>> What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted and confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any other app store other than the Apple Store??
Think of the new privacy controls: Facebook doesn't like them. So they open their own iOS store, circumventing all Apple rules concerning privacy labels and do not track status.
I've only ever used Android, so I'm ignorant here to how iOS operates and, to a certain extent, the rules Apple has in place around this sort of thing. I would think, though, that this sentence is key:
>The Facebook app gets around Apple privacy rules by opening web links in an in-app browser, rather than the user’s default browser, according to Wednesday’s complaint.
If FB is supposed to follow iOS settings by opening links in the default browser set by the user, but is intentionally not doing that here so that they can maximize the data they collect, then yeah they'd be breaking rules.
> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy.
Just as a general reminder, I heavily recommend that you not install Facebook on your phone even if you have an iPhone. There are good things Apple is doing with enforcing privacy controls, the controls aren't useless, but there are still loopholes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-yea...
To provide a counter silver-lining to the concerns here, I'm hoping that if iOS gets sideloading that maybe apps like NewPipe could start becoming more commonly available for iOS users.
Right now, iOS is sort of stuck in this middle ground where Apple does legitimately do some excellent work reducing the privileges of apps, but also... you still have to use those apps if you want access to the services. It would be good to see more unofficial clients for some of these services like NewPipe or Twire get better support like they have on Android. I'm not knocking Apple here, they're trying to hit a middle ground between accessibility and privacy, but I don't want people thinking that the iOS version of Facebook isn't still tracking them. It's (hopefully) tracking less than it would on Android, but it's still tracking.
> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching.
> This feels to me like Apple creating a convenient Orwellian enemy.
Apple isn't "creating" an enemy here. They aren't running full page advertising against Facebook. Apple is making it so users have to give permission before companies can utilize an API. Just giving that one power to end users has apparently scared the hell out of Facebook.
> ...why would Apple allow Facebook in their App Store and take 30% of the generated revenue?
Apple doesn't get 30% of Facebook's generated revenue. It gets 30% of sales and in-app purchases. Facebook doesn't use either as far as I know.
> If anything, the App Store made Facebook more popular than ever, so it's a "monster" that Apple helped create.
If they had perfect foreknowledge, Apple would likely have done this from the start. Steve Jobs made it very clear at the time that Apple itself should ask permission before collecting information every time. If they'd foreseen influential companies like Facebook creating APIs which were widely spread through the App Store, they'd have likely closed this door a long time ago.
>>especially considering the recent FB Android app revelations about lots and lots of things the phone was doing that nobody realised,
No lots of people realized them, and lots of people have been talking about them for years just no one really payed attention until now.
When you install FB or any other app you get a nice list of things the App is allowed to do, if you do not want the app to do those things you should not install the app.
The problem is most people simply ignore this list and click "install" with out questioning why a Flashlight app would need access to your call history...
With Android the user is in control, Some/Most people can not handle that responsibility.
For a person that is concerned about privacy, Using facebook at all seems counter intuitive...
For me while I do supports Apple's take on user privacy, I do not support their Business Practices of being rabidly anti-repair, anti-ownership, and anti-consumer. It is my device not Apple's, the the fact that Apple wants completely control over a device have I bought from them for about $1,000 is a non-starter for me, I can control my privacy in other ways I do not need my phone OS to do that for me.
The problem is that it lessens Apple's collective bargaining power. They can't make Facebook (again just as an example) comply with privacy rules on the iOS App Store because Facebook can and will offer its product exclusively on its own store or on a third-party store where they don't have to use these rules.
The feedback loop for privacy rights is such that people will say screw the privacy rights and go download Facebook anyway - so now customers that previously had the best of both worlds (privacy rules and Facebook) will be forced to choose, and they'll definitely choose Facebook.
So what was gained? Well, it's good for mega corporations like Facebook. Bad for single megacorporation Apple, and bad for me as a customer. It's good for payday loan type crypto companies or other scam artists, and bad for my grandma. Etc.
That's the problem here. Saying "don't use those" doesn't make sense. But if you wanted to say that then I just say don't use the iPhone if you want third-party app stores.
> You can make a protocol then and Facebook won't allow you to use it. They're definitely artificially locking you in. It's no different.
If the technical requirements are met and Facebook won't allow then it indeed is not an artificial lock in. But I doubt that Facebook messenger can talk to IMessage right now. It's not the responsibility of either Facebook or Apple to make those two apps work together. The only thing they should not do is go out of their way to not allow them to interface. I.e. It should be possible for a user to write a bridge between those two apps.
> Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
I don't consider Apple safe devices because of the App store. Every single protection that is afforded by the app store is actually provided by the OS. With the exception of manual review and that is a subjective process full of holes.
Can you explain to me, since you believe Apple is actually not user hostile, why does it allow obvious malware in the app store such as apps that appear to be free but once you install them you end up in micro-transaction hell? Why do they allow micro-transactions at all? Micro-transactions are very rarely if ever beneficial to the user. What's up with the apps that promise a feature and don't deliver? I'm not joking when I say that the quality of apps I can download for free on my desktop is way higher then most stuff that is in the app store. App stores have brought down the quality of software significantly. It's so bad that my default stance on anything on the app store is that it must be trash because that's what it is usually.
> Wow. That is shocking to me - is that typical of Apple?
Yes it is. We have a pretty successful app in the iTunes store and as a consequence, we have privileged access to the entire team, including engineers and executives who advise us how to word the description of our app and telling us all kinds of tricks to increase downloads.
A few months ago, we released an Android app and since then, we have fallen into a complete Apple black hole. The Apple people we used to exchange daily emails with are not even responding to us any more.
> Personally, I am on the record wishing that Apple would allow some sort of “expert” or “developer” mode — chock full of warnings
Next morning Facebook removes its app from Apple Store and directs users to sideload the app, because it needs those sweet permissions that were denied before.
>I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy.
How about you spend 10 minutes looking at what Apple is actually doing and realize they are just as if not more "privacy hostile" as Facebook/Google/etc. They've been on a hiring spree since they announced their "privacy" update in 2020 to build out their own Ad Tech/DSP/Self Service Ad Platform.
Yeah - Apple was pulling a monopolistic move and kneecapping their competition for profits sake. They realized "Hey, we can kneecap these guys and in the near future profit billions like they did with our own ad network".
> Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?
Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).
> It's not like IMessage supports facebook messenger and Apple just say no you can't use it. There is a real difference here.
You can make a protocol then and Facebook won't allow you to use it. They're definitely artificially locking you in. It's no different.
> Apple is artificially restricting usage of it's phones for no other reason then greed.
Really? That's the only reason? Does it not seem odd to you that iPhones are considered safe devices, and that Apple goes to great lengths to protect them and user data and now companies are complaining about the App Store? Once they can circumvent the App Store, then can put all sorts of garbage tracking and malware into applications. iPhone and the App Store have been around for more than 10 years, and then over the last two years Apple requires no tracking, prompting of data usage, soon a data use "nutrition scorecard" and now just this year all of these companies are complaining about pricing? Give me a break. If you want to call Apple greedy, then it's just a case of pots calling kettles black. Notice how there aren't any customers complaining about this oh so bad and greedy practice? I don't care what developers want here. I want my iPhone the way it is, and changing the App Store is bad in my view. I'll vote with my wallet in this case. If that means fewer applications because they want to circumvent these things that I want Apple to do, then that's fine, good riddance.
These companies can partner with Samsung or something and make their own phones and app stores. That's fine. But this isn't about that. It's about them wanting money and to abuse user data on the platform that Apple built.
> Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur.
It is very possible that this hasn't ocurred because google has not enforced the same level of privacy-related restrictions that apple has (which reportedly costed facebook ~10 billion dollars [1]).
I'm a strong supporter of device owners being able to do what they please with their devices, but the risks are there and are very real.
>I specifically bought an iPhone because Apple seems to actively regulate what apps are allowed in the App Store while favoring customer privacy and security.
That is perfectly acceptable. Except when they ban it for competitive advantage. Which is the whole point of the discussion. And Apple even wrote it in their email as such.
> I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.
No no, its a definite move to kneecap a competitor.
Facebook has _the_ corner in high value mobile advertising. Apple wants some of that.
People don't like facebook, so will cheer when Apple does anything too them. They are doing the same thing to the maker of fortnight.
The problem for the wider computing populace is that Apple is currently the best experience for users. It doesn't mean they are the best for competition. People have seen that Apple can get away with a semi curated capricious ecosystem, and will copy it.
The future is apple shaped App stores. I'm not sure thats good for everyone.
> I hate it that as an iOS user, I'm sold to you as Apple's product.
I disagree. As a user, Apple has, over the last decade-plus, earned my trust that the software I decide to run on my device won't...
* brick the device
* stay on the device in any manner if I delete it
* access my private data without my consent
* intrude upon the experience of any other app(s) except by way of easily-managed notifications
... etc.
As a developer, the App Store is how you explicitly inherit that inbuilt trust from users. One can't put a price on that, because there's no fungibility in trust. It must be earned.
Apple can, and does, however put a price on sharing that trust, as well as the ongoing infrastructure, tooling, and processes needed to maintain it: a flat cut of revenue.
Think of the new privacy controls: Facebook doesn't like them. So they open their own iOS store, circumventing all Apple rules concerning privacy labels and do not track status.
reply