Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook The Courts Apple

Facebook Looks To Take its Fight With Apple To Court (theinformation.com) 83

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A long-simmering public dispute between Facebook and Apple has neared a boiling point. The Information: With the aid of outside legal counsel, Facebook for months has been preparing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple that would allege the iPhone-maker abused its power in the smartphone market by forcing app developers to abide by App Store rules that Apple's own apps don't have to follow, according to two people with direct knowledge of Facebook's efforts. The legal preparations by Facebook signal that the feud between the companies could further escalate, though ultimately Facebook may decide not to file a suit. Its executives are facing internal resistance from some employees over its public campaign against Apple, a fight that recently has centered on a change to iPhone software that will make it harder for Facebook and its advertisers to track people across apps.

Now Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is attempting to build a broad legal case arguing that Apple's rules for app developers -- which force them to use Apple's in-app payment service, for instance -- make it harder to compete against Apple in areas such as gaming, messaging and shopping. While Facebook could seek monetary damages in a lawsuit, the more meaningful outcome for the company and every other app developer would be material changes to Apple's iPhone restrictions. A similar antitrust case against Apple filed last fall by game maker Epic also seeks changes to Apple's business model rather than monetary damages. Facebook has considered inviting other companies to participate in its prospective lawsuit against Apple, said three people with knowledge of the talks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Looks To Take its Fight With Apple To Court More

Facebook Looks To Take its Fight With Apple To Court

Comments Filter:
  • Oh man, Facebook trying to take the moral high ground is like ... (fill in the blank)

    • Re:Moral High Ground (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @11:23AM (#61001302)

      What moral high ground. Facebook is having a fit, because its Business plan is incompatible with Apples Business plan.

      Apple want a walled community. Where every one of its customers are under its control, but are also much safer their. So you have to buy the Apple product, and go to the Apple store to get apps, which Apple reviews to make sure the product is safe to use.
      Facebook wants a free for all, where they are the biggest player in the field, so they have all the advantages. Where the customers are not the users of the product, but the ad generators. The users are ones who gives the Add generators information on who to target.

      Apple and Facebook are giants who are both too big to be really intimated by the other. Apple dropping Facebook would hurt Apple a good amount, as there are a lot of people who use the Facebook App as their main Application, so with it gone, they may consider Android. However Facebook would need Apple too, because there is also a good number of users who will not just drop their Expensive Apple Product, just because of Facebook, and people would drop the Facebook habit.

      Being two mutually exclusive and incompatible companies, they actually have a degree of symbiosis between them where both benefit the other.

      • Re: Moral High Ground (Score:4, Funny)

        by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @01:37PM (#61001920) Homepage

        Facebook is better in a mobile browser than it is as an app. At least it was the last time I checked, sometime around the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Being knocked from the store would be an improvement.

      • Apple and Facebook are giants who are both too big to be really intimated by the other. Apple dropping Facebook would hurt Apple a good amount, as there are a lot of people who use the Facebook App as their main Application, so with it gone, they may consider Android. However Facebook would need Apple too, because there is also a good number of users who will not just drop their Expensive Apple Product, just because of Facebook, and people would drop the Facebook habit.

        See, I think Facebook would suffer more if they lost than Apple would if they lost, at least from a user perspective.

        If Apple loses, they...have to allow sideloading? I mean, I guess that might make Tim unhappy, but add some sort of 'icon of shame' for sideloaded apps, and tell the support staff that all sideloaded apps have to be removed before support can be provided, and you've provided disincentive while allowing compliance.

        If Facebook loses...well, Facebook itself has been coasting on inertia for a whi

        • "tell the support staff that all sideloaded apps have to be removed before support can be provided, and you've provided disincentive while allowing compliance."

          No, what you have done is violated Magnuson-Moss, in the USA anyway. You cannot deny warranty service for use of compatible parts, products etc.

          • "tell the support staff that all sideloaded apps have to be removed before support can be provided, and you've provided disincentive while allowing compliance."

            No, what you have done is violated Magnuson-Moss, in the USA anyway. You cannot deny warranty service for use of compatible parts, products etc.

            I mean, my OnePlus 8T gives me a warning every time I start my phone because I unlocked my bootloader, and I had to basically sign away my warranty to do it. I had to do the same with my Nokia 7.2, and 7.1, and LG Stylo 3 before it, and my Samsung Galaxy Edge and Note 4 before that...if Magnuson-Moss covers running unvetted code, pretty much every cell phone OEM seems to have not-gotten the memo...or they're just gambling that no one is going to take them to court over it.

            Apple, of all companies, has a pret [ifixit.com]

            • I mean, my OnePlus 8T gives me a warning every time I start my phone because I unlocked my bootloader, and I had to basically sign away my warranty to do it.

              Yeah, Moto says the same thing. But if I actually still had a warranty, and needed to make a warranty claim, I would sue them in small claims court if they denied my warranty claim... on the basis of Magnuson-Moss. Because voiding the warranty for using compatible software is illegal, and they need to prove that my use of alternate software caused failure.

    • I would not even say moral high ground. Claiming antitrust is rather tricky as any Android user will tell you how much more of the smartphone market Android has.

      • Except the app store controls 100% of the app marketplace on iPhones/iPads. And once you've bought into the ecosystem it's not as easy to navigate away. If you've purchased a bunch of apps on the app store, even if they exist on the play store you don't automatically gain those purchases when migrating.

        This is also complicated by the fact that studies show apple users are more likely to make app purchases than android users.

        You can't just simply dismiss the merits because of android having a larger adopti

        • If you claim that as a basis for antitrust, many companies could be sued for antitrust. Facebook themselves would be guilty as they only allow certain apps on their platform.

          • Faceboot's platform is their property.

            "Apple's" platform is sold to users, and it is their property.

            • Really? I was unaware that Apple users owned all apps that were installed. I was certain those apps were owned by their creators and the distribution was owned by Apple.

              • They pay for the device, it's theirs.

                They pay for the apps, they're theirs.

                The only part of the platform which belongs to Apple is the app store, and that's subject to antitrust regulation whether they own it or not.

                Welcome to THE RULE OF LAW.

                • No, no, no. You said that users own the apps on their devices. The law clearly says they do not. Was I not aware of a change in the law?

                  • The users own the devices, and they have certain rights conferred by paying for the apps which are similar to ownership. Which is to say that they may have legal rights above and beyond that which are conferred when someone pays a monthly fee for a service.

                    • The users own the devices, and they have certain rights conferred by paying for the apps which are similar to ownership.

                      I didn't pay for any of my apps therefore I had no rights according to you.

        • Except the app store controls 100% of the app marketplace on iPhones/iPads. And once you've bought into the ecosystem it's not as easy to navigate away. If you've purchased a bunch of apps on the app store, even if they exist on the play store you don't automatically gain those purchases when migrating.

          And I can no more access the xBox live store to buy games for my Playstation than I can use Steam to buy games for my Switch than I can use the PSN store to buy games for my PC than I can use the Android play store to buy games for my iPhone. Nor do I get all of the games I bought on the Switch when I start up the Playstation, iPhone, or PC.

          • And I can no more access the xBox live store to buy games for my Playstation than I can use Steam to buy games for my Switch than I can use the PSN store to buy games for my PC than I can use the Android play store to buy games for my iPhone. Nor do I get all of the games I bought on the Switch when I start up the Playstation, iPhone, or PC.

            Several of those services (all?) allow you to purchase through someone other than directly through them. For instance several of my steam games came from humble bundle

  • Their server, their rules.

    And as for anti-trust, I look around and don't see any iOS devices.

    • Their server, their rules.

      And as for anti-trust, I look around and don't see any iOS devices.

      This for both of them.

      Amazing, Facebook is suing for the right to stalk you around the internet, and claiming that privacy harms them.

      Tells us all we need to know. This is like some creepy old guy that likes to peep in teenage girl's bedroom windows suing curtain manufacturers.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        While Facebook undoubtedly wants to win this so it can carry on being evil, the principal is important. You should own hardware you paid for, and that includes being free to sell your soul to Facebook if you so desire.

        • While Facebook undoubtedly wants to win this so it can carry on being evil, the principal is important. You should own hardware you paid for, and that includes being free to sell your soul to Facebook if you so desire.

          I'm not certain I get that. I own my computers, both Windows, Mac, or Linux.

          Now, I'd agree wholeheartely if you had to opt in - to wit:

          I agree to allow Facebook to sell my information to whomsoever it wishes to Yes/No

          I agree that as a multinational corporation, Facebook is allowed to sell my personal datat to any and all, including representatives of countries at war with or adversaries of my country in pursuit of their goals. Yes/No

          I agree with facebook reading my posts in order to use that data to s

        • I do agree, but that's more about the deliberate defect in iOS devices rather than the store itself .. perhaps a needlessly pedantic distinction. Here's an idea: perhaps Facebook would be willing to fund a class-action litigation on behalf of users, or lobby legislators, to outlaw hardware made to deliberately disobey its owner's wishes.

          If iOS users didn't have to use Apple's store, this whole distribute-our-app demand wouldn't be happening.

          Until then, though, users can solve the problem by continuing to

          • "I want my manual shift sports car to bury the needle. I'm suing to have them remove the governor, then cover all impacts of 10,000k redlines under warranty. It's my right to have my hardware obey my wishes at all times! Oh yeah - and my Lamborghini better have a hitch, and if I choose to tow 15.000 pounds it, too is under warranty."

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by neilhu ( 656756 )
          And you can if you want, since the change Apple is proposing allows you to agree to be tracked [or not] - not sure what the issue is, as consumers, we have the right to make a decision. If Apple loses this fight, we as consumers can still make the decision, by ditching Facebook Facebook is scared that most people don't want to be tracked. Market forces will prevail either way

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

          You should probably try not to be ignorant, but that's probably a lost cause.

          Apple is not forbidding FB from tracking you on their hardware. They are just making it less likely that users will allow it.

          • Not even that... All Apple is doing here is making it *possible* for users to decide for themselves not to allow it. The popup with the prompt passes no judgement and makes no suggestion, at least not in any of the screenshots of the beta that have cropped up so far. It's just plain old disclosure and an option on what to do with that information. iOS popups like that don't even have a default choice you could accept by mindlessly hitting the return key. You have to affirmatively choose one option or t

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zcar ( 756484 )

        Except what Apple's doing isn't necessarily an antitrust violation. Anti-competitive? Sure.

        Ok, sure, in the plain-English meaning of the term, they have a monopoly on installing software to an iOS device. But is that a monopoly within the legal framework of antitrust statutes and case law?

        For Facebook (or Epic in their lawsuit) to win, they have to get the courts to agree that "iOS applications" is the market in question and not "phone/tablet applications" where Apple does not have a monopoly. What the mark

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Then what are you arguing? If you say that Apple should not have a right to do what they do and at the same time say it is not illegal, it is not clear what your position is. "I do not like that Apple has" vs "Apple does not have the right" has different interpretations.

    • And as for anti-trust, I look around and don't see any iOS devices.

      You don't need to be a monopoly to violate anti-trust law.

  • facebook donations should be able to say 30% goes to apple.

  • It's not good when elephants fight... (Score:3)

    by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @11:06AM (#61001210) Homepage

    ... especially when they're in your neighborhood.

    Bottom line? Beware of what you wish for. No one understands the unintended consequences here. God only knows what the courts will decide. Yeah, it'll be entertaining until the chickens come home to roost. For reference, see Google v. Oracle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      and the small stuff on the ground gets pounded. Who knows what precedence will be set among two companies that have $billions$ of extra cash stuffed in various basements around the world. Meanwhile tent cities continue to grow nearby their HQ.

  • Anti trust is about using your power (not necessarily full monopoly) in one vertical to leverage otherwise unearned power in another vertical. In this case owning phones locked to App Store to advantage Apple's apps over other's.

    Is Apple doing that? Probably. I never use any of Apple's apps so can't say (I delete all their deletable shit from my iDevices) so assuming I'm similar to many others (big assumption but roll with it), we then have to ask, what is the harm to Facebook? What is the harm to consu

    • > I never use any of Apple's apps

      So you have never downloaded third party apps using the App Store (which leverages iPhone monopoly for unearned ads and commission payments)? That means you own an iPhone, and the only thing you use it for is text & calls. This is definitely a minority position.

      > I delete all their deletable shit

      You are unable to delete their Photos app or iCloud. The Photos app is the number one reason that people turn on permanent, monthly subscriptions to iCloud back ups.

      ---

      Toge

      • I was thinking in terms of their office clone, media creation and other garbage I don't use. I consider photo management to be a native part of a device that has 3 cameras built in to the hardware but point well taken about its link to iCloud and subs.

        I do sub for the 50G iCloud plan but yes I suppose some would choose the FB version if it was faux-free and 99 cents a month was too high a price to pay to avoid the FB privacy trap.

        • Or perhaps some people would choose an alternative place to store their photos because they don't think all their nude selfies should be stored unencrypted with a third party.

          That means they could be gotten by anybody that guesses your account login (e.g. The Fappening), could be subpoenaed, or could just be stolen en masse (e.g. PRISM).

          If competition was possible, there are probably a couple people that might like a zero-dollar-per-month, encrypted, keep-files-on-a-server-in-your-basement product.

      • So you have never downloaded third party apps using the App Store (which leverages iPhone monopoly for unearned ads and commission payments)?

        Have I downloaded 3rd apps? Yes. Does Apple make an equivalent to that app? Many times, no. Did I pay for that app? No, most of my apps are free. Most of subscriptions associated with that app (ie Netflix) was paid directly long before I got an iPhone.

        That means you own an iPhone, and the only thing you use it for is text & calls. This is definitely a minority position.

        Email, web browsing, maps, notes, reminders, calendar, photos, videos: that is the stuff I’ve done today with my smartphone.

        • You downloaded a free app.

          How much do you think Epic would pay so that you and one billion other people could download the free apps using their app store instead of Apple's?

          • Your assertion that Apple received "unearned commissions" is factually false in my case as they have received no commissions from me. Trying to change the goal posts to the Epic store would not change the fact that I would pay Epic $0 too. Also smartphones are used for far more than texts and calls with no 3rd party apps.

            • You say you would:

              > pay Epic $0 too

              That is correct in one sense of the word that only programmers can appreciate. Like ONE == ZERO is true but only if you define beforehand that ONE and ZERO are both equal to the number four.

              You would see advertisements on the Epic store. Just like the Apple store. Those advertisements generate cash money for Epic. Same kind of unearned commissions.

              ---

              You say phones have value other than text and calls. Yes of course you can use Apple Wallet/Apple Cash (another Apple "un

              • That is correct in one sense of the word that only programmers can appreciate. Like ONE == ZERO is true but only if you define beforehand that ONE and ZERO are both equal to the number four.

                I am unsure if you understand what $0 means. It means $0. I paid Apple $0 for apps so far as every single app was $0. Thus I have also paid Epic $0 as well.

                You would see advertisements on the Epic store. Just like the Apple store. Those advertisements generate cash money for Epic. Same kind of unearned commissions.

                For 3rd party apps like Netflix, in what world does Apple get ad revenue from Netflix that do not have ads. Since I pay for the ad-free version of Hulu, in what world does Apple get "unearned commissions" from ads that never appear?

                You say phones have value other than text and calls. Yes of course you can use Apple Wallet/Apple Cash (another Apple "unearned commission") where Apple abuses their monopoly status.

                You are aware that there are more Apple apps than iMessage and Calls right? In fact I listed them last time: Maps, Contacts,

  • I hope they win... (Score:3)

    by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob@bane.me@com> on Thursday January 28, 2021 @11:25AM (#61001318) Journal

    And then Google takes the same arguments to court against Facebook, forcing them to allow Google and other search engines to index Facebook.

    Imagine how useful Facebook would be if you could just find what you wanted to see, without wading through a sea of ad-infested irrelevant content.

  • Facebook claims Apple is a monopoly? (Score:3)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @11:41AM (#61001426)

    I believe them: it takes one to know one.

  • Here I am, thinking to myself... give it some time and Apple is gonna file a lawsuit for defamation... Regardless, I think Apple gets to run their company the way they see fit. Developers who don't like their policy can choose to go Android/windows only. Nobody forced them to go on iOS. Until they loose the battle and forced to change policy, nobody can get onto their platform without abiding their rules. It's gonna be interesting to see how this lawsuit unfold.

  • How is it anti-trust? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Last I heard, Google still was creating a phone OS and you can go do what you want there. Antitrust comes in when there is only one player in town, not when there are multiple players...

    You might want to play in the big leagues but you still have to follow their rules. Or you can stay in the minors and not worry about the rules. Your call.

  • Facebook has no redeeming value by the nature of its business model and deplatforming those they disagrees with.
    Apple's opt-in for adverts is a positive, but they knowingly use Chinese slave labor and lobbied Congress to maintain it. This makes them a slave owner by proxy.

  • âoeTheyâ(TM)re a private company, they can do whatever they wantâ? Just like Facebook banning people for âoeimproper political idealsâ?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • After all, facebook is used to incite violence.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close