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

Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 162 posts

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

#51

Post by marketingtech »

F7F7F7 wrote: post #47
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.

There are several reasons for a platform to not want to offer 3p interop, from security to privacy to competition, but the DMA is targeted EU regulation to mandate interop specifically for the big tech cos’ platforms and this is one of the first major tests of the law.

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

#52

Post by Zak »

3874744848 wrote: post #11
vouaobrasil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every user would just check that option and press yes. Not if it's available in the developer options, or has more other sorts of friction to check the box. Or if it has a red warning label with the phrase "may increase the chance of hackers stealing your data and impersonating you". One just has to make it unattractive enough to most.

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 a user wants to turn on a clearly labeled setting to share a bunch of data with Meta, it should not be Apple's role to stop them even if you and I might think that's a stupid thing to do. Android's solution for more dangerous permissions is to make the user open the settings app and pick the apps to grant it to from a list, which seems like the right amount of friction to kick people out of autopilot and make them actively decide whether that's something they want to do.

If it's anyone's job to limit how Meta can collect and use data despite the express consent of the user, it's governments, not Apple.

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

#53

Post by JKCalhoun »

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...

Yeah, I suspect this AI thing is going to be a fork in the road for Apple. The buzz is that AI is amazing and with everyone tripping over themselves to add it to their products, marketing is going to be asking for things quickly and dismissing any pushback on perceived privacy.

If enough blogs expose these things (if they are actual privacy concerns — I mean I am already storing the photos themselves on Apple's iCloud, so) then I expect Apple to back off and make the feature opt-in in an upcoming release.

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

#55

Post by marketingtech »

enos_feedler wrote: post #54

If Meta is successful in gaining access to iPhone user data, will this be exclusive to Meta or would Apple be required to open access more broadly?

More broadly, but not unconditionally. They can apply reasonable (definition of that can be another point of contention) restrictions via their app review process as long as the restrictions are applied consistently to all applicants.

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

#56

Post by Yeul »

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.

You mean like on Android? Hell nowadays you can choose "approximate location" instead of tracking people. App permissions have come a long way.

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

#57

Post by mort96 »

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.

Users will be faced with a dialog saying "to use Facebook, you must accept XYZ", and their only options will be to accept or to not use the app. Facebook will detect empty or fake data and lock the user out unless they acquiesce.

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

#58

Post by mort96 »

paldepind2 wrote: post #39
tempodox wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rename from Facebook didn't change the base nature of that company. Their product is selling user data. All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data.

> All their other “products” are just suction pipes for hoovering up that data. I don't think that's true for their VR/MR hardware. That's Meta's attempt to get a product that is _not_ like that, but which instead gets them in a position similar to where Google and Apple are for phones. I.e., where they own the platform and can profit off of that.

Dude they tried to force you to log in with your Facebook account to use your hardware. Everything made by that wretched company is tainted.

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

#59

Post by ToucanLoucan »

pretext-1 wrote: post #18
vouaobrasil wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The AI becomes significantly more useful if it understands your digital life more. "Useful" is misleading. It should be "useful for the big corps for entrenching you further into proprietary technology so that they can take advantage of you later".

> for entrenching you further into proprietary technology But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives! Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc. Want an open source, community based, interoperable, fully local, etc. assistant/AI? It cannot exist in today's world s…

> Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc.

Yes, and because of that, it's the only voice assistant I want. I do not want a hyper-intelligent "friend that knows everything about me" because that, without fail, is being sold to me by companies who will need access to every last bit of data about me and my life, who will then host that data somewhere, with some level of security, which I'm not involved in and do not control. And tbh, given my thoughts about how users approach tech, I don't want that for other people either.

Putting aside my feelings about surveillance capitalism and how inherently exploitative and inhumane it is, with full knowledge that all my objections under that umbrella already, for me, constitute a wide and thoroughly researched opinion as to why this shit is horrific for privacy on it's face, but putting it aside:

If companies want access to every last drop of information, every last data point, even assuming an altruistic "we just want to make the best AI assistant we can" against all evidence to the contrary: then there needs to be set, and severe consequences for data breaches for these companies. No more of this "we put up a blog post about it and security researchers got an interview with CNN" no, fuck that shit. If Meta has a breach in it's AI product and as a result of that, whatever hacker org gets the full spread on let's say 5,000 individuals? Then those 5,000 individuals need to be entitled to damages. Firstly anything that impacts their lives needs to be unwound completely; new SSN, any money taken restored, help moving if required, whatever. Secondly they need to be compensated for the emotional toil of spending weeks or months sifting paperwork, sending letters, attending court dates to unwind whatever is done with their identity, and Meta is responsible for ALL of that.

If these companies want effectively root access to my life to provide these services, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say they need to be legally and financially responsible if their negligence causes people to get exposed. And if they're not prepared to take on that liability, then perhaps an AI assistant that knows everything about you is just a product that cannot be made.

I don't think this is an unreasonable view.

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

#60

Post by twoodfin »

mort96 wrote: post #57
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.

Users will be faced with a dialog saying "to use Facebook, you must accept XYZ", and their only options will be to accept or to not use the app. Facebook will detect empty or fake data and lock the user out unless they acquiesce.

Apple routinely rejects apps that try tactics like this. Otherwise it'd be an easy way around the "Ask App Not To Track" prompt.
Post reply on HN