Apple vs. Facebook Is Kayfabe | Hacker News Reader

Apple vs. Facebook Is Kayfabe

infrequently.org

72 pointspchristensen21 comments

I've long held that this is one of those areas that if Apple really cared about privacy they'd disallow in-app browsers. They'd add the rule that an app that is not a browser must list in its manifest 10 or fewer domains that its webview is allowed to access. All the rest would be denied.

This would mean many apps like the Facebook App, Messenger, Google Maps, GMail, Line, WeChat, Slack, Discord, etc would effectively not be allowed to open links to the entire internet but only domains directly related to the app and would be a privacy win.

They'd have to have some wording that would have to distinguish between a browser app and a non-browser app but i'd argue that's probably not that hard to do.

Couldn't Facebook just proxy external websites through their own domain?

If they cared about privacy they could also not sell search traffic to Google for billions of dollars a year. But to be fair, for billions of dollars I would stop caring about privacy too.

They sell being the default, but you can change it.

If most people changed the default, it wouldn't be worth billions.

If most people changed the default they would add steps to make it harder to change. Saying something an option is just a fig leaf if the company is allowed to tip the scales.

That's why a regulator can be effective. You can have a regulation that A has to be as easy to do as B and enforce it. Think of browser choice in on PCs in Europe or (briefly) the rule that it should be as easy to unsubscribe in the US as it is to subscribe. People have different feelings about regulations, but I think in places where everyone converges on a single platform pregulation that is protective of the individual makes sense.

Most people did change the default. Google became the number #1 search because it was better. It didnt't start as the default. Same for Chrome. Chrome is still not the default on Windows but is still #1 because people choose it.

They also know if they did that, they would get even more epic play store style lawsuits from facebook, google and more and be forced to let it happen by law, in an even worse way.

That would make reddit, bluesky, slack etc a miserable experience where you have to switch apps all the time. There’s an option to force it pop out to a browser, go set it. I bet most people don’t want to switch back and forth.

This is an iOS-specific issue, right?

There in a Safari Controller that’s isolated from the app, but it’s presented within the app. If Apple can just mandate any web browsing activity must go through Safari Controller, it would stop all this nonsense from Facebook.

reddit removed the ability to open links in an external browser by default on Android. You have to manually click the 3 dot menu and then Open In Firefox or similar to get into the full browser.

The point of the article is if you use the more modern private API, then it does sandbox the experience and pulls in user privacy preferences while still being an in app browser. There are just older APIs that respect your privacy less.

PWAs have a better experience opening external links then an in-app browser.

Then make app switching better, replace the overlong animation with a snappy transition and make returning to the original app seamless. They're loading these phones up with RAM, they should be able to support true multitasking. The UX should be as natural as alt-tabbing between apps on desktop, and could be made even more fluid with proper design. But that's clearly not a priority.

The adventure involved in disabling Facebook's in-app browser is genuinely funny to me. Some people worked hard to bury it like that.

Is it that hard believe after Apple & Google conspired to artificially suppress developer wages?

For those that weren't around a decade ago, this is a reference to Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe having conspired to not actively recruit each other's employees, for which they settled a $415 class-action lawsuit and agreed to end the prohibition.

I just saw the post surface on Mastodon with some extra [0] context [1]. As an app developer, I need to keep such stories on the sidelines of my focus because otherwise it's practically impossible to do my job. Every single claim from Apple about privacy over the years has proven to be sales theatre.

[0] https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/

[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked...

Just so I'm clear, this article's contention is that, because Apple doesn't restrict in-app browsers in the same way they do iOS Safari, they're just pretending to be mad at Facebook?

Apple has been all about contradictions, and somehow that works for them. They strategically make a big deal about things, and then when silently does what every company is doing. The impressive part is they get away with it.

For instance, everybody thinks Apple hates advertising, esp user-tracking. The interesting thing is Apple themselves run a $6B+ ads businsess, which does first-party user tracking - which is the nuance.

Similarly, if Apple truely wanted user privacy, they'll outright ban Facebook from their platform.

Or most egregious is Apple "stands up to government" (famously with FBI) but is more than happy to bend the knee to Chinese government, or most recently with the gold plaque with Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com