I don't think that's true for their VR/MR hardware. That's Meta's attempt to get a product that is _not_ like that, but which instead gets them in a position similar to where Google and Apple are for phones. I.e., where they own the platform and can profit off of that.
They literally record the cameras and 'screen', then send it off to their servers.
The VR hardware absolutely spies on you. Even if you tell it not to, it still shows up in the mobile app.
That's a distinction without a difference to me. I will not be purchasing hardware that requires a cloud account. Especially not a peripheral.
You seriously think they will pass on this golden opportunity?
I wonder what specific examples you are aware of that are not disabled in this manner?
As if Meta has to suddenly show Apple all of its goods now too. Giving Apple access to all Facebook or Instagram data and letting them decide where to draw the line.
Stop letting the distaste for Apple effect reason and sanity.
Meta is running an app store on Instagram that Apple is using?
https://bsky.app/profile/matthewdgreen.bsky.social/post/3lef...
If enough blogs expose these things (if they are actual privacy concerns — I mean I am already storing the photos themselves on Apple's iCloud, so) then I expect Apple to back off and make the feature opt-in in an upcoming release.
I don't recall messages, photos, apple maps, notes, camera, calendar etc asking me detailed permissions. I think health did ask for some.
Installing equivalent Facebook messenger, Google photos, Google calendar, etc also of course did.
(Greediest award goes to whatsapp which basically doesn't work unless you grant it full access to contacts boo)
However, WhatsApp groups show a name, so that's a workaround if you are using WhatsApp with someone you know well: Make a group for the two of you.
When a friend went to install WhatsApp for their iPad, they succeeded!
Then they said it wasn't working properly. Unfortunately that's because app store search brought up misleading third-party WhatsApp apps for the iPad. If you weren't paying attention, it was too easy to think you were installing the official app from WhatsApp. I didn't notice the app was third-party at first either, and I was very surprised to find no app at all from WhatsApp itself on closer inspection, amidst a page of search resulrs all claiming to be it.
It was actually worse (at least as of a few years ago) because they didn't allow you to manually input phone numbers. You either need the other party to message you first, or use a wa.me deeplink (eg. wa.me/12125551234).
I guess it's debatable whether that's categorized as "it works" :>
This is going to be irrelevant in the EU once sideloading gets popular.
Article 7 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/
Recital 43 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
Those two in combination stop companies processing data for unrelated task to the services they provide. And it's indeed true and already been applied, see this: https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/google-fined-57m-data-p...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_or_pay [1]: https://uoou.gov.cz/urad/povinne-zverejnovane-informace/svob...
Imagine it. Fear it!
EU can block payments from EU to Facebook.
We shall see — that may simply be a security mindset paranoia on my part.
So you want the EU to play whack-a-mole with fly by night IoT vendors, some of which might be shipping directly from China? Or do you want to fix this with even more regulation, like requiring licenses to import IoT products or whatever?
Yes
Like they do with other online criminals
I would expect them to use a heavier hammer to whack that mole....
Regulating the AppStore makes sense. Proliferating lots of them is the most inane policy decision ever.
Use flash to create seizures, nudity people realtime, hack your ex, damage the device, cheat at games, spam your enemies, etc.
There is an infinite use case for tiny malicious apps finding malicious or gullible users and with side loading there are going to be stores created to appear very legitimate when their intentions are actually illegal.
I think the EU has very noble intentions while completely failing to understand that society is a wreck and a lot of money is made through extortion and fraud. Their apparent fix is to make the OS developers still responsible for what is installed while taking away funding for it. I am guessing the end game is more taxes and government intrusion on private devices to fix the problems they are purposely creating.
As a tech person I find this weird, but then I remember the relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2501/
Surely if normal people can't do a thing, even if only because it's too complicated or inconvenient, normal people aren't going to be a big source of security issues due to that thing.
If that doesn't work, set up a deposit requirement like Apple wanted for the 3rd party stores and then walked back. Do something wrong, lose the deposit and the entitlements.
1. characterizing this as a "discussion thread about Meta" is a stretch. While the OP is about meta specifically, it's fairly obvious that as of a comments up, the discussion is about the behaviors of app developers in general, rather than what Meta is specifically doing.
2. Discussing unintended side effects isn't "moving the goalposts". If we're talking about the student debt crisis, and someone brings up the idea of student loan forgiveness, it's not "moving the goalposts" to bring up concerns about inflation.
The last time I used iOS I found the app store quality was also really bad. People listing "free apps" that immediately require you to start an expensive monthly subscription to use. The effect on the mobile games industry has been so disastrous that people would rather carry an entirely separate mobile device on them just to play "real games".
On google play or the app store you can play a mobile version of minecraft with microtransactions for $7. With sideloading you can just play a full version of the more popular java edition PC game, for free. (pojavlauncherteam.github.io). I think that sums up the sideloading experience.
Syncing files with Syncthing is no longer possible on Android because the Android team won't fix the performance of storage access framework, for example. This is 100% on Google, not Syncthing.
But I can still use SyncThing-fork because it's on FDroid. Similarly for the Fossify apps, Quillnote, KeepassDX, Privacy Browser, and dozens of others.
Apple will never put in the effort to make a community that thrives on sharing open source apps that are not profit driven. It's simply not in their DNA. And I don't want to have to live in a world where every developer that wants to make a mobile app has to pay a tithe to the overlords of Google and Apple. They will always claim that they're fixing security problems by acting as an intermediary, but there's no way for them to do that without replacing my choices with theirs, and nothing in Google's or Apple's decision-making history indicates they're better equipped to make decisions governing my machines than I am.
So why would a normal person want to sideload? Because they don't want Google and Apple telling them what software they can install on devices they purchased.
I have to think if Apple were mandated to be more open to competitors they would not be allowed to reject apps on this basis.
This problem is just multifaceted and far reaching. Not sure how to go about solving it?
This idea that apps are going to strong arm data out of users seems like one of those talking points which sounds good but doesn't pen out, but somehow simultaneously is used to prevent users from being able to increase either their freedom or their privacy. The status quo sucks, and is in the best interests of both overlords: Facebook knows if it has permission or not, and Apple can claim the only reason they won't abuse this knowledge is if you allow them curation control.
Not saying it doesn't suck, only that it is very ordinary and ubiquitous.
That's easy to say, and much more difficult to implement than it sounds.
Careful: There's a lot of nuance in how these kinds of options are presented to the user. Depending on how they're designed, "the general public" will default to yes or no; or get frustrated / overwhelmed with pedantic permission dialogs.
Thus, part of "Let Apple offer users the option" is a commitment to studying how that option is presented, and the overall implications of such an option.
I don’t follow. What is wrong with the status quo?
Businesses are deciding who lives and who dies, instead of people being allowed to have their own choice in the matter. These businesses make decisions based on data stolen from users. If the data were on paper in a person's home, it would be considered private and inaccessible.
Why should a company decide that they should have access to your every move and every data, just because you purchased something from them? Why should a company decide what you're allowed to do with your device? A business shouldn't be permitted to decide these decisions for you without your fully informed consent.
That's what's wrong with the status quo.
The status quo is that Apple has this power on top of the power to collect 30% for all digital transactions (or be denied on the store) and the power to force Apple Pay support to be required (or be denied on the store). Apple also has the power to collect all the data but deny it to others.
That's the status quo that the EU is addressing.
Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
> That's the status quo that the EU is addressing.
> Note: I don't want FB to have my data. I also don't want Apple to have those powers enumerated above.
Yes, and I concur.
In an ideal world that would be great. However, right now it is either Apple of Google when it comes to smart devices for average consumers. Kinda like political dichotomy in US politics.
Democracy will not function with an educated public. And dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions.
What makes you think that?
> dumbing down choices are just a way to get give power to megacorp and political institutions
Yes, and an educated public would find better ways to convey the same information because they can use their education to build a new thing, or build regulations or laws where they see a need, or build defenses against adversaries without sacrificing privacy. You can't do that with your local public (eg, citizens) if your citizens aren't able to comprehend the problems they're encountering.
Sorry now I can't edit the parent comment now. That was miss type (bad keyboard). Meant to say "Democracy will not function with OUT an educated public. Happy New Year!
This doesn't seem reasonable. Let's try to apply the logic elsewhere:
> Patients must take responsibility for knowing how medicine works and motivations of its creators/prescribers.
Requiring everyone to have deep technical knowledge about anything they use would prevent everyone from using more than the things they are experts in. So, there needs to be either a technological regression, or something to help defend users from unethical practices. The only entity really in a position to do that is a government, for better or worse.
This is true. If you blindly trust whatever your doctor says, you are going to have a bad time in the current medical system. Doctors are incentivized to push pills because they get kickbacks from the pharma industry. This is pretty well known (https://www.propublica.org/article/doctors-prescribe-more-of...)
When it comes to Elective surgeries, perscriptions. etc. you need to do your own research to how these things work and make an informed decision for yourself. Ultimately, if you're an adult, you are responsible for your own body and your own equipment.
It's not a matter of deep technical knowledge, it's shallow technical knowledge and political knowledge of what institutions are trustworthy.
Apps can and do detect this and deny access certain features. For instance the mcdonalds app won't give you offers if you choose approximate location.
I thought the value proposition of the walled garden was that no app was malicious so this is a non-issue.
And yes, Meta isn’t denying requesting everything under the sun. Their only retort is Apple’s privacy concerns are anticompetitive excuses. Two things can be true: Apple is only protecting their own interests, and Meta is a terrible would-be guardian of all the data they’re requesting.