Apple sells you a phone at the beginning, but after that they sell access to your wallet. They take 30% for the privilege of charging you money, ruthlessly enforced to the point where you're not even allowed to run anyone else's native code on your own phone without Apple's prior approval. For your own protection of course, and conveniently also protecting Apple's 30%.
Apple is like an upscale nightclub with high entrance fees and where a club soda costs $150. Facebook is like a cheap nightclub that gives you a club soda for free, but secretly takes pictures of you so it could sell them to whoever pays most. Google is a franchise that sells licenses to run branded nightclubs with cctv cameras on every corner and rfid chips in every club soda so it could get stats about your manner of drinking.
I think 30% is too much, but ethically not really comparable to trading my data behind my back in the alley to shady or non shady businesses - outcomes and implications are not understood, not even by Zuckerberg himself (besides making $$$)
That sounds great. The world is big and people are devious. I don’t have time to vet every app I use. I’ll gladly pay Apple a percentage to do that for me.
That's a great argument for Apple being the arbiter of what is allowed on their app store, but a very poor argument on why they should also decide what can run on your phone.
The developers aren’t the important party. Many of us that love our iPhones partially do because of the AppStore. I don’t want anything to change, it works very well. Developers like Epic should be thanking them. I wouldn’t have a smartphone if iOS didn’t exist.
>And, as an iPhone user myself I want this option. So, you certainly do not speak for all iPhone users.
Sure, that's why I said this, explicitly- "Many of us that love our iPhones partially do because of the AppStore."
> That still doesn't explain how giving us a choice of app stores causes a problem.
I'd say, Apple shouldn't and doesn't have to offer another app store because their platform doesn't suck, because of their decisions. I don't want outsiders setting the precedent that people like you are going to be telling Apple how to run their business, it works very well right now without you.
Unless you're one of the 300 f-droid users, you pay the same or similar fee in Google Play market. Yes, technically Android users can side load, but I suspect the majority chooses convenience.
Concerned about them pfft they need to be locked up.
Zuckerberg level mindless ambition wastes everyones time and energy. He has no clue what outcomes his network is going to produce tomorrow morning but stands around acting as if what comes out of his head matters. Its like watching the guy in Jurassic Park still believing things can be fixed after the kids are missing, the power is gone and the raptors have escaped.
Its really mind boggling the patience people have show this buffoon running essentially an unapproved social psyc experiment on 2 billion lab rats, imposing a half baked reward system, that amplifies randomness.
Agreed with what you said, but that's a very inflated figure FB wants us to believe. Most people I know have 2 or more accounts, also all those profiles of dead people, companies manage other fake accounts for promotion, and there are spam actors that run huge amounts of fake profiles. So there might be around 100 million rat labs or way less.
> Its really mind boggling the patience people have show this buffoon running essentially an unapproved social psyc experiment on 2 billion lab rats, imposing a half baked reward system, that amplifies randomness.
I happily use Facebook (as does almost everyone I know).
I don't consider myself a lab rat, and think it's kind of an offensive way to view your fellow humans in general.
You don't need to be so morally outraged on my behalf - Facebook provides a product that I love using, and I use it, with the understanding that they get advertising money out of it. I'm fine with that transaction, as are most people. You don't have some secret knowledge that I don't have (I imagine) - I know the same things as you, and yet I decide that for myself, using FB is worth the tradeoff of the privacy/advertisements vs. the product itself.
The same as when I decide to eat ice cream, even though it's bad for me. Do you want to put ice cream makers in prison too on my behalf?
It's worth considering that if someone disagrees with you, they might be right. Or at least be worth listening to without insulting them or insinuating anything.
Just make his stock tank, it hurts his ability to do anything Zuck, is a frog in a pan being cooked, he's starting to hop around while his empire of spying is evaporating.
Apple rents you a platform. You have 0 control over it, have 0 insight what is going on, anything that you do with what you've rented is explicitly allowed by Apple. They make, bake, and cut the bread and you dance whatever song they play.
Facebook is just a site you don't pay anything to use.
You are being tracked, and your network is identifying you (tagging, mentioning you, posting photos that include you etc) whether or not you use Facebook.
This is like telling people who have privacy concerns about 23andMe / Ancestry DNA "just don't use them." Meanwhile their parents or siblings happily open up the floodgates.
The fb ecosystem is widely used, many times as a third-party library in many apps. Sometimes those apps send your data to facebook, sometimes they do it for free as a consecuence of integrating their services. And then, there are the "share with facebook" and "I like this" buttons.
They're called shadow profiles. If you do a search for facebook shadow profile you'll find a number of articles that talk about how Facebook infers connections between Facebook users and non-users.
Check out Facebook Analytics.
It's used in many smartphone apps, on websites etc. It is an analytics platform free of charge for the website/app operators (and gives FB a huge insight into non-FB users on the side)
I used to have the same mindset until I deactivated my account. I'm not sure about businesses in your area but the ones around here love to use Facebook to post updates on business hours, menus, or use it as their only web presence.
I gave up reading after the first chapter, I found it hard to read, too academic and terse. Does it get better after that? I might give it another chance.
I agree. It is. A trusted friend said the same. But I see it as:
1) If you're in tech then the concepts are obvious. But if you're not then plenty of context and education is in order. Most people are the latter. The book is for them.
2) She takes the matter _very_ serious. Rightfully so. The depth and breadth is a form of counter defense. She's thorough and pro-active about plugging holes.
It's not any easy read. But how do you make "privacy as you knew it is on life support" sexy and fun?
No more than a mall sells customers to the retailers it contains. (With the caveat that, with Apple, customers aren't allowed to shop at another mall.) The mall (app store) may let retailers advertise via kiosks and banners etc, but that's basically keyword advertising, not selling personal information.
Providing a marketplace like this might loosely be construed as "selling customers" but it is in a massively different class of less abusive behavior than how facebook sells customers.
Sure, but that's in a different class of user-abusive behavior than the pettiness of Facebook trying to "inflict pain" on Apple in one of the areas where Apple is less abusive to users.
> with Apple, customers aren't allowed to shop at another mall
And if they switch to another mall Apple will make their messages green on white to make it harder for elderly parents who stayed in the mall to read and keep up with their kids. That's pretty abusive too, a sort of excommunication via inscrutability.
They also sell search result placements on the App Store, which is making the already poor search function worse. The whole "services as the next growth segment" concept is a possible slippery slope for Apple.
This is absolutely what this is about. Regaining control of the app store as a discovery of apps. Everyone should realise this is apple's actual goal here, not the privacy rhetoric. So in a way Zuck is right.
Facebook through extremely good targeting has turned into the no 1 app discovery tool. This is a fact. This is not to Apple's advantage. They need the app store control for the future of the iphone.
This is simply a way to regain the control. It's the only goal.
I'd be much more concerned about Apple and all phone manufacturers.
It's much harder to go about life without a smart phone than to go without a Facebook account. If you don't register for Facebook and block websites from loading JS snippets from Facebook with e.g. a simple HTTP proxy or domain-based filter, you can more or less block Facebook from getting and selling any info about you.
With iOS or Google's version of Android it's damn near impossible to not hand out all your data.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, I guess criticism of Apple isn't welcome here as usual. But I stand by my right to be suspicious of what they do behind a walled garden OS.
I don't really agree with the premise that it's hard to forgo having a smartphone. Especially with the quarantine, most days I don't even know where my phone is, even if I'm out and about. The attention hogging is real even if you turn most notifications off and day-to-day, I don't really use most of the features.
An exception where a smartphone can make a huge difference is travelling — maps, translation, transportation etc all within your fingertips truly are priceless.
I do understand that I'm not the standard model user though, I usually only get a new phone once the last one literally isn't usable anymore.
A lot of places and apps are moving to require smartphones, and I hate this trend.
In China for example you can't even open a bank account without a smart phone, vending machines require smartphones, and even some robotic grocery and convenience stores are requiring a QR code scan to enter the store. I even saw a public restroom once that requires a QR code scan and SMS verification to dispense toilet paper. (That's right, no shitting at that toilet for foreign business professionals without a local +86 phone number and bank account.)
The whole world tends to be moving in that direction now. Uh, welcome to the future? On the US side I've had meetings with clients using Microsoft (R) (SM) (C) (TM) Teams that require a smartphone to authenticate. I have to deposit checks to my bank with a smartphone because they refuse to implement a web version and they also don't have a lot of physical branches. Even Signal, probably the only trustable E2E encryption app, wants a smartphone to log in (ugh).
Avoiding Whatsapp is not an option where I live and work. Whatsapp all but requires a smartphone* , so smartphone it is.
* There are some feature phones that supposedly support it. These are hard to trust, and probably won't work once Whatsapp has an non-backward compatible update.
> With iOS or Google's version of Android it's damn near impossible to not hand out all your data.
Isn’t this whole Apple-Facebook feud due to Apple trying to allow users to have more say in their data? It seems weird you’re criticizing them for sharing data in a thread about them trying to let users have more say about their data than competitors and their competitors wanting to sue them over it.
> If you don't register for Facebook and block websites from loading JS snippets from Facebook with e.g. a simple HTTP proxy or domain-based filter, you can more or less block Facebook from getting and selling any info about you.
How do you tell 80% (being generous) of the people to go about with JS disabled? Let alone setting-up a proxy, or setting your phone to even allow you to block domains.
You don't need to be so quick to assume it was Apple criticism.
I didn't downvote you because you criticized Apple or Google. I downvoted you because I don't think you made a very strong argument to support your claim about going without smartphones. There are reasonable options available with smartphones that don't spy on you. They're not flagship quality, not the fastest phones, but they work fine if your needs for a smartphone are to stay in contact with people for work/personal life, browse the internet, etc. PinePhone for example is gaining popularity & much cheaper: Their new version just sold out but they're taking pre-orders for the next shipment. For something a bit closer to flagship quality you can go for the Librem 5.
As someone who preordered a Librem 5 a year and a half ago, I’ll be surprised if this becomes a viable option any time soon (or ever). It still hasn’t received FCC certification https://fccid.io/2AT9R and the few that have been released out in the wild to some of the people who ordered in 2017 show a phone that still needs significant software work done and require multiple batteries or constant charging to last a whole day.
I just ordered a PinePhone in the latest batch. From what I’ve been able to find is the software support is a little better for the PinePhone, but the hardware is slower than the already slow Librem 5. It’s closer to being a daily driver, but not by much.
Neither of these phones are a replacement for what most people consider smartphones. Maybe through Android emulation they could be, but if it’s not available as a Linux application or a website then it’s not available for these phones.
I disagree about the ability for PinePhone to be a daily driver, but I suppose it depends on what you use your smartphone for. For me, it's phone/sms/web browsing. But if I concede your point, that still just makes the smartphone alternatives similarly lacking in the existence of Facebook alternatives. That still doesn't support the GP claim the smartphones should be of much greater concern, especially because we haven't even broached the social harm that Facebook has assisted. Privacy concerns may apply to both facebook & smartphones, but as far as harm done, smartphones in & of themselves on the same level as Facebook & other social media. Of course, opinions vary & I don't claim mine to be the actual factual way things are.
On iOS, only if you're willing to void your warranty. Being able to run arbitrary code really isn't in the same class as approved phone usage if the company retaliates against you for doing it.
"allegedly"
Unless you can prove it, or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that), it means nothing.
And It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, believing anything they say. If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.
It doesn't help that zuckerberg reputation is absolute dog shit. We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy. It wouldn't be out of character for him to be petty and vindictive.
Yeah, absolutely. For every stupid decision he made (buying Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus etc.), making the company worth almost $1 Trillion, yeah, he's a horrible CEO. As a stockholder, I just hate him.
Who considers him a threat to democracy? Journalists who are tired of not being able to control the narrative anymore? Or the left who are tired of their lapdogs, the mass media, not being able to control the narrative anymore?
I think that Tim Cook is telling the truth and that he has genuine reputation:
> Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to 'violence,' 'polarization'
This statement seems to stand on its own, without a need for "proof". If the business model itself leads to this, the conclusion is that the internal conversations about protecting that model also lead to violence and/or polarized thinking. If we look at the alleged occurrence, we can then draw a conclusion without the need for "reputation". There's also the manifesto.
People lead to violence, FB is an internet tool. E.g. in Myanmar FB is used to plan genocide, in Germany, they didn’t need FB 90 years ago to do the same.
It’s pretty in character with zuckerburg so that’s probably why, and the public moves of the two companies align with that part of the article. I’ll agree with you that the quote wasn’t sourced as well as it should be, but it’s hard to fault people when they are told a duck quacked and take it at face value. When someone does something in line with their reputation, people accept a lower burden of proof. If he comes out and denies it, then that’s another thing or if it was a material statement for a binding decision then it would also need more proof.
> Behind closed doors, Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to bring Apple down a peg, supposedly telling his team "we need to inflict pain" to the iPhone maker.
As for the headline... well, it’s a decade past time to acknowledge that clickbait headlines are the norm. It’s how they get people to read the article, where they can make money from ads. The headlines will always be clickbait until this changes.
or you have the genuine reputation to be taken
for your word (good luck with that)
I agree with the sentiment to a large extent, but it's also a question of probability. The original source is the Wall Street Journal, which means there's at least a non-zero probability that stories with 'alleged' and 'anonymous' in them are true :)
Traditionally, a big publication would vet stories like this. Maybe someone who knows more about journalism than I do could weigh in re: the state of editors and fact-checking in 2021. Given that publications today expect their writers to churn out story after story, the vetting process has probably gone downhill.
> If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.
This is such a perfect observation! My very intelligent and well-educated friends, most of them successful engineers in the Silicon Valley, behave exactly as you described. And it's not at all limited to the current political divisions in the US.
Why would seemingly smart people trust random posts on internet, as long as those posts confirm what they want to hear?
> They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages.
or he has really grown. Is it really surprising that people can be immature when they are young and grow to learn from their mistakes?
It is easy to hate on Zuck so most people love to bring his past to malign his image. The grown up thing would be to trust his words but verify by his actions, not believe hearsay stories published for clicks.
Even for people who commit serious crimes, we as a society are looking for ways to integrate them in our society through a correction system. We are talking about just words spoken as a teen/tween here.
If he had learned from his mistake, he would have shut down facebook by now.
Creating a website for the purpose of exploiting people you see as "dumb fucks" could be a youthful indescretion. Continuing to operating your dumb fuck exploiting service for nearly twenty years is the behavior of a sociopath.
I don't use Facebook or Instagram but they are hardly just an exploitation service.
They do help people in staying connected, specially with ones who are not in your very close circle. There is definitely a positive value that the paltform brings among the many negative ones as well.
People say lots of stuff that they would regret seeing on the front page of the New York Times. They mean something different when published as isolated quotes for a general audience than part of a conversation between people who know each other.
So while it's true that this might be a "gaffe" in the sense of accidentally telling the truth, it could also be that it's not what it seems to be. When every word you say is scrutinized, you take a lot more risks that any of them will be seen as "gaffes", and the only way to prevent that is to avoid being quotable.
The adversarial nature with the press and the public is a lesson that a famous figure does have to learn. Not the only one, but an important one.
I like how we are focussing on this Facebook-Apple story, and meanwhile the real story is that Facebook has nothing against Google.
And that is the big problem.
It’s a form of disenfranchisement: Lowerclass people more often have Androids and have much less choice in tracking, while higherclass people can at least choose, by the sheer design of their phone.
For one thing, Google doesn't have complete control over Android. Facebook preinstalls itself onto many phones, and oftentimes updates to its apps are installed without any Google involvement whatsoever — they have an updater app that is capable of silently installing apks the same way Google Play does.
iOS is:
- requesting permissions at the time of using the feature,
- giving permissions like GPS only for limited time, or to subsets of photos only,
- and requires app to keep full features if permission is not granted.
It should be required that Android did the same. After all, a pure market is where people are fully informed and have a choice, so there could be a theoretical basis for requiring Android not to be confusing with permissions.
> It should be required that Android did the same.
Assuming you go through Google Play, which you aren't required to. And assuming Google Play actually reviews apps, including every single update, which it sometimes does but crappily.
If they can help (politically) break the app store monopoly on iPhones they could introduce a new version of their app that has all the tracking they want.
Absolutely nothing could ever possibly go wrong with streaming your real-time heart rate and blood pressure to Facebook while you're scrolling through your feed.
Apple dominates the smartwatch category because they are the only ones willing to invest in CPUs and components to make them really work well. Well that plus iPhone integration.
> What would their killer app be?
My theory would be perhaps the "Killer" feature would be communications. If they could come up with a killer cellular watch that just goes around the smartphone entirely, they might make something appealing.
But Facebook has shown zero capability to actually come up with good ideas on their own so I doubt this will go far. If Samsung with all their hardware chops can't really come up with a decent Apple Watch competitor, is Facebook with no hardware experience going to come in and hit a home run? Or even a single?
And WhatsApp. If they could make a relatively inexpensive watch that did WhatsApp messaging and payments, that could be very successful in the developing world... but would have no impact on Apple.
i would guess that they would be sold as loss leaders. If Facebook can get more customer metrics and give Apple a black eye, I’m sure that they would be willing to sell a watch at cost.
They need to spend billions suing Apple for every single possible antitrust and anticompetitive lawsuit they can. They need to fund spotify's case against apple music and how ridiculously unfair it is.
In fact, why don't they release their own version of spotify for the sole reason to prove how anticompetitive apple is with pricing.
If someone has the financial resources to do that, and the actual shareholder interest, it's Facebook.
Ehh, Spotify should stay quiet and off-radar and hope that more people won't learn about the ridiculous level of tracking they do in their desktop app.
I guess they could release a Facebook phone and an entire new mobile platform? I think they have both the hardware/software engineering capability to do it (see Oculus), plenty of scummy companies that are happy to jump on the bandwagon and release their apps for it as well as a userbase which will swallow it right away (they could be sold very cheaply and subsidized by the collected data)?
At best, this would take some market share from the low-end of Android phones. Apple's market is at the high end, so I doubt Apple would even notice it.
A significant chunk of iOS's marketshare is people buying iPhones because they are "cool" as opposed to any technical reasons. If Facebook makes their phone seem more "cool" through marketing, that chunk of customers will happily switch.
Instagram is cool and all the "cool" kids still flock to it (though TikTok is significantly gaining popularity). Whatsapp is a Facebook brand and yet doesn't raise any red flags with most people so that's another brand they could use.
I don't think FB should do hardware honestly. Hardware requires a lot of patience and integration as Microsoft and Google discovered with their phones. Adding to this, FB's image is such at this point that most people won't touch their hardware.
FB has a lot of engineering talent and experience on distributed operations and services side, so if they really want to diversify, perhaps should leverage that.
They aren’t going to compete with Apple or harm them by selling a phone subsidized by selling data, they’ll take market share from low tier Android phone makers. Microsoft didn’t have any luck, why would Facebook?
I think Microsoft has already demonstrated that launching a successful new mobile platform is extremely difficult (if not impossible) at this point regardless of resources and hardware capabilities.
Microsoft had no leverage and developers weren't onboard because they had no incentives to do so.
Facebook has leverage - if their future on iOS (and maybe even Android at some point) is at risk, they could very well release a Facebook phone and offer incentives to their users to move.
Developers would also be onboard if Facebook offers incentives to them. Despite all the bad reputation Facebook gets on the surface, most tech companies happily use and depend on Facebook for their marketing & advertising efforts, so they'd be more likely to embrace the Facebook ecosystem if iOS is interfering with their marketing ability.
Add one or two interesting hardware twists, be compatible 100% with Android and aggressively get apps on the platform (pay developers to upload). Oh and be the hero by charging very little for the appstore (5% maybe).
Facebook would have to sell a lot of units, in a field with which they are mostly unfamiliar, and where they'd have very strong competitors in Apple and Facebook (and all the companies who invested in and sell Android, like Samsung).
I do not see Facebook playing catch up with Google, Samsung, the Chinese and Apple in OS, services (like maps) and hardware development, as it is too expensive to get FB into a competitive state in regards to tech, even if they forked AOSP instead of starting from scratch. A mere Facebook branded AOSP will not cut it (and then they'd still need to develop services on top, because people want more than just a facebook App, and app developers want more than just a generic AOSP + FB API)...
Then they'd have to solve the supply chain to get production rolling.
And then they would have to convince people to use their product, which is the toughest problem they'd have to overcome. Their reputation simply isn't great.
Any subsidies can only be limited. How much money could they reasonably offer a FB phone user (in exchange for their data) after having burned through billions in development, production development and marketing? Something like 50 bucks at most I'd think, if they want to still stay profitable. That's not yet a "convincer". Apple users do not mind paying a premium already, and in the Android world you already have lots of products at all prices. And let's not forget that phones (other than Apple phones) are relatively low margin.
Microsoft tried and failed to enter that market, already. And MS reputation with consumers compared to FB was a LOT better.
It's not impossible, but it would be a moonshot, and a moonshot that would be betting the company's well-being.
Entering the smartphone market is a lot harder than creating a new market like they try with Oculus, or Tesla did with electric cars[1]. And Zuckerberg isn't exactly an Elon Musk either[1] when it comes to public perception, or a Cook or Jobs or Brin or Page or even Bezos or still-at-MS Gates.
[1] The market was essentially non-existent and the few products that you could get were all rather subpar. Tesla essentially still had a first mover advantage, and supported their R&D with a limited premium car production with high margins, convincing investors to throw money at them and massive debt.
[2] Tho I have heard Zuckerberg described as a Martian, something that Musk aspired to be :P
Up until now, Facebook made more money with the status quo rather than risking a huge amount of money on a hardware bet.
However, the tables have turned to the point where Facebook's future on iOS appears to be in jeopardy, so a hardware bet might make more sense - as in they might not have a choice if they want to keep growing and maintain/increase their valuation.
Google pretty much destroyed any possibility of anothe competitor entering the mobile OS market (I always thought that dumping was illegal and you can't go much lower than 0).
At this point, Facebook really is in a jam because their value to Apple and Google was getting users to buy a smartphone. A lot of people's personal use case for their first smartphone was using Facebook, Messenger and Instagram. Now, everyone has a smartphone... and will continue using them because there are other ways to do what you do with Facebook, Messenger and Instagram.
Given FB's power to influence, they could "promote" Apple bad news more, and demote Apple good news (e.g., it's pro-privacy efforts). Then at the same time, do the opposite for Android.
It might not be severe pain, but we should not underestimate FB power as it controls our individual feeds.
He could reasonably be predicted to have said this, but this is still a terrible post for HN. At minimum I would expect "Multiple sources confirmed" for this to be better than rumor.
It seems Zuckerberg has a higher chance of inflicting pain on Apple than either Microsoft or Google.
Google doesn't know what they are doing. They have so far shown nothing, zip, zero in strategy and vision. And their execution aren't that good either.
Microsoft, despite the new direction are somewhat better in execution. But it is arguably much the same as they were in the 90s. I guess Steve Jobs put it best, the lack of taste.
If you think the criticism is hash, that is because the comparison is relative, it doesn't mean they are bad in absolute terms, it is just Apple is on another level with strategic play and execution. ( Apple started their Qualcomm play in early 2014, and likely even earlier off record before they sued Qualcomm in 2017 )
Both Google and Microsoft are busy expanding their Cloud business. All while Apple is slowly squeezing all the money out of all online Ads as an industry ( cross site, targeted or not ). Moving the most lucrative user ( iPhone user ) away from Ads and web to Apps. Collecting more Raw Profits Per User with Google Default Search Engine. i.e Apple is increasing the cost of Google doing online business while taking away their revenue generating opportunity. This is a double squeeze. And using iPhone, iPad as leverage to slowly move Fortune 500 Enterprise towards using Mac. It actually isn't as far fetch as people may think when Java and Office works perfectly on Mac M1.
But Apple isn't perfect. It has its own Achilles heel. App Store Revenue, Google Default Search Engine, and Monopolistic behaviour. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. If Zuckerberg plays his cards right, aiming at the first two item alone is close to 50% of Apple's Net Profit. And he doesn't even have to do it himself or using Facebook to do it. He just have to fund it.
The poison pill strategy is an interesting idea. I think people that buy iPhones tend to be more sticky with the Apple ecosystem than they are to the Facebook app. I am not sure about Whatsapp and Instagram though; so it would be interesting to see. My gut feeling is that people would simply look for alternatives to Whatsapp and possibly Instagram.
A better strategy would be to keep the ios apps as they currently are, and release new cool features to Android only. This way there won't be a "big event" catalyst to get people to ditch Facebook, instead over time they'll get fomo from their Android friends. Think of how imessage doesn't completely block users from interacting with Android users but still creates an "in group" feeling for the ios users.
This would not work out for Facebook. Most won't switch phones, it's a $500+ immediate purchase. Other apps will spread via word of mouth and be where the friend networks coalesce around.
Case and point is the TikTok clone that became the no.1 downloaded app when TikTok was getting banned. As soon as someone else can offer the same or similar experience, users will switch.
The Facebook mobile site works just fine on iOS. Without the app though their data colllection is much less effective. They’d really just be hurting themselves.
Noob here. Is FB really the powerhouse it is thought to be in terms of active users? In the iPhone app store there are 712K reviews, while TikTok has 8M and Instagram has 20M. I know that these are ratings, but you would think there would be some (rough) proportionality with their usage.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Banned accounts can still post, but their posts aren't seen by for most users. Only the ones with 'showdead' turned on in their profile see these comments, plus the author of the post. Does that make sense?
As a UX/UI designer, this is entirely the wrong conclusion to make. Users come in all shapes and forms with different priorities, distractions and abilities. They are good at the things that matter to them.
A common mistake software developers make is believing their software is important enough to warrant the investment in time it takes to learn it.
Both companies are trying to sell more of their product.
Of these two I am much more concerned about Facebook because I have much less control over the transaction.