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

[Analog Kid]

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.

No, Facebook is not a monopoly for the same reason Apple is not a monopoly: they are each powerful entrants in their respective competitive markets.

Two questions on the more general argument, name calling aside:

• Does Facebook exert any control, of have the right to exert control, over what content is present on their platform?
• Is adding text to an app saying indicating fees where we’re going to set the bar now on innovation?

 

[Karllake]

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

this

 

[Karllake]

No, Facebook is not a monopoly for the same reason Apple is not a monopoly: they are each powerful entrants in their respective competitive markets.

Two questions on the more general argument, name calling aside:

• Does Facebook exert any control, of have the right to exert control, over what content is present on their platform?
• Is adding text to an app saying indicating fees where we’re going to set the bar now on innovation?

Facebook owning Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp would be considered a monopoly in most people’s definition of the word, is there viable Facebook alternative? The only one that got close ‘Instagram’ was bought by Facebook. They are the definition of a monopoly.

 

[laptech]

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

Facebook have not 'dictated' anything to Apple. Stop putting in words that distort the debate. Facebook asked if they could use their own pay system, Apple said no. Facebook then made their app highlight apple were taking 30% of the in-app fee, Apple told them to remove it.

 

[canadianreader]

I love how the virtue signalling companies virtue signal each other to the ground.

 

[JGIGS]

Queer how it's that it's the multi billion (or trillion) dollar mega corporations that are going at it like rabid dogs over a few percentage points. We Want More Money.

30% is a few? And why does everyone think its ok we can only install apps from the seller of a devices through an app store? I understand if you're concerned about privacy, personal data yada yada. But why shouldn't you be able to download from Epic's website an pay them directly especially if that's less expensive for the end user? They are your devices and services not Apples.

We're the ones who really pay the apple, google, sony and microsoft tax. Though if the game makers continued to charge the same prices with out paying Apple, Google, etc. taking a piece then I'd rather the convenience and safety of downloading from an Apple store.

I'd sure love to have the choice though. Thus this is anti competitive in my mind.

 

[Tucom]

Oh shut the **** up Zuck.

 

[m11rphy]

Facebook have not 'dictated' anything to Apple. Stop putting in words that distort the debate. Facebook asked if they could use their own pay system, Apple said no. Facebook then made their app highlight apple were taking 30% of the in-app fee, Apple told them to remove it.

If you are going to reply to one word in my whole reply it kind kills the debate. The truth is FB by releasing their statement has tried to sway public opinion in the hope of forcing apples hand. Thats fine if FB had given all the facts about their "goodwill" being a limited time deal. I believe the first point in my reply was a closer to the truth and I simply tried to give FB a little benefit of the doubt with my 2nd point

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

No, Facebook is not a monopoly for the same reason Apple is not a monopoly: they are each powerful entrants in their respective competitive markets.

Two questions on the more general argument, name calling aside:

• Does Facebook exert any control, of have the right to exert control, over what content is present on their platform?
• Is adding text to an app saying indicating fees where we’re going to set the bar now on innovation?

The difference is that there are many social media platforms apart from FB that I can use, and I can use them on all my hardware. No other company or person relies on FB, they all have alternatives. However, on my iPhone, it doesn't matter what app I want to use, if I want an app, I can only use the Apple app store.

As a business operator, I do use FB to advertise, but I also advertise on other platforms, and have many alternatives, and I wouldn't be so fussed if FB got too expensive, I would simply drop it.

I definitely don't see FB as a monopoly. If that was the case, then people would be blowing up about FB's monopoly practices, but they aren't, it's not a blip on the radar.

I do see the Apple app store as a monopoly, and it's clearly a very common opinion, as evidenced by the daily articles on MacRumors, and governments, companies, and people, blowing up about it all over the world.

Now sure, there are other things about FB that people don't like, myself included, but that's another subject, and this subject is about monopoly power.

 

[rwxx]

Your missing a key point in all this Epic for example want their own store and not to put their app on the Apple or Google store. When Epic wanted you to sidled on android, they didn't put their app on the google store. This might not seem a big deal but once epic has a store everyone wants their own store. Who will police these stores? When a dodgy store uploads a dodgy app and peoples iPhones and Android phones get hacked or data get gets stolen, these people wont be blaming the App Store they got the app they will be blaming Apple and Google. The headlines will read iOS /Android is hack or iOS / Android leaks users data

Honestly, I'm not missing any of that.

Let's talk about policing the store first. Apple has convinced everyone that they check all apps, but this simply can't be true. I'm sure they look for obvious malware, etc. I'm not suggesting they do nothing. However, given the volume of submissions to the App Store and the length of time it would take to TRULY pick apart an app's code and make sure it wasn't doing anything dodgy, it's simply unreasonable to think they do a thorough review. Plenty of questionable apps have made it through review (clipboard snooping anyone?).

Personally I don't need a nanny to vet my software purchases. I've been buying software for nearly 40 years without needing a big corporation to hold my hand. My big concern, as I've noted previously, is control. This is a very dangerous slippery slope and I see Apple fans lining up to give away their freedom because they love Apple and/or believe that Apple will protect them.

I personally believe that if Apple's App Store survives this current assault, each of the major platforms will move towards a single App Store model. It wouldn't remain unique to Apple. In that world, a handful of massive corporations literally control the flow of all information. Do you want to live in that world? It's a scary thought. Just because things are good now doesn't mean they'll be good ten years from now.

In another thread @canesalato brought up the possibility that a developer might release an app that is critical of China. China threatens Apple. Apple pulls the app. This is a very real possibility. Now imagine if the only way to install apps on your phone or tablet or PC is via one of several app stores. Each of these massive corporations has a vested interest in not upsetting China, not too much anyway. So they all pull the app. This is not far fetched.

As for Epic, sure they want their own App Store. I would too. Everyone wants an App Store these days. I have no problem with multiple App Stores. That's what competition is all about. It's funny when I read posts from people on here extolling the virtues of competition when it comes to hardware, yet those same people defend Apple's iOS App Store monopoly. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance among hardcore Apple fans.

Apple can still offer an App Store as a service. Many, if not most, users would probably choose to only purchase from the App Store. This is how things are on the Mac today (but probably not for much longer) and it works very well. If you're only downloading from the App Store, you're just as safe as you are today. Nothing changes for you. If you want to install other App Stores that offer apps outside of Apple's App Store guidelines, you may do so. Is that really such a bad thing?

Take adult content, for example. Why can't I develop an X-rated game for iOS? What right does Apple have to tell me what type of app I can and cannot develop? Where are all of the champions of the free market and competition now? Like I said, hardcore cognitive dissonance. Apple has every right to not want to carry my app in their store, but to wholesale deny me access to the platform because they are trying to force their morality on everyone, that is highly problematic to me. Edit: Imagine if BMW prevented you from driving to certain parts of town because they deemed those areas unsafe or immoral or they simply didn't like the idea of their brand being associated with those places. Would you support that?

I don't really care about who gets 30%...or 20%...or 50%...or whatever. I care about freedom and keeping platforms as open as possible. Perhaps I've just read too much sci-fi, but what Apple is doing today gives me the creeps. They are not my mom and dad. I don't need them to protect me from myself or do some government's bidding. On August 1, they removed nearly 30,000 apps from the Chinese App Store. Poof. Gone. Because some authoritarian government told them to do it - or else. No one should be celebrating this business model. Epic might be unethical and shady, and they might be doing this for the wrong reasons, but their cause is worthy.

 

[Karllake]

Facebook have not 'dictated' anything to Apple. Stop putting in words that distort the debate. Facebook asked if they could use their own pay system, Apple said no. Facebook then made their app highlight apple were taking 30% of the in-app fee, Apple told them to remove it.

if we’re talking “putting words that distort the debate” then Facebook didn’t “asked” they acted knowing it would either go undetected or be rejected and then Publicly outcried when the inevitable rejection came.

its all a game that we’re watching

 

[jonnysods]

Seems like he’s deflecting attention. Also I would hardly call Facebook drivers of developer innovation.

 

[m11rphy]

30% is a few? And why does everyone think its ok we can only install apps from the seller of a devices through app store? I understand if you're concerned about privacy, personal data yada yada. But why shouldn't you be able to download from Epic's website an pay them directly especially if that's less expensive for the end user? They are your devices and services not Apples.

We're the ones who really pay the apple, google, sony and microsoft tax. Though if the game makers continued to charge the same prices with out paying Apple, Google, etc. taking a piece then I'd rather the convenience and safety of downloading from an Apple store.

I'd sure love to have the choice though. Thus this is anti competitive in my mind.

In you example you wont have a choice, the app will solely be on Epics website and removed from the apple App Store, They did the same thing with google when they only offered side loading as option.

So when Epic charge the same price on their website you will no longer have the convenience and safety of downloading from an Apple store that choice will be gone.

The bigger issue isn't even epic, the bigger issue is some scammer creating an app that you think is a harmless game you download from a website and then privacy, personal data yada yada is breached everyone will be blaming apple and all the headlines will be Apple iPhone has major privacy, personal data breach. Thanks to you demanding change and your government enforcing this change Apple are powerless to prevent it, yet they will suffer all of the reputational damage.

And dont quote macOS, that market it so small no hackers will target it, but they sure as hell will target a billion+ iPhones

 

[Analog Kid]

Facebook owning Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp would be considered a monopoly in most people’s definition of the word, is there viable Facebook alternative? The only one that got close ‘Instagram’ was bought by Facebook. They are the definition of a monopoly.

You’re listing products. What market does Facebook hold a monopoly in?

 

[canned_tuna_og]

Zuck should know a thing or two about being monopolistic.

 

[Karllake]

I'd sure love to have the choice though. Thus this is anti competitive in my mind.

I think everyone would love to have low cost and choice whilst maintaining privacy etc, I’d love to eat junk food everyday and be slim, unfortunately sometimes we have to choose.

Facebook, google etc have proved time and time again that they prioritise income over customer privacy, I don’t see a compromise for a long time so I hope Apple win, anyone who doesn’t care about privacy can move to another platform.

 

[laptech]

if we’re talking “putting words that distort the debate” then Facebook didn’t “asked” they acted knowing it would either go undetected or be rejected and then Publicly outcried when the inevitable rejection came.

its all a game that we’re watching

Again, your purposely distorting the debate to suit your narrative.

Go check this link on macrumours and you will see that Apple was 'asked', Facebook did not do anything underhanded

Facebook Claims Apple is Damaging Small Businesses by Collecting Fees From Paid Facebook Events

As Apple battles with Epic Games over its App Store fees, Facebook is joining the fight over its new Paid Online Events feature, which allows small...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Analog Kid]

The difference is that there are many social media platforms apart from FB that I can use, and I can use them on all my hardware. No other company or person relies on FB, they all have alternatives. However, on my iPhone, it doesn't matter what app I want to use, if I want an app, I can only use the Apple app store.

As a business operator, I do use FB to advertise, but I also advertise on other platforms, and have many alternatives, and I wouldn't be so fussed if FB got too expensive, I would simply drop it.

I definitely don't see FB as a monopoly. If that was the case, then people would be blowing up about FB's monopoly practices, but they aren't, it's not a blip on the radar.

I do see the Apple app store as a monopoly, and it's clearly a very common opinion, as evidenced by the daily articles on MacRumors, and governments, companies, and people, blowing up about it all over the world.

Now sure, there are other things about FB that people don't like, myself included, but that's another subject, and this subject is about monopoly power.

I’m not sure the idea of Apple being a monopoly is common (the few dozen commenters on MacRumors aside), and personal opinions on this matter are irrelevant. No court is going to accept “it just feels that way” as evidence.

Just like you can use multiple social media platforms on your hardware, you can just as easily use Facebook on multiple hardware platforms. Just like you can stop buying from Facebook if the price is unreasonable for the service, you can stop using Apple if the price is unreasonable.

“People blowing up” isn’t even part of the definition of what constitutes a monopoly.

 

[Karllake]

You’re listing products. What market does Facebook hold a monopoly in?

The Microsoft internet explore issue was about a product, I don’t see your distinction.

 

[rwxx]

Except the play store doesn’t have Apple’s level of security hence all the malware apps you see stories about.

Well, Apple is hardly without fault when it comes to app review. Clipboard snooping? No App Store is going to be 100% safe and secure unless the store reviews every single line of code. That's never going to happen. Apple can still offer their App Store as a service. Users can still select to only install apps from the App Store. Nothing has changed for those users in terms of "security". This is how it works on the Mac today. Where's the harm in that? Is (gasp!) letting people taking responsibility for themselves really such a big bad scary thing???

 

[wood1208]

Such a smart guy couldn't come up with better argument ? Shame on you.

 

[JGIGS]

I think everyone would love to have low cost and choice whilst maintaining privacy etc, I’d love to eat junk food everyday and be slim, unfortunately sometimes we have to choose.

Facebook, google etc have proved time and time again that they prioritise income over customer privacy, I don’t see a compromise for a long time so I hope Apple win, anyone who doesn’t care about privacy can move to another platform.

Why? Why can't their be a choice? You can chose to download from the app store and pay an extra 30% for your in app purchases because you value apple protecting you or if you don't you can download it off a website and save 20-30%?

I this scenario nobody is forcing you to do either? You can choose supposed privacy and pay extra or you can choose to risk it and go direct and actually read the user agreement with Epic etc.

You're argument isn't valid if you can still do it through the app store.

 

[Analog Kid]

The Microsoft internet explore issue was about a product, I don’t see your distinction.

No, it was not.

It was about Microsoft leveraging its legal monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems to gain an illegal monopoly in the market for Internet browsers.

 

[Karllake]

Again, your purposely distorting the debate to suit your narrative.

Go check this link on macrumours and you will see that Apple was 'asked', Facebook did not do anything underhanded

Facebook Claims Apple is Damaging Small Businesses by Collecting Fees From Paid Facebook Events

As Apple battles with Epic Games over its App Store fees, Facebook is joining the fight over its new Paid Online Events feature, which allows small...

www.macrumors.com

Facebook were underhand, granted they “asked” but they were not given permission. If I ask to come in your home and you say no, then I barge in I can’t say “well I asked”, you’ll rightfully say that you said no and I’m trespassing. I can’t then cry foul and scream that you’re throwing me out and your rules aren’t fair.

 

[rwxx]

I’m not sure the idea of Apple being a monopoly is common (the few dozen commenters on MacRumors aside), and personal opinions on this matter are irrelevant. No court is going to accept “it just feels that way” as evidence.

Apple is not a monopoly. Apple has a monopoly over software installation on its platform, a HUGE platform with over 1 billion active devices. Hence the scrutiny.

Back in the 90s, the fact that alternatives to the PC existed wasn't material. The issue was Microsoft using its control of PC operating systems to unfairly disadvantage others. That's pretty much the same situation we have with Apple and the App Store today. The fact that you can buy an Android has as much relevance today as the fact that you could go buy a Mac back in the 90s. It's not about other platforms.