Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: Apple's App Store Blocks Innovation and Competition

[mozumder]

It should ban Safari too. Safari breaks Apple own rules allowing to see unapproved content and web apps and pay with third party payment processors. This shall not be tolerated. In fact, had the web been invented after iOS, there is zero chance you'd have a web browser allowed on iOS. Thanks computing history for some inventions to have happened before others.

Yes I agree with you that Apple should ban Facebook from Safari as well.

 

[Karllake]

ahh, so you talk about your choices and mine don’t count. I may have known the limits of my iPhone when I bought it, but perhaps millions don’t. Wonder what happens when kids get their new iPhones tomorrow and no Fortnite? Or folks pick up an iPad and no xcloud or stadia?

‘The good will out’ market forces act and move, if a huge number of people are upset then apples profit will be hit and things will change, if enough people like or are ok with how things are then things stay the same, governments need to get involved when there is no or very little choice, when some people just don’t like the choice it is not time.

 

[NaitzabEZ]

Speaking of innovation.. Can't Facebook just innovate new ways for ad targeting instead of crying about iOS 14 security?

 

[ctx86]

You need to remember able has built up a highly respected reputation based on its quality, security and parental controls and they have done this via close control of their ecosystem, if they start releasing this control they risk huge damage to their fine reputation that has taken so long to build. It has been shown over the last few weeks how desperate people are to knock apple down and these people would go to town on apple if my example above came true

Thank you for your reasoned points but it is of interest to me that Apple are quite happy to allow dating apps on the App Store. The argument could be had that they can’t guarantee the safety of it’s customers as they can’t review each individual match made on a dating app. The consequences in the worst situations from a bad match are far beyond what might happen if Apple allowed Microsofts game streaming service, for example, on the store. The difference it seems to me between allowing dating apps (which Apple can’t review any match) and Microsoft’s gaming service (where they claim they can’t allow as they can’t review each game) is they can’t make money from the latter in the same way they can from in app subscriptions in the former.

 

[ksgant]

It's not a "right." It is like complaining that the car you drive does not take diesel and you want the courts to force the maker to install a Diesel engine instead fo what you bought it with.

It's like forcing McDonald's to sell Burger King food because McDonald's has a monopoly on what can and can't be sold in their store! When I go to McDonald's, I want a Whopper, but with McDonald's Fries and a Wendy's Frosty. It's not fair that McDonald's doesn't sell those things. I think we should sue them and make them have ALL of that stuff in their stores!

 

[Karllake]

Thank you for your reasoned points but it is of interest to me that Apple are quite happy to allow dating apps on the App Store. The argument could be had that they can’t guarantee the safety of it’s customers as they can’t review each individual match made on a dating app. The consequences in the worst situations from a bad match are far beyond what might happen if Apple allowed Microsofts game streaming service, for example, on the store. The difference it seems to me between allowing dating apps (which Apple can’t review any match) and Microsoft’s gaming service (where they claim they can’t allow as they can’t review each game) is they can’t make money for the latter in the same way they can from in app subscriptions in the former.

sorry but this is a weak analogy, it’s like saying ford has either full responsibility or no responsibility for a car, the truth is somewhere in between, Ford are responsible for the safe use of a car in Normal conditions, Ford are not responsible for bad driving or any bad behaviour in or around a car.

 

[laptech]

With regards to Facebooks 'Online Events feature' which is to help small businesses during the virus pandemic and that Facebook said it will absorb ALL the costs to host the events so all the money goes to the small business, Facebook is 100% justified in it's condemnation of Apple who want the 30% in-app purchase fee from the events. To make sure small business would get ALL the money from the events, Facebook said they would even use their own pay system but because it's an ios app, Apple refused them permission citing app store rules.

Thousands upon thousands of small businesses are in dire trouble due to the virus pandemic and Facebook is trying to help but Apple refuses to help, persistently citing app store rules as their justification for not helping.

Facebook and it's CEO might be the devil in some peoples eye's due to the way it behaves but with regards to it's Online Events feature, they are doing something right in my opinion but Apple, now that's a different matter.

 

[Analog Kid]

Being kicked out of Walmart isn't too big a deal - you can continue selling your product at Target, Amazon, Best Buy. Your customers can keep shopping at Walmart and they can also enter those other marketplaces to buy your product.

Being kicked out of the iOS App Store is not the same. It's like being kicked out of the country. You can no longer sell in the US. You can continue selling in Canada, but most people don't cross back and forth between the US and Canada. Most people within the US won't enter Canada ever, period.

Speaking out against Apple and the iOS App Store is a BIG deal. You risk being kicked out of the iOS App Store. This is an enormous risk because the iOS App Store is a monopoly - if your app isn't there, people with iOS will likely never buy it. It doesn't matter how much they want it - asking people to switch to Android is like asking people from the US to move to Canada. Some people will. Most people won't.

If the iOS App Store wasn't a monopoly, people wouldn't be afraid of speaking out against it. But it is a monopoly, and so people are afraid. With each person willing to say it, it requires less courage - Apple can't afford to have every big name leave. Epic started this, and as the risks go down, more people are willing to join in.

I do wonder - did Facebook, Microsoft, or Amazon pay Epic to start this? Or did Epic start it on their own accord? The truth will likely come out in a few years, after the dust is settled and Apple's monopoly is a memory.

You're using that monopoly word again... What specific company has a monopoly in what specific market?

I feel like people are using monopoly like they use socialism-- they don't completely understand what it means but they know other people don't like it so they apply it liberally to things they don't like.

As a second question, can you point me to a single example of Apple kicking someone off the AppStore for simply being critical of Apple in the media?

I really want to understand the first question though-- what company, what market. That's where monopoly discussions have to begin.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

In a company-wide meeting, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday referred to Facebook as monopolistic and harmful to customers. Facebook "blocks innovation, blocks competition," and uses the Facebook to "collect and share private information."

Is FB monopolistic though? I don't think it's is. Does it block innovation and competition? I don't think it's does. Yes it uses private information for monetary gain, but that is it's (and many other companies' business model), which is well known, and FB users know that, and continue to use it because they believe the product they get (social network etc) is worth that price (targeted advertising and marketing). FB users know fully well that they shouldn't take anything that is genuinely private, and put it online in any form except encrypted where only the user has control of the key and the algorithm, thus ruling out FB entirely, and for that matter, iCloud (except where you've pre-encrypted it with a 3rd party encryption software). If any fanbois question my trust in iCloud, then let me put it this way - if you had some data you needed to store, and you knew that if it got leaked at all, then your children would die, would you put it on iCloud without pre-encrypting it with a 3rd party open source encryption tool? The obvious answer should be NO WAY IN HELL.

To quote the article 'Since Apple wouldn't waive its fees, Facebook intended to add a note in the Online Events feature that said "Apple takes 30% of this purchase." Apple took offense to the wording and did not allow Facebook to include the wording in the Facebook app.' My reaction to that is WOW. I'm sorry, but FB is not the bad guy in this little tiff. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Zuckerberg, I think he's a slimy ****, but I'm also thinking the same thing of Captain Crook lately. The house of cards that is Apple's monopolistic practices seems to be falling down.

 

[Karllake]

With regards to Facebooks 'Online Events feature' which is to help small businesses during the virus pandemic and that Facebook said it will absorb ALL the costs to host the events so all the money goes to the small business, Facebook is 100% justified in it's condemnation of Apple who want the 30% in-app purchase fee from the events. To make sure small business would get ALL the money from the events, Facebook said they would even use their own pay system but because it's an ios app, Apple refused them permission citing app store rules.

Thousands upon thousands of small businesses are in dire trouble due to the virus pandemic and Facebook is trying to help but Apple refuses to help, persistently citing app store rules as their justification for not helping.

Facebook and it's CEO might be the devil in some peoples eye's due to the way it behaves but with regards to it's Online Events feature, they are doing something right in my opinion but Apple, now that's a different matter.

is this a joke? How about Facebook pays it’s fair amount of tax so local businesses don’t need to make up its share? How about Facebook can make this gesture and it’s facebooks choice, it’s not facebooks place to make the gesture on apple behalf, how about Facebook plows the millions it will make in traffic / advertising on these “free” events back to the small business, having a bleeding heart for Facebook is like sympathising for the devil because god doesn’t like him.

small businesses are suffering and I fully support all help for them, Facebook is being opportunistic in the help and in pointing the finger at Apple.

 

[Karllake]

Is FB monopolistic though? I don't think it's is. Does it block innovation and competition? I don't think it's does. Yes it uses private information for monetary gain, but that is it's (and many other companies' business model), which is well known, and FB users know that, and continue to use it because they believe the product they get (social network etc) is worth that price (targeted advertising and marketing). FB users know fully well that they shouldn't take anything that is genuinely private, and put it online in any form except encrypted where only the user has control of the key and the algorithm, thus ruling out FB entirely, and for that matter, iCloud (except where you've pre-encrypted it with a 3rd party encryption software). If any fanbois question my trust in iCloud, then let me put it this way - if you had some data you needed to store, and you knew that if it got leaked at all, then your children would die, would you put it on iCloud without pre-encrypting it with a 3rd party open source encryption tool? The obvious answer should be NO WAY IN HELL.

To quote the article 'Since Apple wouldn't waive its fees, Facebook intended to add a note in the Online Events feature that said "Apple takes 30% of this purchase." Apple took offense to the wording and did not allow Facebook to include the wording in the Facebook app.' My reaction to that is WOW. I'm sorry, but FB is not the bad guy in this little tiff. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Zuckerberg, I think he's a slimy ****, but I'm also thinking the same thing of Captain Crook lately. The house of cards that is Apple's monopolistic practices seems to be falling down.

where’s the sarcasm symbol?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

If Apple where a bricks and mortar department store, who decided no to stock any Zuckerberg products- would we be having this argument?

My store, my rules. You don't pay rent, but we take a percentage of your returns as remuneration.

Nope - our country, our rules. We the people (who vote in the government, which represent us and make the laws) decide the rules on how businesses are allowed to operate in our country. We have created anti-monopolistic laws (and employment laws, and environment laws, health laws, etc etc) to protect us from businesses who want to operate in ways that hurt us. The Apple app store is different from a department store, as it is the only store that is allowed to operate on the iPhone, whereas anyone can open a department store. So if you want to sell stuff in a department store in New York, you have many choices, or can even open one yourself. But if you want to sell apps on an iPhone, you only have one monopoly choice. That's why this whole thing is blowing up.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But only billion dollar businesses seem to think the AppStore has all the cards stacked against them. The reality is, small developers like myself and many thousands of others can compete on the same level as everyone else because it is no longer prohibitively expensive to sell an app or a game to billions of people.

These are companies that are used to muscling a better deal with other companies. Apple has the same set of rules for everyone, regardless of how big. I’m SURE Epic and Facebook don’t like the fact that they don’t have any more say over Apple than YOU do

Are there rules that primarily affect larger companies? Yes, BUT, get that big with that kind of company and you can compete on iOS directly against Amazon and Netflix without them having preferential treatment.

Hey Mark,

I have an idea: Build a Facebook phone. Grow a loyal consumer base. Charge your customers whatever you want for whatever applications you create. Use their data to send predatory advertising as you wish.

Oh, wait....

Yeah, if any company has the money to “create their own” it would be Facebook! Only, I guess creating a phone that people want to buy is kinda hard?

Here's why the Facebook phone flopped

<b>commentary</b> The HTC First has a lot going against it, despite support from some heavy hitters.

www.cnet.com

Good lord. It’s nothing like that. A gas engine can't operate on diesel. The only reason consumers can’t install apps from outside the App Store is because Apple prevents it. Jailbreak your phone and it’s no problem.

NICE! Ok, just went through the process to jailbreak my phone. Wasn’t easy, but it’s done Now, how do I get Windows and Android games to run on it because I couldn’t find that anywhere.

Nope, you can chose to only use apps downloaded from the Mac Appstore, if you chose to have it that way, others which like to go somewhere else will have no problem to do so.

Apple could easily implement a setting in iOS, standard would be the Appstore, give a warning if you toggle that setting, for instance, warn users that it might affect security.

Not without letting third parties have access to the Secure Enclave. I’m sure there are some folks that are like “BUT I TRUST FACEBOOK, WHY CAN’T THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECURE ENCLAVE??” At the very least, Apple would have to create a parallel platform, hardware only, no OS. And, likely charge more for it because it doesn’t allow access to Apple Services. Folks can install whatever OS and app store they wish, and also install whatever security software they need to secure it. No calls to Apple for software support, hardware support is replace with a fresh or refurbished device (if the data isn’t backed up, it’s on the customer).

‘The good will out’ market forces act and move, if a huge number of people are upset then apples profit will be hit and things will change, if enough people like or are ok with how things are then things stay the same, governments need to get involved when there is no or very little choice, when some people just don’t like the choice it is not time.

There’s very little choice with video games, Sony Microsoft and Nintendo. Should “amount of choice” really be a determinant as to if government intervention is needed? Additionally, there are usually market reasons why there’s little choice. Blackbery, Nokia and Palm failed because users didn’t want to buy them. And, when you’re talking about hardware, there’s a certain number you have to sell at a certain price in order to stay in business. Don’t sell that many and you go under. Should government be required to prop up companies selling something that enough people don’t want to buy JUST in the name of “choice”?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I think it’s outrageous that Apple wouldn’t waive the 30% fee for Online Events, since they’re just taking that money from struggling small businesses. That being said, Zuckerberg criticizing literally any company for anything is beyond laughable. Facebook is the most immoral, greedy, invasive, petulant, criminal company in tech, and it all comes from the guy at the top.

Yes, FB and Zuckerberg are horrible. That doesn't excuse Apple to be horrible too. Captain Crook and Zuckerberg are two peas in a pod in my book.

 

[m11rphy]

Thank you for your reasoned points but it is of interest to me that Apple are quite happy to allow dating apps on the App Store. The argument could be had that they can’t guarantee the safety of it’s customers as they can’t review each individual match made on a dating app. The consequences in the worst situations from a bad match are far beyond what might happen if Apple allowed Microsofts game streaming service, for example, on the store. The difference it seems to me between allowing dating apps (which Apple can’t review any match) and Microsoft’s gaming service (where they claim they can’t allow as they can’t review each game) is they can’t make money from the latter in the same way they can from in app subscriptions in the former.

You make a valid point about dating Appa and I guess the size of the app will dictate the headline ,if its tinder they will be the headline, if its a small unknown it will iPhone Dating app. This all reminds me of when a family tried to sue apple because their son was killed in a car accident and the other driver was using FaceTime while driving. I think after that whole episode Apple are even more cautious

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Apple’s response:

Facebook blocks free speech and privacy.

Good luck, Zuck.

 

[QCassidy352]

Nope - our country, our rules. We the people (who vote in the government, which represent us and make the laws) decide the rules on how businesses are allowed to operate in our country. We have created anti-monopolistic laws (and employment laws, and environment laws, health laws, etc etc) to protect us from businesses who want to operate in ways that hurt us. The Apple app store is different from a department store, as it is the only store that is allowed to operate on the iPhone, whereas anyone can open a department store. So if you want to sell stuff in a department store in New York, you have many choices, or can even open one yourself. But if you want to sell apps on an iPhone, you only have one monopoly choice. That's why this whole thing is blowing up.

again, it’s only a “monopoly” if the relevant market is iPhones. Which it isn’t. The relevant market is mobile devices, or even computing devices generally. If apple had a 100% market share, or anywhere close (like Microsoft did all those years ago with IE) then it would be a monopoly. But they don’t, so it’s isn’t.

 

[SDJim]

Sort of feels like they are only making a big parade out of this 1) to join the fray 2) because iOS 14 is hitting them in the pocketbook so it behooves them to join the fray.

Yeah, that sound about right.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Maybe Apple should block the FB app all together because it spies on people, waists their time, is primarily used to spread unfounded conspiracy theories and drains their phone batteries because it does everything to keep running in the background?

If Apple kept on adding big players to its banned list, on top of Fortnight, then users would be forced to abandon iPhone for a phone where these apps did work. Put it this way, I don't play Fortnight, so I don't care about that one, but I do use FB for personal and business use. So if it got dropped off iPhone, I would go out straight away and buy an Android.

 

[citysnaps]

Such an adorable tiny whine. No milk and cookies for you, Zuckster!

 

[Feyl]

This guy has no spine. It’s incredible.

 

[Karllake]

These are companies that are used to muscling a better deal with other companies. Apple has the same set of rules for everyone, regardless of how big. I’m SURE Epic and Facebook don’t like the fact that they don’t have any more say over Apple than YOU do

Are there rules that primarily affect larger companies? Yes, BUT, get that big with that kind of company and you can compete on iOS directly against Amazon and Netflix without them having preferential treatment.

Yeah, if any company has the money to “create their own” it would be Facebook! Only, I guess creating a phone that people want to buy is kinda hard?

Here's why the Facebook phone flopped

<b>commentary</b> The HTC First has a lot going against it, despite support from some heavy hitters.

www.cnet.com

NICE! Ok, just went through the process to jailbreak my phone. Wasn’t easy, but it’s done Now, how do I get Windows and Android games to run on it because I couldn’t find that anywhere.

Not without letting third parties have access to the Secure Enclave. I’m sure there are some folks that are like “BUT I TRUST FACEBOOK, WHY CAN’T THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECURE ENCLAVE??” At the very least, Apple would have to create a parallel platform, hardware only, no OS. And, likely charge more for it because it doesn’t allow access to Apple Services. Folks can install whatever OS and app store they wish, and also install whatever security software they need to secure it. No calls to Apple for software support, hardware support is replace with a fresh or refurbished device (if the data isn’t backed up, it’s on the customer).

There’s very little choice with video games, Sony Microsoft and Nintendo. Should “amount of choice” really be a determinant as to if government intervention is needed? Additionally, there are usually market reasons why there’s little choice. Blackbery, Nokia and Palm failed because users didn’t want to buy them. And, when you’re talking about hardware, there’s a certain number you have to sell at a certain price in order to stay in business. Don’t sell that many and you go under. Should government be required to prop up companies selling something that enough people don’t want to buy JUST in the name of “choice”?

I think we missed each other on this one, I meant government intervention as in control rather that intervention to support, I full support an fair market but then letting market forces prevail, government should only intervene to ensure fairness for consumers and suppliers.

 

[QCassidy352]

If Apple kept on adding big players to its banned list, on top of Fortnight, then users would be forced to abandon iPhone for a phone where these apps did work. Put it this way, I don't play Fortnight, so I don't care about that one, but I do use FB for personal and business use. So if it got dropped off iPhone, I would go out straight away and buy an Android.

Yes, there is something of a game of chicken here. Ultimately, all of these companies want to be in business with Apple, and Apple wants to be in business with them. Facebook (and Epic) loses users without iPhone, but Apple also loses users without Facebook. The question is whether somebody blinks to avoid the short-term pain or it has to be settled in the courts. Apple, Facebook, and Epic are all big enough that I am assuming the latter, but you are right - if Apple actually sees a large number of its most important developers willing to walk away, they may have to give some ground sooner than that.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

again, it’s only a “monopoly” if the relevant market is iPhones. Which it isn’t. The relevant market is mobile devices, or even computing devices generally. If apple had a 100% market share, or anywhere close (like Microsoft did all those years ago with IE) then it would be a monopoly. But they don’t, so it’s isn’t.

If you were right, then it wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be reading about it in MacRumors every day, and it wouldn't be under US senate review, and governments and companies and people all around the world wouldn't be blowing up about Apple's monopolistic practices.

At the end of the day, businesses only get to operate in our country according to the rules WE decide. WE-the-people vote in the government, who represent us and make the laws, including anti-monopolistic laws to protect us from being ripped off from monopolistic practices. So the definition of what defines a monopoly, is actually, ultimately, whatever we-the-people decide it is.

And right now, there is a massive debate and uproar about Apple's business practices, and whether or not they are monopolistic, and if and how they should be contained. Personally, I would be surprised if nothing changes, but I guess we will see.

 

[m11rphy]

With regards to Facebooks 'Online Events feature' which is to help small businesses during the virus pandemic and that Facebook said it will absorb ALL the costs to host the events so all the money goes to the small business, Facebook is 100% justified in it's condemnation of Apple who want the 30% in-app purchase fee from the events. To make sure small business would get ALL the money from the events, Facebook said they would even use their own pay system but because it's an ios app, Apple refused them permission citing app store rules.

Thousands upon thousands of small businesses are in dire trouble due to the virus pandemic and Facebook is trying to help but Apple refuses to help, persistently citing app store rules as their justification for not helping.

Facebook and it's CEO might be the devil in some peoples eye's due to the way it behaves but with regards to it's Online Events feature, they are doing something right in my opinion but Apple, now that's a different matter.

You are giving FB way to much credit here, the service is free for a year. Its not free to help small business it is free to build up a massive user base who become dependent on the service in the hope when its no longer free these business feel the need to pay for it. Its just confinement to them that COVID happened when they was ready to introduce this service, they would have given a free trial anyway to gain users, they just got lucky that they can spin it now. They are bringing apple into this now and painting them as the bad guy so that when FB are making money from this they dont have to give Apple their 30%.

Even if we do take FB at face value and they are doing this out of the goodies of their heart, Apple gives millions to charity each year and it docent force FB to contribute to their chosen causes, its not right for them to dictate to apple to take part in their cause. Apple are doing their bit in the way they see fit