Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#571

Post by nicoburns »

rorykoehler wrote: post #495
stingraycharles wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that Apple executives realize that privacy is one of the unique USPs of Apple compared to their main competitor, since the value exchange between Apple and their customers is simpler (customer pays Apple money, Apple delivers hardware/software). Now that so much news has spread about these privacy additions, Apple selling out will actively hurt this image they have spent a lot of time building. It’s going t…

I thought that until I realised Apple also have a billion dollar ads business

Does Apple's ad business track users though? It seems to me that an ad business shouldn't need to in order to be effective.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#572

Post by Hallucinaut »

r00fus wrote: post #529
sebasvisser wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be surprised how many fb users (mostly less technical) just use a browser to access fb.. They don’t need an app in the App Store to do so.. So this might actually be a fight against the strange people working at Facebook that will get them to rethink what it is they do everyday..

I tell my mom she needs to use FF containers for FB. I set it up so she can't do anything else. She's happy & gets to see her extended family pics/updates.

Isn't this done automatically now in Firefox? As in, you don't need to even install the containers add-on as Facebook and related properties are automatically opened in a default Facebook container?

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#573

Post by ASalazarMX »

move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging

That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying.

For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in specific categories.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#574

Post by singhrac »

rorykoehler wrote: post #495
stingraycharles wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that Apple executives realize that privacy is one of the unique USPs of Apple compared to their main competitor, since the value exchange between Apple and their customers is simpler (customer pays Apple money, Apple delivers hardware/software). Now that so much news has spread about these privacy additions, Apple selling out will actively hurt this image they have spent a lot of time building. It’s going t…

I thought that until I realised Apple also have a billion dollar ads business

I see what you mean, but iPhone says are something like 150x that. If privacy concerns weaken even 1%, that wouldn't be worth it. Maybe that's unlikely, I'm not sure.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#575

Post by yazaddaruvala »

svachalek wrote: post #397
bozzcl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that might be true, it does not change the fact that modern tracking practices are intrusive and anti-consumer. Frankly, I can't sympathize with any business, no matter how small, that is dependent on tracking to thrive.

It's an old "ends justify the means" argument. By stealing your kidneys we can give them to starving orphans.

For "ends justify the means" argument to work, we all have to understand and agree to what the "ends" are.

Typically, the "ends" is to "maximize aggregate utility across all actors" i.e. also often described as "the greater good". As shown by your example: "By stealing your kidneys we can give them to starving orphans."

However, when it comes to targeted advertising, the "ends" is "maximize aggregate utility for small and large capitalists". As such the example should be: "By stealing kidneys from starving orphans, we can sell them to temporarily[0] sustain capitalists". Which frankly is a very poor "ends" from my (and hopefully the majority of consumer's) perspective.

[0] Why "temporarily"?: Because the capitalist growth mindset will require more kidneys soon. Arguably, this implies there is no "ends" and therefore it might be incorrect to use any "ends justify the means" argument in this context.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#576

Post by coldpie »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #516
coldpie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between this privacy fight and the form factor of the iPhone Mini, there's a 90% chance my next phone will be an iPhone after more than a decade on Android. I'm done with this ad-sponsored trash ecosystem.

...so you want to move to an ecosystem where Apple gets to decide what you can and cannot run on your own device? Having to jailbreak to side-load apps that aren't on an approved storefront is not acceptable.

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. I don't sideload on Android either.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#577

Post by sircastor »

sebasvisser wrote: post #491
brokencode wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they would. Facebook products are a huge part of any app ecosystem, and without them, Apple customers would be pissed. Ecosystem concerns aren’t as relevant today, since both Android and iOS have everything you’d want, but in the olden days of Blackberry, Microsoft, and many other mobile operating system vendors trying to compete, they were always seriously hampered by their lack of ecosystem.

You’d be surprised how many fb users (mostly less technical) just use a browser to access fb.. They don’t need an app in the App Store to do so.. So this might actually be a fight against the strange people working at Facebook that will get them to rethink what it is they do everyday..

This is me - and Facebook does not miss an opportunity to ask me to download messenger.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#578

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #573
move-on-by wrote: post #44

I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.

> I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying. For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in sp…

> why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them

What are you referring to? As far as I know, one app can't query the list and usage time of other installed apps on iOS. This stackoverflow question[1] seems to confirm this. But please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51634436/how-to-get-a-li...

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#579

Post by Someone »

move-on-by wrote: post #116
buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason I have a bad feeling about this update actually getting released. I'm worried that FB is going to convince some judge to tell Apple they can't do this, and delay it for months or years. Maybe (hopefully) this is an irrational worry, but you never know the extent to which people will go when billions of dollars are on the line.

I know nothing about legal system, but it seems like Apple could make an argument that they are helping their apps be GDPR and CCPA compliant? That could explain the strange wording "Ask app not to track" - apps can still track, just not as much as before, so perhaps more of a compliance permission. Just speculation.

I think they say “Ask app not to track” because, if they say “Make app not track you” or something similar, they open themselves to huge lawsuits if (much more likely when) any app turns out to keep tracking users.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#580

Post by simonh »

mgreg wrote: post #254
simonh wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they still need a search provider, a lot of people would change it to Google anyway. Arguably locking down the browser to limit tracking as much as possible is reasonable even though it potentially makes that Google deal less lucrative. If they were intent on monetising users data, you’d expect them to make a deal with Google to allow tracking in Safari in exchange for a higher fee for default search. In other…

But apple (and Android) allowing search providers to bid/buy that default spot is a barrier to entry for new search providers and only makes the dominant search provider stronger. How could a new Google emerge today when people lazily accept the default? When Google started there was not built in browser default - users had to manually type in altavista.com or google.com.

A big company like Coca Cola being able to buy huge advertising campaigns is a barrier to entry for new Cola makers. I suppose there are cases where buying or selling placement might be unethical, but I don't see it here. For example for a long time Google funded Firefox by buying a place as the search default. Was that unethical by Mozilla?
Post reply on HN