--
"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.
Why not break Amazon through regulatory power instead of total population tracking?
I also 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.
Its like arguing: Timmy steals money all day. I also want to steal money but Timmy steals from his rich parents, but since I can't I steal from my neighbors. Big poo poo cops said that stealing is not okay, but that's bad! I want to also steal because Timmy gets to steal from his parents!
Instead of "The cops said stealing is no longer permitted, also take a look at Timmy."
And this scenario where bakeries grind their margins in an endless ad fight is a bit far fetched, all the bakeries need to do is get your attention enough so that you know/remember they’re there. It’s a few cents with online advertising, FB makes billions because there’s a lot of users.
You’re also forgetting that such ads are about telling you about products you didn’t even consider you need. So yeah, you’re not going to die out of hunger due to lack of ads, but you may not learn of more luxurious items that you may want.
(Disclaimer, I work at FB, not on ads, and don’t know anything an outsider wouldn’t know)
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.
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.
Amazon is just a simpler target to explain the small-biz impact than "facebook with its marketplace and shopify integration and existing data sources and abilities and pending future products they've announced"
I only quoted a relevant subsection because I know otherwise 99% of people won't click through to read any of it.
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.
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.
Awesome, that's really good news. Now we need to figure out how to destroy the business models of these giants as well so that competing with corrupt global surveillance corporations is no longer necessary.
Facebook: we don’t provide anything of tangible physical value. Other people do, and they make money off of it. Where’s our money?!?!
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.
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.
And the purpose of these stores will be to skirt Apple requirements on apps in their store - not just payment, but things like network traffic surveillance.
These stores will also not be pitched by companies based on informed user decisions. They will be pitched in order to get users to sign up in whatever way they can drive taps through consent screens.
So unfortunately to remain a user choice, there needs to be a strong disincentive for parties to force a customer into a third party store, but not so strong that it looks like antitrust.
Google Play for instance has tons of "Play Services" which are not available to apps from alt-stores.
The Mac has certain security settings which can only be disabled through a process requiring a reboot and command-line action as a way to limit vendors from driving customers through disabling essential security features without proper education.
Mac applications are also notarized, so whether they are downloaded through the official app store or a third party channel they can be scanned for static issues and revoked after the fact as malware in the case of dynamic issues.
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)
?
I'm not iOS expert, but the mere fact that there's private API which is forbidden to use by ordinary apps but that's only implemented by some static code checking rather than by OS means that iOS does not have proper security model ready to withstand arbitrary code execution.
Judge: “Case closed.”
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.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
Its 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.
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 ?
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.
I'm not sure I'd agree it's more popular.
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.
As an aside, I’m asking the question very sincerely. I’m always open to more developer platforms - it’s in my professional interest.
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.
Facebook appears not to have attempted this yet on Android, where it would be technically possible, though it would likely require sideloading. Perhaps the steps to sideload an app on Android would create too much friction for a Facebook app store to gain traction?
However, Facebook's "internet.org Free Basics" initiative [1], which is available in countries where internet access is generally more costly, has some similarities to an app store. Facebook approves or denies the inclusion of various websites, sets technical and content requirements, and operates the proxy through which these websites are accessed.
[1]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/gettingsta...
Facebook went above and beyond that - they effectively commissioned HTC to build a Facebook phone[1], which thankfully flopped
I don't think alternate app stores for other platforms that already have their own "authorized" app stores is an idea with any legs, due to the friction you mention.
Anecdotally I have heard of kids and teenagers doing that. Sending a green message marks you out as a scrub.
Apple does deserve a little criticism for the App Store, but their softening fees for most developers helps. Compared to Facebook (a blight on civilization, IMHO) Apple is couth indeed.
I agreed with that and have been an Apple fan for ages, until Apple banned Parler and not Twitter. Now I'm a little jaded on their privacy brand.
Yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2] in comparison.
There's no reason you'd have to use anything but Apple's App Store if Apple's monopoly on mobile app distribution was broken.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
I would not be surprised if over all android phones where less secure. One of the reasons being the device fragmentation.
Apple has also recently taken decent strides to make one of the main 0 click vectors (Messages) harder to exploit with iOS 14.
I’m not sure that Apple persevering privacy also requires them to also break antitrust laws.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anecdotally, i appreciate the efforts towards their moderation and hope to see more in the future. It makes me more likely to use their products. I'm voting "with my attention" (to paraphrase a oft-used quote)
There's no need to group every interaction into political dichotomies.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, the arc of Google’s Android platform has been steadily bending away from open source, not towards it.
I can (and do) block Facebook and be almost not affected with what they do, but iPhones as part of a duopoly cannot be avoided. I like and use Apple hardware but hope that Facebook and Epic rip them into pieces. It's completely inacceptable that a single company holds the sole power to access such a widespread platform. There needs to be a side-loading choice and alternative app stores.
Why? What about Apple's practice is unacceptable?
What is the difference between Apple's behavior and how Nintendo or Sony run their platforms?
Personally, I do not want another store outside of Apple's because I value the review process. Compare Apple's app store to the Microsoft Windows Store. The relative quality of apps on Apple's store is significantly higher than on Windows Store.
Then feel free to not install apps from different stores?
And let everyone else choose to use those other stores, on their own phone, if they choose to do so.
As for Sony and Nintendo, 3 wrongs don't make a right.
Yeah... So?
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.
If you want to demonstrate market dominance, write a clear definition into the law and enact it.
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.
Is this lawsuit going to help me in any way?
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)??
There are a very small number of such laws (Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Celler-Kefauver, Hart-Scott-Rodino, Robinson-Patman, plus three or four others). Someone who wants to make a case that this is a "clear" antitrust violation (definitely the attitude of some in this thread!) should point to which law has been violated. Even better: point to similar case law from earlier decisions. Just arguing that this behavior is "bad" is not going to be that persuasive to a court
You can think Apple is right or wrong on this issue, but to say that the antitrust case against Apple is clear is quite different. Why is it a clear case?
If I want a moated ecosystem for my smartphone I am happy to have this option with Apple. If I wanted open I can go with any of the Android options. I have a choice.
I do not need Facebook to remove that choice for me in their efforts to violate my privacy further.
The absurdity is compounded by the fact regulators never had the gumption to hunt the tigers themselves.
If so, I sincerely hope that Facebook loses.
If that story was true about Google+, he’s probably saying something similar about Apple today.
Given what happened in DC a few weeks ago, given what happened in Myanmar since late 2016, given that what FB is suing to prevent is a thing which I read as legally required for operation in the EU (GDPR requires genuine opt-in IIUC), given the monopolistic behaviour FB is demonstrating with Oculus and other purchases?
Facebook delenda est.
I don't use any Apple tech.
I don't use Facebook.
I don't use Amazon.
