You can argue that maybe it's unfair to FB, but you know what's even more unfair? Consumers being caught in the middle of a fight between Apple and FB. Consumers being manipulated so big tech corp A can try and force a behavior change by big tech corp B by pissing off its customers.
At the end of the day it's a phone that you call people on. Let the people who have purchased that phone be.
In fact, this becomes even less so, because by having acquired enough market power that they can dictate terms to just about everyone through controlling a marketplace, this triggers additional safeguards against misuse of that power, and in particular, safeguards against misleading the consumer about their options.
It is not unlawful to acquire market power, but abusing it is a path to billion dollar fines.
IOW, you can't point to the consumer protections that they're breaking.
Thank you for admitting it.
Another function of Apple's rules is to protect the consumer from bad behavior by apps that lead the customer off-app to other payment flows for abusive services not under Apple's review.
If a company wants to do this, and the consumer wants to fall for it, that's between the company and the consumer. But if they promote it and lead the customer to it using wording and other elements situated on Apple's curated app platform, Apple becomes responsible for having allowed it, and it both hurts the consumer, so they are not protected, and taints the experience on the Apple device.
This built in consumer protection is part of why Apple has a reputation as having good user experience. By keeping the rules in place, Apple helps maintain the valuable reputation it has earned for having good user experience which includes, as a vital part, this consumer protection.
if you are native born, it is not trivial to renounce your citizenry nor to become a citizen in another country. Even before taking travel to that other country into account. you also don't really opt into native citizenry since you have no control of who or where you are born into.
Regardless of my personal thoughts on this article, this is a strange comparison to make.
This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. It's irrelevant to the consumers, what they pay doesn't change.
This actually happens in Australia. Because AmEx charges an extra 1.75% to businesses, stores display a warning at checkout that using an AmEx card will incur an extra fee of 1.75%.
Edit: Here's an example graphic from the Australian Government website, explaining that it's illegal for a business to charge more than what it costs them:
https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharg...
I understand your point, but it's not applicable here.
If not then what you just said is bullshit.
Sure, it doesn't change how much it ends costing me, but I get a better idea of the costs associated.
But we both know they won't, so instead they're trying to put pressure on Apple's customers to force Apple to allow them to do what they want.
And the funny thing is that Apple is actually the one thinking about the customers. The recent privacy changes is what prompted this. It's literally two tech companies fighting.
It boggles my mind that people think FB has some moral or ethical upper hand here.
At some point Apple and google will have full control of all access to the web and content.
Other stuff will be more like what we think of as the dark web now
But this is irrelevant to the current topic.
This is not a binary thing. It's not like you either have the information or not. It's more like you either have little or no information, satisfying level of information or it can even be an overwhelmingly detailed amount of information. Depending on how much and of what kind of quality of info you have, you can have varying level of leverage. So in effect and by definition that info is not irrelevant.
I don't get an itemized list of all the vendors the restaurant had to pay in order to bring me my meal, I just get a bill for the cost of the food.
It's only complicated if you make it complicated, which you kind of have to do in order to rationalize the belief that FB is being wronged here.
Yes, that's how it is. And you are the proof of it.
this is certainly no longer the case
That seems like a strange use for a phone...
Non-Sequitur if I've ever seen one.
The main gist is that FB is trying to use their customers to bring force to bear on Apple so they can make more money. They don't give a shit about the customers.
And the customers aren't paying more money. Some of us can disagree with Apple's approach to their walled garden without thinking that means FB should be empathized with here.
They're both shitty company's in their own way, but at least Apple isn't putting its customers in the middle of their fight.
THAT was the main gist of my comment, and what no one wanted to actually address.
In fact, I'd argue the phone aspect argues against what you're trying to say here. That you don't actually need to be able to see and respond to email immediately so having a phone is a moot point there.