | for the sandbox to lock out. | | The entitlement is enforced by legal contract. The only thing | stopping Meta from blatantly ignoring this policy is the fear | of consequences by Apple. | kec wrote: | How do you keep an application from taking an entitlement it | shouldn't have (such as location or bluetooth access for | fingerprinting) via code? Sandboxes can be enforced via | entitlement checks in code, but the act of holding an | entitlement is policy. | sitharus wrote: | The usual way - entitlements are held in a kernel data | structure, and the kernel and associated system services | won't allow access to APIs when the entitlement isn't | there. | | Try it on iOS, if you don't have the right entitlements | system API calls will fail. | hermitdev wrote: | Surely the entitlements are enforced via code on iOS, | right? It cannot be on the honor system. | kec wrote: | Using the entitlements are enforced at runtime yes, but | granting them in the first place is enforced at app | review time. If an app asserts an entitlement the | developer can't justify it will fail review. | [deleted] | whimsicalism wrote: | It is pretty difficult to ensure that tracking IDs are not | passed between apps with a sandbox. The legal enforcement is | a much bigger deal on these things. | skohan wrote: | You're basically describing GDPR right? By having state | regulations, there's an agreed upon standard which is _not_ up | to the discretion of any one corporation, but rather subject to | the democratic process. | simondotau wrote: | Apple has implemented policy at scale, with a threat of | enforcement which has been effective against the largest | companies. | | On the other hand, the GDPR gives end users the privilege to | engage in a legal fight with a multi-billion dollar app | developer, assuming that they can even prove the existence of | such tracking in the first place. | Jcowell wrote: | Exactly. The US needs strong, sensible, strict privacy laws | before they pass legislation that would be detrimental to | millions of Apple consumers who bought the iPhone for Apple's | monopoly. | corrral wrote: | Yep. Buying iDevices is the libertarian dream of buying into | private regulatory environments. | | I hate it, but it's the best we have until/unless government | improves our terribly weak consumer protection & privacy | laws. I really hope the option's not taken away, nor Apple's | position as a regulator significantly weakened, until/unless | government steps in and solves the problems Apple's currently | solving. At that point, sure, break them up, ban app store | platform monopolies, whatever, fine, go for it. But please | not yet. | smoldesu wrote: | > Buying iDevices is the libertarian dream of buying into | private regulatory environments. | | I bet Libertarians would love to hear that, but even _they_ | probably wouldn 't put their money into a company that has | time-and-time-again been proven to be in the Governments | pocket via PRISM, iCloud data requests and Greykey | Bruteforcing. Sounds like a libertarian nightmare to me: | you give your data to a private company, but they | immediately betray you and share that information with the | government. | | ...that of course doesn't mean that Apple _shouldn 't_ be | regulated into the ground. It does imply that they _won 't_ | be regulated though, as long as egregious data collection | continues to appease our private and national interests. | bigfudge wrote: | The GP didn't claim this was a perfect or even good | solution though: just the best currently available. That | your vendor will sell you out to law | enforcement/intelligence agencies is a given for ALL | large tech companies. None has a clean record in this | regard. I also wouldn't be super confident that an EFF | approved stack would actually keep you safe from a nation | state interested in your stuff. | | What you _can_ buy from apple though is i) services where | your data are not monetised to the highest bidder and ii) | being part of a non-ad-supported culture which seems like | a prerequisite for a functioning public discourse and | political economy. | woojoo666 wrote: | A libertarian dream would have free markets, and the | article above shows that whatever market that Apple | operates in is nothing like a free market | stjohnswarts wrote: | It still is a free market, you can buy an android if you | don't want apple's privacy "guarantees" | seoaeu wrote: | "The USSR is a free market, you can just move to America | if you want to buy something that isn't for sale there" | gopher_space wrote: | I don't get the analogy. Can you break it down for me? | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | "Ask app not to track" is great. Any solution to apple's power | that means this privacy improvement couldn't have happened is a | bad solution. That's the issue here. The only way to defeat | network effects (like facebook's surveillance) is with other | network effects (like apple's app store). | | To be clear, I'd love a less powerful apple, but it has to be a | solution that can still lead to users actual wants overriding a | behemoth like facebook. I don't know if that's asking to have my | cake and eat it too. | henvic wrote: | So what? | rglullis wrote: | Every corporation that gets too much unchecked power will | eventually abuse it. Why should Apple get a free pass? | ig-88ms wrote: | We'll because Apple is a way of life. A religion. Religions | aren't bad, are they? | jraph wrote: | So, Apple wants to control what people can run on their devices | and Facebook wants to track their users. Both are right about | the other on these topics. | | As soon as Apple allows / is forced to allow other app stores, | if ever, Facebook might tell their users "for the full | experience, install Facebook from this alternative app store | that allows tracking". It seems to me there's no good ending | for this story. | | The choice for me is obvious and simple. Avoid both of these | companies. | r00fus wrote: | I can listen to nothing that Facebook says without wondering how | it benefits Facebook. They may be correct, but their credibility | is negative in my opinion. | willi59549879 wrote: | It is apple's platform, that is the problem. I believe it would | probably be better if the appstore was more open, but if someone | puts out malware it is good that apple can take care of it for | its users. But Facebook is the bigger evil of these two, so i'd | want to have that broken up first. | s3p wrote: | >...and one of the solutions they've proposed is to order Apple | to carry apps it doesn't like in its App Store. This isn't how | we'd do it. There are lots of ways that forcing Apple to publish | software it objects to can go wrong. The US government has an | ugly habit of ordering Apple to sabotage the encryption its users | depend on. | | > But Apple also sometimes decides to sabotage its encryption, in | ways that expose its customers to terrible risk. | | Somewhat tangential note but this level of nuance in an article | is just confusing. Why are they presenting an entire new argument | (in the second quote) to refute the premise of their basis for | rejecting the previous one? They dump this argument and move on | to a completely unrelated point in the next paragraph, which | frustrates me. Also, the second quote has "sabotage its | encryption" and "expose its customers to terrible risk" as | hyperlinks, meaning they are linking to entire write ups of why | they believe this. I'm sure there is merit to the point, but why | briefly mention such a bombshell point as an offhand comment in | this article? Makes it much harder to read-- I feel like my | attention is being pulled in a lot of different directions. | LightG wrote: | Translation: "Apple has the power to materially impact our | business in a one-on-one competition" | | True. | | Good. | | It's called competition and strategic positioning. I'm willing to | entertain that Apple have too much power. But to hear this coming | from Facebook? | | * throws complaint out * | | * case dismissed * | bee_rider wrote: | This article was written by somebody at the EFF. They are | pointing out that, while Facebook is basically bad, they have | some point in this situation. | | I think it is a sensible take. Facebook is basically rotten to | the core. Apple engages in lots of not-so-great behavior. If | Apple had some non-evil competition, I'm sure we'd be less | forgiving of them. | prmoustache wrote: | I personnally feel that Facebook is way too powerful. | | I don't want to use whatsapp, I could use any other messaging app | and I'd rather use something open that is decentralized. But | nowadays if you have to work with small business, it is either | inconvenient by phone, or text based through whatsapp, many have | abandonned the email (I can understand why). If you have kids, | all the associative world use whatsapp by default to keep track | of all the details about your kids | activities/training/competitions. Nobody update their basketball | club web page anymore. Heck, they don't even update or post on | their facebook page, all his done on messy whatsapp groups these | days. If you refuse to use whatsapp you can just tell your kids | no more sports in a club for you. | | If you have remote friends and you stop using whatsapp, you can | still call them once in a while but good luck convincing them to | call you on a regular basis. Some may do but most won't. People | have forgotten what a written letter or a regular non video phone | call was. It is not that you count less than their other | relatives, but they will reach other people so easily you will | just disappear from their life natuarally and gradually if you | are too far away. | | It is either you swallow it or you live like with only a tiny and | very local social life. | smoldesu wrote: | The same thing could be said about Apple though, which is why | _both of these companies_ deserve to be heavily regulated. I | don 't understand why people have to take sides here: both | Apple and Facebook are horrible companies who don't care about | (You), the end-user. It shocks me to see how many people are | taking bullets for either company in this thread. | kitsunesoba wrote: | > both of these companies deserve to be heavily regulated | | They do, no question, but the overwhelming sentiment is much | more single faceted. There's a lot of support for breaking | Apple's iron grip on software distribution on iOS for | example, but practically none for breaking Google's iron grip | on the web, even though the latter is arguably far more | dangerous since it's corporate appropriation of critical | public infrastructure under a guise of openness. | | By all means, force Apple to open things up, but in the same | stroke ensure that there's no uneven enforcement that could | allow other corporate giants to expand their monopolies where | they previously couldn't. | smoldesu wrote: | > By all means, force Apple to open things up, but in the | same stroke ensure that there's no uneven enforcement that | could allow other corporate giants to expand their | monopolies where they previously couldn't. | | Well-met, I agree wholeheartedly. Mirosoft, Google and | Amazon all deserve to abide by the same rule-of-law. | | > There's a lot of support for breaking Apple's iron grip | on software distribution on iOS for example, but | practically none for breaking Google's iron grip on the web | | Well... yeah. If I want to publish a website today, I can | buy a VPS and a domain name and have it broadcasting my | personal believes by the end of the day. Pretty much | everything on the web is working as it should, besides it's | monetization model. Google's "iron grip" on the web mostly | boils down to Chrome, which isn't _terribly_ broken. | Without a good App Store to deliver software, browsers had | to adopt technology quickly to compete. That 's what | birthed things like web notifications and WebRTC, both of | which are arguably quite good for the development of the | web. Hell, Steve Jobs himself[0] said that he wanted the | future of applications to be on the web: Apple was the one | who chose to neglect Safari's featureset, which ultimately | led to Chrome being superior. Apple definitely has the | money to compete, but they choose to drag their feet | through the mud because webapp parity with native | applications would bleed their App Store profits dry. | | > ...even though the latter is arguably far more dangerous | since it's corporate appropriation of critical public | infrastructure under a guise of openness. | | Speak for yourself: the market says that Apple's approach | is much more lucrative. Google profits ~60 billion dollars | a year from all advertising (not just Chrome-enabled ads, | but also mobile/YouTube ads as well). Compare that to the | ~85 billion in annual revenue Apple gets from just the App | Store (again, not iCloud or Apple One, _just their 30% cut_ | ), and it would seem that Apple's approach is certainly the | more profitable one. It definitely explains why people are | more interested in breaking Apple's monopoly than Google's: | Apple's simply makes more money. | | Plus, who's to say which is more dangerous? Apple | appropriates plenty of critical public infrastructure under | a guise of benevolence (the App Store, iCloud, Apple | Wallet), while many of their products continue to print | money and undermine human liberties in oppressive countries | like China and Saudi Arabia, where they comply with the | outrageous demands of local governments simply because it's | profitable to operate there. I don't think anyone can say | for sure which is more harmful, unless they somehow started | and directed both initiatives. | | Ultimately, I agree with you. We need harsh regulation, and | it needs to apply to all of big tech evenly. However, | people's arguments against Apple aren't ill-founded or | unevenly distributed: they simply neglect their software | platforms unlike any other developer today. Apple has more | resources than any of their other peers, yet they choose to | deliberately nerf their own software to drive sales. It's | unique, it's endlessly frustrating for developers, and it's | 100% a deliberate choice. If this is the pattern of | behavior future companies follow, then capitalism will have | failed. Societal progress shouldn't be withheld to progress | the interests of a private corporation/board of | shareholders. | | [0] https://youtu.be/p1nwLilQy64?t=1 | robonerd wrote: | > _I don 't understand why people have to take sides here: | both Apple and Facebook are horrible companies who don't care | about (You)_ | | Corps have gotten very good at exploiting the tribal instinct | by encouraging people to view their affiliation with a brand | as part of their personal identity. | | _" I'm a New York Yankees guy. If you've got a problem with | the Yankees, you've got a problem with me!"_ | prmoustache wrote: | Maybe argument if you are downvoting? | tcfhgj wrote: | They don't need to, because they can just push you out of the | line of sight without bothering | zamalek wrote: | > Please don't comment on voting about comments. It makes for | boring reading.[1] | | [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | matwood wrote: | The point is big tech has too much power. Apple, Facebook, Google | all have too much power. Unfortunately the US government can't | pass any reasonable laws around technology so we end up relying | on these companies with too much power to be (hopefully) a | positive for the users. | | It's different for everyone, but for me in order of trust its | Apple, Google, and FB is a distant distant last with almost | anyone else you throw in there. | randoglando wrote: | Why do you choose that order? | HWR_14 wrote: | Do you not order them that way? That's my assumed ranking of | trust. | hutzlibu wrote: | Apple has some incentive to protect its users, as they are | real customers. | | Google is at least clear, that they will suck in any data, | they can get. But most of their clients are rather the | product and not customers. | | And Zuckerberg has literally stated his disrespect for his | users from the very beginning. "Dumb fucks to trust him". | bogwog wrote: | Yeah Facebook and Google are both in the same business of | sucking up as much data as possible, but Zuckerberg has | consistently proven himself to be a menace to society. | matwood wrote: | Apple's business is for the most part selling me things. They | are not trying to capture all my data in order to drive their | product. | | FB and Google are using my data to sell to advertisers. | | With that said, I'm not a Google hater. For my personal | ranking Apple > Google >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FB. And following that | model I have Apple devices, use Google, and haven't logged | into FB in years. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | Apple, as opposed to Google and Facebook, "don't capture | your data" to sell their product. That's their brand, and | it has made them millions. They do give your data without | question to authorities, without a fight. These battles are | costly and the bottom line is the bottom line and money > | people when it comes to FB, Google and Apple =/ but that's | the world we live in, so I can't really blame them. We reap | what we sew. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/apple- | met... | zip1234 wrote: | Apple sells search ads for their app store... | GekkePrutser wrote: | They do capture a lot of data for their own purposes | though. They're not selling it to other parties but they | sure capture it. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | I wasn't aware of this, TBH. Well that's a little | disingenuous. | grumpyprole wrote: | The business of "selling you things" as many and often as | possible is a danger to the environment and future | generations. There is 155 thousand tonnes per year of | e-waste generated in the UK alone (source Gaurdian). The | current situation is not sustainable. Apple are also | masters of vendor lock-in, making it very difficult for | people and businesses to leave the ecosystem. | norman784 wrote: | I think that you keep apple products longer than others, | I kept my mbp retine 2013 till 2 years ago, iphones I | change every 4 years or so (but they support for 5 years | the mobile devices iirc), I bought in 10 years 2 apple | tvs, while with google you can't keep your device more | than 2/3 years because of updates, most cheap laptops are | thrown in a year or two. | | So I disagree with you, apple isn't generating that much | waste, but indeed they could generate less by opening the | unsupported devices to install alternative OSes. | kergonath wrote: | > There is 155 thousand tonnes per year of e-waste | generated in the UK alone | | How much of that is PS15 Chinese no-brand rubbish | compared to PS1,000 phones? It sounds like barking up the | wrong tree to me, there are hundreds of OEMs that produce | disposable hardware, few of them end up supporting their | devices as long as Apple or even Google (!) | babypuncher wrote: | Not the original commentor but I have the same order. | | For me it boils down to these companies' business models. | Google and Facebook make their money by providing a free | service and selling access to the data of their users. In | that sense, I am not their customer, but rather their | product, being sold to advertisers. My use of Google and | Facebook services mostly boils down to a lack of viable | alternatives, because nobody can really compete with "free" | on the scale these players operate at. | | Apple's business model is very different. Apple makes their | money by selling me hardware, and access to their ecosystem | through that hardware. I am the customer, not the product, | and that is reflected in how Apple treats their users. Apple | are big fans of creating vendor lock-in with a walled-garden | approach to their ecosystem, but they also know that they | only get away with this as long as their customers are | satisfied enough not to look for alternatives. So while I do | not find this arrangement ideal, I do find it considerably | more honest and palatable than what Facebook is offering. | ipaddr wrote: | Apple is the least trustworthy and morally punishing of the | group. | | I trust facebook, google than apple. | | Facebook has been holding personal photos and connecting | relationships for years. Google has been collecting search | details for years. Both have a similiar business models and | want to keep my data to themselves for realtime bidding. | | If Apple owned facebook everything would be highly | censored. If Apple had Google's search all sites would need | to be approved by Apple and all content must be family | friendly. Apple creates a fake disney walled garden | wherever it goes. | zip1234 wrote: | Allow me to introduce you to Apple search Ads: | https://searchads.apple.com/ | pishpash wrote: | On the consumer side, Google has begun charging for | services like storage. It also sells Pixel phones and | licenses Android. Maybe it's still heavily subsidized but | it's not that clear cut. | GekkePrutser wrote: | > but they also know that they only get away with this as | long as their customers are satisfied enough not to look | for alternatives. | | Which is entirely why they make it as hard to switch as | possible, creating an additional barrier over just the | user's satisfaction with the ecosystem. | throwaway1777 wrote: | This is such a common trope I have to push back. FB | absolutely depends on user growth so you are a customer as | well. Advertisers would leave if you left. If you go to | tiktok because meta's products aren't as good/fun/cool that | is a huge problem. It's possible for companies to have | multiple customers, in fact it's pretty common. | babypuncher wrote: | TikTok is not really a direct competitor to Facebook. I'm | trapped on Facebook because that is were a lot of my | friends and family are, and FB Messenger is the only real | way I have to talk to a lot of them. TikTok really only | competes with a small part of Facebook's business | (Instagram). Apple does not enjoy that kind of vendor | lock-in. | | The impetus to move to competitor when you are unhappy is | also a lot stronger when staying with your current | provider costs you money. | LordDragonfang wrote: | >TikTok is not really a direct competitor to Facebook. | | TikTok isn't a direct competitor _in your age | demographic_. Almost no one under the age of 20 has a | Facebook account nowadays - when I asked high schoolers a | few years ago it was Instagram instead, and TikTok is | increasingly getting bigger. | babypuncher wrote: | I use both. TikTok feels more like YouTube, Twitter, and | Instagram. It is a social media platform where most users | follow a relatively small number of influencers, rather | than interfacing with their peers. | | Facebook is more of a communication platform between | peers. It _kind of_ competes more with email and | messaging clients. Facebook losing sight on this and | pushing people to larger more impersonal groups and | influencers is why I think they are dying, because | everyone else already does that better. | | For my immediate family, Facebook has largely been | supplanted by iMessage and iCloud. We hold conversations | and group chats in iMessage, and share photos and videos | through iCloud. TikTok fills a different purpose | entirely. | kergonath wrote: | > FB absolutely depends on user growth so you are a | customer as well | | This does not follow. KFC depends on chicken production | scaling up as well, it does not make the chickens their | customers. | dickersnoodle wrote: | According to Merriam-Webster, "customer" is defined as | "one that purchases a commodity or service" so it isn't | really a trope. | mnw21cam wrote: | A case of the pot calling the kettle black. It takes one to know | one. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. | Hellbanevil wrote: | nirse wrote: | Indeed, any debate over who of the two is more powerful doesn't | make sense. And the debate about who of the two (or 5 if we | want to draw all of FAANG into it) is pointless, as they are | powerful in different ways over different domains. And, second, | I don't think the article claims that Facebook's power is ok, | it just affirms Facebook's claim that Apple is too powerful. | nowherebeen wrote: | I came here to say the exact same thing. | runevault wrote: | Yup BOTH need to get smacked with the regulation hammer. Not | that they will. | KaiserPro wrote: | _or_ the competitions regulators that were setup to stop | another standard oil, should have come in a long time ago and | sorted out this monopoly. Along with the horrifically shite ISP | situation the US has. | henvic wrote: | Apple ascension has to do with satisfying customers' demands. | Intervention the way Facebook seems to be promoting is crony | capitalism, and is powers of magnitude more powerful than that... | and in a very grim way. | ig-88ms wrote: | Apple's success lies in forcing customers to stay and do as | they're told. Come hell or high water. | samwillis wrote: | Apple's success lies in creating the best ecosystem of | products that work together. The individual products may not | be best on the market at times, but by buying into the system | as an individual or family, you gain access to the based | collaborative ecosystem of products that work together. | | That's why they have the market dominance across such a broad | range of products. No one else come close. | ig-88ms wrote: | hnplj wrote: | samwillis wrote: | Both Apple and Google have successfully "owned the platform" they | rely on for revenue, Google with Chrome, Apple with iOS. Facebook | have tried but never succeeded in owning the platform, it's the | biggest risk to their position. | | Their strategy to owning the platform now seems to me not to be | "owning" the legislative and political platform through lobbying. | If they can't own the OS/Browser they are running on, then they | want to "own" the legislation that governs it. | | If your competitors own the platform better to leapfrog them and | attempt to gain control though lobbying for legislative | limitations. | | Having your no2/3 in the company being a former Deputy British | Prime Minister, only shows how important the political and | legislative situation is to the long term stability of them as a | company. | nowherebeen wrote: | I highly recommend this video I watched today about platform | capitalism. | | THE METAVERSE: A Guide to the Future of Capitalism | | https://youtu.be/TM00M-dRMBk | alexb_ wrote: | Should note that Tom Nicholas is extremely political in all | of his videos and his content - that's the point. There's | nothing wrong with that, but treating opinions as good | sources of information just because somebody knows how to | edit a video isn't a good way to do things. | nowherebeen wrote: | It's food for thought. It's up to the viewers to decide | whether what he saids makes logical sense and filter his | political bias. | | I do agree with his argument here about Facebook wanting to | own the platform. I don't think that part is political as | it makes business sense that Facebook would want that. And | Facebook isn't exactly trying to hide their ambitions | either. | oblio wrote: | > Google with Chrome | | Or, you know, Android. | samwillis wrote: | Quite right, where I live, among the people I know, Apple | have maybe 95% of the market. That's obviously not true | globally or even nationally (I'm in the UK). But it does lead | to carelessly forgetting the size of the Android market share | globally some times. Thanks for the nudge! | oblio wrote: | Let me guess, 95% of the people around you also have Apple | laptops? :-) | samwillis wrote: | Strangely, I have no idea. I work from home (and have for | 10 years) and so the only other person I regularly see | using a laptop is my wife, who does use a MacBook... so | 100% of people around me use a MacBook... | whimsicalism wrote: | Because you live with young(er), rich, white, college- | educated people - most likely. Android has great market | penetration but that cohort has firmly fallen to Apple. | wccrawford wrote: | >Facebook have tried but never succeeded in owning the | platform, it's the biggest risk to their position. | | They're certainly trying their hardest with the Oculus Quest, | and they're doing a good job of providing the cheapest headset | out there, and arguably the best in some ways. I wouldn't count | them out of the picture on that just yet. | samwillis wrote: | I think that's why they have gone all in on VR, it's the only | platform that's still up for grabs. I suspect they are quite | worried what Apple will come out with when they enter the | market. | | However I don't believe the market in VR/AR is as large as | they think it could become. Unless I'm missing something | obvious. | runevault wrote: | Just like everything else, you need a killer app/feature. | Smart phones was basically internet everywhere first and | then all the apps followed after. I have no idea what will | drive the masses to want VR. Games in the space have mostly | been lackluster, and the only app type that sounds | interesting to me (but not enough to warrant the price nor | having the headset on) would be the recreation of large | movie experience. | zelphirkalt wrote: | It also shows, how fearful they are of becoming irrelevant in | people's lives. They try to entrench themselves everywhere they | can, but if Google disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice | for quite a while, except for web pages not showing up in | uBlock Origin as loading Google trackers. | whimsicalism wrote: | You are in the minority of Western internet users, and I am | sure many websites you visit would notice the loss in ad | revenue. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | "Oho!" said the pot to the kettle; "You are dirty and | ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, | Except when you're given a crack." "Not so! not | so!" kettle said to the pot; "'Tis your own dirty image | you see; For I am so clean - without blemish or blot - | That your blackness is mirrored in me." | ig-88ms wrote: | Apple is way too powerful. Not that Facebook is any better, but | Facebook is not the gatekeeper for millions of peoples lives. | When Apple boots you as a customer, you most likely will lose | everything about your digital life. | | If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but recoverable. | | Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your photos, | your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment methods. And | you can backup nothing of it in a usable way. Without a working | Apple account any iPhone is as good as a brick. | signal11 wrote: | > Facebook is not the gatekeeper for millions of peoples lives | | Facebook's influence over _billions_ of people's lives is far | more insidious. What that platform peddles influences | countries' political futures. It is absolutely a gatekeeper of | _ideas_ to an extent AOL or the proprietary MSN of old could | never imagine. Less charitable people could even call it a | privately owned memetic weapon. | | > Without a working Apple account any iPhone is as good as a | brick. | | Lots of people have iPhones without Apple accounts -- they're | corporate "managed" iPhones. I appreciate the desire to | decouple from Apple's services, but it's a stretch to say that | you're locked in. In fact, most iPhone users don't use all of | Apple's services can quite easily move to Android with only a | little effort. | | If there's enough consensus though that Apple's policies are | harming users, then I'm sure legislators can require Apple to | (say) allow users to decouple from Apple services. | | I'm not seeing it though. There are places with Apple goes | overboard, eg the "must pay via Apple" is being attacked by | legislation already (eg in the Netherlands), and better App | Store policies will probably help as well, as long as they | don't open the door to malware. But to say that Apple is worse | than Facebook feels like a very skewed perspective. | natly wrote: | I recently got a new phone and forgot my apple password but I | considered just creating a new account because I didn't really | consider it that big of a deal to just start fresh. I don't | cling onto my emails and I only have like 30 contacts that I | actually care about, all of which I have their emails stored in | gmail rather than in contacts (and don't call them anyway). So | I'm not sure I would care if I had to start from scratch. | ChrisRR wrote: | > If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but | recoverable. | | I haven't noticed any negative impact since giving facebook the | boot | afr0ck wrote: | How do you find out about events, gigs and stuff happening in | your town? | ChrisRR wrote: | My town has a website for events, music, comedy, etc. | | Even when I used facebook I never used it for gigs or | anything. | threeseed wrote: | So if Facebook shut down everyone would just be staying | home confused about what to do ? | | Anyway in Australia at least we have sites like this: | https://www.broadsheet.com.au | | Pretty sure every city does too. | Nextgrid wrote: | If Facebook shuts down people would flock to an | alternative. | | If Facebook bans people here and there, the rest of the | crowd won't give a shit. | | _That_ is the problem. | jurmous wrote: | In Europe and specifically here in the Netherlands, almost | everything is going through WhatsApp. Without whatsapp you are | disconnecting yourself from a lot of socialising | groups/neighborhood watch and more. Recoverable, but still a | main pillar of society here so it comes at a cost of losing | social connections. | madeofpalk wrote: | > Apple is way too powerful. Not that Facebook is any better, | but Facebook is not the gatekeeper for millions of peoples | lives. | | I think Facebook inciting genocide is being more of a literal | gatekeeper of lives than Apple allowing porn on their app | store. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar- | facebo... https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ | Schroedingersat wrote: | > If you lose your Facebook account, it's annoying but | recoverable. | | Tell that to the large portion of the world living where | government services, clubs, community and social events, second | hand markets, contact with family or communication without | usurious data charges are unavailable without a facebook or | facebook subsidiary account. | | At least with apple you can just use a different phone. If all | of the social activity in your area operates over facebook you | can't get a new social graph that isn't owned by them. | jurmous wrote: | With Apple, any service you use is a choice. Ok you need an | Apple account to download apps but that is the only mandatory | one. But you can switch out all Apple apps with other ecosystem | variants like those from Google or others. | NorwegianDude wrote: | That's not true at all. | | Apple goes a long way to sabotage and make sure what you're | saying is not the case. | | You're not even allowed to use a browser that Apple isn't in | control of. You're even forced to use Apple for payments. | Apple even dictates what content an app is allowed to | contain. | threeseed wrote: | a) I use Chrome. Apple doesn't control it except for the | engine which is irrelevant to my day to day use. | | b) I don't use Apple for payments. | | c) If there is content that is highly objectionable I would | just visit the website. But then again I am not really into | that sort of content in the first place. | EugeneOZ wrote: | It's just ridiculous. I use whatever I want for payments. | How is Apple forcing you to buy a fish in your shop only | using ApplePay? | jurmous wrote: | I use Apple Pay as a protocol to pay with either credit | card or maestro through my own bank or its competitors. | Apple state they don't get any of my payment data as it | stays on my devices and with my bank. It is a method of | communication and not a payment provider. | | Apple dictates the browser engine for security and battery | life considerations which I regard as a feature. There are | multiple browsers which can implement any feature on top of | the browser engine included. | | And Apple does not dictate what content is allowed to | contain. But they do the opposite, they disallow certain | content to keep their devices safe to use for the general | audience/children. Anything else can be viewed on the web. | They are over time removing restrictions in the browser | like adding web push in iOS 16. | https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/06/ios-16-web-push- | notifications... And it was already possible to add full | screen web apps to the Home Screen. | joe_guy wrote: | > Apple dictates the browser engine for security and | battery life considerations which I regard as a feature. | | > Anything else can be viewed on the web. | | You've reconstructed your statement to be conditional on | your preferences. | | It's now "You can... Except for the major situations when | you can't... But I don't count those because of my | personal preferences." | kmlx wrote: | > you most likely will lose everything about your digital life. | | "everything"? why would you lose anything at all? | devoutsalsa wrote: | The three primary ways I communicate with friends and family | are FB Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Facebook could | decide it doesn't like me at any time. | SllX wrote: | > Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your | photos, your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment | methods. | | This gets repetitive but: only if you let them. I'm not even | sure you need an Apple ID to use an iPhone either, although you | will for the App Store. Everything else is extra: iCloud, Apple | Music, iCloud email, the Apple Wallet. Your Dropbox, Spotify, | email host and credit cards don't just fall into an abyss when | you create an Apple ID. | | Apple has what you give them. That's true for every single one | of their customers. Contrast that with Facebook that built | shadow profiles before people even had accounts because the | websites you visited and apps you used were relaying | information back to them. | gpspake wrote: | I've solved this problem for good with email - since I think | it's arguably the most important thing here (all my | financial/important life stuff is ultimately tied back to my | email). | | I kinda think everyone should do this... | | - First I got a custom domain email address that I own and | control (like name@myname.com). | | - Then I set up what's basically a burner account with a | popular email service just so I could take advantage of the web | UX (it could be gmail or whatever, I don't really care). This | email address never gets used or exposed. The account is merely | a forwarding bucket that I can use to check my email in a | browser. | | - My personal email all gets forwarded to the burner address | (at the host level). The burner (gmail or whatever) acct is | configured to send from my personal address. | | - I have the account set up in outlook so I can access/backup | emails locally. | | I'm not really worried about losing access to my web mail | account but I've read horror stories and the cost of that | scenario is just intolerable so, if I did, I would just set up | another account with the same or a different service, forward | my personal email to the new address, add it to outlook, and | drag all my existing emails in to the new account. I don't even | need to worry about accessing my existing emails because | they're all backed up locally. | | Sidenote: as part of this process, I quit filing my emails in | folders (search is good enough to find any email these days). I | just put all my read emails in a single flat folder called | archive. This makes it a lot easier to keep my inbox clean (no | more meticulous filing) and easier to migrate if I ever need to | (different services have different implementations and | restrictions around folders - but a bunch of emails in a single | folder is universally deal-with-able.). | abraae wrote: | Apple doesn't harm your mental health or facilitate threats to | democracy though. They just want your money, and they'll sell | you beautiful gadgets to get it. | rglullis wrote: | "Brave New World" is also a dystopia. The more unchecked | power Apple gets and the more Apple zealots think that it is | okay, the closer we get to live in it. | 988747 wrote: | Apple is not in control of your credit cards - it just allows | you to use them more conveniently. And for photos and music, | and even passwords there are alternative services, no one | forces you to use Apple provided ones. | moonchrome wrote: | > Apple is not in control of your credit cards | | Maybe OP was referring to https://www.apple.com/apple-card/ ? | | > And for photos and music, and even passwords there are | alternative services, no one forces you to use Apple provided | ones. | | Apple has a real tight lockdown on what gets published to iOS | devices and ships defaults built to the OS so I don't really | buy this argument. Microsoft got punished for way less back | in the day (eg. IE bundling vs being forced to use webkit for | your rendering engine...) | threeseed wrote: | I really wish people would stop bringing up Microsoft. | | They had ~95% market share when they were pulling this IE | nonsense. iOS is ~28%. | | And they didn't get in trouble just for bundling IE. It was | the coercion of OEMs to not bundle Netscape. Many of the | companies at the time wanted to offer both but weren't | allowed. | moonchrome wrote: | > iOS is ~28%. | | This is a deliberately misleading number. | | They own ~50% of US market, they have close to 50% of | global mobile revenue, >70% of profit, etc. etc. They are | a huge player and abusing their market position - and are | big enough to bring regulatory attention in multiple | countries. | | This is exactly the situation where proper government | intervention into markets is a good thing and I've seen | multiple proposals to deal with "Apple tax" and walled | garden strategy. Hopefully they come sooner rather than | later. | zelphirkalt wrote: | I some countries FB is the Internet and provides "the Internet" | through FB. That is quite some gate keeping there. | | Someone getting into your FB account can ruin your complete | social life, if you were relying on FB too much. Could also | ruin your job perspectives and thus financial security. | | Not merely annoying. Self-inflicted mostly, yes, but definitely | serious. | drexlspivey wrote: | I am not sure that's the case, I know a lot of (mainly older) | people that if facebook was gone from their iphone they would | ditch their iphone for android instead of not using facebook. | shmel wrote: | On the other hand, you can choose to not use Apple and your | life won't be affected at all. I don't use Apple at all and | don't feel I missing out. Apple doesn't have any network | effect. | | If FB goes nuclear on me, I will lose the main platform to | discover local events (like gigs, festivals, meetups and such), | pretty much the only social media for a hobby of mine | (photography) and the most popular messenger used by family | members (ok, I could probably convince them to move elsewhere) | and lots of local group chats (multiple attempts to move those | group chats on telegram ultimately failed). Most of it is | irreplaceable because FB killed off most of the competition. | | Compare it to Apple where you can just use Android and forget | Apple exists at all. | blfr wrote: | I use neither Facebook nor Apple. Let's hope Google doesn't | ban my account since it has everything. | | Or perhaps we could have a regulatory regime that doesn't | press every consumer into becoming an e-peasant of one of | five mega corps. | bbarnett wrote: | I recall that scifi from the pre-2000s, had loads of | scenarios with a "house computer". All personal stuff was | stored there, even if it was net connnected and | collated/performed searches for you. | | Maybe this will be the blowback reality. An applicance in | every home, stored in a black box (fireproof, etc), which | stores all your stuff. | | Computing at this level, email, notes, personal records, | has the capacity to stabilize and change freeze. Which is | _good_ , if you want personal records to last 100 years. | | And looking at email, mbox formats have been static for | decades. Static image formats too. | justinclift wrote: | > Maybe this will be the blowback reality. | | Wonder how that'd play out for home ownership vs renting | then. "Whose data is it?", etc. ;) | rambambram wrote: | Just like your couch in your rental apartment is yours, | and just like your raincoat in the trunk of a rental car | is yours. ;) | bbarnett wrote: | I used to rent a place, furniture included, but | everything smelled funny. | | Later in the year, during rainy season, I bought a used | raincoat. It too smelled funny, and I soon discovered, by | googling, that apparently people with a rubber fetish may | do things to such garments. | | Horrible horrible things. | | Soon after, I became concerned about my smelly apartment. | I started to google, but everything I googled with the | word "fetish", returned unspeakable results. | | Each worse than the last! | | So I bought new furniture, bedding, cutlery(oh god!), | plates, everything. | | Even toilet brushes are not safe from the horrors, so I | bought one of those too. | | One night, I woke up in a start. An idea was in my head, | and I rushed to google, and horribly found that factory | workers making my stuff, have fetishes too. | | Nothing safe, I disposed of it all. I got out my | chainsaw, and cut down a tree. I made plates, cutlery, | even a wooden cup! And ate off of these plates and so on. | However, just last week, I noticed a squirrel apparently | randy and without a mate, doing something to a tree!! | | There is no end of the perversion I tell you, no end!!! | | So now I sit in the corner, drool upon my chin, eyes | glassy and void of energy. | | (Brought to you by bbarnett's house, and the embarricon | virus.) | sbarre wrote: | Hah you just reminded me of something... | | In the late 80s as a kid I remember reading a scifi short | story from probably the 1950s that speculated that "in | the future" the average suburban family would live | _inside_ their computer, as it would need to be the size | of a house to perform all the support duties for a | family. | int_19h wrote: | There are some attempts: | | https://thehelm.com/ | | The problem is that it's not cheap to keep running, if | you want it to integrate with the rest of the Net (i.e. | also handle email and such). | ryandrake wrote: | All three of you seem to have the same general problem, | just the company name is different. No single account | should gate access to _everything_ in your digital life. If | getting banned from one company's platform would be a major | problem for you, that probably means you should take steps | to correct that now, no matter what the company is. | | If Facebook or Twitter banned me, it would have zero | effect, because I don't ever use any of the services. If | Apple banned me, it would be annoying, but I'm not heavily | dependent on iCloud, so could switch to an Android phone | pretty quickly. I certainly don't keep anything critical on | iCloud or locked behind Apple services. If Google banned | me, I'd lose an old gmail account I no longer use and I | guess Google Voice, which I do use. Honestly losing Voice | would probably be the most painful. I don't use any other | Google service that requires a login so it wouldn't be a | huge deal. | | We keep seeing these "XYZ banned me and I lost access to | all my digital life" posts on HN, and they should be wake- | up calls, yet people still think It Won't Happen To Me, and | then we get another "ABC banned me..." article next week. | blfr wrote: | I have backups from Google Takeout, email in my own | domain, and I use Linux on my laptop. I'm about as | independent as you reasonably can but let's not pretend I | could actually easily replace Google Photos, Maps, or | Android. That grade of software simply doesn't currently | exist outside of the big tech. | | More than that: Photos+Maps+Timeline combo doesn't even | exist at Apple. Google is strictly far and the best | choice for quite a few functionalities I cherish and a | move to iCloud would be a downgrade. Not to mention the | expense of buying new devices. | | I wouldn't really lose access to anything but my digital | life would be greatly diminished. | sbf501 wrote: | Yep. There needs to be a policy for data rights that is | larger than the companies. Something government level. | arbirk wrote: | Exactly. I have a Quest - I guess I could have choosen not to | buy it - but I can't not have a fb account because a lot of | important events only run through there. | alexb_ wrote: | >On the other hand, you can choose to not use Apple and your | life won't be affected at all | | Green bubble exclusion absolutely, 100% is a real thing. | Nextgrid wrote: | iMessage doesn't actually require an account. You can be | banned from iCloud and still use iMessage. | alexb_ wrote: | but iMessage requires you to use an iPhone... | Nextgrid wrote: | Which you can buy for cash if necessary. There's no way | to ban you from buying an iPhone. | Miraste wrote: | What are you going to do with an iPhone without an Apple | account? Use it as a coffee coaster? | Nextgrid wrote: | The only important functionality that requires an Apple | account is the App Store. For that you can create an | account with no/limited identifying information and pay | for it via iTunes gift cards if necessary. A ban is | trivial to circumvent. | alexb_ wrote: | I think you missed the topic of this thread. | shmel wrote: | I've heard about it, but never experienced IRL. Is it | really a big deal? | bombcar wrote: | It's a tiny minor annoyance to me sometimes, but I don't | usually groupchat (and the most annoying thing I've seen | with group chats is if there are other iPhoners it is | REALLY WAY TOO DAMN EASY to accidentally FaceTime them | all). | usrn wrote: | I live entirely without a smartphone and centralized social | media (unless you count my Pinephone but that's really a | small laptop and small forums of which HN is probably the | largest.) I recommend this to everyone but even I recognize | it's not really a casual decision for most people anymore. I | was extremely careful to not let Google/Apple manage much of | the things in my life and I still felt pain leaving them | behind. Most people are not at all careful and probably don't | even know what they would do without the services from these | two companies. | turndown wrote: | You could make the exact same arguments about FB being | irrelevant, the difference is that your social group doesn't | revolve around iMessage group chats and twitter, they revolve | around facebook and Facebook Messenger. Using an android over | an iPhone basically locks you out of most group chats because | Apple refuses to be normal human beings and develop an open | API - So please tell me again how I can ignore Apple when | it's actually Facebook you can safely ignore? Note that I am | a long-term android user. | corrral wrote: | FB is where basically all local social interaction takes | place. Restaurants, schools(!), neighborhoods/HOAs, local | governments, kids' sports stuff, et c., all treat it as | their main platform for communication. These may ( _may_ ) | provide info through other outlets, but they're usually | neglected, outdated, and incomplete--you are _expected_ to | use Facebook. | | I don't even have an account with them, but I have to visit | the site all the time. If my wife didn't have an account, | I'd _have to_ get one, for the times when it 's needed. FB | _is_ the Internet, as far as local real-world stuff goes. | Barrin92 wrote: | >I don't use Apple at all and don't feel I missing out. Apple | doesn't have any network effect. | | there were quite a few stories about kids being ostracized | from groups because they started to bully each other over | lack of messaging features. Certainly not the worst thing | imaginable but Apple's apps do have network effects. | | https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/10/22876067/google-apple- | ios... | Beltalowda wrote: | I was bullied at school for not having Nike shoes; I | remember one kid literally telling me "I can't be friends | with you until you have Nikes". | | I love kids; I used to work with kids and I kinda miss it, | but man kids can be petty assholes. | bombcar wrote: | Sadly the solution isn't banning Nikes or whatever the | current "they're being petty about it" thing is - they'll | just find something else to latch onto. | usrn wrote: | The solution is for mature adults to not behave like | children because they understand being petty about brands | creates serious problems both for themselves and everyone | around them. | | Children doing it is just part of the series of learning | experiences that comprises maturation. | Beltalowda wrote: | That was my point indeed. Although thinking about it | again, in some countries (not mine) they got school | uniforms for this reason. I don't know if it helps (as | in, there will still be bullying no doubt, but is there | _less_ bullying without than with school uniforms?) | bombcar wrote: | I suspect if there are variations on "amount of bullying" | it comes down to culture rather than "school uniforms" - | at least one Japanese manga is all about bullying in a | school uniformed school, so it must happen enough to be a | bit of a trope. | | It _may_ happen less in places where the private schools | can be school uniform or not, but there I suspect it has | more to do with expelling the bullies than anything to do | with the uniform itself, since it won 't usually cover | other status symbols that can be obtained (shoes, hair | decorations, etc). | | That's not to discount that the uniform may be useful for | various reasons. | Dracophoenix wrote: | With regards to messaging, Apple's "network effect" is an | oblong Parrish Blue text field. That says more about how | petty children and even women on dating sites are and less | about Apple "monopolizing" anything. | Karunamon wrote: | It's not quite that petty. | | It's not that the background of the message is the wrong | color, it's that having an SMS user added to an iMessage | chat degrades the functionality away from what iMessage | supports down to what SMS supports. | kop316 wrote: | From what I understand, one can't even change the title | of the chat if it is SMS/MMS versus iMessage. That is a | client side issue that Apple chooses not to allow, so I | would argue, yes it is that petty. | | I know it is a client side issue because in Chatty, I | quite literally wrote the functionality to change titles | of group chats. | Dracophoenix wrote: | Degrading to the lowest common denominator is what an | interoperable standard is supposed to accomplish. The | alternative is for iMessage to entirely decline SMS usage | in group chats. | greiskul wrote: | Back when Microsoft used to adopt interoperable standards | and make modifications to it to kill the standard, people | here rightfully called that behaviour evil. Apple get's a | pass for doing the same for SMS. | Dracophoenix wrote: | There's nothing inherently evil to EEE. Plenty of | software and standards have benefited from it (e.g. | Linux, Ethernet, USB, PCIe, Thunderbolt, Bluetooth). The | question as whether EEE is "bad" is a matter of motive. | Edit: Is it being done solely because there's money to be | made in locking down the tech to certain platforms or | because there's a superior or more convenient solution? | | iMessage has been on phones for 11 years and so far Apple | hasn't gone out of its way to pull the plug on SMS. Apple | doesn't seem to have an active desire to extinguish it | either. Other companies have put a more serious effort in | that regard: Google has RCS, Signal has its own | unfederated protocol, and various companies have their | own messaging platforms (e.g. Telegram, Discord, | WhatsApp). | Karunamon wrote: | Technically that's accurate, but that does nothing for | the social stigma of being that one guy who makes the | chat suck for everyone else just by being present | bombcar wrote: | Even so if you're not on "iPhone" you get a bunch of "Bob | laughed at TEXT" kind of things, which can be annoying. | | I wonder how much Apple would make (and how much they'd | lose) if they had a paid iMessage app for iCloud | subscribers. | kop316 wrote: | > social stigma of being that one guy who makes the chat | suck for everyone else just by being present | | I have been trying to parse this. You do understand that | for some people (like me), I explicitly DO NOT want an | iPhone, right? It isn't I cannot afford it, I do not want | it. The reason the chat "sucks for everyone else" is | because Apple doesn't open up the protocol. Don't blame | me for not wanting an iPhone. | 3qz wrote: | It's not just kids. Adult women don't want boyfriends with | Androids. Having green texts is unacceptable in such a | competitive dating market. | heartbeats wrote: | Competitive ... dating ... market? Have you considered | hanging out with more, uh, human people? | | I'm not exactly a playboy, but I've really never had this | problem at all in my life. For what it's worth, | approximately half of the women I speak to (in my | subjective experience, eminently normal people) use | Android phones. | howinteresting wrote: | *straight dating market | | This is not at all a thing among the queer people I know. | Most of my partners have Androids (one has an iPhone) and | we all use Signal or Discord. | 3qz wrote: | The gay men I date also bullied me when I still had an | Android. If your social circle uses discord then they're | probably not concerned with being normal. | smoldesu wrote: | Really? I don't think I've ever dated a man who cares | more about the phone I use than the job I have or the | clothes I'm wearing. I think if anyone pestered me about | using a Thinkpad or an Android device, I'd walk out of | the venue and foot them the bill. | howinteresting wrote: | Yes, gay male dating culture is also quite bad with its | focus on superficialities and appearing normal, as you | put it. Talking mostly about lesbian and non-binary/trans | culture here. | colinmhayes wrote: | Texting androids from an iPhone is a legitimately bad | experience. No clue why iPhone users don't just get whats | app, but if they're not willing to it's not surprising | that they're uninterested in having text conversations | with androids. | smoldesu wrote: | It's a deliberate choice on Apple's behalf, too. iMessage | could adopt RCS anytime without losing features and | actually becoming _more_ secure. Apple deliberately | leaves iMessage as a terrible SMS fallback device to | increase social pressure on competitors. | colinmhayes wrote: | Obviously it's a deliberate choice, iMessage is somehow | one of apple's strongest moats. Strange to me that users | accept that though when their are so many great, free | alternatives. | usrn wrote: | My girlfriend is an Apple nut (she even asked for airpods | for her birthday, now that I've listened to her use them | for a two way conversation I can safely say they're | garbage) and she tolerates me not only not having an | iPhone but even using cheogram for all my MMS. We just | use other protocols for chatting more than the protocols | "messages" supports. | | She even gave me one of her old iPhones to try to convert | me but I wasn't impressed and eventually she dropped it. | Would iMessage help if you're single? Maybe the same | amount having some fancy shoes would but IMO it's really | a surface level thing. | alpaca128 wrote: | > you can choose to not use Apple and your life won't be | affected at all | | You have to choose among Google or Apple though, and both | could just randomly ban you over night and make all your data | inaccessible. If Google banned me I wouldn't be able to use | my bank account without buying an iPhone/Mac or reinstalling | Windows. And at this rate Windows will soon also be only | usable with an account. | | This kind of limitation is bad and will cause a lot of | unnecessary, expensive problems before regulations catch up. | ASalazarMX wrote: | If that's the deal, ?porque no los dos? I use an iPhone, | but sync my pictures with Google Photos in case any one of | them becomes aggro. I also keep my passwords in a password | manager, so Apple and Google only have access to the bare | essentials. My docs are in Google Drive, SyncThing, | Dropbox, and an external hard drive, and so on. | Schroedingersat wrote: | Open android builds, postmarket os, ubuntu touch and | sailfish still exist (if just barely) for now. | | Please use them before we lose free communication and | access to banking and government services without signing | over your life to one of two companies forever. | prmoustache wrote: | you are kind of forced to use somehow google backed | products/services, but you are not forced to own and use a | google account. | | Bank apps are accessible through the aurora store for | example and many work well with microg instead of google | play services. | bbarnett wrote: | Installing a bank app seems like the ultimate horror | story to me. The unholy tracking must be insane. | | You cannot just log in via a web browser? If so, why not? | prmoustache wrote: | Well in europe regulations have kind of forced 2FA (which | is not bad in itself). At the beginning most banks were | relying on sms but most of them are phasing it out. | | Problem is instead of choosing a TOTP which would have | been compatible with any OS/device they favor their own | proprietary app with a push based solution. This suck. | | No idea about other continents but my MX girlfriend is | locked out of her own MX bank account until she go there | to sort this out because she do not have her original mx | phone number anymore. | buzer wrote: | > Problem is instead of choosing a TOTP which would have | been compatible with any OS/device they favor their own | proprietary app with a push based solution. This suck. | | As far as I understood from the news the reason was that | regulators (or the regulation itself) told banks that the | 2nd factor could not be easily cloned. Before this | regulation most Finnish banks were using one time pads | (actual physical paper), but because it was possible to | make a copy of it they had to phase out the usage. | bbarnett wrote: | Wait you need a smartphone to login?! How bizarre. | | Paypal has recently locked me out of my account, because | I don't have a mobile phone number. Why would I? | | I have a landline phone, and, I have terrestrial high | speed internet. | | So I have an Android tablet with wifi. It works at home, | and worked when I used to goto office. I have voip too. | | However, there is no mobile service in my area. I'm very | rural, so it's fine a few miles from my home, but not | anywhere on my land. | | Paypal has my landline number, but recently insists I add | a mobile phone for SMS auth. | | It is unclear to me how this could possibly help. | | Should I decide to spend cash on a mobile phone, just and | only just for paypal, I'd have to try to login, drive a | few kms to town, get the SMS code, then return. | | Surely, a timeout would happen by then. Not to mention | the entire idea is absurd and smacks of ineptness on | Paypal's part. | | Talking to paypal results in support personalle who | literally do nothing but search a database and respond | with circular, broken logic. I was even told repeatedly | to login, to open a ticket, about not being able to | login. | | And this was not just one support person either. | | Any push to speak to a supervisor results in a disconnect | on transfer. | | I have been with paypal almost 20 years. It appears that | will soon end. | | Bah. | bombcar wrote: | As an aside some (most? All?) iPhones and carriers seem | to support "WIFI calling" which lets you get calls and | texts when you're on WIFI (and even outside of cell | signal) - I get Ting calls and texts when I'm deep in my | basement where no cell signal is available, as long as I | have WIFI on. | | I assume something similar exists for other carriers and | phones (Republic Wireless is _build_ around it). | | There are also some land-lines that can get texts, but I | don't know how they do it (I suspect they're actually a | cell line disguised as one). | bbarnett wrote: | _You have to choose among Google or Apple though_ | | You do? | | If you just want a phone with SMS, a web browser and email, | an android device can easily be nonGoogle. | | And Samsung, for example, has its own app store, as do | others. | | We aren't quite locked into two options. Not yet. | disiplus wrote: | my bank does not offer the banking app on the Samsung | market. my mobile token is there. | threeseed wrote: | Then use a bank that does have a mobile website or non- | Samsung specific app. | | Companies will not change behaviour unless you vote with | your wallet. | smoldesu wrote: | I don't think your "let the markets handle it" solution | will work (at least, it hasn't worked for the past 20 | years, has it?). America screwed up. We let a duopoly | control our technology, and there's no point in defending | these powers like Apple, Facebook and Google who | repeatedly attempt to undermine our sovereignty and | privacy. As much as I'd love for everyone on this earth | to use Nextcloud and Linux, we both know that's not a | reasonable expectation. | | Everyone knows it, there's bipartisan support behind Big | Tech regulation right now in America. Regulation is | inevitable, the _real_ question is how long we have until | the lobbying money runs out... | th3typh00n wrote: | The point is that avoiding Apple and Google, while it may | be technically and theoretically possible, is going to | make your life extraordinarily complicated and is | completely unrealistic for the average person in our | modern society. | TremendousJudge wrote: | > a phone with SMS, a web browser and email | | really hasn't been enough for communicating with most | people for at least 5 years. the messaging app of choice | of your social group (wpp, telegram, signal, or god | forbid fb messanger) is needed as well. | tcfhgj wrote: | Telegram isn't really any better than FB Messenger | lynndotpy wrote: | Huge parts of social life are gated behind smart-phone | services and the workarounds are burdens. | | > an android device can easily be nonGoogle. | | But I don't think "Easily" is true here. I do it, and | it's easy for me, and presumably for you, but presumably | because we have the time and skills to make it work. And | even the most ideal "non-Google" phone takes hefty | compromises. | | KaiOS used to be the only real alternative someone might | have, since it had some apps like WhatsApp, etc. But as | of Sept 2021, that's no longer available. | bogwog wrote: | > On the other hand, you can choose to not use Apple and your | life won't be affected at all. I don't use Apple at all and | don't feel I missing out. Apple doesn't have any network | effect. | | This doesn't change the _reality_ that Apple has too much | power. Just because it 's possible to not use Apple doesn't | mean we should ignore that one company has nearly complete | and unchecked control over the digital lives of more than | half of the US population, as well as a massive chunk of the | tech industry as a whole. | dmz73 wrote: | So for Apple "Oh, it's their platform, they can do whatever | they want, you can choose not to use it" and for everyone | else "They should not use their platform to | $DoWhateverTheyWant this is the platform used by many people | who expect...". | | I get this impression that most Apple users are brainwashed | morons who think that sucking on Apple's dick unconditionally | is so much better than having | Google/Microsoft/Facebook/whoever try to shove their | respective dick up your ass. | | All these companies are EXACTLY the same, they want you (the | product) to use their service so they can sell you (the | product) to whoever will pay for it. Apple is just the best | at getting you (the product) to pay the most for their | services (hw and/or sw) to help them force out the | competition so they are the only ones who can dictate their | terms. | throw457 wrote: | Makes sense to have irrational juvenile people like you | discuss a topic for adults. | EugeneOZ wrote: | Apple only controls my phone and playlists in the Music app | (from time to time I export them to have a backup, but only | because the Music app is absolutely dumb in syncing). | | From my example, you can see that you have a choice about what | you want to be controlled by Apple. | fritigern wrote: | > Apple has control over your phone, your passwords, your | photos, your music, your emails, your credit cards/payment | methods. And you can backup nothing of it in a usable way. | Without a working Apple account any iPhone is as good as a | brick. | | This is why no one could ever convince me to buy an Apple | product. | [deleted] | rvieira wrote: | I honestly think the other way around, that Facebook is way too | powerful and in a more insidious way, than Apple. | | I'm coming from a Apple HW user perspective. This means that, | yes, if Apple locked me out, I would have trouble using my | machines. But I'm not an services user (music, TV or iCloud). | So nothing would be lost from my digital life and it is | elsewhere and well backed up. | | On the other hand, I genuinely despair at the amount of public | services (at least in Europe), community services and | businesses that require me to have a Facebook account to | interact with them. | | The quickest way to reach a local politician might be leave a | message on a local FB group. Some segments of society (and some | age groups) just _assume_ _everyone _ is on FB. FB is _not_ a | public service. | lowwave wrote: | Any pre icloud service Apple user knows you can just use your | computer to backup all the apple devices instead of iCloud. | Although apple is pushing their cloud services, you don't | need to use it. | | Out of the big tech corporations Apple over all is more trust | worthy than google, facebook, amazon. Of course getting | LineageOS/Debian on Librium type of phone would be | preferable. | rglullis wrote: | > businesses that require me to have a Facebook account to | interact with them. | | Can you give examples? | | > The quickest way to reach a local politician | | Doesn't mean that it is the only one. There are still | alternatives. If you feel that using Facebook is wrong, the | solution is not to use Facebook and complain about it. The | solution is to stay away from it and send a clear signal that | Facebook is not the proper channel. | CogitoCogito wrote: | > The solution is to stay away from it and send a clear | signal that Facebook is not the proper channel. | | Collective action through the legal system is another | legitimate approach. If enough people are unhappy, | legislation can force a change. | rglullis wrote: | > legislation can force a change. | | No, the laws for it already exist. The problem is the | difficulty to _enforce_ it. | | "Legislation" and "regulation" are not magic words. | CogitoCogito wrote: | I never said they are magic words. And legislation _can_ | for change. Of course it requires regulation and | everything else. That goes without saying. The fact that | laws already exist doesn't mean that better laws that are | more easily enforced can't be passed. | | Regardless that is almost getting into a semantic | discussion. Collective action through _government_ | regulation is a perfectly legitimate approach if enough | people are unhappy about the status quo. | rglullis wrote: | Legitimate? Yes. | | _Effective_? Rarely, if ever. | | I think that is the main issue here. Big corporations | love to keep the meme around that "Government regulation" | is a legitimate action, because they know how ineffective | it is. | | If it were up to them, we might be spend our whole lives | trying to craft the perfect law, constantly re-iterating | in a game of cat-and-mouse against | _$current_malpractice_du_jour_ , but at the end of the | day it is all pointless because _people are not going to | wait and just use Facebook anyway_. | bombcar wrote: | A law targeted _at Facebook_ might work, something like | "posts by a business or government entity or non-personal | entity" or something *must be publicly available without | a login. | | A similar policy aimed at ADA requirements for | governments, state and local and federal, might also | mitigate some of it. | moviewise wrote: | I can give an example. My whole life I had avoided joining | Facebook, even when pressured to do so socially. I just had | someone from the group email me the FB messages that were | important so I could participate in events/be informed. For | another group, I persuaded them to post videos on YouTube | instead of just on Facebook because the videos would cut | off and not play through without a FB account. | | But then, Disney's "inclusion and diversity" writing | program application materials were only posted on Facebook, | not on a website. And that was fine, if annoying, because | it was publicly accessible, until the application failed to | send, and the ONLY way they had set up to notify them of | "technical difficulties" was to message them through | Facebook. So now I have a Facebook account, which I | otherwise don't use. | lloeki wrote: | Can't be sure about what GP meant but over here many small | biz (restaurants, bars, shops...) online presence is a FB | page + booking/inquiry/support via Messenger (which has | specific support for that on biz pages) | | > If you feel that using Facebook is wrong, the solution is | not to use Facebook and complain about it. | | Do that and they could care less. The only one you'll | impact is you, as the needle will barely move. You could | say if enough people do that and talk enough about it | things will change, but in practice they don't as it's very | far from reaching critical mass. And yes I've tried! But | the network effect is stupidly powerful here. | | > The solution is to stay away from it and send a clear | signal that Facebook is not the proper channel. | | To be fair, many are being pragmatic as Facebook tools for | business are useful, as in they solve a real use case in an | easy enough way. So people use it, which means events, | news, communication, end up happening via Facebook for a | huge proportion of local life. Displacing that is capital H | Hard. | bombcar wrote: | You can usually weasel your way in to see the basic | business page, I even got a way to get the posts, but it | is _really_ freaking annoying. I hate it (and learned | that my local government posts to FB and not to their own | website sometimes). | rglullis wrote: | I present you example #23 of "The law of unintended | consequences", or what I prefer to call "Why all | bureaucrats deserve to go to hell"... | | Do you know who we should thank for all businesses | killing their own online presence and migrating to | Facebook? I'll give you 4 letters to guess: _G.D.P.R_ | Kbelicius wrote: | > Do you know who we should thank for all businesses | killing their own online presence and migrating to | Facebook? I'll give you 4 letters to guess: G.D.P.R | | Business started killing their own presence before GDPR. | If GDPR did contribute to this, I doubt it, the only | reason I could think of would be businesses not | understanding GDPR. | | In your opinion what, specifically, about GDPR drove | businesses to facebook? | rglullis wrote: | > only reason I could think of would be businesses not | understanding GDPR. | | Yes, that was reason enough. They were scared of lawyers | knocking on their doors and shake them with the threat of | lawsuits over "GDPR violations". They had zero interest | in spending more money on their websites to ensure they | are compliant and Facebook made it convenient for them to | outsource all of this _unnecessary_ headache. | | I don't want to get into a tangent, but I'm yet to see a | better example of how regulatory capture works _in favor_ | of Big Corporations, and how I distressingly frustrating | it is to see how often people throw around the | "Government needs to regulate X" without thinking about | the Law of Unintended Consequences. | Kbelicius wrote: | > Yes, that was reason enough. They were scared of | lawyers knocking on their doors and shake them with the | threat of lawsuits over "GDPR violations". They had zero | interest in spending more money on their websites to | ensure they are compliant and Facebook made it convenient | for them to outsource all of this unnecessary headache. | | So it isn't the fault of GDPR but of stupid business | owners? That is according to you. You can't think of any | other reason why businesses would kill their own online | presence? | | > I don't want to get into a tangent, but I'm yet to see | a better example of how regulatory capture works in favor | of Big Corporations | | What, specifically, about GDPR favors big corporations? | Considering that it is the best example that you can | thing of I'm sure that won't be hard to answer. | rglullis wrote: | There is nothing _stupid_ about the behavior of business | owners. When facing a bunch of uncertainty with something | that is not critical to their business, the most natural | reaction is to simply step away from it and outsource it. | | Blaming business owners for being scared from the lack of | clarity of the law is ridiculous. | | > What, specifically, about GDPR favors big corporations? | | If regulations were truly harmful to Facebook in any way, | why would Zuckerberg be calling for it? | | Big corporations have armies of lawyers and can deal with | all the requirements from complex pieces of legislation. | They use that as a barrier against smaller sites who | might try to compete with them on specific niches and use | it as a protection racket against their own consumers. | Thanks to GDPR, Facebook can go around the internet | saying "Nice community site you have there, would be a | pity if the government did anything to it..." | Kbelicius wrote: | > There is nothing stupid about the behavior of business | owners. When facing a bunch of uncertainty with something | that is not critical to their business, the most natural | reaction is to simply step away from it and outsource it. | | If it is not critical to their business then there is | nothing to worry about. Even if a business breaks GDPR | they don't automatically get a fine but a warning and | instructions on how to comply with it. Following that we | can only conclude that destroying their online presence | because of GDPR is a stupid move. While there is some | uncertainty non of it really touches companies whose main | business isn't collecting PII. | | > Big corporations have armies of lawyers and can handle | with all the requirements. They use that as a barrier | against smaller sites who might try to compete with them | on specific niches and use it as a protection racket | against their own consumers. Thanks to GDPR, Facebook can | go around the internet saying "Nice community site you | have there, would be a pity if the government did | anything to it..." | | Can you explain how this scenario is in any way | beneficial to big corps? I mean, you are saying that big | corps need to hire an army of lawyers, spend resources on | catching their competitors breaking the law and then | informing them of it so that they could fix the issues. | Nothing you wrote here makes sense. | | You did not write anything specific about GDPR that | favors big corporations. Do you know anything about GDPR | so that you can answer that simple question or are you | just some libertarian/ancap who rages against regulation | without actually knowing anything about it? | rglullis wrote: | > While there is some uncertainty non of it really | touches companies whose main business isn't collecting | PII. | | You are a real estate management company, and you have a | form to collect names and phone numbers, just to call | prospects back. Is your main business "collecting PII"? | No. Were you affected by GDPR? Yes. | | Same thing if you are a restaurant owner with a website | that had an OpenTable integration to accept reservations. | | > you are saying that big corps need to hire an army of | lawyers, spend resources on catching their competitors | | Now you are just playing dumb. I am not saying that they | need to _catch_ anyone. What I am saying is that they | _benefit_ from the uncertainty and complexity from a | piece of legislation that could potentially affect | smaller business who were not equipped to respond | properly. | | > are you just some libertarian/ancap who rages against | regulation without actually knowing anything about it? | | I spent the 6 months before GDPR dealing with the changes | that had to be done in an e-commerce startup I was | working at the time, and I saw all the questions from | vendors and all the people being worried because they | simply had no clue what needed to be done to be | compliant. But feel free to keep thinking I am just | "raging against regulation". | | The hilarious thing about the "you don't know what you | are talking about" accusation is that it usually comes | from people who blindly bought into the idea that GDPR | has any tooth into the fight against surveillance. If | what I am saying is not enough to convince you of how | backwards GDPR is, could I then ask you for _any_ example | where GDPR was effective in reducing the amount of | unnecessary data collection? | | Is Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple | tracking you less after GDPR? No, they continue to do the | same shit. They are still punching you in the face, the | only difference is that now you are being "asked for | consent". | Macha wrote: | Except GDPR came into effect in 2018, and local | businesses started substituting small websites with | Facebook pages since like... 2010. At least here it feels | like the rate of that has actually decreased since GDPR, | though that's likely largely due to the coincidental | timing of Facebook's decline in popularity. | corrral wrote: | > Do you know who we should thank for all businesses | killing their own online presence and migrating to | Facebook? I'll give you 4 letters to guess: G.D.P.R | | Pure, absolute, grade A bullshit. The trend predates the | GDPR and is widespread among US small business and | organizations that I guarantee you have never heard of | that law. It's not a factor at all. They use Facebook | because it's as close to zero set-up and maintenance as | it gets, it's free, they already know how to use it, and | "everyone" has it anyway. | rglullis wrote: | > US small business and organizations that I guarantee | you have never heard of that law | | Please, read the conversation in the proper context | before hurling your opinion and creating a strawman. We | were talking about businesses _in Europe_. | | The trend _started_ before it, but GDPR _accelerated_ it. | corrral wrote: | But the transfer of local business and organization | websites to Facebook is all but complete in the US, and | the GDPR had little to nothing to do with it-- | convenience, cost, familiarity, and going where the | customers are, were plenty of motivation. Why would | Europe have been different? | rglullis wrote: | There are plenty of business in industries that already | had their sites and solutions and had no need to go to | Facebook. | | Sure, it could it be that they would end in Facebook | anyway. But there is no denying that the GDPR was a | catalyst. | rvieira wrote: | As most people, I guess, during the peak of the pandemic I | increased my online shopping a lot. From food take-aways to | vinyl records. | | These can be examples: the majority of restaurants in my | area proudly claim an "online presence" which is really | just a basic FB page. And a 2nd hand record shop whose | "site" was a minimal FB page with no way of looking at the | catalogue. | | True, there are other ways, using the phone like a savage | (joking), but when local councils force you to subscribe to | their page to get important updates like school and road | closures, there's this snowball effect where you either | cave in and open a FB account or make your life harder. | rglullis wrote: | I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of legal action | to be taken against any public organization requiring the | population to access things through Facebook. | | How can a city council reconcile this with GDPR? | Schroedingersat wrote: | Same way the QLD government reconciled requiring an app | from either google or apple which additionally logged | your location and everywhere you went to microsoft in | order to leave your house during the pandemic? Ie. not | having any laws respecting privacy. | Nextgrid wrote: | GDPR has a major enforcement problem so a lot of | offenders are allowed to run free and may not even | realize they're breaching the regulation. | rglullis wrote: | Yes, sure. But this is not just random shop that happens | to be dealing with European customers, it is an European | city council. Is there any other place where people _can_ | and _should_ call for enforcement? | AnonHP wrote: | > Not that Facebook is any better, but Facebook is not the | gatekeeper for millions of peoples lives. When Apple boots you | as a customer, you most likely will lose everything about your | digital life. | | What??? Maybe you're referring to one or two countries. | Facebook is the gatekeeper for billions of people's (online) | lives around the world. With WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, | Messenger, etc., the influence that Meta has is huge. It's far | larger than Apple in terms of number of people who rely on it. | jackallis wrote: | this borderline appears to be "thief calling another theif, | theif". | dTal wrote: | Another HN title weirdly editorialized to have a question mark. | What is this? | lizknope wrote: | I like my iPhone. I've got nothing against Macs but I prefer | Linux/x86. | | Facebook can die in a fire and the world would be better off. I | was barely using my account before and I deleted it 4 years ago | after all the Cabridge Analytica stuff came out. I haven't missed | it at all. In fact I think my mental health improved. | fumblebee wrote: | This x100. | | Sure, Apple have a disproportionally large power that should be | acknowledged and stifled sensibly by regulators, but man do | they create truly beautiful products that make my life better | in myriad ways. | | Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that | seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill | societal outcomes. It's exhausting (pun intended), and I've | certainly felt my mental health crack slightly under the burden | of some of their products (not WhatsApp, which is fantastic and | I hope isn't integrated further into their ecosystem from a | user perspective). | whimsicalism wrote: | > Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that | seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill | societal outcomes. | | Your claim is that people get little value out of Meta's | products? I don't know how it is for the older generation, | but people of my age (20s) get a ton of value out of | instagram. | | I feel like in our critiques of social media people often | forget that generally people like to communicate and share | with others online. | starik36 wrote: | Depends on how you use it. I've long ago unfollowed anyone | that was toxic or political in anyway. So these days I am | either looking at someone's new baby, or something someone | had for breakfast or vacation photos. And I participate in | groups about 3D Printing, my vehicle, my favorite author and | a couple of others, which are all entirely constructive. | | So I get plenty of positive use from FB. | [deleted] | AlexandrB wrote: | I agree. Apple might need some regulatory action, but Facebook | just needs to go away. | misiti3780 wrote: | I feel the same way, deleted my account about 5 years ago and | dont miss a thing. | leodriesch wrote: | That's the thing with iOS, I feel like it is really built | around the user and what the user wants. Less so around what | companies want. | | Users love the product so it grew it's enormous userbase to | what it is today. Companies have to comply to the restrictions | that Apple imposes on them, because they can't miss out on the | userbase as their customer. | | As a user I can't really think of any guidelines that I'd want | to be changed or doors to be opened, I feel like it's mostly | non-users or companies requesting them. | whimsicalism wrote: | I want to be able to use iMessage with Android users. Apple | doesn't want me to do that. It is not "built around ... what | the user wants." | hericium wrote: | Powers Apple should not, in my opinion, have are: | | - slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new | devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can | afford new phone every year or two | | - forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security updates. | One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to-date, not | saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without Apple gutting | existing software, changing UI/UX and doing whatever they please | on the device customer has paid for, against the customer | | - blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous version. | IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in comparison | to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and now we can't | even install macOS that came with the computer. Just the newest | one (at least that's my experience: every installer but the | newest one crashes at the very end) | | - pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to download | a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's what I will | remember Tim Cook for the most. | | Jobs was not ideal but he had drive and imagination. The company | he largely participated in building was something different than | your usual corporation. Cook is just an unimaginative pencil | pusher. | joshstrange wrote: | > - slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new | devices to the market. Not every Apple user wants, needs or can | afford new phone every year or two | | Making this point throws the rest of your comment into | question. This isn't at all a fair telling of what happened, it | was done to prevent phones from shutting off as the battery got | older, not some machiavellian plot to get users to upgrade. | | > - forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security | updates. One can't have secure device (well, secured up-to- | date, not saying that fully updated iPhone is secure) without | Apple gutting existing software, changing UI/UX and doing | whatever they please on the device customer has paid for, | against the customer | | What are you even talking about here? Please give an example | | > - blocking the possibility to upgrade the OS to previous | version. IMO many versions of macOS and iOS were downgrades in | comparison to previous ones. We couldn't rollback iPhones and | now we can't even install macOS that came with the computer. | Just the newest one (at least that's my experience: every | installer but the newest one crashes at the very end) | | I'm fairly certain you can install back to the version a mac | was released with, your issues with downgrading sound like a | problem on your end, not apple's. As for the phone I'm | conflicted. Honestly I think Apple made the right choice is | making the updates one-way for security reasons. Maybe now with | the secure enclave there is a safe way to allow for "user- | approved" downgrades but I don't know enough to say one way or | the other. The goal, of course, is to prevent the ability to | downgrade a confiscated/stolen device to a version that has a | known-exploit to bypass the lockscreen. With how much sensitive | data people have on their phones I have a hard time seeing one- | way upgrades as anything but a good thing. | | > - pushing their agendas by forcing EVERY Apple device to | download a shitty U2 album because Tim Cook says so. That's | what I will remember Tim Cook for the most. | | It was a failed marketing stunt and people get so worked up | about it. Did it really impact your life so negatively? This is | what you will remember most about Tim Cook? Ok... | hericium wrote: | >> forcing users into SaaS model via secretive security | updates. | | > What are you even talking about here? Please give an | example | | There's been news in the recent week that users will be able | to patch security holes in their Apple devices without full | update. That's a step forward but I'm yet to see this in | action. | | But until this very recent announcement, Apple was always | hiding the details of security updates and when user got | scared into updating due to security bugs, they got auto- | shuffling in iTunes, "upgraded" Notes.app, idiotic UI changes | and no longer the possibility to turn off tracking. Remember | when there were privacy opt-outs in iOS and macOS installers? | I do. | | > I'm fairly certain you can install back to the version a | mac was released with, your issues with downgrading sound | like a problem on your end, not apple's. | | First of all, please don't call installing faster and less | problematic software "downgrading". Update and upgrade are | completely different things. With Apple, updates are often | downgrades. | | Installing older system was possible until recently but now | erasing the disk and putting installation USB stick (that | worked previously and wasn't erased/reused for something | else) ends up showing random errors at the end of | installation. | | How do you imagine I made this problem on my end by myself? | Do you think I somehow broken my MacBook during parts | replacement? The only updates that were made, were software | updates made by Apple. They renamed and changed OS installers | hanging in /Applications/ dir so why wouldn't they screw up | USB installer as soon as it's plugged in, too? | | > The goal, of course, is to prevent the ability to downgrade | a confiscated/stolen device to a version that has a known- | exploit to bypass the lockscreen. | | Of course! | | > It was a failed marketing stunt | | And the most Cook thing Apple did since Jobs' death. | | > This is what you will remember most about Tim Cook? Ok... | | Yup. The man has no taste nor imagination and makes poor | choices. | Jcowell wrote: | > Apple was always hiding the details of security updates | | This is untrue , here for instance is iOS 15.5 Security | Update release notes: https://support.apple.com/en- | us/HT213258 | | Every update has a learn more button with a link to what | security concerns have been addressed. | hericium wrote: | > For our customers' protection, Apple doesn't disclose, | discuss, or confirm security issues until an | investigation has occurred and patches or releases are | available. Recent releases are listed on the Apple | security updates page. | | The one you pasted is fairly new. I haven't been using | their computers for some time now but I remembered that | there were no details (or something extremely vague) any | time soon after user was suggested to update. | | That's a good thing and I'm glad to be wrong on this one. | Jcowell wrote: | Maybe it's the soon after part but Apple has been doing | it since 2003: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222 | Gigachad wrote: | > slowing down customer-purchased devices before pushing new | devices to the market. | | This is wrong. Apple pushed out a fix that when the phone | detects it has crashed due to the soc getting undervolted, they | would limit the maximum cpu frequency to avoid the phone having | future power failures. This is absolutely what the user wants. | There is no point getting full cpu speed if it means the phone | just reboots when you use it. | | Where they failed was in communication. They should have | signalled to the user that this has happened and that they | should replace the battery. They now do this and have a whole | battery health page. | | Communication is a massive problem for megacorps because | everything (usually rightfully) becomes a huge deal. But id not | be so quick to jump to malice as an explanation. | hericium wrote: | The CPU frequency situation was a one-time thing when they | got caught throttling. Up-to-date iPhones getting slower | around the time of new model release is an ongoing problem. | | I have a 3 years old iPhone with no 3rd party apps (recently | removed Uber.app), unused Safari and few email accounts. | Apart from emails, I'm using it as a phone. I'm not a heavy | smartphone user and never was. | | As far as I'm aware the CPU is not throttled but the phone is | so slow (even after factory reset and update to current iOS) | that waking screen up takes 4-6 seconds. Buying new device | with Apple logo is the last thing on my mind when my | "perfectly good" 3yo iPhone is getting artificially aged. | | But most users are paying those fuckers just because their | "old" iPhone got slow. | dehrmann wrote: | I wonder if we're moving past slowdowns the same way PC | upgrades around 2010 didn't matter much. Once you have | enough RAM and enough cores, it takes specialized | applications to notice much of a difference. | KerrAvon wrote: | No, it takes a large, dedicated OS performance and | quality team to keep things running fast on older | supported hardware. Apple has one (as does Microsoft). | apetrovic wrote: | I have iPhone XS. Full of 3rd party apps. My wife and my | daughter have iPhone XR. Also full of 3rd party apps. Other | daughter have iPhone 11. 3rd party apps? Yes. | | Nobody in our home noticed any slowdowns, especially 4-6 | seconds to unlock the phone. That's just ridiculous. I just | checked with wife's other phone (iPhone SE), it works as | always. | | You can blame Apple for many things, but iPhone longevity | isn't one of them. | ig-88ms wrote: | Jobs was a fucking monster, but people got brainwashed to love | him. | KerrAvon wrote: | You really need to get some perspective if you think Steve | Jobs was the biggest asshole of the last 40 years. | jansan wrote: | Or as James Gosling put it: "He was a jerk." | | https://youtu.be/IT__Nrr3PNI?t=3115 | dehrmann wrote: | He was a brilliant asshole. He's like Elon Musk, but with | focus and maturity. | carlycue wrote: | The iPhone is unironically the greatest product in human history. | It's the most important piece of belonging in a persons life and | it's the last thing they'll give up. They can be one misstep away | from homelessness but they still buy a new iPhone. This gives | Apple an incredible amount of power. The iPhone has built up a | ton of goodwill that extends to everything Apple sells. | sh4rks wrote: | Prime bait | KaiserPro wrote: | > They can be one misstep away from homelessness but they still | buy a new iPhone | | I strongly suspect they will buy the cheaper and possibly | shittier Android. Even though it won't last as long. Those | monthly payments are a drag yo. | | Look I'm glad you like the iPhone, but to say its the greatest | product in all of human history is a touch _hyperbolic_. Yes | its a great bit of engineering, but its not like it singularly | went from 0-100 by it 's self. | | Let us not forget, the _only_ thing innovative on the original | iphone was the large touch screen. Everything else was a | compromise. The battery, the CPU, the RAM, the ability to run | apps, _all of them_ were no where near as good as the nearest | rival. | | But Apple managed to catch up enough to appear ahead of the | curve, and well done to them. But let us not forget that | without android, the iPhone would never have advanced. (Dont | read this as me being an android fanboi, I have never owned | one...) | | But to the point, in terms of greatest product, I suspect its | probably either modern farming (and infra, so tractors) or | something medical. | Hellbanevil wrote: | I have never seen a homeless person with even a flip phone. | | A friend, or actually a homeless acquaintance, of mine was | charged with theft of public utilities because he was caught | charging his ancient laptop into a city receptical that was | put near the street to electrify Christmas lights. | | He was one of the original Programmers of Word Star. | | He got zero credit on his contributions though. | | He ended up homeless even though he was a decent Programmer. | | It always bothered me the way San Rafael Cops would harass | him seemingly daily. | | It can all go to shit very fast. | dTal wrote: | >Let us not forget, the only thing innovative on the original | iphone was the large touch screen | | ...and a full-featured WebKit browser. That was huge. | V-2 wrote: | That strikes me as a very US-centric point of view. | moffkalast wrote: | Very much so, Apple market share: | | - US: 51% | | - EU: 30% | | - Asia: 17% | | I suppose that makes sense since it's the main local | manufacturer, whereas in Korea that would be Samsung with a | whopping share of 65%. Apple would probably be way higher in | the US if they didn't make overpriced closed-ecosystem stuff. | capableweb wrote: | > The iPhone is unironically the greatest product in human | history | | Which "products" are you comparing iPhone to that makes you | believe it's the greatest product in human history? Granted, | human history is not that long in perspective, but I can think | of countless of other things that are "greater", so curious | what your perspective is on this. | arethuza wrote: | "It's the most important piece of belonging in a persons life" | | I'm a long term Apple user and but I think this is rather | overstating things - do people really feel so strongly attached | to what is, after all, a manufacturer of rather nifty gadgets, | not a way of life. | ecmascript wrote: | lol, I think plumbing is the greatest product in the human | history. It prevents us from getting sick and die, which is way | more important than a slightly better mobile phone. | cynusx wrote: | Facebook is such a misunderstood company, I really wonder when | and how they are going to communicate what they actually do to a | sea of people who think they "spy" and "sell" data rather than | guarding data religiously and enabling advertisers to feed data | back to them so their ad placement algorithms can optimize for | results that their clients tell them to look for. | | I guess highly personalized ads are too scary to see | nicce wrote: | Its not the ads only - there is huge power over people when | they can't sort their feed and instead all they see is forced | by an algoritm. It shapes people. Similarly how they recommend | groups and people. | jti107 wrote: | they're a private company, i don't see why they can't dictate the | rules for their platform/app store. facebook essentially will do | the same thing with their occulus store once they gain enough | market share to dominate. | | physical stores like target and walmart use their pricing power | all the time. | | the issue seems to be companies like capitalism when its working | in their favor but complain and ask for regulation when they dont | have the upper hand. the first step would be introduce rules that | limits the amount on money going into politics and then change | rules that encourages competition and stifle monopolies. which is | fundamentally very difficult to do in a globalized free market | capitalistic economy. | jleyank wrote: | Log out of iCloud and see what does or does not work. Find | alternative services for what broke, such as iMessage, and keep | going without strong apple control. As others have said, use web | pages rather than apps. Or get an android phone. Or a flip phone | if you don't like google either. | | Nobody in the smartphone ecosystem is on your side. They see all | your packets, they monitor your web usage, they track your | movements, .... Some sell hardware and they all "provide | services" that exist to scrape data and sell ads. | kevincox wrote: | Can you even install apps without being signed in? Certainly | not purchased ones. | jleyank wrote: | Apple store account required, which is different than iCloud. | I thought you have to have a store account for any phone from | any vendor? Don't have to use their services though. This | level of control is why people have gone back to (or never | left) flip phones. | | All you really need is a web browser and a phone and I | thought both could,e with all smartphones? | kevincox wrote: | You need a Google account to install from the Play Store, | but you can also directly install apps or use stores that | don't require an account (like f-droid) or use stores that | use different accounts (Amazon, Samsung). | annoyingnoob wrote: | I'll take Apple over advertising rapists like Facebook any day. | Advertising the data scraping that goes with it are way out of | hand, and far too intrusive. You don't need to track and sell | every aspect of everything I ever do in life. | submeta wrote: | In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology of | the masses have been negatively effected. So them being in a | strong position harms society and individuals alike. - In the | case of Apple we are talking about a company that dominates a | market and harms its competitors and has the power to be the | gatekeeper. Yes, that's power that should be limited, but it's a | company that produces goods that their customers love. I don't | see any harm in their products and services at all. Au contraire. | whimsicalism wrote: | I think we often times confuse the harms of "people being able | to talk to each other en masse" with "things uniquely caused by | Facebook." | | I am not sure why this is, but I think a large part of it is | that it sounds much better to rail against Facebook than to say | "I don't like the outcomes when large groups of people are | allowed to talk to each other online without intermediaries." | But really, the second thing is what you are typically actually | saying. | bryan_w wrote: | Sometimes they say the quiet part loud. I've seen people on | here say things like, "You can't just let people say whatever | they want!" | whimsicalism wrote: | Maybe a principled defense can be made for the quiet part - | who knows. but it annoys me that it is implicit and not | stated because I never understand what people are | criticizing FB for. | sgregnt wrote: | > In the case of Facebook, whole societies and the psychology | of the masses have been negatively effected. | | In my opinion facebook is very beneficial to society, so I find | it strange that such a strong negative claim, stated as a fact, | yet only a matter of personal opinion is left unchallenged. | rglullis wrote: | A golden cage is still a cage. No matter how comfortable they | make your life, we can not look only at the services they | provide, we need to also look at the restrictions they impose. | Gigachad wrote: | The iPhone is like a service. I don't see a restaurant as a | cage because I didn't control exactly how my food is made. I | don't want to deal with that, I want to build trust with a | business and get the service I want. When I stop getting | satisfactory service, I pick a different business. | rglullis wrote: | In your scenario, Apple is not a restaurant. Apple is the | tomato farmer that makes perfectly genetically engineered | red tomatoes, with extra vitamins and whose yield is | unmatched by any other. | | It seems great, until you realize that all restaurants end | up buying from them and after some years they put all other | farmers out of business and you have no other choice in the | market. Now they can charge whatever they want, and if you | are a cook who would like to use some different variety of | tomato, you are kindly told to get lost. | | Also, we _all_ have to spend the rest of your lives praying | that there is no new disease that can come up and affect | the tomatoes sold by them. | ArrayBoundCheck wrote: | Right or wrong, when it comes from fb I don't care. Meta has 0 | credibility to me | graylien wrote: | Apple probably the lesser evil, I mean at least they make | products that help us create | holoduke wrote: | These statements true or false are only said by companies in | decline. Meta/Facebook is dying. And they know it. A new player | lures around the corner to become the new dominator of social | networks | whimsicalism wrote: | In what world are they dying? | api wrote: | Facebook doesn't want Apple cut down to size for you. They want | them cut down to size so they can get around their privacy | controls to spy on you. | Tycho wrote: | Selling your user information/attention for ad revenue is quite a | scummy business model when it comes down to it. I quite enjoy the | fact that Apple could pull the plug on Google, FB etc. any time | it wanted to by announcing steps to make their devices "ad free." | Apple makes its money selling hardware and software and content, | they have no need for ads. They basically have a gun to the head | of the internet companies. | cloutchaser wrote: | Wrong. The rules apple is forcing on Facebook are not something | it itself will obey. Apple is PR-ing privacy yet its own ad | network will have access to vastly more data than FB. | | It's all a con, to make more apple profits. Its nothing to do | with protecting your data, its about storing it with Apple not | Facebook. | drawingthesun wrote: | Powerful company complains competition is too powerful, needs | regulators to take sides. | | The issue of wether or not tech companies are too powerful should | be one of "The People" vs these companies and we collectively | decide what should be and should not be allowed. | | Facebook's only interest is reducing any competitors power as | much as possible and whilst their argument might have a point, | they might not have a point. | | This discussion needs to happen and if necessary laws changed but | I feel Facebook spearheading this weakens the points made due to | their clear conflict of interest. | | We as a society need to decide if the benefit of these large tech | companies in their current state is truly worth the societal | cost. | | Facebook being involved in such a fundamental discussion dilutes | its importance. | | Also funny Facebook calling out another company as too powerful | when they have one of the largest databases of personal | information that has ever existed. Arguably much larger than the | personal information Apple has collected on the world's | population. | Hard_Space wrote: | I'm guessing that the sub-editor, inspired by legal, added the | question-mark at the end of this headline. | | To everyone pointing out the hypocrisy, please read the whole | article. The balance of blame and level of mutual hypocrisy is | established pretty early, and reiterated throughout. | sprayk wrote: | The '?' was removed from the title some time in the past 6h, | making "They're right" much stronger. | | Why do you think the '?' would be "inspired by legal"? | ginko wrote: | Who keeps adding question marks to titles on HN? I understand | it's to soften strong statements, but it's clearly the EFF's | opinion that they are right, why put words in their mouth? | | At the very least make it "Are they right?" so it's a correct | sentence. | deprave wrote: | I have been a member of and donated to the EFF since 1998. After | reading this article, I have decided to not renew my membership | and not donate again. | | My criticism isn't about right or wrong. It's about priorities | and weaponizing the corporations and business practices the EFF | should work against. | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | I don't feel Apple's "power"... I use an iPhone and Macbook Pro | right now, but I could ditch them just like I did a few years ago | when Macbook Pro was junk. I went to a LG Gram laptop, linux | desktop (others could go to Windows and the wide variety of | hardware available). I'm in Apple's ecosystem because I prefer to | be, not because I have to. Same with mobile phones - could switch | to Android. I appreciate they don't get along with the FaceBook | and FBI. | spaced-out wrote: | The counter-argument people will make, which I'm not sure if I | agree with or not, is that regardless of what Apple's customers | want, one company having that much power over its own ecosystem | is bad for the market as a whole. | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote: | Apple should be able run it's ecosystem however they like, I | just need to be able to leave when I want to. No Berlin Wall | situations. | tomp wrote: | Cry me a river. | | Facebook was banning people for suggesting that the "lab leak" | COVID theory has merit. It was recently endorsed by the WHO. | | A taste of their own medicine. Hopefully they choke and die (the | company, not the people). | cloogshicer wrote: | This is because people (even in communities like HN here) are | asking for this kind of censorship (guised as "combatting | misinformation"). | | In my opinion, social networks should only censor what is | illegal, where ordered by a judge, and leave everything else | alone. Otherwise we have private entities like Facebook making | these kinds of decisions for us - why would anyone want that? | danschumann wrote: | how is there not a decentralized social network yet? Maybe a | similar interface, like the main operating system, and maybe | multiple 3rd parties hosts, but something like wordpress for | social networks... like if everyone's facebook page were merely | hosted on their own server ( or they paid a 3rd party a couple | bucks a month ). Then, no more ads, and we get more of the | geocities guestbook appeal. | parkingrift wrote: | On one hand we have Facebook. A company with billions of users | that is routinely used to destabilize democracy and spread | propaganda. | | On the other hand we have Apple. A company with a 14% market | share in the mobile market that has restricted Facebooks ability | to track users outside of Facebook. | | For the good of Facebook, Apple must be stopped. -Putin, | probably. | whimsicalism wrote: | Is it Facebook you don't like or the ability for billions of | people to communicate with each other without an intermediary | you dislike? | | When I hear people criticize FB for "destabilizing democracy" | or "spreading propaganda" what I generally hear is: "Having | ordinary people able to communicate to each other without | review by media &/or government is dangerous for our society." | Can you distinguish your critique from that? | parkingrift wrote: | WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram are places for people to | communicate without review. | | Facebook is a place for a corporation to decide what you see, | regardless of the impact on society. Maximum engagement at | all costs. | | I would be happy to see Facebook revert to their original | feed which only showed you content from your direct friends | and in reverse chronological order. Facebook is | indistinguishable from opinion journalism but they're allowed | to masquerade as a social media site to avoid being treated | as the news publisher they undeniably act as. | whimsicalism wrote: | > A company with billions of users that is routinely used | to destabilize democracy and spread propaganda. | | People criticize Whatsapp for this same thing even though | it is merely messaging. Whatsapp is owned by FB. | | But okay, your problem is with the algorithmic feed - that | is a good distinction. | | I will say that there seems to be substantial consumer | appetite for algo feed given the success of TikTok. It also | seems natural to me that they would want to maximize | engagement - this is a proxy for the value that the user | gets out of the platform. | splistud wrote: | ec109685 wrote: | This point is wrong: | | "Nearly all iOS users opted out of tracking" | | It's 86%, not 96% as mentioned in the linked article: | https://www.flurry.com/blog/ios-14-5-opt-in-rate-att-restric... | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Think few people realize how bad the Apple situation is. If your | company just ships like an iOS app and an Android app maybe you | don't really notice or maybe don't care. | | But work at a company where you try to build something like new | hardware devices or systems without having to resort to building | either an iOS app or handing over 30% to Apple and the situation | becomes very worrying to dire. Simple things suddenly become | impossible or have workarounds piled on top to get their browser | to function in the ways their desktop one does or Android's | browser does. | | You can feel some of their engineering choices are actively | hostile against anyone trying to exist outside the App Store | ecosystem. Sure I know some advocates push this as a good thing | but I think they'll disagree when the endgame plays out. | | Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option on | iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. There is | a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the iPad feel | more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like iPadOS. | | I used to be a huge Apple advocate but I'm really worried with | where they're heading as I'm trying to create new technology and | Apple causes so much pain when you try to make anything other | than an iOS app. | | I do love my M1 MBP, have a lot less love for my iPhone these | days but I'm worried where the tide is moving. It's all | absolutely fine, until it isn't and then the problem is it's | completely locked down from the touch screen to the silicon... | Mertax wrote: | I think we saw the same behavior with Microsoft in the early | 2000s. When a company becomes more preoccupied with "shoring up | the moat" to keep the stranglehold on the market more than it | cares about innovating what's best for their consumer, the | internal decay starts to happen. | | Fortunately I think for both Apple and Microsoft, they still | have internal resources in the upper-ranks that truly care | about what's best for their customers. If those people end up | being the prevailing voices they will succeed. I think a lot | depends on whether the CEO has control of the vision, or if | they're actually just managing operations. Cracks are shown in | the form of who they are able to retain & hire and who is | leaving. | smoldesu wrote: | Apple hardware is generally quite good. Besides the complete | lack of repairability on recent models, new Macbooks are really | quite nice work laptops. | | The software experience, on the other hand... it's been | slipping downhill for almost a decade now. I haven't been able | to "full-time" MacOS since Mojave, and with each update I just | find myself using it less and less. I suspect this is mostly | driven by their attempts to appease shareholders: changes like | the Big Sur UI overhaul, forcing everyone onto Metal, | prioritizing SaaS offerings, all of it contributes to the | Windows-10-ization of MacOS. Meanwhile, MacOS has _major | architectural issues_ they could be fixing, like their | increasingly broken BSD compatibility layer or rectifying their | licensing woes with GPLv3. | | I really wish people luck in bringing Linux to modern Macs, but | I'm not very hopeful that it will be a fruitful long-term | relationship. Apple has time-and-time-again shown that their | bottom line comes first, and if Linux becomes an appealing | enough alternative for developers, I suspect they'll cut | support for that too. People said the same thing about Nintendo | when developing custom firmware for the Switch ("Who would shut | down a project used for running Android/Linux on first-party | hardware?"), but subsequent models came with extensive homebrew | mitigations. | | Instead of dealing with these issues, I've just cut Apple out | of my life. As a developer, my life has gotten so much easier, | and as a user, I've got so much more peace-of-mind. It feels | great, but it's not a path _everyone_ can take. Apple (like | Microsoft and Google) deserves strict regulation to ensure that | their behavior is ethical and doesn 't promote harmful lock-in. | vinceguidry wrote: | If only I could get employers to stop foisting MacOS on me. | sigh. | sydd wrote: | Yep, and the same thing is true for the other giants - Amazon, | Google, Microsoft. | | We're already living in a world where most segments of your | life are taxed in a way from these 3. In a few years they will | cannibalize the rest. | boardwaalk wrote: | > Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option | on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. | There is a reason why the last WWDC was all about making the | iPad feel more like MacOS and making parts of MacOS feel like | iPadOS. | | This is pure supposition and reasoning with a UI feature that | you have to explicitly turn on that helps you manage windows in | way that's _more_ like a traditional desktop than ever for the | iPad than it is like a tablet for macOS is quite a stretch. | | You could have said the same about other features that | iOS/macOS got and it would have been just as unconvincing too: | Screen Time, Control Center, Focus, Share Play, anything for | Messages or Safari, etc. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Look at the profit charts for IAP/software sales on iOS vs | MacOS then imagine you are an exec who has no reason to have | any love for the concept of computing and ask yourself "Why | is MacOS so unprofitable?" | | Fortnite runs on iOS and Fortnite runs on Mac, imagine you're | an exec looking at that chart and asking yourself why | Fortnite is so unprofitable on Mac and why it's financing | whole Apple departments on iOS. | | It's hard to imagine any sane executive wouldn't be working | towards the future I'm describing. Only an individual with | extreme passion to the concept of free computing would do | anything else. | stjohnswarts wrote: | While this stuff makes it hard for developers, it makes it more | secure for users, so users will keep buying stuff until such | hindrances get in their way. If it's bad enough they will move | on to other vendors. | Aperocky wrote: | > only option on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on | MacBooks too | | I've had so many MacBooks but only because of the hardware form | factor, the moment they wall off the terminal is the moment I | would abandon mac forever. | | They will also lose all of their corporate customers. | themitigating wrote: | What about the hardware form factor? There are dell and | lenovo laptops that are close enough. | AzzieElbab wrote: | I switch between a macbook and a thinkpad, mac's 3024 x | 1964 resolution is certainly better for laptops than either | 1920 x 1200 or 4K. The thinkpad is way better bang for the | buck otherwise | ubermonkey wrote: | >Because in 10 years, what currently exists as the only option | on iPad and iPhone will be the only option on MacBooks too. | | People love to say this, but there's no evidence it's true. | | Both Windows and MacOS now have features that can limit the | sources of software to vendor-approved channels, but they're | also very very easy to turn off. You can still run whatever the | hell you want on a Mac, and on Windows -- by downloading from | vendor sites, or even by building from source. | | Neither platform is EVER likely to block this. There's no | upside to it. But having the OPTION to lock down either | platform is GREAT because, well, we all have an Aunt Millie or | whatever who clicks on everything and can't be arsed to learn | to use the web safely, etc. | | Is iOS locked down? Sure! I love it that way. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | They were a great company that had the misfortune of making a | shitload of money that now overrides everything else. | a-dub wrote: | it seems to me like the obviously correct policy intervention | would be to legislate a reduction in switching costs/friction | across the industry, as that is literally a cornerstone of how | free markets are supposed to work. | | that said, easier said than done... but at least the ideal we | should probably be striving for. | dragonwriter wrote: | > it seems to me like the obviously correct policy intervention | would be to legislate a reduction in switching costs/friction | across the industry, | | That's not a policy intervention, that's a potential _goal_ of | a policy intervention. | a-dub wrote: | thanks. can you recommend a good introduction to policy terms | and associated wonkery for computer types? ... like some kind | of policy in a nutshell ora book? | fritigern wrote: | I can't believe I'm saying this, but Facebook is right. | | Apple should be given a massive punitive fine for preventing app | sideloading. This is disgusting anti-competitive behaviour. | GekkePrutser wrote: | The problem they have is not that Apple is too powerful. It's | that they're more powerful than Facebook in this case. | | Though I totally agree that Apple is not the privacy deity they | claim to be, it's funny hearing complaints from Facebook which is | far worse. It says several times that Facebook is totally right. | Which is true but it ignores the bigger picture here. Facebook is | by far the worst actor out of the two and their arguments are | total hypocrisy. | | I also don't like their approach around do not track which aimed | at trying to find a middle ground between us and the advertisers | that have been abusing our privacy for years. For me it's gone | far beyond collaboration and trust. I don't think anything will | come from this. | blurrybird wrote: | Ok so what happens when I choose iOS for myself and my closest | family members specifically because of its inability for someone | to coax you into installing a dodgy app? | | If 3rd party app stores are introduced it'll just create | fragmentation, a race to the bottom on App Store commissions, and | significantly reduce the quality and quantity of apps available | on the 1st party store - which I would very much prefer to stay | locked in to. | | This scenario creates more problems than it solves. | alexb_ wrote: | It's worth mentioning the case of tumblr - a giant social media | company that was literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. | People remember the whole "wow, tumblr was so stupid for banning | porn" but forget that the reason they did so was because Apple | threatened to remove all of their users from tumblr if they | didn't. Apple gave tumblr unreasonable "safety standards" that | almost single-handedly killed a gigantic site for the vast | majority of users. | | Apple should not have this type of power. Maybe they used it for | good with Facebook, but I wouldn't count on it always being the | case. Apple can kill entire social media platforms if they want | to. IMO, it's a matter of time before they start charging an | "adult tax" (that just so happens to be barely below the profits | a company makes from adult content via Apple users). Maybe the | only thing preventing them from doing so is regulatory pressure. | mbesto wrote: | > Apple can kill entire social media platforms if they want to. | | They also have the opposite - the ability to create entire | social media platforms. | | > Apple gave tumblr unreasonable "safety standards" that almost | single-handedly killed a gigantic site for the vast majority of | users. | | > Maybe they used it for good with Facebook | | Devil's advocate - maybe what _you_ think is good isn 't good | for the rest of society. | | > Maybe the only thing preventing them from doing so is | regulatory pressure. | | Agreed. So what type for regulations need to be in place? | HWR_14 wrote: | There were several similarly large companies that Facebook | killed by modifying their algorithm. Let's not pretend that the | scale of "hundreds of millions" sized companies can stand up to | pressure from Apple/Google/Meta/Microsoft/Amazon. | | And what's the new acronym to refer to those companies? | ayewo wrote: | It's MAMAA now = Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet | mojuba wrote: | GAMMA - though it'd be too cool for these guys. | kmeisthax wrote: | MAGMA also works | anonymousiam wrote: | Or delete Facebook (Meta) and now you have MAGA! | tsol wrote: | G'MAMA | colejohnson66 wrote: | If we're renaming Facebook to Meta in these acronyms, why | is Google->Alphabet always ignored? | mojuba wrote: | Because Meta = Facebook + Instagram + WhatsApp, all quite | significant customer-facing products. | | What is Alphabet then? It's Google, which is a long list | of well known customer-facing products, plus a bunch of | obscure or experimental companies the public largely | doesn't care about. | jefftk wrote: | Too many vowels | int_19h wrote: | Maybe instead of inventing a new acronym every few years, we | should just call it the "tech oligopolists"? | ec109685 wrote: | Plus when they shutdown their app platform. | nextstep wrote: | How did Twitter avoid this same fate? Twitter has an iOS app | (sort of their main interface nowadays) and they have tons of | adult content. | | Is Twitter powerful enough to stand up to Apple and Tumblr was | not? | Mindwipe wrote: | Because the App Store review team is capricious and | contradictory. | | We've also seen third party Reddit app developers not allowed | to feature content that the main Reddit app is despite | toggles, and Discord not allowed to feature content that | Twitter is. | | The policy is badly written and not even Apple's own | reviewers understand it, and they overreact to complaints | from religious groups. | lrae wrote: | NSFW content is disabled by default in the iOS app and you | can only enable it via web iirc. | | No idea though if Tumblr had the same option back then. | Mindwipe wrote: | It did. Apple repeatedly said that wasn't sufficient. | steego wrote: | You're missing something. Both Twitter and Reddit have | apps which allow access to NSFW content. | nipponese wrote: | Safari on iOS can load a porn site. So what's the problem? | mhh__ wrote: | What does that have to do with Apple killing Tumblr? | ksec wrote: | From Apple's perspective, | | If you want access to Apple's user. You have to play by their | rules. Remember even if those users are Tumblr's reader or | members, they are ultimately accessing it via iPhone, whether | that is through Safari or Apps. And Apple dictate the rules. | | Since Apple is a force of Good. Apple are righteous. Their | fellow evangelist will tell you everything else are by their | definition are Evil. Such as Ads. And banning whatever it is, | whether that is porn, news that does not adhere to their | political views, or music that doesn't fits certain | requirement. And they are fighting all these evil for you, an | act of love. | oaiey wrote: | > Apple's user | | This ownership wording is the wrong thinking when it comes to | platforms. | munchenphile wrote: | Exactly. If I buy and drive a BMW, I'm a BMW driver. I'm | not BMW's user. | | What a scary way to phrase that relationship. | xdennis wrote: | But it is how these companies see people, which is what GP | is talking about. | int_19h wrote: | More importantly, that's how these companies treat people | _and get away with it_. So, however wrong and scary it | is, it 's also true. | lancesells wrote: | I've never heard of Apple dictating anything through Safari | on iOS. Are they blocking sites that they don't approve of? | oaiey wrote: | When I remember right, there is a blacklist but nothing | serious on it. | kmlx wrote: | > Apple should not have this type of power. | | wait a minute, that's only because Tumblr wanted to be on the | App Store. they've could've just as easily provided a web app | and easily instructed their users to have a link on the ios | home screen. but they wanted to be on the App Store, so of | course they had to follow Apple's rules. | Tostino wrote: | Using the hobbled webapp features that Apple hardly allows? | That's your solution? | lkxijlewlf wrote: | I think you're making the case for Apple being too powerful. | majani wrote: | And for Tumblr (and most apps out there), they took on on all | this headache just for some push notifications and fancy | animations. They clearly didn't do their cost-benefit | analysis when deciding to make their app | Aldo_MX wrote: | > that's only because Tumblr wanted to be on the App Store | | Yeah, because the iOS ecosystem is well known for allowing | competition, especially competing stores. | | Many of the issues that Apple create wouldn't exist if | competing stores were allowed to exist. | Longhanks wrote: | Why is it Apple's duty to provide an ecosystem for tumblr? | If they want on Apple's platform, they have to play by | Apple's rules - there's other ecosystems, too. No one is | forced to enter the iOS ecosystem, and anyone can leave at | any time they please. | 7v3x3n3sem9vv wrote: | hard for some people to leave when they've paid thousands | in hardware, apps and media content that doesn't migrate | easily to other platforms. | Longhanks wrote: | How is this different from any other industry? My VW | engine will probably not work in the new Ford, will it? | dahfizz wrote: | That's a pretty bad example. | | There is a technical / physical aspect to | interoperability. If you want to swap your engine, the | new engine needs to fit and mate up with your | transmission (though, this is easier than you might | think). If you want to run an app on your phone, it needs | to be in a format the OS can use. | | Then there is an extra, unnecessary, layer of political | control. I absolutely can, with a bit of work, swap in a | Chevy LS engine into a Ford F150. I don't have to ask | Ford's permission. Chevy doesn't have to ask Fords | permission. I, as a person with free will, can buy this | engine and that car and combine them. | | Apple totally prevents this. They do not allow you to do | what you want with the device you own. For good or bad, | they absolutely operate differently than other | industries. At least from the consumers perspective. | toast0 wrote: | > My VW engine will probably not work in the new Ford, | will it? | | There's a whole subculture of engine swaps, afaik, they | tend not to use vw engines as the donors, but whatevs. | You've got to have or make room, probably adapt the | connection to the transmission, plus any engine control, | cooling, and air/fuel. It's really not that hard, as long | as there is room. | jedberg wrote: | No, but luckily you have the legal right to change your | VW engine with a Ford engine if you really want to. | | But in your analogy, your VW would only allow VW gas sold | by VW at VW filling stations. And the only two types of | cars on the road are VWs and Fords, and each have their | own filling station. | | Now imagine you live in an area where only VW owns gas | stations, they lobby the government and explain for the | safety of the citizens they can't allow you to use any | gas from anyone else, and the closest Ford station is 100 | miles away, and you already own a VW. | | I could tell you, "hey, you bought into the ecosystem, | and you can leave any time". | | And you would tell me I'm being unreasonable, and fight | your local government to allow 3rd party gas stations. | capybara_2020 wrote: | Imagine Microsoft saying something like that...you cannot | install your app on Windows because <reasons>. Can you | imagine the uproar at that. | | But Apple gets a free pass? | | For all intents and purposes Apple's iphone is the | Windows equivalent in many parts of the world. If you are | not on it, you do not exist. So Apple needs to be treated | like the monopoly/duopoly they are. | ezfe wrote: | What about Tumblr requires an app to enjoy? | PhantomBKB wrote: | That's like asking why doesn't everyone switch to | landline phones since they have the same calling | functionality as mobile phones. | | Answer: Well obviously, since landlines are missing the | biggest feature mobiles phones have: portability. | | Point I'm trying to make: 1. Apps are smoother than web | experience 2. Have a much native-er feel, etc. | | If app is available, I'd rather use an app. | ezfe wrote: | There's no inherent reason that is - websites can be | added as icons on the home page and can feel just as nice | to use as an app for things like Tumblr or Reddit. The | only reason the Reddit web interface is no fun is because | Reddit makes it horrendous on purpose. I got a | notification today in the Reddit webpage saying the app | had more cats, whatever that means. | | A big thing would be notifications, which at the time of | writing is still an issue but slated to be corrected next | year. | jedberg wrote: | Push notifications. | Aldo_MX wrote: | I don't know, let me ask the anti-Electron gang their | thoughts about less battery life just by running a | browser environment instead of a native app. | uncomputation wrote: | This doesn't make sense. You wouldn't have an Electron | app on iOS anyways. If you used Electron for desktop, you | would generate an iOS bundle for the App Store but OP is | suggesting just a web app in the vein of HN, just | accessed via the browser. The only thing you would use | Electron for is desktop but, also like HN, nobody | accesses tumblr via a desktop app to begin with. They use | a browser. | woojoo666 wrote: | From the article | | > Apple's restrictions on third-party browsers, and the | limitations it puts on Safari/WebKit (its own browser | tools) have hobbled "web apps," | | Though I'm sure you can also ask many product managers | how well native apps on iOS perform due to web apps (many | companies have data on both). For whatever reason, users | prefer native apps | corrral wrote: | I expect there's a ton of overlap between the anti- | Electron "gang" and folks who don't think a website needs | an app at all. | | Plus most of those website "apps" are just a bunch of | webviews anyway, so you're not going to save battery by | using them. Just like Electron. | vorpalhex wrote: | 1. Safari did not support PWAs at this time. Other browsers | did. | | 2. Safari had and still has some pretty gnarly bugs that | require special workarounds. | | 3. You could not put a link to a website on the homescreen of | iOS | ec109685 wrote: | Apple has had PWA's for years. | | Tumblr is perfectly fine on the web, but they want people | to download the app so they can use push notifications to | juice engagement. | vorpalhex wrote: | That's a lie. | | As of Aug 2021, PWA support basically didn't exist except | for some parts of the manifest file. No background tasks, | none of the major APIs were implemented, and you got | nothing but an app tile on your homescreen.. even | navigating back and forth from the PWA to another app | caused the PWA to lose state. Data storage was basically | a nightmare. | | There are STILL basic fundamental things missing. | | When the tumblr saga was going on, I still don't think | you could even read PWA manifests or add them to your | homescreen! | robin_reala wrote: | Tumblr's management actively hated their web team: | https://twitter.com/edent/status/729223162467106816 | justinclift wrote: | That's not really anyone's fault but Tumblr though. They | could have fixed whatever issues they had with the | website/team/etc. | alexb_ wrote: | The point is Apple's rules are not really rules (as evidenced | by Twitter existing on iOS) and are really just excuses for | selectively bullying out companies they don't like. There is | absolutely no reason that Apple should have the power to do | that. Sure they could have "provided a web app" that gave a | really really shitty experience to everyone compared to an | actual app, but that's not an actual alternative and still | loses out on a ton of users. Apple has the power to control | what software you can download and run on YOUR device, and | these are the consequences. | threeseed wrote: | > and are really just excuses for selectively bullying out | companies they don't like | | Except that if Tumblr had chosen to take responsibility for | the moderation of their platform then it would still be on | the store. Twitter, Reddit etc are heavily moderated hence | why they are still there. | | > Apple has the power to control what software you can | download and run on YOUR device | | iPhone has been around for 15 years. We know. That's why we | bought it in the first place. | Macha wrote: | I really don't think Reddit, especially in the time that | the Tumblr ban happened, was actually more moderated than | Tumblr. Tumblr was just the one that got their moderation | found not to be up to Apple's standards first at a time | Apple needed to make a statement that they're "not like | those other big tech companies". Arguably this was also a | warning shot to other social networks like Reddit who did | up their moderation afterwards, for both good and bad. | cloutchaser wrote: | > The point is Apple's rules are not really rules (as | evidenced by Twitter existing on iOS) and are really just | excuses for selectively bullying out companies they don't | like. | | Exactly right. It's amazing to me that with these global | platforms we are seeing exactly why the legal system | evolved the way it did, and why we have things like | appeals, precendents, the judges, and levels of courts. | | Getting rules and regulations right is not easy. Relying on | these platforms to do it is basically reinventing the | wheel, except they don't seem to be reinventing it | correctly. They are creating kafkaesque impossible to | communicate with bureaucracies. | | And the funny thing is, due to their focus on profits, they | don't really care if 5-10% of the population find it | impossible to use their platforms of get banned, because it | just doesn't matter to their bottom line if courts and | appeals are more expensive to run than just banning them. | | And then we basically see why equality before the law | evolved, and why its to fucking important. | mcphage wrote: | > really just excuses for selectively bullying out | companies they don't like | | That seems a strong claim--why do you think Apple doesn't | like Tumblr? They're not a competitor in any space. | | > Sure they could have "provided a web app" that gave a | really really shitty experience to everyone compared to an | actual app | | Tumblr is an actual web site, right? | kmlx wrote: | > as evidenced by Twitter existing on iOS | | there is no "evidence". it's a 17+ app with sexual accounts | actively banned all of the time which you can't even access | if you're not logged in, NSFW is disabled by default etc | etc | | > There is absolutely no reason that Apple should have the | power to do that. | | actually there's a huge reason: they built it, they own it. | | > Apple has the power to control what software you can | download and run on YOUR device | | the device is meaningless, it's all about the software. and | you don't own that. so you can't impose your own rules. | stale2002 wrote: | > so you can't impose your own rules. | | Actually, we can. We can make a law and enforce it. And | there are literally laws being considered to do this. | | If you don't like democracy, then feel free to move to a | different country. | mrcartmeneses wrote: | There's a lot of "feel free to... {vote, leave, | whatever}" in this thread but I just want to add there's | very little freedom in the American voting system. You've | got two choices, sometimes no choice if you live in a | "safe" district. Ya'll need to get angry about not having | 1 person 1 vote before angrily telling everyone else to | use theirs. | HWR_14 wrote: | Those two (or one) choices are also voted on. You can | vote in primaries. | | AOC won the primary in a safe district against the 4th | most powerful Democrat in the federal government. | int_19h wrote: | In fact, most American voters live in "safe districts" | today, and their number generally goes down over time. On | the federal level, we currently have something like 350 | districts that lean strongly towards one or the other | party, and 80 that are actually competitive. | oneoff786 wrote: | > actually there's a huge reason: they built it, they own | it. | | Well we built our society, and we own it, so they can | fucking deal if they want to sell stuff in our society | and we set some rules about what they can do. | [deleted] | TameAntelope wrote: | "We"? Which "we"? The larger you make the pool, the | smaller your individual impact is in that pool. If your | "we" includes everyone in the US, then your voice is one | of ~330m people, and should have vanishingly small | impact. If "we" includes ~8b people, then your voice is | ~20x smaller still. | | I think you'd be surprised at how many of those ~330m (or | ~8b) people would be perfectly okay with what Apple has | done, and generally how much more important property | rights are to what "we" have built than some esoteric | fight about how you don't want to allow me the right to | sell my privacy for a price I deem appropriate. | | "We" don't want _you_ to tell us what we can and can 't | do with our own data. Maybe _we_ are perfectly happy to | let Apple have some of our data, and are honestly tired | of hearing _you_ talk about how _we_ don 't know any | better. | oneoff786 wrote: | So if America declares some laws that state Apple can't | do this shit you'll be cool with it because the large | group did do some collective action, right? Because your | problem isn't the issue but that we just haven't done it | with laws? | [deleted] | TameAntelope wrote: | My "issue" here is that you're presupposing this is what | the people want, and that Apple is acting incongruently | with what American society was built by "us" to support. | | I'd use my one vote and my voice to try and avoid that | situation, but I accept that in a democracy my vote is | not meant to have a significant impact. | | For something like "data privacy" I'd go with what the | country wants (not that I really have a choice), but I | doubt the country would vote that way considering what | we've built is largely based on the concepts of freedom | and private ownership. | | It seems antithetical to those ideas to prohibit people | from selling what we tend to agree is rightfully theirs. | stale2002 wrote: | > is that you're presupposing this is what the people | want, | | At least in Europe it is pretty clear that this is what | people want. And they are almost certainly going to pass | a law that regulates Apple. | | > to prohibit people from selling what we tend to agree | is rightfully theirs. | | The phone belongs to the user once they buy it. That | phone is rightfully theirs, and these new laws will allow | a user to do what they want with that phone. | | Apple also has the protection of patent and copyright | laws. Those are government regulation that prevent other | people from selling software. | | If we really want to go full "people should be allowed to | do what they want, with things that they own", then | perhaps we should allow everyone to manufacture iPhones, | and sell modified versions of that software. (as in | literally, people should be allowed to steal Apple's, and | make actual iPhones) | | I am sure that there are some factories that already have | access to iPhone manufacturing plans that would be happy | to do what they want with their own property, and sell | iPhones themselves. | stale2002 wrote: | > We"? Which "we"? | | The "we" that is currently going through the Democratic | process of passing laws which are almost certainly going | to pass. | | > "We" don't want you to tell us | | Feel free to vote for a different lawmaker then. Or that | is what you should have done, because it is too late in | Europe already. They are going to pass the digital | markets act. | | Go participate in democracy if you disagree. | ericmay wrote: | > Go participate in democracy if you disagree. | | Thanks - this actually inspired me to write to my senator | and congressional rep at the federal level in the US to | not regulate Apple or its ability to decide what content | goes on the iOS App Store. I love the iPhone and App | Store, and Apple has earned my trust with their | stewardship of it, and there is no logical reason that | they should be regulated differently than any other | marketplace. Any proposed changes or regulations that | I've seen that target the iOS App Store are bad for me | personally. I'd actually like to see us pass a digital | markets act or similar that _guarantees_ Apple (and | Google, etc.) stewardship over their products and | platforms. | | Certainly I'm one of many voices (honestly outside of a | place like HN or tech journals nobody gives even the | slightest shit about what Apple does on the App Store) | here, but I'll make sure my voice is heard to the extent | that it makes sense to engage here. | ohgodplsno wrote: | Calling for serfdom certainly is an interesting take. | Remember to ask Tim Cook if he needs you to shine his | shoes next time | stale2002 wrote: | > this actually inspired me to write to my senator and | congressional rep | | You could do this yes. But I think efforts to fights | these laws will fail. | | The digital markets act is already almost guaranteed to | pass in Europe, and once Europe has a law on this, the | effects will go global. | | Whats Apple going to do? Pull out of all of Europe? Do a | failed attempt to segregate the market, by making an | unlocked EU phone, and a locked USA one (What happens | when people import the phones? Sounds pretty easy to get | around...)? | | Once the floodgates are open, you aren't going to be able | to prevent people from installing whatever app store they | want on their own phone. | | > that I've seen that target the iOS App Store are bad | for me personally. | | Fortunately, you'll still have the choice to only install | the iOS app store if you want. You just won't be able to | prevent other people from installing whatever app store | they want on their phone. | ericmay wrote: | > The digital markets act is already almost guaranteed to | pass in Europe, and once Europe has a law on this, the | effects will go global. | | Sort of. I think you are underestimating Apple's ability | to get around these laws, or at least section off the | worst aspects of them so that using an iPhone sucks only | in Europe and not elsewhere. In the US we may see laws | introduced, but such laws (thankfully!) will be neutered | as they're bad for citizens anyway. | | > Fortunately, you'll still have the choice to only | install the iOS app store if you want. | | Yes, but I'm not sure you understand how this affects the | ecosystem. The benefits you _think_ you will incur, will | not come to fruition. Instead, everyone will just be | worse off except other multi-national American and | Chinese internet companies. Privacy benefits are the | first that come to mind, and such benefits that Apple has | effectively collectively bargained for on behalf of users | will be lost. Unfortunately, this will disproportionately | affect the less well-off too because they won 't be able | to afford to pay to avoid cryptoscams, OnlyFans, and | insidious adware. | | > You just won't be able to prevent other people from | installing whatever app store they want on their phone. | | That's a product feature. If you want multiple app stores | you can already do that on Android. It's like buying an | Android phone and asking where your iCloud subscription | is and then demanding that Apple offer it. Totally | different product. | stale2002 wrote: | > I think you are underestimating Apple's ability to get | around these laws | | Sure they could try. At which point they would be fined | billions of dollars. Just like how they tried to get | around the recent app store dating apps law that was in a | small country in the EU, and they got lost in court and | kept getting fined. | | Europe isn't really a country that just lets people break | their laws. If you break them, you'll be fined. | | > Apple has effectively collectively bargained | | What you are describing is called "using significant | market power", and is specifically what anti-trust law is | designed to prevent. | | If your argument is that "monopoly power is a good thing, | and I want companies to use their significant market | power, in a way that anti trust laws are designed to | prevent" I guess you could make that argument. | | But I hope you also are consistent and want to repeal | common carrier laws, and any other laws that prevent | companies from using their significant market power. | | Just say it loud and clear, that you think that anti- | trust laws are bad, and that using significant market | power to anti-competitive control a market is a good | thing, if thats what you believe. | ericmay wrote: | > Europe isn't really a country that just lets people | break their laws. If you break them, you'll be fined. | | Europe isn't really that much better than the US in this | regard. See Volkswagen, FIFA, etc. | | > What you are describing is called "using significant | market power", and is specifically what anti-trust law is | designed to prevent. | | Sure if you specifically want to interpret it in the most | negative possible light. On the other hand, Apple's | position in the market acts as a company who can | negotiate on behalf of users (kind of a quasi-union). On | our own, no individual can leverage a company like, say, | Facebook to have to change how they track users. | | > Just say it loud and clear, that you think that anti- | trust laws are bad, and that using significant market | power to anti-competitive control a market is a good | thing, if thats what you believe. | | No, because that's a very naive and unrealistic thing to | say or think. | | Let's actually call this what it is, which is gigantic | corporations like Epic and Facebook suing Apple (also a | gigantic corporation) because Apple made their predatory | business models less profitable. That's all this really | is. In every capitalist economy ranging from Norway to | Australia to Japan, companies are allowed to create | platforms and then engage in business with who they see | fit based on rules that they create and enforce on their | platform. Facebook and Epic both have rules that they | enforce on their platforms. To suggest that the Apple App | Store is an anti-competitive marketplace is in the same | breath to suggest that Wal-Mart is an anti-competitive | marketplace because they won't allow me to sell | pornography and Dogecoin. This is made all the more silly | when iOS has less market share than Android and you can | go and buy an Android phone and install whatever app | store you want. | | If you are actually interested in anti-competitive | behavior, take a look at schemes like the MLS (Multiple | Listing System) in the US, or various other internet | companies. | int_19h wrote: | A non-democratic union is not a union. | ohgodplsno wrote: | Saying that Epic has a predatory business while actively | praising Apple taking 30% for doing fuck all shows you're | truly either in denial or have absolutely no idea what | you're talking about. | [deleted] | oneoff786 wrote: | It's more like asking where my porny tumblr app is, which | they want to provide, and apple forbids. | midislack wrote: | We want big tech companies to attack each other though. | oneoff786 wrote: | I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. | HWR_14 wrote: | I cannot stand up to intrusive ad tech that Facebook can | generate alone. At least, not at a reasonable time cost. | Open source software can do pretty well. But I trust | Apple more than myself to maintain a perimeter against | Facebook and Googles intrusions on my behalf. | midislack wrote: | It means when you see Apple and Facebook fighting, you | SUPPORT it. Every minute they're busy with each other is | one less minute they can devote to fist fucking the | public. | oneoff786 wrote: | Yeah but you know what's better than relying on Facebook | to write PR articles against Apple? Making sensible | regulations. | V-2 wrote: | "We" as opposed to "they" is a bit problematic here. | Apple, too, consists of people who have contributed to | building the society, they're not some alien overlords | from outer space. | oneoff786 wrote: | It's not. They're members of a larger group. They have to | abide by the rules of the group if they want to enjoy the | benefits of society. | V-2 wrote: | You mean legislation? :) | vorpalhex wrote: | > the device is meaningless, it's all about the software. | and you don't own that. | | You are correct - that is the problem. | | Imagine if your car manufacturer prevented you from using | Spotify or Deez or whatever music service you wanted and | REQUIRED you to listen to SiriusXM at a significantly | marked up cost. | | That's the issue. | rglullis wrote: | > actually there's a huge reason: they built it, they own | it. | | Microsoft also built IE6 and they also built Windows. | Should they have kept the power to bundle IE and to make | it difficult for other browser developers? | [deleted] | CodeSgt wrote: | Yes. They should. | rglullis wrote: | Why? Can you please go ahead and explain why monopolies | and anti-competitive practices should be accepted by | societies? | CodeSgt wrote: | I answered a single question, I did not endorse anti- | competative practices across the board. In this | particular case, they built it therfore they should be | able to choose how to distribute it and establish privacy | standards as they wish. | rglullis wrote: | What they were trying to do was considered anti- | competitive practice, and "They built it therefore they | can do whatever they want with it" in isolation makes | absolutely no sense. | CodeSgt wrote: | > answered a single question, I did not endorse anti- | competative practices _across the board_. | | I also didn't say they could do "whatever they want". | Could you please be a good faith conversationalist and | reply only to what was actually said, as opposed to your | misinterpretation of what was said? | rglullis wrote: | Ok. Let's take what you said, so then maybe you can | understand the problem. | | > they built it therefore they should be able to choose | how to distribute it | | _Tied selling_ is against the law. No matter who makes | it, no matter if its free, if you make the acquisition of | a product conditional on the acquisition of another one, | _it is illegal_. | CodeSgt wrote: | Okay? I never said it was legal. | [deleted] | GekkePrutser wrote: | The funny thing is that they're doing it all over again | with edge. And nobody is getting up in arms about it. | | Ps I still don't understand how "now copied from Google | so it's better than that crappy earlier version we built | ourselves" can be viewed in any kind of positive light :) | It's basically an admission of incompetence. I mean, for | a software company that's pretty bad. I just don't | understand how they make it a selling point that they | didn't write it themselves anymore. | | Also, I don't think the actual engine was why people | didn't like the old Edge. It was more the UI for me. I | never had issues with the rendering engine. The could | have done the same overhaul with their own engine and it | would have been fine too. An extra engine would have been | better for the web as an ecosystem, we're now seeing too | much of the "IE Effect" with chromium. | ig-88ms wrote: | Building mobile web apps back in the day was much harder than | today. | threeseed wrote: | I built a number of them. It was significantly easier. | | The Javascript ecosystem today is far more diverse, complex | and multi-faceted than in the past. It's hard to put | together a simple to develop stack that will be supported | and maintainable in the future. | christkv wrote: | They could have just enforced a age limit on the app instead | and let the platform decide if they were ok with 18+ or not | Mindwipe wrote: | No, they couldn't. Multiple developers have said that Apple | did not consider this acceptable. The Apple app review team | is capricious and does not follow their own published | guidelines, and that is not news. | | This was also an issue with Discord - Discord still doesn't | (by Apple didact) permit some servers with adult content in | the iOS app, because Apple said there was no way to do so | and remain in the store. | zimpenfish wrote: | > Multiple developers have said that Apple did not | consider this acceptable. | | Given that the problem with Tumblr was the accessibility | of CSAM, I think Apple are probably on the right side | here saying "just marking it 18+ is not ok" since, | y'know, the issue wasn't that "CSAM is available to | minors" but "CSAM is available to _anyone_ ". | robonerd wrote: | Is there any reason to believe reddit didn't/doesn't have | this same exact problem? | | I think Tumblr was singled out and made an example of | because they had a narrower user demographic spread, | particularly popular with young women. In cynical | business logic, this made them a safer target for | bullying than a site with broader appeal like reddit, | facebook or twitter. | Jcowell wrote: | What servers ? I've seen a couple with full on adult | content. | Macha wrote: | Partnered servers at least. The ffxiv subreddit server | had to remove porn after discord partnership. I think | nominally the rules are the same for all public servers, | but much like early Reddit, or indeed like Tumblr, | Discord does not have the moderation capability to | actually enforce that. | xwdv wrote: | Companies can always find ways to screw another company over, | this is not unique to Apple. Bad example. | oaiey wrote: | There was hardly a company that powerful ever. Controlling | communication, media consumption and entertainment at will | for a user group as big as theirs. | | Never before. Not with oil, cars, industrial products, pharma | etc. | 2malaq wrote: | It's not a bad example when it's literally relevant to the | article. | prmoustache wrote: | But is it? | | I don't think iphone market shares are large enough to make | a company like tumblr die. | lucideer wrote: | > _I don 't think_ | | You can think what you like but they literally did so... | -\\_(tsu)_/- | alexb_ wrote: | Yes they are. iPhones make up over half of all | smartphones in America. | prmoustache wrote: | Globally it is less than 20%. | alexb_ wrote: | Do you want to be the person who has to explain why your | userbase just dropped 20% because you didn't want to ban | porn? If Apple says you want to ban something, it's | getting banned. "Globally" is also not a good metric | here, since the vast majority of tumblr users came from | english speaking countries. | xwdv wrote: | You're right. Better to just ban porn and lose 100% of | the user base. | kevinventullo wrote: | Weighted by ad revenue, it's closer to 50%. | Miraste wrote: | Yes, the 20% that has all the money. | simonh wrote: | In the local galactic supercluster it might be less than | 0.1%, but Tumblr happens to be predominantly used in the | US, and that's what matters to their business. | midislack wrote: | Nobody cares about that though. US is where all tech | happens. | dwighttk wrote: | >Apple threatened to remove all of their users from tumblr if | they didn't | | That isn't true. Not allowing the tumblr app doesn't remove all | users. | jjtheblunt wrote: | > Apple should not have this type of power. | | Apple doesn't. | | Those customers were free to use Tumblr on Android, Symbian, | whatever. | pikseladam wrote: | what about reddit? | Gigachad wrote: | It apparently went much deeper than just porn. Tumbler had a | big pedo problem that they were struggling to deal with which | is why Apple delisted them. So they decided that rather than | try to filter legal from illegal porn, they would just ban it | all. | Macha wrote: | There was a NY Times article about the problem Reddit had | with r/jailbait, but Apple did not move against the Reddit | app then. You can argue that they were wrong to move | against Tumblr, or to not move against Reddit, but I don't | think you can argue that the application of this rule is | not variable. | shagie wrote: | https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/us/opioid- | reddit.html?unl... | | > A group called "jailbait" -- it contained provocative | images of teenagers -- led to a ban of "suggestive or | sexual content featuring minors" in 2011. The company | also shut down a group called "beatingwomen," which | glorified violence against women. Last year Reddit banned | two so-called alt-right subreddits for repeatedly posting | personal information that could lead to harassment. It | took no action, though, against a subreddit organized | around gun sales, which drew scrutiny after a 2014 Mother | Jones article suggested that some arms dealers sought to | exploit a federal background check loophole. | | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/19/reddit-and- | the... also goes into it. | | > In September of 2011, Anderson Cooper discussed the | subreddit on CNN. "It's pretty amazing that a big | corporation would have something like this, which | reflects badly on it," he said. Traffic to Jailbait | quadrupled overnight. Twelve days later, after someone in | the group apparently shared a nude photo of a fourteen- | year-old girl, the community was banned. | | --- | | The Apple / Tumblr issue is much more recent (did Reddit | even have an App Store app in 2011 - the version history | doesn't go back that far). | Gigachad wrote: | I remember that reddit had no official app for quite a | long time, it was from memory only about 6 years ago that | they purchased one of the community built apps to use as | the official one. | nonameiguess wrote: | This seems to be way overstating whatever role Apple played in | this. Tumblr debuted before the iPhone and continues even today | to work perfectly fine in a browser. It's just a stream of text | and images, effectively exactly what a browser was designed | for. I'm sure they'd love the greater access to privacy | invading hardware features they can get from a native app, but | it hardly seems critical to their continue existence as a | product. Also, the estimated drop in user traffic after the | adult content ban was 30%. When Tumblr was purchased by Yahoo, | they paid $1.1 billion. When Verizon sold it to Wordpress, it | was for $3 million. They is _way_ more than a 30% value drop. | It seems pretty damn likely to me that Tumblr has just always | been somewhat of a niche community compared to the larger | social platforms out there and Yahoo overpaid dramatically | because Yahoo was one of the stupidest big tech parent | companies to ever acquire other companies, and the failure to | ever realize that hoped for value had little to do with whether | iPhone users could consume through a native app or had to use | the browser. | rusk wrote: | > unreasonable "safety standards" | | Are these the same safety standards that cause apple predictive | text to refuse to recognise the cuss words I a grown adult use | and have to go back and fix over and over again. Ducking stupid | if you ask me. | davesque wrote: | If you think about it, you're probably glad they do this. | Consider the damage that a stray "f*ck" could do if you | didn't mean to type it and didn't notice that you did. Could | even spell a lawsuit I bet in some cases. | CharlesW wrote: | You're exactly right -- surprise porn and surprise | expletives at Apple scale would probably trigger a | congressional hearing. Not only does Messages _not_ censor | what you type, but one can easily leverage autocorrect to | help you type the naughtiest of words. | | https://www.macworld.com/article/673861/how-to-stop-an- | iphon... | robonerd wrote: | Apple treating the word 'fuck' like any other would | "probably trigger a congressional hearing"? Give me a | break. | Dah00n wrote: | So Android users have all been fired because of the damage | they have done via SMS? | davesque wrote: | I've got an Android phone and I've never been able to | swipe type swear words. And I'm kinda glad too. Yeah, | it's a little annoying when I actually intend to type | that word, but it would be way more annoying if it showed | up when I didn't. I imagine it's this kind of reasoning | that's behind why those words aren't available in auto- | complete or swipe to type. Some people in this thread | seem to be suggesting it's some kind of moral overreach | or impulse to censor that's behind this behavior. I think | that's an exaggeration and the real reason is the more | simple and practical one that I've described. | sleepybrett wrote: | Add contacts with curse words as their name. | rolobio wrote: | You can add custom words so that your iOS device will suggest | them. Go to Settings, search for Text Replacement, add a new | replacement with +, enter the same word for both replacement | and shortcut. | xdennis wrote: | "Fuck" is not a custom word. It was first attested in 772 | AD. | | It's no way to treat adults. | skohan wrote: | It's also probably one of the most uttered 1000 words if | I had to venture a guess. | shagie wrote: | The question is not is it a custom word or when it | entered into the English language. | | The question is "as a parent, would you buy an {x} phone | for a young family member that suggests profanity?" | | As an adult, you can go in and add the words that you | want to use yourself... however, do you want profanity to | be a default suggested word for children in your | household? | | Realizing that the demographics of HN tends to the more | technically literate, removing the all the words you | don't want your children accidentally sending to their | teachers wouldn't be a big issue, however as most of the | population isn't as technically literate the "it just | works" mentality for digital appliances would mean that | most of the population that has a child who may use the | phone would likely opt to one that is more proper and | correct in its limited word choice. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | A child that's too young to see a couple of four letter | words is too young to have a ducking smartphone in the | first place. | Dah00n wrote: | >"as a parent, would you buy an {x} phone for a young | family member that suggests profanity?" | | Kids have Android phones, so yes, it is clearly the case | that most parents have no problem with this. | shagie wrote: | Are there any Android phones where the default is to | autocorrect and suggest profanity? | | Not "can you go in and unblock profanity suggestions" ( | https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/disable-android- | offensive... ) but rather "is this the default"? | Griffinsauce wrote: | This is practically helpful but asinine. The point is that | these words are not "custom" or special, they should be | handled like any other normal word. | reaperducer wrote: | _like any other normal word_ | | But they're not normal words. They're expletives. If they | have their own category, they're not "normal words." | | iOS doesn't know a lot of the medical words I use for | work, either. But I don't moan about it on social media. | robonerd wrote: | _All_ words have their own categories. There are an | innumerable number of categories you can put any word | into. Give me a _single_ word that can 't be put into a | special category; you can't do it. | mwilliaams wrote: | > have their own category | | Like adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs, or any other of | many word categories? | | They are normal words understood by everybody, if not | used by everybody, unlike your medical jargon. | xdennis wrote: | It makes sense to not include all medical words because | technical jargon changes all the time, but common swear | words are very old. The word "fuck" is more than a | millennium old and every speaker would have understood | you. It's not Tim Apple's business to determine what | words people are allowed to use. | | The idea that expletives are not normal words is wrong. | Common people have always spoken plainly. They would not | have called their asses "bottoms" etc. | adolph wrote: | > It's not Tim Apple's business to determine what words | people are allowed to use. | | Given that auto-correct is a function of software then | yes, word selection is part of Apple's business. There | are two parts to the solution. The technical aspect is | probably not at issue. The socio-political component is | going to reflect mainstream corporate culture and | probably not meet many corner cases. The significant | choices aren't Apple's to make sense they will bow to the | anathema dictates of social and political power: such as | Winnie the Poo in certain Chinese contexts or Swastikas | in German ones. | jdminhbg wrote: | There are many words you would not want to send in a text | to your coworkers, such as when you ask them to "re | jigger the Q2 results." The only question is where the | line is drawn for the OS to say "it's better that I never | autocorrect into this perfectly real English word." | bryanrasmussen wrote: | so typing an sms really quickly and having autocorrect | decide that one of your misspelled words should probably | be fuck just as you send it. | cypress66 wrote: | Can't you install other keyboards such as SwiftKey on Apple | devices? | asiachick wrote: | you can but Apple decides when you can actually use it and | when you can't and have to use the Apple provided keyboard | kergonath wrote: | Note that there are very good security reasons for this, | as the keyboards can read everything you type. There are | contexts in which defense in depth is more important than | convenience. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Are these the same safety standards that cause apple | predictive text to refuse to recognise the cuss words I a | grown adult use and have to go back and fix over and over | again._ | | Only related in the sense that Apple takes steps to prevent | surprise adult content. Just as porn is obviously trivial to | consume with Apple devices, autocomplete can happily suggest | your favorite salty language. | | https://www.macworld.com/article/673861/how-to-stop-an- | iphon... | daniel-cussen wrote: | Stop using predictive text, you get more screen to read and | it's just always going to affect your speech somehow. | tluyben2 wrote: | I moved from android to Apple recently and that is really | pathetic indeed. It keeps predicting and correcting words | that are obviously not what meant at all. | bmitc wrote: | There is something about Apple's keyboard, whether it's | software, the physical placement of the on screen keys, or | something, but when I use an iPhone, I make many more | errors than I do on my LG Android phones. I haven't been | able to figure out why really, but it is definitely the | case. | kergonath wrote: | It has gone significantly worse over the years. About 3 | years ago it did not have any issue even when mixing | languages in the same message. Now it gets confused all the | time and puts stupid suggestions even in the keyboard's | language. I am not sure what is happening, but it is very | annoying. | spookthesunset wrote: | I mean they could just make that some option under parental | controls. Course even then I'm sure some subset of adults | would complain that their phone is suggesting naughty | language. | rusk wrote: | I think you're right. They hobbled it, and made it less | useful because they couldn't trust it. A fairly solid | example of why we'll never attain the singularity: it's bad | for business. | personlurking wrote: | The Inventor of iPhone's Autocorrect Explains How It Works - | WSJ [7m50s] | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncj3QAKvBBo | halostatue wrote: | According to an article I read a while back, the predictive | text is not supposed to suggest / correct to a different word | if you type _fuck_ , but it is not supposed to suggest _fuck_ | if you mistype it. | | That seems eminently reasonable to me, without being "safety | standards". | | Yes, modern English is certainly saltier than what people | pretended it was for the last century or so, but the line | that Apple took seems to be the _right_ line (allow offence | without correction, do not suggest offence by default). | | There are many things on which I disagree with Apple's stance | (I think that Apple _should_ allow pornographic apps in the | store, but that those apps should have tighter controls on | them to prevent some of the scammiest behaviours reported | against pornographic sites; I also think that Apple should be | doing a lot more to prevent abuse of the pricing tools that | it does have). | vorpalhex wrote: | For comparison, Google keyboard will allow you to have | autocorrect fix _to_ fuck, shit, etc but you must opt in. | | You can of course install _any_ keyboard you want with | basically any behavior you want here. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Where is that setting? I've never seen that? | | Edit: Never mind, it's "Block offensive words" under | "Text Correction". Easy to find, strange I never noticed | it. Thanks! | skohan wrote: | But the undeniable experience of many many iPhone users is | that you have probably seen the soft keyboard autocorrect | to "duck" many times when you intended to write "fuck". | | The soft keyboard is always using some heuristics to | identify which characters you intended to type. In most | cases it's quite accurate, but in this case it seems like | it's over-counting the probability you would have typed | "duck" or "ducking" by a fairly wide margin. | Shank wrote: | > Tumblr says that child pornography was the reason for its | app's sudden disappearance from the iOS App Store. The app | has been missing from the store since November 16th, but | until now the reason for its absence was unclear -- initially | Tumblr simply said it was "working to resolve the issue with | the iOS app." However, after Download.com approached Tumblr | with sources claiming that the reason was related to the | discovery of child pornography on the service, the Yahoo- | owned social media network issued a new statement confirming | the matter. [0] | | [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18104366/tumblr-ios- | app-... | wombat-man wrote: | Hmm, so did tumblr just decide to ban all porn instead of | spending energy on identifying the cp for a selective ban? | vorpalhex wrote: | I don't think they could have won. It wasn't as if CP was | allowed to begin with. | dillondoyle wrote: | Same as pornhub. No one wants revenge porn or CSAM. But | FB Messenger is the largest distributor of that material. | So long as companies are making a good faith best effort, | or minimally the treatment should be the same. | coldacid wrote: | Yep. The easy, cheap, and in no way forward-looking way | out. | imoverclocked wrote: | Forward looking is subjective here. Humanitarian issues | should be weighed heavier than technological development. | It's easy to relax rules later but you can't take back | human suffering. | coldacid wrote: | Forward looking in the sense of the organization | predicting well what will allow it to continue to thrive. | Macha wrote: | Note that banning "all porn" is easier than accurately | sorting child porn from regular porn at that scale as it | lets you avoid pissing off petite 20 year olds or getting | in trouble because your moderators OKed a report of what | turned out to be a more developed 16 year old. | | So yes, Apple may only have required Tumblr to more | effectively moderate to prevent child porn, but from a | business feasibility point of view the practical way to do | that was ban all porn. | nathanvanfleet wrote: | Macha wrote: | Yes. But to remove only child porn and not all porn | requires you to have some way of determining what is | child porn. So you need to sort it into "child porn, | remove" and "porn of consenting adults, allow". | | Or you do what Tumblr did, and just ban all porn. | cupofpython wrote: | the person you replied to was being unnecessarily | semantic, but in computer science "sort" has a specific | meaning which is only the ordering of a set. So 'sorting' | cp implies making it easier to find specific cp. | | The more accurate word might be "categorize" or "filter". | | It was obvious what was meant by "sort" when reading the | full text, but I think the counter-point was more of a | tongue-in-cheek retort regarding the above than an actual | complaint. | cjaybo wrote: | If you read beyond those three words, I think it's very | clear that they mean removing. | oaiey wrote: | It is called divide and conquer. Sorting is the hard | part, filtering/deleting/alerting is the easy part. | asiachick wrote: | Twitter allows porn. How do they do it? | Macha wrote: | Twitter is probably big enough that more Apple users | would complain if Apple enforced such a hardline policy, | and has a pre-existing relationship with apple (If I | recall correctly, Twitter and Facebook were the first two | share with opitons on iOS), so Apple is more likely to | forward on complaints than nuke them? Twitter also | requires more personal data (e.g. phone numbers for new | accounts), so that may discourage users from posting | illegal content in the first place. | car_analogy wrote: | Child porn is an excuse. Every site above a certain size | will have some, no matter how good their filtering. And | sometimes even small sites when they come under attack. | Then whoever wants to get rid of the site for unrelated | reasons points to it, says "It has child porn", and no | matter how quickly it is removed after reported, or how | much effort the admins spend removing it, "it has child | porn" is _technically_ true, and gives whoever wanted to | remove the site the excuse to do so. | | It's nothing more than ammo that corporations use against | each other in the fight for dominance, or sometimes, with | the help of cooperative media, against politically | disfavored sites like 4chan. In all my time browsing 4chan, | I have not _once_ seen child porn, though I did see posts | 404 'd for having contained child porn. Yet despite their | efforts, any time the media talks about 4chan, they will | introduce it in the same breath as child porn. | | In short, child porn has become nothing but a tool for | corporations fighting for dominance, or a fnord to tell the | masses to stay away. And in all of this no-one gives a crap | about the children, since they rarely spend even a word | talking about tracking down the uploaders or creators of | said porn. | dylan604 wrote: | Why does tumblr need an app in the first place? Make it a | website that is mobile friendly, and then Apple has no say. | Oh, wait, you want to hoover up all of that user data to do | what you want with it instead? Which fight are you actually | fighting then? | Raymonf wrote: | Because of Safari. | | Safari works amazingly for small websites, but for | websites with infinite scrolling like Tumblr and Twitter, | it becomes unbearably slow after the first hundred or so | posts. Historically, Safari is slow to adopt new web | features, and it STILL doesn't have web push | notifications (and more). | | You can run these same websites on Android Chrome just | fine, even on a lower-powered Android phone. I'm not sure | if they're using APIs that need to be polyfilled on | Safari, or if Safari is just trash. | | At this time, I'm convinced that if Apple allowed other | browser engines on the App Store, this would not be a | problem at all, not that I can test it out anyways. | | So, yes, Apple still has a say. | trafficante wrote: | I can't speak on Tumblr, but the issue is even worse than | "unbearably slow" on Twitter. | | Once I'm down about 50ish posts on my feed, hitting back | from a post to get back to the feed seems to have around | a 25% chance to quickly throw a "Safari has detected a | problem" error and force a refresh - sending me back to | the top of the feed. And this is on an iPhone 12 Pro Max | so it's not like the hardware is out of date. | | I primarily blame Safari, but on some level I think | Twitter is aware of the problem and has no intentions of | fixing it. The mobile Twitter site is purposely designed | to make it nearly impossible to open a tweet in a | background tab if it doesn't have an image (the browser | tries to select text on a long press). That's clearly | something Twitter could fix if they wanted to. | ccouzens wrote: | Long press the timestamp to open a tweet in a new tab. | This is a UI convention shared with Facebook. | | Tested in Android Firefox on | https://mobile.twitter.com/home. | lolinder wrote: | Twitter's mobile problem isn't specific to Safari. The | initial load of any tweet on my Android Firefox is ~20 | seconds. Every subsequent action takes at least a full | second. Couple that with the huge "it's better on the | app" banners you get every time you try to do anything, | and it's obvious that Twitter is intentionally neglecting | mobile web. | | (I've got an oldish phone, but it performs fine on every | website I ever visit _except_ Twitter.) | fsdjkflsjfsoij wrote: | > Safari is slow to adopt new web features | | Good. These features need to be supported by browsers for | an extremely long time and Google is trying to force | garbage under the guise of "standards." I hope Apple | continues to fight against the ridiculous power hungry | feature creep. | Maursault wrote: | > if Apple allowed other browser engines on the App Store | | You mean Gecko or Blink? WebKit is really not the | problem. Web Developers' strict compliance to only make | sure their site works on Windows may be part of it. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Safari works amazingly for small websites, but for | websites with infinite scrolling like Tumblr and Twitter, | it becomes unbearably slow after the first hundred or so | posts._ | | That's absolutely not true, even if the web developer | implements this in the Dumbest Possible Way. Please point | me to an example page and prove me wrong. | jldugger wrote: | I'd say about half of the grafana dashboards i build | trigger safari's "this page is using too much memory" | popups. | dylan604 wrote: | And what does the assumed digging into the memory usage | find? | | Is it a memory leak in Safari? Is it a framework issue? | You've started us down the path to a thing, but then you | didn't finish telling us the thing. | Raymonf wrote: | Sure, if you've got a tumblr.com account just start | scrolling on your dashboard and have fun. | | You'll be able to see it take seconds to render at a | time. This is true on an M1 Mac, as it is true on an A15 | iPhone and M1 iPad. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Sure, if you 've got a tumblr.com account just start | scrolling on your dashboard and have fun._ | | I scrolled through 300+ stories (or whatever they're | called on Tumblr) and it still hasn't slowed at all. Not | sure what you're seeing. | Raymonf wrote: | I just made a brand new account to try it. | | On M1 Max with Safari 15.5, it took me about 40 seconds | of fast scrolling to get it to start stuttering | occasionally. Then, another 30 seconds to get it to start | blanking out for a second at a time. And finally, another | 30 seconds to get it to start taking seconds to render. I | won't give the number of posts before it started lagging | because I don't know the exact number. | | On my phone (iPhone 13 Pro Max, albeit on the iOS 16 | beta), it takes Safari about 15 seconds of scrolling | before the scrolling drops to around 40fps from what | looked close to 120fps. Then, another 20 seconds to start | seeing things rendering halfway before jumping around and | then rendering the correct post. This isn't necessarily a | fair comparison due to the usage of beta software, but | even on an M1 on production OS software it doesn't seem | to be much better. Chrome 102 on macOS handles the exact | thing that I did without any problem at all. | | It's especially bad when you have a lot of videos on your | dashboard. If you only have image posts, it might take a | bit longer to start stuttering. | | This has been the case for years, so it's nothing new. I | remember this being a problem almost a decade ago, on an | 4th generation iPad with the A6X SoC. Things have | improved since then for sure, but those it's probably | mostly hardware improvements that's helping. | | I'll accept blaming Twitter's horrible performance on its | use of React Native Web, but not Tumblr. | dylan604 wrote: | I have to give you credit for going this far into proving | whatever we're trying to prove. However, who the hell in | the real world infinite scroll this much? Some people do | things that would make any QA team more valuable, and | you're starting to sound like someone I'd love to have on | any QA team I'd work along side. | | This really sounds like one of those issues a dedicated | person finds where the devs look at it and say no | reasonable user would ever do this. The issue if not | closed as "won't fix" gets deprioritized so low that it | never gets looked at again. Even as a dev, I'd not have | the patience to recreate the problem. It's just such an | outside edge case from expected behavior/usage that I | don't even know what to say in response. | h0l0cube wrote: | > for websites with infinite scrolling like Tumblr and | Twitter, it becomes unbearably slow after the first | hundred or so posts | | Strange. This is exactly how I use Twitter on my | i-devices, and it's perfectly smooth. | dylan604 wrote: | I don't build websites with infinite scroll or enough | data that would justify it nor attract enough visitors to | punish a t2.micro, so I have no first hand experience | with any of that. | | However, curiosity requires that I ask what/how/why does | any of that affect mobile-first web deployment in away | that it is not addressed when a large chunk of that | mobile use is broken? If you program yourself into a dead | end, back up and take another turn. | | Oh, it is easier in a mobile native where you get the | benefit of hoovering up personal data on all of your | users? Gee, let's not expend effort to make something | work universally, let's instead take the easy route and | make money on the side too. The fact that losing this | large share of users because of one type of content is | not enough of a decision to go the other route shows just | how much money there is in the hoovering of data. | | Still putting the blame on Tumblr. | Raymonf wrote: | If I understand what you're trying to say correctly, I | need to say that I'm speaking fully from a user | experience standpoint as an end user. I am not a Tumblr | engineer. Anecdotally, out of the few people I know that | still use Tumblr, they use desktop and mobile Chrome to | access the website. I don't have any statistics on how | many people use the apps. | | So, to me, Tumblr's website is already the main point of | access, and these performance problems don't exist on | Firefox or Chrome. I'm not talking about server-side | response times, I'm talking about the time to render | posts on the client. I find that a lot of times, after | scrolling, you have to wait a few seconds before you see | anything but the blue background that Tumblr has. | | So, no, I'm going to pin it on Safari if (even) Firefox | can deal with it. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Some people just like apps. The experience can be more | native to the platform and snappier. | parkingrift wrote: | iOS has a 14% market share and Apple has absolutely no way to | police content outside of the App Store. How did Apple ruin the | Tumblr site? Why hasn't pornhub met the same fate? | robgibbons wrote: | 57.43% in the US | parkingrift wrote: | Does Facebook only operate in the US, now? | concinds wrote: | > Apple has absolutely no way to police content outside of | the App Store | | Wrong and naive. They have no direct way. Plenty of indirect | ways. | | > How did Apple ruin the Tumblr site? | | Taleb's minority rule. Also read tumblr insiders' accounts of | the porn ban that lay the blame much more on Apple than | mainstream reporting does. | | > Why hasn't pornhub met the same | | If Twitter/tumblr/reddit had no app, their mobile engagement | would halve or worse. Not true for Pornhub. | parkingrift wrote: | >If Twitter/tumblr/reddit had no app, their mobile | engagement would halve or worse. Not true for Pornhub. | | This fails at even cursory inspection. Reddit thrived for | many years without an app. In fact Reddit has ruined their | own website so that they can push/force people to their | mobile app. The website is so popular that Reddit considers | it a problem. A problem because it's harder to monetize a | website than a mobile app. | | >Taleb's minority rule. Also read tumblr insiders' accounts | of the porn ban that lay the blame much more on Apple than | mainstream reporting does. | | I'm sure the insiders at a failed business have everyone to | blame but themselves. | ig-88ms wrote: | "If you want to watch porn, buy an Android" - Steve Jobs. | parkingrift wrote: | There's porn on my phone, Mr. Jobs. | | Where? Which app?!? | | The app I believed is called "the internet." | Salgat wrote: | iOS is at 50% market share of phones in the US. | FinalBriefing wrote: | Or reddit. I don't see how reddit is any different from | Tumblr in this case, and it has several apps. Has Apple | loosened up their restrictions since Tumblr went under? | mgiannopoulos wrote: | So Tumblr died because it was dependent on porn traffic? If | that is the case, they were already "dead" (or at least not | worth hundreds of millions), and Apple's rules had nothing to | do with it. | lucideer wrote: | Even if you have some moral objection to porn that's still a | massive oversimplification: | | 1) The definition of porn is fluid - adhering to an external | third party's guidelines (Apple's) will always mean adopting | an overly strict definition to ensure confidence in | compliance | | 2) Moderation is a hard problem - false positives will always | happen, and given point (1) above will happen a LOT in the | case of Tumblr | mgiannopoulos wrote: | Not sure where I said I have problems with porn. It's just | that it was something outside of tumblr's business model or | any of their income sources | lucideer wrote: | Just to be clear, I didn't say you had problems with it: | hence the "even if" preface. | | However, calling tumblr "dead" as a result of it does | seem to imply such a problem. Their business model was | ads, that doesn't inherently exempt porn in any way. | hyperbovine wrote: | Wait why? Porn sites are hugely profitable. Pornhub rakes in | more monthly traffic than Google and FB combined. | mgiannopoulos wrote: | My use of "dead" was since (obviously) Tumblr's business | model did not include serving porn. It did include | appearing to be one of the most popular websites globally. | Workaccount2 wrote: | It's only as profitable as what advertisers will pay. Porn | is at the absolute bottom for ad value. | mi_lk wrote: | > Pornhub rakes in more monthly traffic than Google and FB | combined. | | traffic measured in visitors or bytes downloaded? any | source? | hyperbovine wrote: | > The company employs around sixteen hundred people, and | the online platforms it owns, which include Pornhub, | RedTube, YouPorn, and Brazzers, received approximately | 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, according to a | company spokesperson--almost double Google and Facebook | combined. | | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/the-fight- | to-h... | lucideer wrote: | Even in bytes that's a notable metric. What's your point? | Macha wrote: | In bytes it's even less believable. More traffic than | Google, which owns YouTube? What are they doing, serving | all the video in 8K? | | Even as someone who really doesn't have a problem with | porn, I'm not going to spend 3 hours watching it, while I | definitely have spent 3 hours watching youtube on many | many occasions. There's also only one of the two that's | going to be serving as background noise during working | hours... Or that someone is going to put on to entertain | their kids. | lucideer wrote: | Fair point - didn't really think of it like that before. | | I suspect it's bullshit. | alexb_ wrote: | In order for tumblr to get into the good graces of Apple | (which again, they absolutely should not have to do at all), | they had to ban an absolutely absurd amount of content. | Especially bad when a large part of your userbase is LGBT, | and anything relating to that gets flagged as "adult" by | automated systems. | threeseed wrote: | > and anything relating to that gets flagged as "adult" by | automated systems | | Maybe Tumblr should have taken a page out of Apple's book | and had reviewers. | marvin wrote: | Tumblr should have just dropped the share of their users | that accessed their platform through the iOS app. But | meh. They chose the other option. | nothis wrote: | Honestly, this sounds like tumblr was crazy dependent on both | apple and a porn-like business. That's a weird combo and not | one that makes me feel particularly sorry for them. There's a | reason facebook, youtube, pinterest and, ultimately, apple | don't allow porn. It's a messy business. | [deleted] | simonh wrote: | They took a hit for sure, but seem to be recovering. | | "Over the course of the pandemic, Gen Z flocked to Tumblr; as | of early 2022, 61% of its new users, and nearly half of its | active users, are under 24. Tumblr today has more daily active | users than WordPress, its professional sibling, has per month, | according to a spokesperson." | | https://qz.com/emails/quartz-company/2139456/tumblr-making-c... | kmeisthax wrote: | tumblr is a bad example. The reason why Apple got on their case | about porn was that an app reviewer saw child porn on the front | page of the site. _Massive_ red flag that whatever moderation | tumblr was doing was ineffective at best. Even before that, | their NSFW /porn filtering was so bad that they would literally | just block certain search keywords on iOS to get around the | problem. | | Apple's _actual_ policy for the bog-standard, consenting-adults | kind of porn is that you can 't put it on the App Store, and if | you are a social network you need to filter for it. This isn't | a full ban; reddit is able to get away with having an off-app | NSFW toggle that turns off filtering on the app. | | A better example _might_ be Discord, which also had a spat with | Apple over NSFW servers. Apple wanted _specific communities_ | banned from the app; the actual guidance[0] provide by Discord | is vague as to why they were banned, but suggests that there 's | an extra level of NSFW-ness to which the "off-app toggle" | solution isn't good enough for Apple. | | As far as I'm aware there's no appetite at Apple for an "adult | tax" - it's specifically that they don't want the brand | association[1] that comes with "porn on iPhone". If it was just | a matter of the higher chargeback rates of porn, they could | have a separate payment processor and commission rate structure | for that. | | [0] https://i.redd.it/shpi09y71lt61.png | | [1] Casual reminder that people are absolutely terrible at | separating the product, the OS, and the app vendor from one | another when they are very mad at it. Or when a news outfit is | trying to sell them anger. | GekkePrutser wrote: | > Casual reminder that people are absolutely terrible at | separating the product, the OS, and the app vendor from one | another when they are very mad at it. Or when a news outfit | is trying to sell them anger. | | To be honest I think Apple deciding users shouldn't have | regular porn on _their own_ iPhone because Apple doesn 't | want to be associated with it, is plenty reason to be angry | at them. Especially because the app store has a monopoly on | iOS. If it was like Android there would be no problem. | | They're a supplier, not the moral police. And they shouldn't | have a say in how we use their products. | faangiq wrote: | Facebook is one of the most objectively evil companies on earth. | So they can f right off. | whimsicalism wrote: | This is a common sentiment in the anti-FB media blitz era, but | I find that people have wildly different (and often | conflicting) reasons they think FB is evil. | | What is yours? | bastardoperator wrote: | I'm feeling good about seeing the demise of Facebook in my | lifetime. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-20 23:01 UTC)