Zuckerberg Denounces Apple's Monopolistic “Stranglehold” on Your iPhone(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Zuckerberg Denounces Apple's Monopolistic “Stranglehold” on Your iPhone
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/zuckerberg-apple-monopoly
12 comments
Wonder how much of this is payback for things like the cancerous Facebook Onavo app being banned by Apple, or any of the other measures Apple took against Facebook's practices, especially the ones coming with iOS 14 (like ad tracking restrictions). I doubt a man with Zuckerberg's ethics gives a dead rat's ass about Apple's practices being "harmful to customers".
One of those situations where just looking at who is complaining and what they are saying makes you take the opposite side without even caring about the issue.
Zuckerberg the champion of openness and battling monopolies.
Zuckerberg the champion of openness and battling monopolies.
Zuckerberg saying something negative about a company is a pretty good signal that company is doing something right.
"CEO of horizontally integrated monopolistic anticompetitive conglomerate denounces competitor as monopolistic"
"CEO of horizontally integrated monopolistic anticompetitive conglomerate denounces vertically integrated monopolistic anticompetitive competitor."
It's like something out of Flatland.
It's like something out of Flatland.
What about Facebook's stranglehold on social networking? Or as we old folks used to call it... society.
“Monopolistic Stranglehold”?
Mr Kettle we have a collect call from a Mr Pot.
Facebook is the company that tries to disable copy and paste in their web app to stop you copying events to your native calendar or sharing them with anyone outside of their walled garden.
They actually spent time and effort breaking that, the petty bastards.
Mr Kettle we have a collect call from a Mr Pot.
Facebook is the company that tries to disable copy and paste in their web app to stop you copying events to your native calendar or sharing them with anyone outside of their walled garden.
They actually spent time and effort breaking that, the petty bastards.
Lets see an open social graph, Mark
>Zuckerberg also criticized a change in Apple’s upcoming iOS 14 operating system for iPhones and iPads that would make it much harder for companies like Facebook to target people using those devices with ads. Zuckerberg estimated that Facebook’s ad targeting on iPhones and iPads would lose about 50% of its effectiveness once iOS 14 was released and suggested that if Facebook could distribute its apps outside the App Store, it could avoid that kind of scenario.
It's scenarios like the above from a powerful company like Facebook that would make them financially incentivized to put their own Facebook App Store on iPhones. That way, they can program their iOS app with any invasive techniques that hurts the user. To counteract that, I prefer that Apple be the only approved app store.
Although I don't use Facebook, my family in other countries are dependent on Whatsapp to communicate and I'd rather have Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp all get vetted by Apple's approval process than Zuckerberg's self-serving team.
As for the common counterpoint of "giving iPhone customers the _option_ of alternative app stores does not affect me at all because I can choose to only use Apple App Store" ... that's not true. The part missing in that argument is that some companies (e.g. Facebook) with essential apps are very powerful in relation to the individual smartphone customer. To counterbalance that force, Apple is one of the few corporations big and powerful enough to push back against Zuckerberg. (E.g. previous examples: [1][2])
Yes, I know the majority of HN developers want control of the "device I they own" and I understand that. However, they don't speak for everyone and the iPhone is also something I own and it works better for me if influential (and sometimes shady) apps are not purposely pulled off of Apple's App Store and put into a Facebook App Store, Uber App Store, Buzzfeed App Store, etc.
For my home desktop pc, I can load any software I want and I prefer that control. However, I don't think it's a contradiction that I prefer my iPhone to be locked down.
EDIT to reply: I don't work for Apple and can't control what they do. Apple may open up the iPhone to other app stores or they may not -- without my permission. Therefore, stating my preference for iPhone policy does not restrict others' freedom. Also, my family depends on Whatsapp to earn money so alternatives such as Telegram, Signal, etc are irrelevant because their business relationships already use Whatsapp.
------
Examples of Facebook abusing its internal testing account:
[1] Apple blocks Facebook from running its internal iOS apps (theverge.com): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19035834
[2] Apple leaves Facebook offices in disarray after revoking app permissions (theguardian.com): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19044728
It's scenarios like the above from a powerful company like Facebook that would make them financially incentivized to put their own Facebook App Store on iPhones. That way, they can program their iOS app with any invasive techniques that hurts the user. To counteract that, I prefer that Apple be the only approved app store.
Although I don't use Facebook, my family in other countries are dependent on Whatsapp to communicate and I'd rather have Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp all get vetted by Apple's approval process than Zuckerberg's self-serving team.
As for the common counterpoint of "giving iPhone customers the _option_ of alternative app stores does not affect me at all because I can choose to only use Apple App Store" ... that's not true. The part missing in that argument is that some companies (e.g. Facebook) with essential apps are very powerful in relation to the individual smartphone customer. To counterbalance that force, Apple is one of the few corporations big and powerful enough to push back against Zuckerberg. (E.g. previous examples: [1][2])
Yes, I know the majority of HN developers want control of the "device I they own" and I understand that. However, they don't speak for everyone and the iPhone is also something I own and it works better for me if influential (and sometimes shady) apps are not purposely pulled off of Apple's App Store and put into a Facebook App Store, Uber App Store, Buzzfeed App Store, etc.
For my home desktop pc, I can load any software I want and I prefer that control. However, I don't think it's a contradiction that I prefer my iPhone to be locked down.
EDIT to reply: I don't work for Apple and can't control what they do. Apple may open up the iPhone to other app stores or they may not -- without my permission. Therefore, stating my preference for iPhone policy does not restrict others' freedom. Also, my family depends on Whatsapp to earn money so alternatives such as Telegram, Signal, etc are irrelevant because their business relationships already use Whatsapp.
------
Examples of Facebook abusing its internal testing account:
[1] Apple blocks Facebook from running its internal iOS apps (theverge.com): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19035834
[2] Apple leaves Facebook offices in disarray after revoking app permissions (theguardian.com): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19044728
"my family in other countries are dependent on Whatsapp"
No, they're not. You should not get to restrict others' freedom because you are too lazy to convince your family too live your values.
No, they're not. You should not get to restrict others' freedom because you are too lazy to convince your family too live your values.
I am okay with it.
Wasn’t he trying to do the exact same thing in India?
Pretty sure he is mainly yealous