[rohan1024]

How can both Google and Apple cannot have a single rival platform against Facebook? We do have competitors like Twitter, Telegram, Signal but none of them are from Google or Apple. If we had we could have kept Facebook in check.

Have they given up on network effect of Facebook's platforms? If they can't solve network effect problem then I wonder how much hope there is for apps like Matrix or Signal.

P.s. We do have YouTube from Google but that's an entirely different story.

[bootlooped]

It's a moderation nightmare. Facebook is a toxic name to many people. If I were Tim Cook I would leave social networks well alone to keep the Apple brand clean, if for no other reason.

I don't think Google+ ever got to the scale where that was an issue.

[zdkl]

They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything. They can keep Apple clean of social networks while endorsing and supporting an open protocol or format for fetching/presentation into a thin client (something like ActivityPub/ActivityStreams, to pick an existing implementation that could make sense to adopt/adapt). I don't know, I think that'd be a very "Apple" thing to do with integrations into the rest of their client side ecosystem.

[bootlooped]

> They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything.

I don't think that is the case. At least many users, possibly even most users, would not understand the difference between Apple hosting a social network themselves and Apple promoting a thin client that views decentralized content. If you have an Apple Decentralized Social Networks app, and a parent sees their child viewing objectionable content through that app, a bulk of their ire is going to be directed at Apple; they will likely not even know the name of the entity actually hosting the content.

The "we're not actually hosting it so we're not responsible" argument, I don't think it's ever really worked. I don't think it would work in this case. See: torrent websites.

I think the benefit to Apple also goes down. They give up control, and for what gain?

[zdkl]

The trite answer is a modal going something like "the content you're trying to access A) isn't available on your <AppName-Level subscription> or B) isn't in our walled garden of third party providers". I don't like how it sounds but I'm confident they could sell that.

Heck, integrate it into messenger and treat all content like emoji/stickers you must acquire from a controlled source to circulate.

[mschuster91]

> They only have to worry about moderation if they host anything.

Legally maybe, but it's nevertheless presented under the Apple brand... which means as soon as the first pedos, QAnon cultists, antivaxxers and other undesirable elements take a look, people will reflect that negatively on Apple.

Apple's brand is basically to be "clean and safe" for users. Engaging in the shitshow that is any modern social network would be one of the fastest way to tank their stock price.

[Nkuna]

Remember Google Plus? They tried but were ultimately found wanting.

Apple was focused on hardware. Their services play is only recent and my best guess is if they ever considered social, they rightfully saw how toxic it is and decided it wasn't worth the effort/risk of tarnishing their brand. Not that I think they'd have a compelling product. Personally, Apple's web products are average at best. See their stock apps.

[jrwoodruff]

Apple even tried a social network of sorts with Ping in iTunes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Ping

[dfgdghdf]

Apple scraped that so quickly most never knew it existed. I think this shows a company that knows what it does well and has the discipline to stick to it.

[dylan604]

Except they allowed Ping to get released in the first place. If they knew themselves so well, that idea would have been left to die on the vine rather than having X number of employees working on it at whatever expense.

[ycombinete]

Possibly monopoly fears?