I don't see why Apple couldn't take down _all_ Facebook apps until they comply. It seems like Apple has the real power here.
I can bet this is the LAST thing they want to see in the headlines. It forces them to address it, maybe they have a plan ready to go for this eventuality, a whole PR push and I kind of hope they do. If they don't they either look weak on privacy or have to roll out some half-baked plan/proposal/nebulous idea on how to protect users privacy better in iOS 13 or something like that.
Right now Apple is doing a whole hell of a lot of taking out of both sides of it's mouth and I understand it's a hard line to walk, I'm not saying I could do it better. FB's practices in general are probably an affront to Apple in general but skirting Apple's limitations to piss all over privacy and essentially turn an iPhone into an Android-level of data collection, I can imagine Apple is PISSED. I just really hope they had something planned for this day.
Enterprise developer accounts (the ones that can issue apps signed such that they can be sideloaded on any device) aren't something just anyone can go online and sign up for-- they require manual approval with proof of a business's identity before they're created.
So, unless Facebook starts opening well-disguised shell companies or something along those lines to circumvent any restrictions Apple might put on them, this will be over as soon as Apple revokes Facebook's enterprise distribution account. (Or, more likely, threatens Facebook into dropping the VPN app, because FB probably doesn't want to lose the ability to distribute legitimate internal-use apps to their employees.)
It's my understanding that faking these business identities is the entire business model of iOS sideloaded services (see the subreddit for examples [0]) so I don't think it's that difficult to do. That said, I'd be shocked if Apple let them go that far as to keep spinning out fake businesses but then again if FB thinks it can get away with it what's stopping them?
Good call.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebook...
> Apple says. "Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data.”
Apple could block all updates to Facebook's apps until Facebook complies with their policies. That would get Facebook's attention in a way that wouldn't alienate Apple's users.
Facebook needs mobile, which means they need Apple more than Apple needs them.
1. Ban all accounts that were publishing this "VPN" (I assume FB didn't use it's main account for any of this, if they did leave that account alone and ban the others)
2. Block updates to FB for some period of time if they try to open new accounts and get caught
3. Delete FB Apps from App Store
4. Delete FB Apps from iOS devices
Is that actually true? Last time I checked iPhone only had a 20% market share. People buy phones, including iPhones, to do stuff with them. What Facebook provides is the stuff a huge part of the users want to do with their phone.
Imagine iPhone users can no longer WhatsApp/FB-messanger with their Android using friends. How many people will think twice before buying an iPhone again? Facebook screws with privacy the users don't care about (yes, the average user doesn't give a shit, especially if he gets paid), while Apple would screw with the users apps, which they care about a lot! Apple is in the disadvantage here. Especially since their whole business model is a better user experience for overpriced hardware.
> Is that actually true? Last time I checked iPhone only had a 20% market share.
But it's a relatively premium market segment that Facebook can't afford to lose. If they cede it, they're taking a serious risk that a serious competitor could emerge on the platform that turns them into the next MySpace. That 20% could pull the rest of the market its way, since whatever they migrate to would likely be available on all platforms.
This isn't a far-fetched idea. It's basically what Facebook did with it's initial rollout exclusively to the Ivy League schools.
> Imagine iPhone users can no longer WhatsApp/FB-messanger with their Android using friends. How many people will think twice before buying an iPhone again?
That might have been true five years ago, but Facebook's products are much less compelling now, for a whole host of reasons. Cross-platform replacements would quickly emerge to fill the niches Facebook was driven out of. Many people would get mad about not having Facebook on their phone, but most of them would get over it. But others are already primed to abandon Facebook, they're just waiting for a push.
> Apple is in the disadvantage here.
No, Facebook is, since their dominance of social netoworking is so tenuous that they need to convince people to use spy-VPNs to stay on top of emerging competitors.
For messaging, one could argue that it already exists: Signal (which has already benefited from FB’s announcement that they collect WhatsApp)
It might actually get ordinary users interested in making it so Apple doesn't have total control of what can be installed on the phones they purchased. They won't see all the philosophy behind it that people in the free software community do, but it would point them in the right direction.
Say, FB wants to get your location, even though FB has location permissions a pop up says "Facebook is attempting to find your location. Do you consent to sending your location to Facbook?" "Facebook is attempting to read the Names, Telephone Numbers and Addresses of everybody in your contact list. Do you consent to this?" every time facebook app makes the request?
I'd be a bad user experience, but Apple could say it cares about privacy and blame facebook.
It would be an interesting twist of irony if they did take them down and there was a massive backlash against Apple. I have a sneaking suspicion that the media and Twitterati are more up in arms about all this than the users themselves.
On top of this you can add the fact that they basically shipped renamed onavo code, which was already banned from the app store, so this is de facto a violation of Apple's rules.
It's in the long term interest of Apple to not be soft on this stuff, it's not symbiotic.
And you'd be wrong.
> How can they claim to take privacy seriously if it’s clearly possible for bad actors to get around the rules multiple times!
That's BS. You might as well say: "how can they claim to take security seriously, if it's clearly possible for bad actors to find exploitable bugs in their products multiple times!"
Apple has a tough job, and it won't do it perfectly because no one can. It's bizarre to claim that it's excellent but not perfect performance somehow makes it guilty of the things it's trying to stop.
The device belongs to the user. It is fully within the user's legal right to install apps on their phone, even if Apple disgrees with those apps.
It is instead how the law works.
Apple tried, and failed, to sue people for doing things with the phones that were legally purchased by the individual.
If you install something Apple doesn't like, it is your full legal right to do so. The courts proved this.
If someone ones the phone, it is within their full legal right to do whatever they want with it. No extra fee necessary.
Block 3rd party cookies, install an adblocker and delete the cookies when you are done with FB/Instagram.
I suspect there's been enough revelations about FB practices that many users would support Apple if they blocked the main apps. For a temporary block anyway.
Most of the general population probably neither understands nor cares that much if someone is watching what sites they visit or other basic privacy items and if you make them choose between privacy (especially privacy of others) and being able to post a picture of their lunch, many will choose the latter.
“My phone is listening to my conversations” is how it goes - people know this tracking is happening, they hate it and find it intensely creepy, they just don’t know the mechanism being used.
Disabling an app would be very noticeable and would anger many people.
Ummm, then those people don't have to side load an app that sells your data for money.
No iPhone user could use any Facebook apps, anywhere in the world, which would make this story front page on every newspaper. Business could no longer manage their ads spots or use iOS devices for social media. They will likely be shocked at the unwarranted disruption, rightly blame Facebook for it, and cut their spend on ads. Both PR departments would be working full steam on a war of worlds, disrupting all other work. Numerous suits would be filed. Meanwhile, Facebook stock would crash, leading to numerous investor lawsuits, especially since Facebook clearly risked this by blatantly violating contracts. Institutional investors will cut losses and pull out, further driving the price down.
I'd love to see it happen. But Apple doesn't want to, and honestly can't be expected to, pull the nuclear option just as a punishment for this. They would incur massive PR and legal expenses in response.
They could slow walk updates as they do unusually thorough privacy audits, and perhaps even apply extra access restrictions (e.g. skewing location, forbid use of certain permissions, etc).