Facebook is a cancer upon humanity, and Zuck is simply nauseating.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook Preparing Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple for 'Unfair' Approach to Privacy and Default Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The complaint should be interesting to read if FB actually files it.
Facebook is preparing to launch a lawsuit against Apple for alleged anticompetitive behaviour, particularly regarding App Tracking Transparency and iMessage, according to The Information.
The antitrust lawsuit would contend that Apple has abused its power in the smartphone industry by enforcing App Store rules that Apple itself supposedly does not have to follow. Within this, the case would argue rules such as the requirement that developers use Apple's own in-app payment service, make it harder to compete in areas such as gaming, messaging, and shopping.
iOS 14's App Tracking Transparency feature, which allows users to opt-out of being tracked via an on-screen prompt, is believed to be central to Facebook's case. Facebook alleges that the prompts are unfair because they do not appear for Apple's own apps, offering it a competitive advantage. However, Apple's apps do not track users or share data for advertising purposes, so this seems to be a bemusing foundation for the lawsuit.
In addition to App Tracking Transparency, Facebook is expected to focus on Apple's refusal to allow third-party messaging apps to be installed as the default option on iPhones and iPads. The company lobbied Apple to allow users to choose Facebook's Messenger app as the default on iOS instead of iMessage in September last year, and it now claims that Apple disallows other messaging apps to be set as default in an effort to prevent people from switching to competing smartphone brands.
Facebook has also reportedly considered inviting other companies to participate in its prospective lawsuit against Apple. A natural ally would seemingly be Epic Games, which has been embroiled in a legal battle with Apple since Fortnite was removed from the App Store for breaking Apple's rules.
The news appears to be a considerable escalation in tensions between the two companies, which have become increasingly fraught in recent months. For example, in December, Facebook paid for a series of full-page advertisements in national newspapers to berate iOS 14's App Tracking Transparency, saying that it harms small businesses.
During Facebook's quarterly earnings call with investors yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Apple's business is increasingly focused "on gaining share in apps and services against us and other developers." He continued, "so Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own."
While Facebook may be seeking monetary damages, the preferable outcome is believed to be significant changes to Apple's platform restrictions and App Store rules. The Information notes that in spite of Facebook's legal preparations, it may yet decide to not bring the case to court.
One factor within this is said to be considerable internal dissent within Facebook itself. Executives are facing "internal resistance" from some employees over the prospect of deepening its public campaign against Apple with a lawsuit. Specifically, some employees are apparently concerned that Facebook is "not a compelling victim," especially given the company's own antitrust cases and mishandling of user data.
Article Link: Facebook Preparing Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple for 'Unfair' Approach to Privacy and Default Apps
While it's not my area of law, it's difficult to see how FB could win such a challenge. The statement that the preferable outcome suggests that FB knows that as well, and is floating the lawsuit to try to gain leverage to get Apple to change. That seems unlikely.
Given the above, it seems as if FB is more concerned about profit loss than it is letting on.
That makes no sense at all, the Apple app store is just that, a store, where app developers sell their wares. So, what you are implying is that any manufacturer/vendor selling products in a supermarket or department store should be required to share product sale info to manufacturer? How is this any different?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a "richard" and I am certainly not trying or meaning to disparage ANY developers, but why do app developers seem to think that they are entitled to so much control over a store owned by a separate company, I mean sell your products there or don't....what did all these developers do before the app store, or did the app store create the world that they now live in? There is a lot of back end costs to run and maintain it. I would not want to see any developers put out of business, Apple owns the app store and they are entitled to make the rules/standards. The whole "Epic" thing is bull! They are looking to have Apple foot the cost of hosting, supporting, distributing, etc and then go around the rules too get all of the money. And as far as FB they are just bull*&*$ sneaks and thieves.
so since you approve of facebooks move (and perhaps one of the very few) in which you mention Apples Revenue (in which that doesn’t have to do with the subject at hand ), do me a favor and forfeit any claims you have to Apple products/your developer account since you don’t give a **** about privacy
That may be true for you and you have every right to decide you do not like the value proposition. Your option is to not use the service. No one forces you to use it.
I cannot even understand how there is a question here. Do they charge a monetary fee to use their service? Does it cost them money to provide that service? Since the answer to the first question is “no” and the second “yes”, the money to provide that service comes from the revenue they earn. I did not say that what they provide you as a user is in anyway based on the value you generate for them. That is not the deal they offer to regular users (their content partners get deals that are closer to that).
I am trying to understand what you are arguing. Are you arguing that they do not have a right to offer you a service and make money off that service from various channels? They have many ways of monetizing their platform. You do not pay them a fee for this service, but get served ads and give up your data in exchange. Again, you can argue that they are getting a great deal on that data and from your viewing their ads, but that does not change the fact that it is the deal users have accepted.
They do not take ownership of any of your content. You grant them a license to anything you post/share there. This is for two reasons, it is needed for your posts to be shareable legally (the service would not work if you had to explicitly approve every time someone wanted to see your content) and it makes it possible for them to serve ads against that content. Again, that is the deal you make when you use the service. No one forces you to share any content on the service. One could use it for connections only and then post and share all your content through other mechanisms. In fact I am pretty sure (I have not re-read their most recent ToS), if you wanted, you could create your own website, only post your content there, and then post links to your content on your facebook page without them getting any rights to your content at all. If you did that, you would bear all the costs of your website and could sell ads against your content.
It is very likely that the grocery store at which you shop (if you are in the U.S.) charges its purveyors slotting fees to get good (and sometimes any) shelf space. They also charge you to buy the product. They are able to keep some prices bellow their costs because they are subsidized by these fees. That means if you do not buy any of the products that paid those fees, you are getting products subsidized by other customers.
In the same way, Facebook has many sources of revenue. They chosen not to link the cost of the service they provide to you to the value they receive from their various sources based on what you have provided them. That means if you post lots of content that is expensive to store and deliver, but generates little to no revenue, they do not charge you more than the person who posts content that is cheap to store and deliver and generates lots of revenue.
Yeah. I never use iMessage directly. That said, I would not touch Facebook with a 100ft pole.
why does FB get to determine what is fair/unfair with my data? We get no say. Screw them. Bring on the opt out. I'll be smashing that button as hard and fast as I can. Now we get a say and FB and their like are afraid of people waking up to understanding how much we have been sold out.
Is FaceBook going to also then allow users to use iMessage or Signal/etc as the default messaging app?
That would be my guess. I'm sure they would build it in if Apple allowed it but to say its a lawsuit level offense is completely absurd.
Facebook accusing anyone of unfairness is laughable.
Somewhat related: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Harry S. Truman
Today, many corporations have as much or more power and influence as government. Just something to be mindful of, whether or not you, or your neighbor, fears backlash or censoring for any kind of opposing viewpoint.
Somewhat related: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Harry S. Truman
Today, many corporations have as much or more power and influence as government. Just something to be mindful of, whether or not you, or your neighbor, fears backlash or censoring for any kind of opposing viewpoint.
What’s next? Facebook wants to replace the phone.app so that you can share all your incoming and outgoing call information with them?
FB is so stupid. Instead of going to court, where Apple’s attorney’s will wreak havoc using FB’s own company info and policies, they could instead try to figure out a way to make their business model work where they’re not skimming data from users outside of their own app. But of course, FB has little intention to get this in front of a jury, instead hoping that they can fool enough stupid consumers into thinking FB is a victim in the court of public opinion to get Apple to change their stance. The sad thing is, there clearly are enough stupid people out there willing to believe all sorts of blatant lies. This country needs some serious re-investment in education...
Oh please take a hike Fakebook. The only reason I still use the damn thing is because of political reasons and to keep tabs on old friends.
Look, there are fair and valid points in your argument. Not denying it. I won't/can't reply to them individually, but I can see that there's another side of the story to each of those.
That said and as regards their TOS, I don't recall Facebook sending me an email to accept new TOS updates each time they changed them. I do recall PayPal doing so on a regular basis though. In all fairness, I barely connect to Facebook, so I may miss things here.
There's a critical line between using personal data and spying on you. Facebook definitely crossed that line by keeping monetising and finding new means to milk more (often taking advantage of new tech) without telling people.
Hiding behind the "you have accepted the TOS" is a poor argument imho. Not willing to go political here, but this is a bit like saying "oh, I felt threatened and according to Law Enforcement "TOS", I'm in my right to shoot him/her". I know it's an extreme example, but it highlights the idea all the more. Not everything falls behind the TOS agreement. By this example, what I mean is that agreeing to their TOS does not grant Facebook a golden sesame to do the f*** they want.
I also think that's why there are courts and judges to actually... judge the facts based on the Law, but with a humane understanding of the aforementioned facts.
All Zuck had to do:
Make a site where friends and family can connect.
Use the site as a front end to earn commissions on sales of films, music, games from external linked content and platforms.
Keep users safe from misinformation.
Keep violent content and scams off the platform.
The ****ing easiest thing to do. But nooooo Zuck decided to do the opposite.
And Dorsey is almost as sociopathic as him.
Make a site where friends and family can connect.
Use the site as a front end to earn commissions on sales of films, music, games from external linked content and platforms.
Keep users safe from misinformation.
Keep violent content and scams off the platform.
The ****ing easiest thing to do. But nooooo Zuck decided to do the opposite.
And Dorsey is almost as sociopathic as him.
But of course apple want users to prefer his own messaging app and gain share in that field. It’s their own platform, this is a competitive business.
They are not blocking other apps though. The users are free to choose what app to use . But don’t expect apple invest effort for the growth of others.
