After apologizing thousands of times, they internally justify each of those breaches by rejecting the fault to "users" or other external factors (source: several friends working at Facebook, and reading public tweets of Facebook leaders).
The culture there is inherently anti-privacy and whoever fundamentally disagree is about to leave or has already left.
Talking to my friends who work at Apple, FB, Google, Amazon and others, facebookers are the only ones who seem to be willing to defend their leader on a personal level, as if they had a dear friend being attacked.
My other friends couldn't care less if someone criticizes or attacks Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar and so on.
The only other company I can think that behaves in the same way is Tesla with Musk (well, an Apple with Jobs in the old days), but the key difference is that most Muskians don't seem to work for Tesla, and the folks I know at Tesla aren't actually obsessed with Musk.
In the case of FB, it is the opposite.
It almost seems like a reinforcing self-selection mechanism is in place for such hero worship.
What I see from Apple, FB, and Google is too much optimism and belief in good. They arent cynical enough. "We are doing this gray area thing in a good way, and what we are doing WONT be used for bad." Its either sheer willpower of the leadership to force this culture OR its cognitive dissonance, OR its a lie and manipulative means to an end. In some way, I do believe Mark delusionally believes his "bringing the world closer together" so much so that it causes him to not think critically enough about how many people benefit from conflict and divide.
Apple takes a cynical approach to privacy, but an optimistic approach to the value of walled gardens.
Facebook takes a cynical approach to security and uptime, but an optimistic approach to evil social use. They default to "most people are good, and the few bad ones can be silenced. We can do this through AI and some eyeballs." Facebook, like many other companies is also WAY TOO OPTIMISTIC about people reading popups. People forget acknowledging something by the next day. People want to play a quiz, they are conditioned to click next next ok until they get to the quiz. Facebook vastly overestimates the majority of the populations care in knowing: is this safe to click, what are the consequences of clicking, do I know what I am doing, do i know how this works, do i care. You can honestly tell me that 99% of the world population understands what installing an SSL cert on their device actually does?
I think defending Mark amounts to people BELIEVING that the work they do WILL BE used for more good than bad. And people who distrust Facebook's competence care more about how tools can be used for bad than good. And so if you believe that youre building something that COULD be used for bad in the wrong hands (or you believe a competitor could build a more evil version first if you dont,) but believe you are the right hands to execute it in a positive way, you obviously are going to defend the leadership that vocalizes and spreads that belief among the workforce.
Apple would do good to give up a little on vendor lockin. Their turning point was iTunes being available on Windows. Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have all come to terms with making their best products run on all platforms. Homekit could be a good start. If spouses are split Apple/Anrdoid, they should both be able to manage a smarthome equally. Apple should be releasing killer apps that function fully on other platforms, but have some added benefit when run on their more integrated os.
Facebook would do good to stop believing that speech is good by default, and focus on amplifying "good" speech, instead of spending monumental effort to downrank "bad" speech. Facebook needs to let go of its cognitive dissonance, where it believes sharing twerk or fall viral videos equates people sharing their personal social experiences with close friends. Facebook may need to give up on its belief that one platform can function all as reddit/youtube and craigslist/vacationbabyphotos.
(As for google, they are way too optimistic that their org structure will support building and launching a product, and then iterating it. No one with any semblance of historical context trusts them anymore after reader/allo etc.)
Zuckerberg is indeed a good old capitalist, but one who doesn't want to be seen as a capitalist, but as a messianic savior.
That's why you create a for-profit company and call it an "Initiative" focused on "advancing human potential and promote equality".
Like you said, rotten from the top-down.
They think they can keep using an apology tour to dismiss all past misdeeds ("we have work to do"). It looks silly at this point and completely incompetent.
The people I know at Facebook have been resorting to whataboutism (everyone is doing it, look at the Google app doing the same thing, for sure Apple is also hiring market research firms who do the same thing, why aren't you concerned about AT&T/Verizon, etc etc)
See for example the ex CSO deviating the discussion to Apple privacy concerns in China:
I don't understand why FB is in hot water with the public for what they did. Users were informed that data collection was taking place and they were compensated for it. Now, was it wise on the users' part to join this program? Perhaps not, but last time I checked this is still a free country and people can sell their property for as much or as little as they want.
On NPR this morning I heard the argument that a lot of the detail of what is collected and how it is used is buried in the T&C. So what? Have we lost sight of personal responsibility? How naive are people? If you are getting something for free from a large corporation you're not getting it out the kindness of their heart. They are making money somehow. That is how the world works.
Panic, moral or otherwise, about this sort of stuff is going to push the tech industry into realm of regulatory capture. Well funded companies will be able to afford and absorb compliance costs where small bootstrapped startups, lifestyle businesses, and indie developers will be pushed out of the market.
Personal responsibility is a flag many people wave but it's a farce. That argument can be used for anything, from seatbelts, to smoking, to privacy. It is impossible for everyone to know enough to make informed choices about EVERYTHING. There is a need for societal organisations (governments, NGOs, responsible journalism) to provide guidance to the public and legal limits in order to provide protection to the whole.
If you print in large letters on every pack of cigarettes, "SMOKING KILLS" and people still choose to smoke, should a benevolent government be allowed to prevent an individual's poor choice?
Right now, we allow the sale of cigarettes and prohibit the sale of raw milk.
Don't you see any room for personal responsibility? None?
And "any room for personal responsibility"? There are plenty of domains of behavior that aren't regulated; there's a whole world of choices individuals are responsible for alone.
Various forms of regulation regarding smoking, seat belts, and yes, even raw milk are all working in areas where limited human capacity for evaluating risk meets deadly consequences. Privacy is arguably different since it's unlikely to be directly deadly, but it does meet risk evaluation limits and adds in that incentives of 3rd parties are against individual incentives, and many of those 3rd parties have incredible resources available to them in order to obscure behavior and subvert protections. A collective response is a reasonable one.
What do you think would be the proper response to a store selling cigarettes to 13-year-olds as long as they had a parent's signature? I think we'd still step in and stop them. The government can even revoke their license to sell tobacco to anyone in that case.
There's no "personal responsibility" at issue here. Our society has decided that 13-year-olds aren't old enough to give consent. I suspect there would have been less outcry, and for a different reason, had everyone involved in this issue been above the age of majority.
The consequences of privacy violations are much more nuanced; most people don't understand how data they enter onto a website will be used. And it's clear a lot of those companies want to continue to keep people in the dark about it, because it would likely freak them out.
1. Parents need to monitor their child's Internet and phone activity. Why is it FB's responsibility to do that for them?
2. Smoking, seatbelts, and privacy are all personal choices that people should be able to make for themselves. You don't need to know that much to make an informed choice. It's called common sense and it is something that is disappearing and with it so are our rights.
> Smoking, seatbelts, and privacy are all personal choices that people should be able to make for themselves.
There is a legal minimum age for purchasing cigarettes. Most states have laws requiring the use of seatbelts. So why shouldn’t some power, be it governmental or corporate, push people towards protecting their privacy?
If you’re going to cherrypick counterexamples to the idea that people can think things through and make the right decision for themselves maybe try picking, ya know, counterexamples?
If I let you monitor all of my internet activity then no big deal. There are no society wide consequences from this. If a company the size of Facebook can do this then there are society wide consequences. Some of those consequences are good and some are bad. We need to mitigate the bad consequences. This is analogous to the mortgage industry problems back in 2008. If I make a bad loan to you no big deal. But if I make millions of bad loans that can wreck the entire economy then there’s a problem that society ought to mitigate against.
I wish I knew this for air pollution as well, as I didn't care about it, and now I'm feeling the consequences every day.
Just the fact that smoking can lead to cancer is a recent development that improved the lives of so many people, it's statistically significant in the average life expectancy of the human race. But to get here it took fight from many researchers, regulators and non-profit organizations. This has nothing to do with common sense.
One more thing: have you seen the video of the child who's smoking at 2? Is he doing it because he's lacking common sense?
The app was targeting 13 to 35 year olds. People under 18 has to get parental permission which was literally just selecting a box.
The $20 of free money is a big deal for a kid and they might not have the best idea of what they're giving away with agreeing to this.
It's a really scummy move and possibly illegal to target kids like this.
if FB had paid, say, $2000 a month instead of $20, the users would have been angry at Apple for forcing such a program to stop. FB would look like a force for good.
instead, FB cheaped out.
I believe the amount was a way of treading a fine line between being a significant amount for the targeted audience, but not too much to attract too many people.
They should've just targeted 18+
How can you blame this on personal responsibility when you need a law degree to understand the terms and conditions? Like many here I am intelligent and educated and I have an extremely difficult time understanding the legalese the T&C are written in. The average person would have an even harder time if they bothered to read it at all. Some lawyers have spoken out that they have a hard time understanding these agreements.
I would argue that there is no way any reasonable person would think the users were properly informed. You can't be properly informed when you have little to no chance of understanding what you're agreeing to without at least one lawyer.
This is a big part of why they're in hot water.
>Perhaps not, but last time I checked this is still a free country and people can sell their property for as much or as little as they want.
OK, this is completely off topic, but I just came across an interesting fact about children and consent.
For most medical procedures in most states, a minor needs parental consent. But suppose the parent themselves is also a minor?
In 30 states that minor parent can consent for their child, even though they would not be able to consent for the same procedure for themselves!
In the other 20 states what would happen is unclear, as this is covered neither be policy or case law.
> In 30 states that minor parent can consent for their child, even though they would not be able to consent for the same procedure for themselves!
That's definitely the awkward part!
Someone from BBC showed just how much of a joke this consent form is anyway:
We can argue about this particular instance, but I think your argument is pretty flawed; it seems to imply that if I agree to a deal with a company, I can't be upset about ANYTHING slipped into the T&C. It really depends on what it is.
Yes, these people expected to trade some information for money, but it isn't naive of them to expect some reasonable limits to what they were collecting.
People don't read T&C, and they don't like having companies spy on them like this. If companies won't be up front about their data collection (and burying the notice in a T&C isn't being up front) they'll just have to suffer the consequences when people find out.
There are limits to what is reasonable in these sorts of deals, and if you are asking for something that most people would think is unreasonable, you better make it very clear when someone is signing up. You can't bury it in the T&C.
For example: One of the persons that they were closely monitoring decides to harm themselves or others in a somewhat 'newsworthy' way. Think the plethora of young people with access to certain classes of firearms. A contrived set of circumstances could exist where that young person could have been stopped by the monitors at FB, yet was allowed to continue all the same, through the sheer stupidity/negligence of FB. Though this is only one scenario, there exist many others; I think anyone can come up with at least a dozen in under an hour.
Yes, the T&Cs 'cover' their asses in these events (morality be damned), but there are loopholes upon loopholes that can be quickly found when the camera crews start swarming and saying 'oh, but the kiddos!'.
Whatever legal counsel is at FB these days is too cavalier; they may be thinking that they can just throw a firm's worth of lawyers at any problem and bankrupt the opposing party. This is a very grave mistake. I suspect that any competent/moral lawyers have up and left by now, leaving only the amoral/incompetent attorneys that are just fine suckling off of FB. The evaporative effect is in full force at FB now (the Elves have left Middle Earth ).
Implying that individual people can keep up with legalese written in an intentionally misleading way by teams of lawyers is crazy. Especially when seemingly every single company and sale is treated like that.
It is effectively impossible for an average person to understand every agreement you need to make to be part of modern society, and that is by design of the companies
This is correct, and when you figure out a way for people to sell only their data to FB/whoever, I will be right onboard, but while companies like FB are sucking in as much data about me as they can, in ways I can't control, I will have to disagree with you strongly.
> If you are getting something for free from a large corporation you're not getting it out the kindness of their heart. They are making money somehow.
Facebook always lead with how they're a "community". They make their money from ads. But that never leads. Facebook isn't sold as a place where you see ads - it's a place where you "connect with friends." There's a sophisticated business that 13 year olds might not inherently understand.
Yes. FB have.
They were happy to violate the terms of Apple's enterprise development program. Yet another display of disrespect. So how can the public trust Facebook with their data?
It’s gotten to the point where I start to ask myself - if you work or Facebook, are you a good person? My personal opinion is that you might be, but you are likely are not.
The truth is that Facebook wouldn't be able to get away with a lot this if they didn't have an incredibly talented engineering division. And even though most individuals aren't making these terrible decisions, they definitely support them through their work.
If Facebook becomes an unattractive destination due to the social cost of working there, that might bring about change.
How do you know this? Facebook invested well over a hundred million dollars into this particular app, I would have to hear some very compelling arguments to see this episode as "misconduct of individual employees".
That being said I agree with the stance on thinking before doing, it's just that I don't believe that Facebooks operational conduct is rooted in individual employees, but rather in their company culture, values and leadership.
Imagine a world where people knew that having Facebook or SCO or Palantir on your resume meant automatic rejection by any company subscribing to the code of conduct. Unethical companies would face huge pressure from their own workforce to clean up their act.
“If you vote for Trump, it doesn’t mean that you’re not a good person, but it does mean that someone being a bad person isn’t a deal breaker for your support”
I think that sentence could start off with “If you work for Zuck...” just as well.
Or the person goes even further, and doesn't believe the puritan tenet that "good person == good politician". There were excellent politicians that were bad in their behavior, and vice versa.
E.g. the person might care more about not encouraging a hawkish member of the establishment, that continued to beat the drum of American supremacy and threatened even more wars and tension coming on (e.g. with Iran) -- compared to merely voting someone who is e.g. sexist (as if that matters for the kind of decisions a President takes).
In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
Yeah, it doesn't matter. Worse case you get more male justices. What do you really expect will happen? Some justice will be unpointed which will undo women's voting rights or equality laws?
>In fact, the Supreme Court invalidates your entrie argument, because guess what: I want people I think are “good people” to be in charge of interpreting the constitution. I think everybody can agree with that.
Well, I don't agree with that. I would not care less if one of my "constitutional interpreters" drinks, takes cocaine, or has extra marital affairs for example. I only care that the direction they take the law is good. There have been legendary lawmakers and politicians that had all kinds of personal vices.
Then again, I'm not American, so I don't have the puritan trait. You guys managed to have a problem with the personal life of MLK too. Nobody in Europe would even think to ask such a BS question:
And I don’t care what they do in their personal life either. I care about how those things will effect they laws the pass: if someone drinks and does cocaine and has extramarital affairs, but doesn’t fuck over women/minorities, I’m all for them. If someone does the opposite, I’m against them.
Considering that the President has an powerful role in all federal legislation, an even more powerful role in federal regulation, and can appoint like minded people to a variety of positions (including, but not limited to, the federal judiciary) that have extensive influence and whose terms extend beyond his own, yeah, bigotry—whether based in gender, race, religion, or whatever else—in that office matters quite a bit.
I know good people working for Facebook, but it does make me think "After everything you know about Facebook, the fact you would still work there, makes me respect you a lot less"
"If you vote for Trump and know he's bad..."
"...it does mean that the possibility of someone being a bad person..."
Not quite the same, eh?
I wonder if Apple has done a tremendous favor to web applications because in hindsight letting Apple (or any of these companies) have a company-wide on/off switch for your own apps like that is a bad idea.
But they use the enterprise certificate for their external “research” apps, because they are doing things on the device (using internal APIs) that an approved app is not permitted to do, and that is certainly not possible through the web browser.
Of course their internal-use apps could be WebView almost certainly.
I don't expect Facebook to get a whole lot of sympathy, but really, Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous.
Makes you wonder who really owns the phone?
FB can still side load apps all they want, they just can't do it on an enterprise scale like they currently do because they've abused their enterprise agreement.
This is not different than abusing (say) Microsofts MSSQL to host on a 10,000 core machine when you have a 2 core license.
"Who really owns the phone" is a misnomer, because you've licensed the OS. The physical hardware is of course yours but the OS remains property of Apple, your data remains the property of you. This is especially clear if you take the time to read the EULA. (Although EULA's have questionable legality in many parts of the world)
The enterprise cert program and associated software and infrastructure allows efficient internal side-loading under specific licensing conditions. If you break the license you don’t get to keeping using the product just because you bought the hardware that that licensed software happens to run on!
Facebook clearly abused the distribution system here.
It broke the agreement they made with Apple to get the key and as such Apple revoked the key. It seems very cut and dry to me.
Except the enterprise distribution which is what Facebook fucked up by breaking the rules. You have to try really hard to get that revoked, Facebook did and now they're in a tough spot. This is fine.
When someone is wrong, post correct information so we all can learn, or simply don't post.
But yeah, it does still make you wonder...
It's a feature I appreciate. Malware is a serious problem and one I'd rather not deal with on my phone.
And I appreciate that they provide that service and happily pay premium for it.
But I'd still like a way to load apps that they don't approve.
And being a former iPhone dev, they really didn't vet much of anything, it was mostly what the employee was feeling that day that got your app accepted or not. This was back in 2013 or so, so things may have changed, but it really was a coin flip...
I don't understand why people keep bringing up this point.
Yes, it's your phone but it's not your app store. One can use an iPhone without ever opening the app store.
It's a feature.
Another option is TestFlight, but for devices that aren't registered (so-called "external beta") the app has to go through some App Store review.
I guess then they'll have to beg for forgiveness or just spin the native apps into web apps. I feel sorry for their Enterprise Engineering team!
Without going through Apple at all, the only option is jailbreaking, to bypass the signing check. No one's figured out (publicly) how to jailbreak the last two major versions, though, as far as I know (there were some jailbreaks that worked for iOS 11 betas).
Another option still involves getting a cert from Apple, but it's free. You just need to create an Apple ID. The limitation here is that you have to re-install the app (IIRC) every seven days.
Facebook are really the Oracle of the "social" tech companies. They are not even pretending to be good or follow rules. As long as cash / clicks / impressions keep coming in nothing is off the table.
Google is struggling with its positive PR image, every time they fall short they are judged by the "Don't be evil" motto and everything it entailed. Facebook doesn't have to worry about such details and it's easier for them in a way. Their shares are going up as we saw recently, CA scandal didn't do much damage, everything is great.
> “We designed our Enterprise Developer Program solely for the internal distribution of apps within an organisation.
Watch them pivot to "these researchers are part of the Facebook family, so their network device are considered part of the internal network's edge, we did nothing wrong".
People are really starting to hate Facebook these days, and your guys' attitude doesn't seem to be changing much because of it. I, for one, LOVE this, because it means by the time you do recognize your sliding favor among customers, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. You will become the new Myspace, which is exactly what you deserve to be.
If you don't work for Facebook, then none of the above applies to you.
[EDIT:] the parent comment was deleted. The comment stated something to the effect of "It wasn't a big deal, it didn't affect our workflows or production applications."
I completely understand now what my friends at Uber were saying about the Internet hivemind and especially the HN hivemind.
Journalists routinely manipulate their stories to tell the story they want to tell, and right now it’s “Facebook is evil.” You are entitled to your opinion but nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. In a large company there will always be bad apples but to paint an entire company as somehow being a conspiracy is frankly mind boggling.
I would love to turn the mirror on all the haters and see how their lives would be if journalists reported manipulated facts on the worst moments of their lives.
This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, but there are relatively few cases where there is near-universal agreement of what is or is not ethical (i.e. "ethical" is a value judgment); that's why ethics courses teach methods and structures to argue one way or the other.
Your particular case is, I am fairly sure, not one of those "universal agreement" cases. I don't know what exactly you do at Facebook, but a number of people conclude that some or large parts of Facebooks operation are unethical.
Additionally, individual conduct in a larger system is generally not pertinent to the outcome of said larger system. An usual example is people in the Manhattan project not knowing that they are working towards offensive nuclear weapons, and of course various examples related to Nazis, but that may not be the best example when you (the recipient) seem to be trapped in a world of absolute ethics.
Yes, that makes an awful lot of other companies—not just tech-first companies—pretty damn evil, too. "Everyone's doing it" and "it's not illegal and is making us money" aren't defenses I accept for this disgusting behavior.
[EDIT] that said, piling on people for working at evil companies is probably unproductive and unfair for many of the same reasons that e.g. boycotts are wildly ineffective, plus such a large percentage of the economy's kinda-evil that the whole thing would get confusing and nasty and kinda pointless. Piling on someone for being delusional about whether their employer is evil, though... well, that's an awful lot less unfair.
Don't you see? Everyone who turned out to be evil in the end would have said and felt the exact same way while they were actually doing their evil. People and corporations do the things they do because they feel they have the right to do those things, and that they are justified in doing those things, in virtually all cases. That is the case for people and corporations who, in hindsight, did lots of evil and unethical things as well.
In the future that may very well include Facebook. And every last Facebook employee will claim that they had no idea what was going on, and/or that they weren't a part of the "evil side" of Facebook, or whatever they have to say to themselves to maintain the illusion that they did nothing wrong.
Your actions alone are not what decide if what you are doing is immoral. If you are in the armed services and you assemble or maintain weaponry designed to kill people (as I did in the US Air Force) then that work is arguably evil and immoral. I feel that what I did was immoral, and at the time I would have laughed at anyone that said turning a torque wrench is immoral. I was doing my job. I was tightening bolts to 100 in/lb and I was putting guidance systems onto test equipment to make sure they worked. I was making sure that those devices would kill when someone set them loose. I definitely did not believe that I was doing anything wrong at the time, and I definitely believe that I was in the wrong today, depending on how those weapons are or will be used. If they are used to sate some evil maniac like our current president then I did immoral work. If they are used to keep peace, then I did not. Weapons are rarely used to keep peace, however. Grenades are not peacekeeping weapons. Scatter bombs are not peacekeeping weapons.
Facebook spying on children without consent is not a justifiable action. Facebook working around the language of their agreement with Apple in order to do something forbidden by that agreement is not a justifiable action.
Could you point to something that was reported in the main-stream press about a Facebook incident that was untrue?
This comment goes for everybody.
It’s going to be hard for me to take this seriously on a website where the traditional way to read WSJ and NYT articles is by using services that violate the newspaper ToS. It just sounds like pseudo-sanctimony.
The guidelines also ask you not to snark on HN. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.
Find a way to have a serious objective talk with the greater community on the extraordinarily global reaching issues of the impact of Silicon Valley on society, community, culture as a whole.
Look at what we have to just emerge in the last 1.5 decades alone from "unicorns" in silicon valley:
* US policy seemingly being set/disrupted via twitter
* Mental health studies coming out on the negative impact of Facebook
* Election manipulation through ad-powered platforms such as Google and FB
* Massive cultural dialogue and political revolutions being fueled through twitter
* Assassinations being corroborated through Apple an watch
* Global spying and surveillance conducted through all our connected technology
Just to name a few of the globally impactful issues of our day which directly stem from the efforts of Silicon Valley in specific and the tech industry in general.
As the preeminent VC company in the minds of any young entrepreneur who wants to build the Next Big Thing, I would pose that YC actually has a social responsibility to, at a minimum, foster a conversation on these issues in a meaningful, serious and deep manner.
What are the consequences of MASSIVE success of a company?
If you just ignore all the evil things Facebook did. The moral of the story is don't relies on a non-free computer and OS.
Facebook really shot themselves in the foot.
Second, it illustrates the folly behind relying on the continued good will of a 3rd party offering an essentially (or very nearly) free service. If Facebook was licensing EDCs for millions a year, this ban might not have been the first reaction Apple took.
Why would Facebook do this, and how?
They violated the terms of the agreement, and therefore the have lost access. They also probably violated the terms of the app store as a whole, but who knows.
Whether or not one should have to be part of that program to install Enterprise apps is a different issue.
I'd suggest getting a Pixel or other Android device if Apple's privacy stance bothers you. They will act on behalf of the consumer, regardless if you feel like "but it's my phone!".
Yes, it's your phone. But not your app store. You can use your iPhone perfectly well without ever having opened the app store.
The business model of FB and Google deviates from Apple in a major way, with Apple you give the money and get the service. With Google and FB, you get the service and the cost is added to the stuff you buy. It's not necessarily even a price increase, maybe it's just directing the money from the billboard owners to the technologists.
I don't see how FB or Google can lose unless someone in power(like a politician or an activist businessman) makes it stop despite the popular opinion. The fight between advertisers is vicious and FB doesn't look like afraid of getting its hands dirty.
For someone somewhere "evil" Apple screwed up their entertainment on that FB app which just gives away free stuff and even pays you to use their VPN.
I mostly agree but to be fair with Apple you rent the service. They dictate what you are allowed to install on your phone, only after they deem it suitable.
Apple doesn't dictate what you can install on your phone, you can install whatever you want using the developer tools.
What Apple dictates is what people can distribute on their App Store.
For the rest of us, for the low low price of $100 to join the developer program plus $1000 for a Mac, we can get the ability to install software that we can build, which more-or-less precludes sideloading as an option for commercial software.
So, for all practical purposes, yes, Apple does dictate what you can install on their phone. The question is really whether you think that that's a feature or a misfeature.
These are vastly different things. You own your phone and you can do whatever you want with it. It's just that you can't use Apple's distribution channels to spread you code.
Theoretically you could bypass everything by replacing the OS, except that you can't replace the OS without yet another key that Apple isn't sharing with anyone.
People who develop apps do it everyday many times because they need to run their code on devices. You don't ask apple for permission every time you press the build button.
That does mean Apple has a nonzero amount of control over that channel, too.
Do you want to make holes? Then you buy a drill.
I'm not hating on them. I'm just advocating a realistic perspective on the situation. iOS is a walled garden. That some people (myself included) see that as a net positive doesn't make it not one.
That other person gives you the sourcecode, you compile it an install it on your device.
Oh BTW, you don't have to pay for dev account anymore if you don't intend to distribute your app.
There you have it. They can make the stuff opensource, put it on GitHub and let people install themeslves.
This is Apple controlling the distribution, it's not about controlling what's installed on the devices.
People can install the spyware freely.
That's the unfortunate status quo. But it would absolutely be possible to legislate Apple (and Google Play Services - grey area) to allow 3rd party stores/apps.
To see the differences between iOS Safari/webkit and Chrome on Android:
I haven't had an Android phone in almost a decade using just iPhones. iOS's web browser game is actually the most frustrating part about Apple's walled garden for me.
Not really; you're basically limited to WebKit if you want acceptable performance.
It's your code and it will run as fast as you make it, you can't expect Apple to make your code as good as WebKit.
No one forced you to use Facebook. Look, I don’t use FB, and I don’t particular respect Mark or Sheryl, but the daily barrage of anti tech posts crapping on FB, Apple, or Amazon are turning this place into armchairs experts and politicians all pretending to be on some moral high ground when their own employers are likely just as greed driven.
We need comprehensive regulation IMO. What that should look like, I’m not qualified to say. Regardless, it’s sad to see hacker news morph into Reddit.
I'd be comfortable calling that a line that got crossed
I’m not defending them as a company. I do think the rest of the media is just as horrible and would seize a similar opportunity if given the chance.
We are in dire need of regulation here.
In many cases internet regulation, especially the sort that would curb data misuse, is a scarier line to cross.
Who cares? It is well known that the legal system trails technology by at least a decade. Therefore, it should be clear that we are discussing a line of an ethical nature, not a legal one.
It's easier to see with Experian because people pretty much never actually use their credit report actively but rather monitor it to know what the actual users will see about them. It's a metric about you rather than a metric for you. Same basic schema applies to the advertiser profile Facebook builds. They've just built a facade to get you to give them a lot of info willingly (in the case of users).
These are kind of opposite cases, aren't they?
With Facebook, their actual customers are people who want to have a relationship with you.
With Experian, their actual customers are people who you want to have a relationship with.
Just because you don't use Facebook doesn't mean that some other company isn't doing the same thing with your data, you just probably haven't heard of it.
2) Why do developers tolerate a platform that doesn't allow developers to deploy apps wherever they want?
That's so dumb that it's actually funny.
Let’s make our internal systems depend on the good will of an outside company that is marginaly a competitor.
The worse part is there has to be someone that KNEW they where in violation.
FB seems to have a culture of is okay to be scum if we get what we need since we can always just say sorry.
Given the timeline outlined in the TechCrunch article it seems practically certain to me that they intentionally used the Apple EDP infrastructure to circumvent Apple's ban on literally the same app.
What's the alternative for internal-only apps?
Apple, the maker of the hardware, is also a stakeholder in users’ privacy. They are not obligated to assist Facebook in the undermining of users’ privacy. If their stance on privacy does not meet Facebook’s requirements, Facebook is free to develop their own phone to run their own apps.
So they probably did it in order to move fast. . . and then they broke things.
Also, why even offer accounts if you just shadowban everybody? It's gay. Ycombinator is gay.
We review the comments that get killed that way, unkill the good ones, and mark accounts legit when it's clear they're posting in good faith.
Employees could just switch to Android if they are worried about Apple killing their apps.
When I worked there we all had to use the internal fb and IG apps and do all communication through them.
Switching to android would mean a huge IT change and mean replacing every employees phone.
Huh? Employees are given a choice of iPhone or Android; the full infrastructure stack already exists for both, internal apps are built and deployed for both. I'm pretty sure that IT could switch the whole company to Android overnight if they had the hardware in stock...