Apple vs Facebook: About Apple's Own Abusive Practices

Apple is not better than Facebook, and if you are a user, this is why you should use Android instead.

1422 views

By. Jacob

Edited: 2020-08-09 12:17

Facebook (FB) has had their share of scandals over privacy in 2018, which in turn seem to have triggered a wave of criticism over their ad-supported business model. Interestingly enough, some of this has come from Apple's CEO Tim Cook, who is facing a different kind of problem with his own company.

Disclosure: I own stock in both Apple and Facebook. But, ethically, Apple is the one that is the-most problematic in my opinion.

While Facebook's problems is mostly restricted to unintended data leakage, those of Apple (AAPL) are intentional design decisions, which allow them to maintain control over their users, and limit what the user is able to do with their devices.

The above manifests in different ways, but a central aspect is the design of the iOS system. Another way is by incompatibility with other systems (so called vendor-lock-in). As an investor, this does not really worry me too much. But, as a user I have often find myself hugely inconvenienced by it.

I disagreed with the EU Google/Android antitrust case, because it was actually possible for users to install software without Google Play. An apple antitrust case would have been justifiable!

In the past, I have owned a Microsoft Windows Phone, several Android phones, and more recently, an Apple iPhone. Only with iOS have I had to find crazy moronic workarounds to very simple problems. For example, I have been forced uploading something to my DropBox just to transfer it to/from my iPhone or iPad. Simply drag & drop of files from/to a PC via USB is not possible. It is truly a horrific design decision on Apple's part – and users hate it. This has not been a problem with my Android devices.

The problem with Apple

Apple is not facing the same problems with privacy, but some of their products are clearly designed to pester their users, and prevent them from easily getting things done. Think developers have it easier? Nope! they got their own share of Apple related problems.

For instance, when it comes to App Store, users are prevented from installing apps from outside, while developers are required to pay money to have apps included. This is very abusive and anti-competitive.

As iPhone and iPad users, we are placed in a type of "jail", forcing us to use App Store when installing apps – hence the word "jailbreaking". It should also be mentioned that jailbreaking your Apple device apparently voids the warranty.

Not only are Developers forced to pay money to get into App Store, they are also required to pay a percentage of the money made through app store to Apple. This is not a problem from an investors point of view, but it is a very abusive towards developers. Apple has no right to claim any money made from sales through App Store.

I think having a central App Store is perfectly fine, but closing off the platform to alternatives is abusive towards users. Currently, developers have no alternative on iOS, since all apps must be listed in the official App Store – which costs money!

Possibly, it will only be a matter of time before Apple will be hit by regulators over this. After all, both Microsoft and Google has been fined for less.

Apple is suing fruit logos

I also learned recently (August 2020) that Apple is apparently suing random companies with fruit logos, of which, at least some do not even look like the apple logo design.

This was reported by a website called iPhone in Canada. The story is that Apple is suing the Prepear app over its logo design, which does not even look like Apple's logo. It pretty much looks like an expensive practical joke. Think about it. Apple vs Pear. ha ha!

There is a also petition to Save the Pear from Apple,

Ad-supported business model

The discussion about ads is a distraction from the real issues. The fact is, Facebook has security issues that needs fixing regardless of which business model they are using.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an advertising-supported business model, and in Facebook's case, the data they have on their users, is going to remain in their systems regardless of business model – the data does not magically disappear by changing the business model.

They might as well stick with the ad-supported model, since it works, and they do it exceptionally well compared to others.

Google vs Facebook

If we look at the methods Google use for their interest-based-advertising, then their business model might actually be under larger threat than Facebook. Even if Facebook stopped tracking users via their web-page plugins (such as comment modules and like buttons), they still have more than enough data on users, which they collected through their own platform. This is the typical data users give themselves, such as liking posts, and entering information in their profiles.

Due to the data users (mostly) willingly and knowingly give when using Facebook, ads can be made extremely relevant without tracking users. This is unlike Google's ads, which relies on guessing users interests based on browsing habits and content on pages.

There is also non-interest based ads on Google. For Europe, this is something publishers can turn on in their Adsense account. We still need consent to use cookies, but the interest based ads is then turned off. My guess is that they will perform worse than interest based ads, which is also the reason I did not disable it on Beamtic. In reality, I am likely loosing money because most users seem not to give consent to show ads.

A Paid version of Facebook

Tim Cook has voiced some, IMO, hypocritical criticism of Facebook, which seem largely based on ignorance. But, if a paid version of Facebook is created, this might actually benefit Facebook and investors in the longer run. So, I am not too worried about this. However, since data is required for Facebook to work, I see little point in limiting Facebooks ability to monetize it. Facebook does not sell data (something they have repeatedly stated). The data still belong to us, and we are free to delete it as users.

Even if a paid alternative is created, I still hope they continue to sell ads. A lot of people benefit from running ads. If Facebook stopped selling ads, the data would still be collected, and leakages can still happen. This is something critics need to keep in mind.

There is value in advertising, and the format Facebook offers is particularly valuable – perhaps even unmatched in the industry.