A case where punitive damages and court costs should be awarded to Apple for a frivolous lawsuit by FB. Utterly ludicrous, users can opt-in or out what more can this a-hole ask for?
Zuckerberg's reaction may have as much to do with Google's plans to do much the same as Apple has done and hoping to cut them off at the pass before they get there. having both major platforms restrict 3rd party Facebook's access to private user data is something they surely want to avoid.
Ah, but here’s the thing: no one is restricting Facebook from doing anything.
Zuck the Suck is going to court because he believes it is his right to take your private information without telling you about it.
If he needs to keep it a secret then he’s doing something wrong.
Zuckerberg's reaction may have as much to do with Google's plans to do much the same as Apple has done and hoping to cut them off at the pass before they get there. having both major platforms restrict 3rd party Facebook's access to private user data is something they surely want to avoid.
It seems a completely ludicrous suit, doesn't it? Unless he manages to get it heard in East Texas of course.
As Tim Cook said before he didn’t like companies making money on selling user’s information. So, he eventually takes care of it. I don’t see Zuc can win because this lawsuit will expose Facebook actually sells users’ data and that’ll make it worse.
I don’t understand what the rationale for a case like this would be - I thought the Apple changes are explicitly made opt-in or opt-out?
There has been an option to limit ad tracking since iOS 7, but it was turned off by default and was an honor system option of sorts. Developers had to sign an agreement with Apple stating their intended purposes of using the IDFA and honor that user option should the user turn it on. That agreement then held the developer accountable for any misuse.
iOS 14 changes that. There's a new tracking option...
Settings -> Privacy -> Tracking -> Allow Apps to Request to Track
When turned off, the app is automatically told "User does not wish to be tracked". When it is on, the app should request permission before using it, but currently is not forced to ask.
The next update to iOS 14, will change that the app will now be forced to ask for explicit permission to track them or not.
Because there is still a legitimate business case for having access to this ID (developers still need a way to track usage across their own apps), this option is still under an honor system of sorts. This basically forces developers to be transparent about how and why they want to track you and it gives Apple permission to police the app and developer and make sure they are honoring the user's request and penalize them if they aren't.
Zuckerberg's reaction may have as much to do with Google's plans to do much the same as Apple has done and hoping to cut them off at the pass before they get there. having both major platforms restrict 3rd party Facebook's access to private user data is something they surely want to avoid.
What you posted makes no sense since FaceBook has access to the same API as Google.
"Apple "abused its power in the smartphone market by forcing app developers to abide by App Store rules that Apple's own apps don't have to follow,"
I've heard this floated around before.... what specifically is being referred to here?
For some reason Facebook and some other developers think it is unfair for "Apple" to have unfettered access to user data and device information on Apple's devices and not grant apps the same path to access that data. The problem with that argument is that it's actually the device itself, not Apple, that has access to that data. How many times have we heard Apple say, "it all happens on device", when referring to some feature or service?
I'm pretty sure the word "Apple" is being used colloquially in this context, and even if it wasn't, your hypertechnical distinction between Apple and devices doesn't make a difference.
"Apple "abused its power in the smartphone market by forcing app developers to abide by App Store rules that Apple's own apps don't have to follow,"
I've heard this floated around before.... what specifically is being referred to here?
For some reason Facebook and some other developers think it is unfair for "Apple" to have unfettered access to user data and device information on Apple's devices and not grant apps the same path to access that data. The problem with that argument is that it's actually the device itself, not Apple, that has access to that data. How many times have we heard Apple say, "it all happens on device", when referring to some feature or service?
I'm pretty sure the word "Apple" is being used colloquially in this context, and even if it wasn't, your hypertechnical distinction between Apple and devices doesn't make a difference.
Then you’re missing the point. Here is an example that highlights the difference between an Apple device and Apple itself: if Apple allows your iPhone to keep track of your frequently visited locations so it can more quickly connect with the cell towers, that information could be stored on your device such that Apple (the corporation) has no access to it.
Zuck then says: “this isn’t fair—Apple collects your location data, we should have access to it too!”
Surely you see the difference between “Apple” having the information and your device having the information even if Zuck doesn’t.
(This is just an example—I don’t know if your phone is collecting location data for those reasons)
He's so obsessed with Apple, that he doesn’t realize, that by his constant criticism on Apple's privacy policy, he is keeping shooting in his own foot. But he is so stubborn, that he doesn’t want to see that his crying and shouting against Apple, has it as result, that more and more Facebook users are getting their eyes open and are realizing that Facebook is simply spying on them.
So, no wonder that Facebook has already lost so many customers. And this is not all. After the latest changes in its privacy policy, are now also the users of What’sApp massively running away towards Signal. But Zuckerberg is blind. He sees only Apple - his biggest nightmare.
"Apple "abused its power in the smartphone market by forcing app developers to abide by App Store rules that Apple's own apps don't have to follow,"
I've heard this floated around before.... what specifically is being referred to here?
For some reason Facebook and some other developers think it is unfair for "Apple" to have unfettered access to user data and device information on Apple's devices and not grant apps the same path to access that data. The problem with that argument is that it's actually the device itself, not Apple, that has access to that data. How many times have we heard Apple say, "it all happens on device", when referring to some feature or service?
I'm pretty sure the word "Apple" is being used colloquially in this context, and even if it wasn't, your hypertechnical distinction between Apple and devices doesn't make a difference.
Of course it makes a difference. There is a huge difference between the operating system using data to function as expected, and Apple uploading that data to their servers to use however they want. Apple doesn't do that, and they don't want 3rd party developers to do that without at least the user knowing about it.
Zuckerberg's reaction may have as much to do with Google's plans to do much the same as Apple has done and hoping to cut them off at the pass before they get there. having both major platforms restrict 3rd party Facebook's access to private user data is something they surely want to avoid.
What you posted makes no sense since FaceBook has access to the same API as Google.
He meant that Google plans to adopt similar privacy features as Facebook on Android/Chrome/ChromeOS does. So by acting against Apple, Facebook also pre-emptively discourages Google from adopting Apple's opt-in tracking stance on their own platform. Facebook doesn't care what Google does with its own apps on Apple's platforms. If anything, Facebook and Google are competitors for the same ad dollars. (If you check out Daniel Eran Dilger's esteemed history of predictions, this was once considered a good thing, and the predictions were that Facebook would ultimately win, taking Google down the drain and Android with it. Boy, some of the "we want Apple to have the same monopoly in mobile that we complained about for 20 years when Microsoft had it in PCs" was over the top towards delusional.) But Facebook doesn't want to see Google adopt Apple's feature in this area in a bid to have Android/ChromeOS hemorrage privacy-oriented market share. That would lock them out of both dominant mobile platforms and prevent them from steering their users from iOS to Android. So they are acting to keep both in play for themselves and if not that at least settle for keeping one or the other.
You might ask "why is Google going to adopt Apple's anti-ads measure when Google relies on ads?" Simple. Google has read the writing on the wall. The folks still mad at "big tech" causing Hillary Clinton's loss (read: Democrats) are now running the DOJ, FTC etc. and are definitely going to use "monopoly" as a pretext for breaking up Google and Facebook while Biden is in office before Republicans with an entirely different view of what constitutes "trust" and "monopoly" have a shot at getting back into power in 2024. It is going to happen and they have no way of preventing it, so they are positioning themselves for it now, where their search/ads business will be separated from the rest, leading to (hopefully) a search/ads business on one had and "everything else" on the other that will include Android, ChromeOS, Google Cloud Platform, Google Fiber, their hardware business and their services (Google for Business, Google Classroom, Google/Docs/Photos, YouTube etc).
Currently, the data being collected from the part of Google that everyone scapegoats for their own decisions, failures and problems - search/ads - funds everything else, essentially insulating them from market forces. This allows Google to - for example - keep their Pixel phone hardware product that no one actually buys. Now that this is going to come to an end, Google's hardware division and subscription services are actually going to need paying customers to survive, their apps and services are going to need more purchasers and subscribers etc. Google Products "may" be able to get away with selling SOME data to their search/ads division but not nearly as much as before. So they are going to have to adopt Apple's approach on privacy in order to keep people buying Android phones so they can at least continue to make money off apps and services related to the Android platform.
This is why Google went ahead with the FitBit purchase despite the DOJ holding it up hoping that Google would get frustrated and kill the deal or FitBit would attract another buyer (neither was going to happen). If the DOJ is inevitably going to rule against Google in 2023 and break them up anyway even if Google doesn't buy FitBit, what was the disincentive to keep them from doing so? Instead they will get the FitBit brand, patents, apps and software etc. to join Nest, Chromecast, Pixel etc. as a brand in the "Google Products" division that is going to get broken off from search/ads anyway.
Ironically, making Google Hardware a standalone entity will result in better hardware and strategy from that company. Their first order of business will be to fire Rick Osterloh - who the Alphabet brass keeps around precisely because he doesn't rock the boat and demand things that would actually allow the hardware business to succeed - and hire a real CEO with hardware and product design/marketing/supply chain expertise (i.e. from Microsoft Surface which has gone from a much-mocked nothing to a $10 billion business, or from Samsung, Huawei, Sony or even APPLE). And their various OS, software and hardware products will need to go from designed to be primarily sponges for data to being ... actually usable.
This is a reason why Google isn't making common cause with the likes of Facebook and Epic Games and going after Apple. They know that the Google of 2024 will be VERY DIFFERENT from the Google of today and are preparing for it ahead of time. This is in contrast with Microsoft, who back in 1998-1999 were absolutely certain that they would win their antitrust trial right up until the moment that they lost and were unprepared for it. And it was the DOJ's breakup of Microsoft that created the very conditions that facilitated the rise of Google, Chrome and Android/ChromeOS in the first place, something that Google fully knows (and Microsoft to this day resents).
He's so obsessed with Apple, that he doesn’t realize, that by his constant criticism on Apple's privacy policy, he is keeping shooting in his own foot. But he is so stubborn, that he doesn’t want to see that his crying and shouting against Apple, has it as result, that more and more Facebook users are getting their eyes open and are realizing that Facebook is simply spying on them.
So, no wonder that Facebook has already lost so many customers. And this is not all. After the latest changes in its privacy policy, are now also the users of What’sApp massively running away towards Signal. But Zuckerberg is blind. He sees only Apple - his biggest nightmare.
You do realize that since Facebook's products and services are free and not subscription-based, without being able to monetize those users with data that they can use to help advertisers create targeted ads, then retaining all those users and maintaining infrastructure for all these people that they cannot monetize is not in their interests? Anyone who would leave Facebook because they filed a lawsuit with Apple, Facebook won't miss. That person would be more likely to subscribe to Apple's services than their own anyway if Facebook is forced to adopt a subscription-based model to survive, making them "one less mouth to feed" so to speak.
Even if you fundamentally disagree with Facebook's business model - though this would require for you to acknowledge that this same model long preceded Facebook and is how network TV and all of radio have always existed for like 100 years - you do need to acknowledge that Apple's actions are severely harming it. Expecting Facebook to just silently take it without acting in its own interests makes no sense. It is also hypocritical because Apple is more than willing to do anything and everything to protect its own interests. It is just that you don't care about it because you like Apple more than you like the entities that Apple brings their heavy-handed tactics down on (even when they are IP creators and suppliers without whom Apple wouldn't be able to make the products that you like in the first place).
Apple and Facebook are fundamentally diametrically opposed here in terms of rational self-interest. Apple needs "privacy" to differentiate itself from Android and their 85% market share, Facebook needs the data in order to drive its only source of revenue. You are free to pick Apple over Facebook here, but I would bet that you have no idea about what Facebook would do for its lost revenue, or that you even care whether Facebook survives or dies anyway. If anything you would cheer it because it would mean one less competitor for iMessage. Currently Facebook Messenger and its other apps give people on multiple platforms a way to communicate with iPhone users, allowing them to avoid having to buy an iPhone just to do so. So if Facebook were to collapse and it results in a few million more iPhone sales a year as a result, a good outcome for you, right? But this isn't a good outcome for Facebook at all. I hope that the people at Facebook who oppose the lawsuit know this, and that they know that they won't ALL be able to get jobs at Apple when their current employer bites the dust.
Facebook is giving way too much credit to Apple on this. Most people could not care any less about giving away all their information, photos, etc.... and being the product themselves. The real people who care about Privacy simply are not using Facebook or other social media in the first place.
He's so obsessed with Apple, that he doesn’t realize, that by his constant criticism on Apple's privacy policy, he is keeping shooting in his own foot. But he is so stubborn, that he doesn’t want to see that his crying and shouting against Apple, has it as result, that more and more Facebook users are getting their eyes open and are realizing that Facebook is simply spying on them.
So, no wonder that Facebook has already lost so many customers. And this is not all. After the latest changes in its privacy policy, are now also the users of What’sApp massively running away towards Signal. But Zuckerberg is blind. He sees only Apple - his biggest nightmare.
You do realize that since Facebook's products and services are free and not subscription-based, without being able to monetize those users with data that they can use to help advertisers create targeted ads, then retaining all those users and maintaining infrastructure for all these people that they cannot monetize is not in their interests? Anyone who would leave Facebook because they filed a lawsuit with Apple, Facebook won't miss. That person would be more likely to subscribe to Apple's services than their own anyway if Facebook is forced to adopt a subscription-based model to survive, making them "one less mouth to feed" so to speak.
Even if you fundamentally disagree with Facebook's business model - though this would require for you to acknowledge that this same model long preceded Facebook and is how network TV and all of radio have always existed for like 100 years - you do need to acknowledge that Apple's actions are severely harming it. Expecting Facebook to just silently take it without acting in its own interests makes no sense. It is also hypocritical because Apple is more than willing to do anything and everything to protect its own interests. It is just that you don't care about it because you like Apple more than you like the entities that Apple brings their heavy-handed tactics down on (even when they are IP creators and suppliers without whom Apple wouldn't be able to make the products that you like in the first place).
Apple and Facebook are fundamentally diametrically opposed here in terms of rational self-interest. Apple needs "privacy" to differentiate itself from Android and their 85% market share, Facebook needs the data in order to drive its only source of revenue. You are free to pick Apple over Facebook here, but I would bet that you have no idea about what Facebook would do for its lost revenue, or that you even care whether Facebook survives or dies anyway. If anything you would cheer it because it would mean one less competitor for iMessage. Currently Facebook Messenger and its other apps give people on multiple platforms a way to communicate with iPhone users, allowing them to avoid having to buy an iPhone just to do so. So if Facebook were to collapse and it results in a few million more iPhone sales a year as a result, a good outcome for you, right? But this isn't a good outcome for Facebook at all. I hope that the people at Facebook who oppose the lawsuit know this, and that they know that they won't ALL be able to get jobs at Apple when their current employer bites the dust.
Uhhhhh, what?
Apple is not stopping Facebook from pursuing their business model. They are giving users the option to allow or deny tracking for any app or service. That SHOULD be the choice of the user. Facebook can then determine how their business model is impacted based on collective user choices, and think of new ways to replace revenue if necessary. You don't think users should have that choice? Be serious.
And your comparison of Facebook to a "100 years" of network TV and radio advertising is completely off the mark. Traditional TV, radio and newspaper advertising was basically un-targeted. It was the polar opposite of FB tracking targeting YOU down to your history of toenail clippings if you so posted a mention or picture of it.
Apple needs "privacy"? Ummm, users don't need "privacy"?
If FB is a meaningful and innovative company, then they will do fine. If they are not, they will fare poorly. That's FB's issue, not Apple's.
He's so obsessed with Apple, that he doesn’t realize, that by his constant criticism on Apple's privacy policy, he is keeping shooting in his own foot. But he is so stubborn, that he doesn’t want to see that his crying and shouting against Apple, has it as result, that more and more Facebook users are getting their eyes open and are realizing that Facebook is simply spying on them.
So, no wonder that Facebook has already lost so many customers. And this is not all. After the latest changes in its privacy policy, are now also the users of What’sApp massively running away towards Signal. But Zuckerberg is blind. He sees only Apple - his biggest nightmare.
You do realize that since Facebook's products and services are free and not subscription-based, without being able to monetize those users with data that they can use to help advertisers create targeted ads, then retaining all those users and maintaining infrastructure for all these people that they cannot monetize is not in their interests? Anyone who would leave Facebook because they filed a lawsuit with Apple, Facebook won't miss. That person would be more likely to subscribe to Apple's services than their own anyway if Facebook is forced to adopt a subscription-based model to survive, making them "one less mouth to feed" so to speak.
Even if you fundamentally disagree with Facebook's business model - though this would require for you to acknowledge that this same model long preceded Facebook and is how network TV and all of radio have always existed for like 100 years - you do need to acknowledge that Apple's actions are severely harming it. Expecting Facebook to just silently take it without acting in its own interests makes no sense. It is also hypocritical because Apple is more than willing to do anything and everything to protect its own interests. It is just that you don't care about it because you like Apple more than you like the entities that Apple brings their heavy-handed tactics down on (even when they are IP creators and suppliers without whom Apple wouldn't be able to make the products that you like in the first place).
Apple and Facebook are fundamentally diametrically opposed here in terms of rational self-interest. Apple needs "privacy" to differentiate itself from Android and their 85% market share, Facebook needs the data in order to drive its only source of revenue. You are free to pick Apple over Facebook here, but I would bet that you have no idea about what Facebook would do for its lost revenue, or that you even care whether Facebook survives or dies anyway. If anything you would cheer it because it would mean one less competitor for iMessage. Currently Facebook Messenger and its other apps give people on multiple platforms a way to communicate with iPhone users, allowing them to avoid having to buy an iPhone just to do so. So if Facebook were to collapse and it results in a few million more iPhone sales a year as a result, a good outcome for you, right? But this isn't a good outcome for Facebook at all. I hope that the people at Facebook who oppose the lawsuit know this, and that they know that they won't ALL be able to get jobs at Apple when their current employer bites the dust.
You do realize, that you are defending a business model, which is based on spying on the users without their knowledge or permission!
You do realize that you are saying: “I have no problem to let someone living in my home, someone who I even don’t know, and who is constantly sending information to the outside world about me, about my family and about what I am doing.”
Sorry but such a business model has not the right to exist!
Comments
It seems a completely ludicrous suit, doesn't it? Unless he manages to get it heard in East Texas of course.
There has been an option to limit ad tracking since iOS 7, but it was turned off by default and was an honor system option of sorts. Developers had to sign an agreement with Apple stating their intended purposes of using the IDFA and honor that user option should the user turn it on. That agreement then held the developer accountable for any misuse.
iOS 14 changes that. There's a new tracking option...
Settings -> Privacy -> Tracking -> Allow Apps to Request to Track
When turned off, the app is automatically told "User does not wish to be tracked". When it is on, the app should request permission before using it, but currently is not forced to ask.
The next update to iOS 14, will change that the app will now be forced to ask for explicit permission to track them or not.
Because there is still a legitimate business case for having access to this ID (developers still need a way to track usage across their own apps), this option is still under an honor system of sorts. This basically forces developers to be transparent about how and why they want to track you and it gives Apple permission to police the app and developer and make sure they are honoring the user's request and penalize them if they aren't.
Apple hasn't lost every single lawsuit it filed in the past 60 days. But maybe you measure success differently than by wins and losses.
What you posted makes no sense since FaceBook has access to the same API as Google.
I'm pretty sure the word "Apple" is being used colloquially in this context, and even if it wasn't, your hypertechnical distinction between Apple and devices doesn't make a difference.
But he is so stubborn, that he doesn’t want to see that his crying and shouting against Apple, has it as result, that more and more Facebook users are getting their eyes open and are realizing that Facebook is simply spying on them.
And this is not all.
After the latest changes in its privacy policy, are now also the users of What’sApp massively running away towards Signal.
But Zuckerberg is blind. He sees only Apple - his biggest nightmare.
Of course it makes a difference. There is a huge difference between the operating system using data to function as expected, and Apple uploading that data to their servers to use however they want. Apple doesn't do that, and they don't want 3rd party developers to do that without at least the user knowing about it.
You might ask "why is Google going to adopt Apple's anti-ads measure when Google relies on ads?" Simple. Google has read the writing on the wall. The folks still mad at "big tech" causing Hillary Clinton's loss (read: Democrats) are now running the DOJ, FTC etc. and are definitely going to use "monopoly" as a pretext for breaking up Google and Facebook while Biden is in office before Republicans with an entirely different view of what constitutes "trust" and "monopoly" have a shot at getting back into power in 2024. It is going to happen and they have no way of preventing it, so they are positioning themselves for it now, where their search/ads business will be separated from the rest, leading to (hopefully) a search/ads business on one had and "everything else" on the other that will include Android, ChromeOS, Google Cloud Platform, Google Fiber, their hardware business and their services (Google for Business, Google Classroom, Google/Docs/Photos, YouTube etc).
Currently, the data being collected from the part of Google that everyone scapegoats for their own decisions, failures and problems - search/ads - funds everything else, essentially insulating them from market forces. This allows Google to - for example - keep their Pixel phone hardware product that no one actually buys. Now that this is going to come to an end, Google's hardware division and subscription services are actually going to need paying customers to survive, their apps and services are going to need more purchasers and subscribers etc. Google Products "may" be able to get away with selling SOME data to their search/ads division but not nearly as much as before. So they are going to have to adopt Apple's approach on privacy in order to keep people buying Android phones so they can at least continue to make money off apps and services related to the Android platform.
This is why Google went ahead with the FitBit purchase despite the DOJ holding it up hoping that Google would get frustrated and kill the deal or FitBit would attract another buyer (neither was going to happen). If the DOJ is inevitably going to rule against Google in 2023 and break them up anyway even if Google doesn't buy FitBit, what was the disincentive to keep them from doing so? Instead they will get the FitBit brand, patents, apps and software etc. to join Nest, Chromecast, Pixel etc. as a brand in the "Google Products" division that is going to get broken off from search/ads anyway.
Ironically, making Google Hardware a standalone entity will result in better hardware and strategy from that company. Their first order of business will be to fire Rick Osterloh - who the Alphabet brass keeps around precisely because he doesn't rock the boat and demand things that would actually allow the hardware business to succeed - and hire a real CEO with hardware and product design/marketing/supply chain expertise (i.e. from Microsoft Surface which has gone from a much-mocked nothing to a $10 billion business, or from Samsung, Huawei, Sony or even APPLE). And their various OS, software and hardware products will need to go from designed to be primarily sponges for data to being ... actually usable.
This is a reason why Google isn't making common cause with the likes of Facebook and Epic Games and going after Apple. They know that the Google of 2024 will be VERY DIFFERENT from the Google of today and are preparing for it ahead of time. This is in contrast with Microsoft, who back in 1998-1999 were absolutely certain that they would win their antitrust trial right up until the moment that they lost and were unprepared for it. And it was the DOJ's breakup of Microsoft that created the very conditions that facilitated the rise of Google, Chrome and Android/ChromeOS in the first place, something that Google fully knows (and Microsoft to this day resents).
Even if you fundamentally disagree with Facebook's business model - though this would require for you to acknowledge that this same model long preceded Facebook and is how network TV and all of radio have always existed for like 100 years - you do need to acknowledge that Apple's actions are severely harming it. Expecting Facebook to just silently take it without acting in its own interests makes no sense. It is also hypocritical because Apple is more than willing to do anything and everything to protect its own interests. It is just that you don't care about it because you like Apple more than you like the entities that Apple brings their heavy-handed tactics down on (even when they are IP creators and suppliers without whom Apple wouldn't be able to make the products that you like in the first place).
Apple and Facebook are fundamentally diametrically opposed here in terms of rational self-interest. Apple needs "privacy" to differentiate itself from Android and their 85% market share, Facebook needs the data in order to drive its only source of revenue. You are free to pick Apple over Facebook here, but I would bet that you have no idea about what Facebook would do for its lost revenue, or that you even care whether Facebook survives or dies anyway. If anything you would cheer it because it would mean one less competitor for iMessage. Currently Facebook Messenger and its other apps give people on multiple platforms a way to communicate with iPhone users, allowing them to avoid having to buy an iPhone just to do so. So if Facebook were to collapse and it results in a few million more iPhone sales a year as a result, a good outcome for you, right? But this isn't a good outcome for Facebook at all. I hope that the people at Facebook who oppose the lawsuit know this, and that they know that they won't ALL be able to get jobs at Apple when their current employer bites the dust.
“I have no problem to let someone living in my home, someone who I even don’t know, and who is constantly sending information to the outside world about me, about my family and about what I am doing.”