This brings a smile to my face. I don't care anymore what excuses people come up for Facebook's behavior. Enough is enough and Facebook has crossed the line years ago. No remorse, no forgiveness.
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.
(2013)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
To see the differences between iOS Safari/webkit and Chrome on Android:
https://caniuse.com/#compare=ios_saf+12.0-12.1,and_chr+71
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, but the security team tries their best to keep unsigned, dynamically generated code (such as what might come out of your browser's JIT JavaScript engine) from running.
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.