Facebook Preparing Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple for 'Unfair' Approach to Privacy and Default Apps

[Yoms]

They do share the money they take in by providing the service to their users without charge. That does not justify tracking people without their consent, but your framing is incorrect.

So am I. I have no problem if people choose to be tracked, but it should be an informed choice.

I understand your point, I really do. But I disagree.

First, I don't think the money they make by milking our personal data is on par with what the service they provide is worth.
Second, following your logic, if (and that's a big if) they actually "share[d] the money they take in by providing the service to their users without charge", why adding intrusive ads on top of collecting our personal data? Why taking the ownership of some stuffs (if I'm not mistaken, the photos you upload on Facebook can be used w/o copyright infringement by Facebook as they please). If your logic were true, milking our personal data should be enough, no?

 

[HudsonSteele]

What would a “default messaging app” even mean in iOS? WHat would that look like? I mean, everywhere that Messages shows up in the operating system,. Messenger also seems to show up. When I tap “share” i see my frequent messenger contacts right next to my frequent messages contacts.

I think they mean when a text comes in, Messenger can be the app that handles it instead of iMessage. That's the only thing I can think of.

 

[Breaking Good]

So that fact that Facebook installs itself on my Samsung Galaxy A71 without my knowledge or consent is OK, or even worse comes pre-installed without the ability to remove. But Apple's actions are illegal?

Well, OK then.

 

[ani4ani]

Why do people still use facebook?

There are 2.7 Billion of them so plenty you can ask

FB: has been watching lady next door taking shower through a peep hole.
Apple: puts a titanium wall between the two.
FB: 😡😭

hmm more like FB has sold photographs of the lady next door taking a shower, and Apple has made a smaller peep hole that they claim you can't see the lady showering or who is peeping..but will keep the peep hole nevertheless.

 

[AppleMad98004]

Apple platform is private. As long as the rules apply to all about collecting data no issue. Because FaceBooks business model is taking personal information and selling it, the onus is on FaceBook to change it. Not the other way around. I hope this backfires big for them.

FaceBook can choose NOT to develop apps for iOS. Simple.

 

[Dave-Z]

this is bull. Apple collects remarkably little user data.

It is not "bull." Apple collects a massive amount of analytics. The reason you're thinking it's "bull" is because:

1. You're assuming I mean data that's associated/tied to a specific user or Apple ID account.
2. You believe Apple is being transparent.

1. Apple associates most of it's data with random identifiers or non at all (per their own claims). This allows them to gather usage data at a large scale so they can target developments to their software, hardware, and services. Contrast this with Facebook, who wants to associate this type of data with a specific user or Facebook account so they can provide targeted advertising. Apple's approach is to find out how people, in general, use their devices so they know how they can continue to sell these devices, services, etc. Apple doesn't need to know what me or you specifically are doing, they want to know what all of us, collectively, do so they can continue to make products and provide services we want.

2. Apple is not transparent. They're great at marketing and PR. "What happens on your phone stays there." Except for that center where people were listening to records with personally identifiable information. But Apple changes course and spins it in a way that people accept. They're good at marketing and PR. I, personally, believe Apple is probably one of the best from a privacy perspective, but they aren't perfect by any means.

 

[GumaRodak]

If FB is angry, the privacy is on good way..

 

[lazyrighteye]

It's some next-level delusion to go after Apple for exposing your despicable business model, policies and cavalier attitude toward individuals' personal data. Privacy is a super legit issue as everything moves to the cloud.
Apple's stance on such matters couldn't be any more imperative.

 

[GLS]

This gives Facebook a few years to keep doing business as usual, with all of the legal action.

Apple will be forbidden from enforcing their tracking restrictions until all this is settled, and....with the amount of appeals a deep pocketed corporation such as Facebook has...it might take a while.

 

[cmaier]

I think they mean when a text comes in, Messenger can be the app that handles it instead of iMessage. That's the only thing I can think of.

Like an SMS? Does messenger even do that?

 

[ajfahey]

I fully agree with the default apps part.

Why? Given that Apple, based on social rules that Apple gets to dictate, can decide what apps are and aren’t allowed on their platform, why can’t they also not decide what apps are allowed to be set as a default app? No one is being forced by anyone to buy Apple products and participate in their ecosystem sandbox. Neither is Facebook Being forced to write Apple apps. Don‘t all companies have the right, in a free market, to decide what products to sell or promote? Facebook can certainly opt out of collecting personal data to render this issue with Apple moot.

If FaceBook doesn’t like Apple’s rules, do they not have the ability to create their own line of data mining hardware ecosystem of products to compete directly with a vertically integrated (hardware/software platform) company like Apple? The values at the core these legal issues aren’t fundamentally any different than Apple’s decision to de-platform Parler or Facebook’s unilateral decisions to determine who can and cannot write what on their data mining platform. The surreptitious mining of the personal information by any company is, arguably, a social evil. Why should Apple not attempt to control it? And, if they are not allowed to control it, why should either company have any, company values based, authority to control their platforms by simply rationalizing their decisions based on what the company self determines to be a social evil or socially pure?

 

[cmaier]

This gives Facebook a few years to keep doing business as usual, with all of the legal action.

Apple will be forbidden from enforcing their tracking restrictions until all this is settled, and....with the amount of appeals a deep pocketed corporation such as Facebook has...it might take a while.

No they won’t. How would they be entitled to an injunction?

 

[techfreak23]

Can Facebook just die already? It has aged terribly and has embedded itself into the internet almost as much as Google. They track you in places you would never think.

 

[mi7chy]

Why? Given that Apple, based on social rules that Apple gets to dictate, can decide what apps are and aren’t allowed on their platform, why can’t they also not decide what apps are allowed to be set as a default app? No one is being forced by anyone to buy Apple products and participate in their ecosystem sandbox. Neither is Facebook Being forced to write Apple apps. Don‘t all companies have the right, in a free market, to decide what products to sell or promote? Facebook can certainly opt out of collecting personal data to render this issue with Apple moot.

If FaceBook doesn’t like Apple’s rules, do they not have the ability to create their own line of data mining hardware ecosystem of products to compete directly with a vertically integrated (hardware/software platform) company like Apple?

Can't speak for 3rd world countries but in developed countries there are things like FTC anti-trust. Read it and get familiar.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws

 

[Realityck]

Tim Cook talking today made this statement

If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise, it deserves reform.

Hard not to miss whose company it concerns.
At EU data protection conference CPDP.

 

[fernelius]

I have an easy answer to some of Facebook's concerns. They can easily just invite their users to go to Facebook in Safari and use the Share sheet to Add to Home Screen. They can use any payment system they want there. They can, also, track anywhere their user goes in Facebook from there. This might be the ideal time for them to do it as well as they've eliminated most other major social media competitors. Facebook's standard offerings don't require an app as some applications might (particularly gaming, etc.) as evident from the lack of app/application on MacOS and wide use on that platform.

Facebook is obviously motivated primarily from the desire to keep customers who won't want to know how much Facebook tracks them all over the web.

 

[techfreak23]

Why? Given that Apple, based on social rules that Apple gets to dictate, can decide what apps are and aren’t allowed on their platform, why can’t they also not decide what apps are allowed to be set as a default app? No one is being forced by anyone to buy Apple products and participate in their ecosystem sandbox. Neither is Facebook Being forced to write Apple apps. Don‘t all companies have the right, in a free market, to decide what products to sell or promote? Facebook can certainly opt out of collecting personal data to render this issue with Apple moot.

If FaceBook doesn’t like Apple’s rules, do they not have the ability to create their own line of data mining hardware ecosystem of products to compete directly with a vertically integrated (hardware/software platform) company like Apple?

This very much. These talks about Apple being unfair and a monopoly are absolutely ridiculous. Apple has spent the money to build up their platform and their customer base, yet all of these entitled companies like Facebook and Epic think they get to dictate what happens with said platform and customer base. They can all piss off and build their own hardware/software ecosystem. Facebook at one point actually tried to make a FB branded phone that ran on Android that failed miserably.

They might have had more of a case against Apple if Apple licensed iOS/iPadOS to 3rd party hardware vendors like Google/Microsoft do, but they don't.

 

[Commodore 64]

Like an SMS? Does messenger even do that?

Yeah I’m also confused now. Does SMS work on messenger? Or is Facebook’s solution to not have any phones use SMS at all? Seriously, I just don’t understand what’s happening here. Would Apple’s Messages be ok if it didn’t have iMessage on top but only did SMS? Can my bank or other companies send me security codes through Messenger?

 

[roland.g]

Why do people still use facebook?

That is the easiest way out of this mess. Don't use garbage.

 

[mngdew]

Can't believe Zuckerberg has the balls to do this. Facebook was the one that has gone "anti-trust" in the first place.

 

[ajfahey]

Not a FB fanboy and use a browser and not their app but they have over 2.7 billion active users and growing. Doubt they're going anywhere with no viable alternative platform. Part of issue is Apple is jealous they don't have the user base the size of FB to collect data from.

They have 2.7 billion accounts. That is not the same as 2.7 billion users. Also, Facebook “users” have multiple accounts and still more have accounts that don’t use them. The value of Facebook data mining comes from the availability of data they can provide, not the number of account IDs They can report.

 

[GLS]

No they won’t. How would they be entitled to an injunction?

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer. I am pro-Apple on this, because quite frankly, with the amount of noise Facebook is making on this issue, they know it's going to really hurt not them financially.

But at the same time, if they find a friendly enough venue, it could be ordered that Apple not use this feature until further notice. Facebook will have to demonstrate that this is going to impact their business model to get an injunction; they just can't say it will, nor point to any full page ads saying so.

 

[Le0M]

Why do people still use facebook?

Because they have no idea of what goes one behind the screen.

 

[roland.g]

I fully agree with the default apps part.

Do Whatsapp and FBMessenger use your phone number. Remember that iMessage is simply Apple coming up with a solution to what used to be limited and charge per use SMS texts by converting your texting to DATA and as a result allowing you to send text via phone/email account and via smartphone/ipad/computer as an evolution of that. But I am still texting to and from my phone number. And every phone has texting via the number. iMessage is simply a protocol for sending that as data instead of via SMS. And only iOS to iOS, not iOS to Android which would still be an SMS. So Whatsapp, FBMessenger, Kik, are not competing with iMessage if they don't integrate the phone number. If they only use an email address, it is a communication platform, but not an SMS platform and would not replace iMessage.

Now I have never used FaceBook (whew dodged that bullet) and as a result none of the associated messaging, so none of this matters to me, and I may be wrong on the SMS/Data distinction I made.

 

[cmaier]

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer. I am pro-Apple on this, because quite frankly, with the amount of noise Facebook is making on this issue, they know it's going to really hurt not them financially.

But at the same time, if they find a friendly enough venue, it could be ordered that Apple not use this feature until further notice. Facebook will have to demonstrate that this is going to impact their business model to get an injunction; they just can't say it will, nor point to any full page ads saying so.

Showing that it would hurt their business model would be completely irrelevant. They have to show that any harm would be irreparable - in other words, they would have to show that the harm could not be compensated by Apple later on paying them money to make up for it. They'd also have to show that the harm to them from NOT getting an injunction outweighs the harm to apple of allowing them to continue to flout the rules, and the court would even take into account whether the benefit to consumers outweighs the alleged harm to Facebook.