[echelon]

I'm no fan of Facebook, but Apple is literally showing the world that their platform can sink trillion dollar businesses with simple policy changes.

When you're "America's Computer" with a 51+% entrenchment, you shouldn't be able to govern commerce. You're a common carrier at that point.

The DOJ better be watching. This behavior makes 90's Microsoft look absolutely tame by comparison. Apple is the new Standard Oil.

[zepto]

You seem to think that it’s ethical for people to be tracked by Facebook against their will and without their consent.

It’s hard to take arguments against Apple on this issue seriously.

All we are talking about is giving the users an option to disable tracking.

The fact they have lost money over this, simply proves that Facebook is a business that can’t survive without deceiving its users.

This isn’t about Apple at all.

[hekec]

Why this isn’t about Apple, if they literally use their market power to destroy competition? They could have done tons of features to benefit users, but they implement those which damage competitors.

[zepto]

We’re taking about a feature which requires companies to get consent before tracking users. That’s all. It applies to everyone, including Apple.

It only harms Facebook because their business only works if users are deceived into being tracked when they don’t want to be.

If users wanted to be tracked, they would opt-in.

That isn’t about Apple destroying anyone. It’s about Facebook building a business on a deceptive practice.

[hekec]

> It applies to everyone, including Apple

Which is false as Apple tracks you across apps without showing you this new prompt.

> That isn’t about Apple destroying anyone.

Could you elaborate on what are you implying here?

Are you saying Apple doesn’t damage anyone with this policy? It is obviously false.

Are you saying damaging competitors and building its own ads ecosystem is not Apple’s primary motivation here? It also seems false, as they build their own ad system, which tracks users.

[9935c101ab17a66]

This is an insane argument.

> They could have done tons of features to benefit users, but they implement those which damage competitors.

Why does Facebook rely on unethical and shady business practices that harm users? Facebook is harming itself. And how is Facebook, in any meaningful way, a competitor to Apple? Apple's ad's business is PEANUTS.

[kitsunesoba]

Fully agree. If anything the choice that Apple is offering its users should be made law so it’s not just an “Apple thing”. If you want to track users you should have to ask them first, and if they say no that’s the end of it.

[lotsofpulp]

I would not characterize Apple giving people the choice to not be tracked by Facebook as governing commerce.

[echelon]

If Apple can say, "Go out of business, Facebook", they're a monopoly.

Even more so if they do it with the flip of a switch instead of new and novel products.

[PKop]

If consumers choosing to not see ads destroys your business, it doesn't deserve to exist

[lotsofpulp]

I am not clear which switch Apple can flip to put Facebook out of business. I assume Apple can delete Facebook from the App Store, but that would be just as consequential to Apple as to Facebook.

Also, it would seem self evident that Apple’s ability to influence Facebook comes from having a novel product, that people like to use compared to the alternatives.

[echelon]

> Also, it would seem self evident that Apple’s ability to influence Facebook comes from having a novel product, that people like to use compared to the alternatives.

Apple controls 50+% of American computing. At this point it isn't just a "novel product". They own the American internet interface and it takes a nation state level of effort to compete. Facebook can't even keep up.

Android is a fragmented 40% and relies on advertising. Google locks it down so hard with their Play Store Services stranglehold (no YouTube/Maps/Gmail if you disobey), that there's no room for real competition to emerge and make any money doing something unique.

None of this is healthy for the world. Both companies need a hard slap from the DOJ.

[dylan604]

>Apple controls 50+% of American computing.

Wait, what? If you want to say that Apple controls 50% of mobile compute, then I might be willing to go along with that. But the blanket computing alone is laughable.

You've suddenly just ignored all of the data centers in the US that have very little Apple products seeing as Apple doesn't make a server product. Sure some niche data centers have popped up with racks full of Minis, but those are primarily for people making apps for those mobile devices mentioned earlier.

[echelon]

And to whom are those bytes being served? Who owns the edge?

[CaptainZapp]

> Apple controls 50+% of American computing.

Do you have a source for this assertion?

That Apple controls more than 50% of American computing seems, well, a bit on the high side.

[cehrlich]

If you measure it by browser market share, which is obviously not a flawless metric but the best one I can think of, Apple controls 37%.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-s...

OS market share is higher than that as some Mac users will use Chrome or Firefox, but no users of other platforms use Safari.

[scarface74]

Well fortunately because of the Epic case, now we have a real judge that says that is not the case.

[nojito]

Apple doesn’t even have a monopoly in any market they participate in.

Additionally you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who will say opt in tracking is a bad idea.

The larger argument is that the vast majority of high value companies probably should not exist today.

[soundnote]

Apple and Google together can tank just about any mobile platform they wish though, see Parler. If you're off both app stores, you'll have a stupidly hard time growing even if the demand's there in principle.

[nojito]

Right and that’s illegal.

Google and Apple if they worked together to manipulate the market, that’s grounds for fines etc.

Kicking apps off their app stores would not qualify and should not qualify.

[scarface74]

Instead of HN lawyers, there was actual a real case with a real judge that said otherwise.

[scarface74]

Parler couldn’t put up a website?

[soundnote]

Hell, Microsoft is pulling stuff with Edge now that pales in comparison to just shipping IE by default. Google, Android, same thing.

[9935c101ab17a66]

> I'm no fan of Facebook, but Apple is literally showing the world that their platform can sink trillion dollar businesses with simple policy changes.

Sink? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Furthermore, if Facebook's business model is predicated on actively harming Apple's customers (and Facebook is harming them in a multitude of ways, including this tracking), this isn't Apple's fault at all, it's Facebooks.

> When you're "America's Computer" with a 51+% entrenchment, you shouldn't be able to govern commerce. You're a common carrier at that point.

Yah, no. Apple's marketshare, even in the US, as of January is estimated to be ~33% (iOS and macOS) combined.

[CaptainZapp]

So?

Facebook is free to pull its app from the App Store if they don't like Apple's policies.

[random314]

If they don't have bread, then they should eat cake.

[scarface74]

Apple is giving the user the choice to be tracked. How will the argument work in court for FB to say that users shouldn’t be given the choice?

[benreesman]

In fairness all the FAANGs are crazy big and powerful by historical anti-trust standards.

[cute_boi]

Obviously, when people in power like pelosi holds stock of Apple and Alphabet in the name of free market, is there any incentives to regulate them?

I would say FAANG got popular and powerful because regulating them is direct conflict of interest for many politicians.

[scarface74]

It couldn’t possibly be because they create products that people wanted?

[echelon]

Nobody wants to build for iPhone or pay 30% to Apple. We build for it because that's where Americans choose to be, and if you want your software business to reach audiences, that's where you have to follow. It frankly sucks.

I don't like the fact that my code is up for review. I don't have the nanny state overseeing my web deploys.

I don't like the fact that the feedback is uneven and arbitrary.

I don't like being forced to give up my own choices for login and contact, essentially ceding my customers to Apple.

I don't like paying thirty percent for being forced to build for a platform I don't even want to be on but have to.

There should have been an open standard for native apps distributed over web. It should have been cross platform, like HTML, so we don't have to build twice or use stupid hacks to share code.

Apple builds hardware people like, but they're monsters.

[scarface74]

Guess what? I as a consumer don’t want to enter my credit card all over the place or have to jump through hoops when I want to cancel a subscription. I want to be able to use “Hide My Email” so when you have a data breach or sell my email I can cancel it. I don’t want to use your lowest common denominator crappy web app. I want to just use an app I pay for and I don’t need to have a “relationship “ with you.

[benreesman]

The whole “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” argument is pretty weak on a lot of the tech giants. Thank whoever failed to secure third-party cookies, it’s not great.

But Apple seems to be pretty squarely in the: “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” vertex.

I use Apple stuff because the cost/benefit is something I can live with.

But most of my friends and colleagues never touch the stuff: it’s desktop Linux connecting to server Linux. Usually Android phones but some people get Pine or old Nokias or whatever.

Is Apple running some Internet-wide cookie scam that I’m unaware of?

[scarface74]

So exactly what is the complaint? That Apple have users the choice whether or not to be tracked?