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