Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#41

Post by mdhb » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:42 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #33

oefrha wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly don’t. We’re talking about apps like Phone, Messages, Photos, Files and system stuff like app tracking (Screen Time etc.).

When you first set up an iPhone (and other hardware like AirPods, for example) you are asked whether to share anonymized usage data with Apple. Saying "No" at that screen turns off a whole swath of data collection. I wonder what specific examples you are aware of that are not disabled in this manner?

Apple turned on a “feature” without announcing it that would send data about every single on your private photos to their servers recently.

https://bsky.app/profile/matthewdgreen.bsky.social/post/3lef...

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#42

Post by F7F7F7 » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:44 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #38

JKCalhoun wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you first set up an iPhone (and other hardware like AirPods, for example) you are asked whether to share anonymized usage data with Apple. Saying "No" at that screen turns off a whole swath of data collection. I wonder what specific examples you are aware of that are not disabled in this manner?

No one's talking about "anonymous usage data". The topic at question is primary data available to first party apps (even if they remain on device), often synced to iCloud and available to say, Siri. I'm sure I accepted a bunch of EULAs when turning on iCloud and Siri, but Facebook will argue they've shown you their EULA too. That's not "request permissions the same way third party apps do", and some of the data can't…

This argument is silly and goes well beyond the spirit of the EU law.

As if Meta has to suddenly show Apple all of its goods now too. Giving Apple access to all Facebook or Instagram data and letting them decide where to draw the line.

Stop letting the distaste for Apple effect reason and sanity.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#43

Post by jlokier » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:45 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #35

NikolaNovak wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got a new iPhone two weeks ago (corporate mandated:(. I don't recall messages, photos, apple maps, notes, camera, calendar etc asking me detailed permissions. I think health did ask for some. Installing equivalent Facebook messenger, Google photos, Google calendar, etc also of course did. (Greediest award goes to whatsapp which basically doesn't work unless you grant it full access to contacts boo)

I had to contact someone in Europe so I started using WhatsApp. It does work without granting access to contacts, but it seems I can't even assign a name to a number without the contacts permission, so thousands of messages later the contact is still a bare number. Really scummy behavior. I probably would have caved if I had a number of contacts. And no iPad app, wtf.

WhatsApp on Android has the same behaviour. Most of my conversations show as a bare phone number because I decided not to give it all my contacts.

However, WhatsApp groups show a name, so that's a workaround if you are using WhatsApp with someone you know well: Make a group for the two of you.

When a friend went to install WhatsApp for their iPad, they succeeded!

Then they said it wasn't working properly. Unfortunately that's because app store search brought up misleading third-party WhatsApp apps for the iPad. If you weren't paying attention, it was too easy to think you were installing the official app from WhatsApp. I didn't notice the app was third-party at first either, and I was very surprised to find no app at all from WhatsApp itself on closer inspection, amidst a page of search resulrs all claiming to be it.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#44

Post by gwbas1c » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

crest wrote: post #37

oefrha wrote: post #10

The Reuters report on this is much more detailed: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-slams-metas-numerou... And yes, Meta isn’t denying requesting everything under the sun. Their only retort is Apple’s privacy concerns are anticompetitive excuses. Two things can be true: Apple is only protecting their own interests, and Meta is a terrible would-be guardian of all the data they’re requesting.

Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed decide if they're getting that access. Let Apple offer users the option: allow once, allow permanently, refuse, or fake empty responses without telling the app.

> Let Apple offer users the option

That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds.

Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs.

Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#45

Post by 3874744848 » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

vouaobrasil wrote: post #15

3874744848 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the heart of the issue though. Most users don't care unless you purposefully go out of your way to scare them with enough melodrama and dark patterns as to border on outright dishonesty. It's not an issue of them being informed, they just genuinely do not care about the risk when the actor is a familiar megacorp because their viewpoint is that if billions of dollars can't keep the data safe then it was never…

If that is truly a foregone conclusion then we should eradicate the megacorps, not pander to them or negotiate with them.

Why? Not philosophically why but genuinely why? The consumer isn't less for their choice, if they saw people suffering damage they found concerning they'd actually be hesitant. And at the same time it's not like equivalent open solutions are going to emerge, we've had decades of cyber-activist products meant to 'empower' users by providing similar functionality to the commercial products of their time and they almost never catch on and if they do they reach a critical mass where they just evolve into data hungry companies themselves. If users would rather pay with data than money maybe the right solution is just to make sure there's simply an opt-in point at all rather than implementing some pointless thicket of UI weeds for them to wade through just to make their device do what they want.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#46

Post by F7F7F7 » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

mdhb wrote: post #41

JKCalhoun wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you first set up an iPhone (and other hardware like AirPods, for example) you are asked whether to share anonymized usage data with Apple. Saying "No" at that screen turns off a whole swath of data collection. I wonder what specific examples you are aware of that are not disabled in this manner?

Apple turned on a “feature” without announcing it that would send data about every single on your private photos to their servers recently. https://bsky.app/profile/matthewdgreen.bsky.social/post/3lef...

And…?

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#47

Post by F7F7F7 » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:54 PM UTC

marketingtech wrote: post #16

Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value. They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro to show messages and other notifications, connect to WiFi, and share files with an iPhone, but Apple uses private APIs for their own devices. Meta says that is anticompetitive and the APIs should be public.…

As someone who’s personally worked on dozens of M&A driven vertical integrations and “ecosystems” (lol)…interoperability is inherent to being a first party.

3rd parties aren’t going to get the same access or treatment for a number of reasons…many of which Apple has outlined.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#48

Post by F7F7F7 » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 1:58 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #27

ParanoidShroom wrote: post #2

Can we see the interoperability requests that meta submitted? That would clarify if the shade is legit.

While I don't trust Meta, at all, I can see some reasons for legitimate requests. This could for API access so that the Meta VR headset could work as a substitute for Apples own, in some cases, or Facebook Messenger and iMessage interoperability. I sort of doubt that this is what Meta is trying for, but that would reasonable. It's probably a bit of both. One part Apple being monopolistic jerks and one part Meta wanti…

Apple has shown recently that they are more than OK giving Europeans and some parts of Asia a different iOS experience than the rest of us.

If they are “forced to open up” in the EU it doesn’t mean they will here.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#49

Post by oefrha » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 2:00 PM UTC

jlokier wrote: post #43

oefrha wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to contact someone in Europe so I started using WhatsApp. It does work without granting access to contacts, but it seems I can't even assign a name to a number without the contacts permission, so thousands of messages later the contact is still a bare number. Really scummy behavior. I probably would have caved if I had a number of contacts. And no iPad app, wtf.

WhatsApp on Android has the same behaviour. Most of my conversations show as a bare phone number because I decided not to give it all my contacts. However, WhatsApp groups show a name, so that's a workaround if you are using WhatsApp with someone you know well: Make a group for the two of you. When a friend went to install WhatsApp for their iPad, they succeeded! Then they said it wasn't working properly. Unfortunate…

I would have settled for something like the Instagram “iPad app”: a phone-sized rectangle in the middle of a black background. Alas, they don’t even allow that, hence all the fake crap you can easily download by mistake. And the web app is pretty bad on iPads, thanks in no small part to Apple.

Re: Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

#50

Post by nathanaldensr » Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #44

crest wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple shouldn't be allowed to lock down APIs between system components to give themselves a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean Meta should be allowed decide if they're getting that access. Let Apple offer users the option: allow once, allow permanently, refuse, or fake empty responses without telling the app.

> Let Apple offer users the option That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds. Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs. Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to study…

The thing is, at some point users must become comfortable with "pedantic permission dialogs." Users must take responsibility for knowing how software works and the motivations of its creators. Trying to outsource those decisions to corporations and government simply isn't working. Since computer users (I include phone users in that definition) can no longer trust software developers (Apple, Meta, etc.) to be ethically trustworthy (think: high-trust society devolving to low-trust society), users must take this burden upon themselves; if they refuse to, then the battle is already lost no matter what globogiantmegacorp "wins."