Apple did something unprecedented this week: it temporarily revoked Facebook’s ability to distribute internal iOS apps, in a punishment to the company. The fast, strong response came after the discovery that Facebook abused its enterprise privileges to install monitoring software on teenagers’ phones.
But Apple didn’t wield all of its power. In theory, Apple could have banned Facebook from the consumer-facing App Store entirely — a possible catastrophe for the social platform. The showdown demonstrates how vulnerable the tech giants are to one another, but some developers say that even if Apple made this decision, which it likely won’t, the results might not be as devastating as you’d imagine.
The ban would be a “much deserved handicap” on Facebook, but the company would survive it, says Guardian Mobile Firewall security expert Will Strafach, who helped parse Facebook’s teen monitoring app with TechCrunch. That’s because Facebook is more than just one app, giving it some safety; developers also say the company’s sprawling web presence means it’ll never really be gone from iOS.
Apple couldn’t simply ban all of Facebook with a button click. It would have to ban every developer account that spans Facebook’s app portfolio, which means banning the accounts for Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook itself, among those for other, smaller apps. That would be an unusual move, too, since Apple typically blocks developers on a per-app basis, rather than as a full account, iOS developer Phill Farrugia tells The Verge.
If Apple went through with it, Facebook would have few options — none of them good — for getting its app onto iOS devices. Facebook could use something called internal development certificates, which are designed for in-house beta testing, Farrugia says, but only 100 devices can be added per year. Jailbroken devices could install the app, but most people aren’t jailbreaking their phones, so Facebook couldn’t rely on it.
After a ban, Facebook’s best bet would be to encourage people to use its web app, but that has its own disadvantages. For one, native phone apps are often faster and give users an experience they’re used to, iOS developer Kiran Panesar tells The Verge. Web apps are less powerful, too. They don’t offer a comparable push notification system, he says, which is essential for messaging apps, and they can’t access information that a native app could, like a person’s contacts or the ability to track their location in the background.
Facebook would have to rethink its mobile web strategy and figure out how to make its web app more powerful and enticing. As someone who uses Facebook in mobile Safari, I can tell you that the current web experience is terrible. The text is small, scrolling is a pain, and everything I’d want to do on the app is slightly more of a struggle. The company also offers Instagram on the web, although you can’t post from it. WhatsApp has a web presence, too.
Even without its own apps, Facebook would still have a lot of insight into what’s happening on iOS devices. Its login system is widely used and sends usage data back to Facebook. Facebook also has a web tracker, the Facebook Pixel, that’s on 2.2 million websites, and its Like button appears on 8.4 million sites, following users along the way. That would all help Facebook continue to collect user data and target ads.
“Their SDK is in so many apps, and developers send so much analytics data to it for ad targeting,” Panesar says. “Facebook already has an insane understanding of how people use other company’s products.”
And then there’s Android. Android may only have a slight edge over iOS in the United States, but it’s far more widely used internationally — and none of those phones would be affected by the ban. At one point in 2017, more than four out of five new phones ran Android. And since the US represents less than a tenth of Facebook’s 2.3 billion monthly users, the impact would be limited.
Apple users would be the ones to suffer from a Facebook ban. Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and other Facebook properties have been among the top free App Store apps for years. Analysts estimate that they’re also among the most used apps on peoples’ phones, too. Apple would have to be okay with not only angering Facebook, but also disrupting its users’ lives. Without popular apps, the iPhone doesn’t do nearly as much.
While unlikely, Facebook is aware that being banned is a risk. In a filing with the SEC in October, Facebook said its lack of control over the platforms it’s on presents a threat to its business. “[Any] changes in our relationships with mobile operating system partners ... could adversely affect the usage of Facebook” and its ability to monetize, the company wrote. If it became more difficult to access Facebook, “our user growth and user engagement could be harmed.”
Apple is happy to knock Facebook for its lax privacy practices here and there, but it isn’t completely gunning for the company. That means a full Facebook ban isn’t likely to happen. Apple may not like Facebook, but it’s reliant on the rival tech giant, too.
Comments
I think a Facebook ban would hurt Apple more in the long term. It’s like Microsoft banning Chrome on Windows – it would hurt Microsoft much more than it would hurt Google. Platforms are tricky.
By andromorr on 02.01.19 8:38am
I would say 3/4 of users wouldn’t even notice if you gave them FF with Chrome icon instead until webpages started nagging to get Chrome – they would just think Google updated UI.
Also, MS has monopoly in desktops and laptops. Very few people would decide to install Linux to keep using Chrome and even fewer would consider getting ChromeOS device. Even those that would, laptop and desktop cycles are long. Even if all Chrome users decide to jump ship with their new laptop, it will start hurting only after a year. MS would be in a world of hurt because of antitrust stuff, not because of people running from their platform all that fast.
Apple would suffer more by banning FB as they don’t dominate anywhere. Near term FB would lose users (people won’t buy a new phone straight away), long term Apple would (as the next phone of many won’t be an iPhone). Pretty unfortunate, as both FB and Google should rot in hell for the BS they keep pulling regarding privacy.
By Zizy on 02.01.19 9:41am
It’s not a like for like comparison.
By llort on 02.01.19 9:47am
I don’t think it’s going to happen. Facebook still has a very large userbase, many of them loyal and hooked to their platform. Their web app is pure garbage.
There would definitely be large backlash.
By AlexBro on 02.01.19 8:38am
Apple would suffer worse than Facebook
By big-ted on 02.01.19 8:51am
A ban would be better for society.
By CC.CC.CC on 02.01.19 8:52am
Twitter ban would be even better for society.
By TK-093 on 02.01.19 10:34am
How so? People have much more of a distrust in Facebook than they do with Twitter
By A Cup of Coffee on 02.01.19 12:25pm
Pure vitriol and misinformation flow more freely on twitter.
By mnbqaw on 02.01.19 12:45pm
It’s so not going to happen. Whatsapp and facebook messenger are the #1 and #2 most popular messaging apps in the world. Not having them would be a dealbreaker, and kill iOS market share abroad.
By cometguy on 02.01.19 9:17am
I actually think Apple would had the balls to do it a couple of years ago. Now that selling more iPhones is more important than ever, not having Facebook available is not something Apple can afford. I bet this quick ban on internal Facebook apps already made some shareholders pretty nervous.
By guaip on 02.01.19 10:04am
Or maybe apple will resuscitate their own social media efforts with ping
By llort on 02.01.19 10:28am
Messenger apps come and go all the time though, that’s why they were hacking phones and breaking Apple’s rules to do research.
By nico_mach on 02.01.19 11:00am
Unless they develop cross-compatibility, whatsapp isn’t going to go any time soon. It has 1.5 billion active users, and its rate of growth is increasing. Outside the US, you may use something in addition to whatsapp, but it’s unlikely you’re not going to be using whatsapp at all.
By cometguy on 02.01.19 12:38pm
Short term ones?
Sure. But Messenger, WhatsApp and (weChat for China) have pretty outlasted everyone. There’s apps which have a niche and rise up for a while, but usually collapse down to the niches since people aren’t going to adopt.
By catfoodstudios on 02.02.19 9:36am
This! I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of analysis and everybody seems to ignore (or be unaware of) the dominance of Whatsapp outside of the US. I live in Mexico and Whatsapp is the only messaging platform that people actually use.
Without it you might as well not have a smart phone.
By manuel.niederl on 02.01.19 11:20am
Yeah, let’s ask the iOS dev why Web Apps are a less viable option
By woef on 02.01.19 9:31am
haha, this! Web apps have gotten significantly better recently. I think facebook could make a pretty good experience these days on a web app if it put its mind to it. Unfortunately apple does not support service workers for push notifications so that is a problem. I use these all the time on my android device, They are secure (e2e encrypted), and don’t require me to install some companies crappy app on my device.I wish apple would support them.
By jonomacd on 02.01.19 10:29am
An utterly pointless what if article.
By I'll take the blue pill. Cheers. on 02.01.19 9:32am
Good illustration of the value of a proportionate response. None of Apple’s customers – or Facebook app users – were materially inconvenienced by the dev cert revocation, but it got Menlo Park’s attention like a sockful of quarters to the back of the head. Hopefully that’s enough, but as long as ZuckBot3000 and his nanny are still in charge, I wouldn’t expect too much experiential learning.
By VandyImport on 02.01.19 9:38am
Jesus what clickbait. That was never at issue; it was always about using the GD enterprise cert in circumvention of the App Store. I really thought the Verge was better than this.
By VeryAnnoyed on 02.01.19 9:52am
Better than what? Explaining the situation better by engaging a ‘what if’? You know Einstein’s most famous work came from ‘what if’ exercises? So did America’s founders. So did Apple’s mobile devices. ‘What ifs’ drive civilization to progress.
By nico_mach on 02.01.19 11:02am
Better than implying that something that was never on the table is actually plausible to get traffic. And let’s face it, there is no resemblance to Einstein here.
By VeryAnnoyed on 02.02.19 11:27am
Apple would also likely kiss the india market goodbye. Social media has exploded in the last 5-8 years, coinciding with cheap/reasonably priced chinese phones flooding the market and the advent of 3G + 4G in more recent times. Whatsapp is the de facto platform of communication for personal and businesses spanning an enormous user base (some 200+ million users, pretty sure more).
Apple is the rank underdog in India to begin with – the consumers have, so far, voted with their wallets. As a price sensitive market, people want value for their money, and Xiaomi Oneplus etc. are immensely popular to begin with. If apple’s offering was typically more expensive and not include whatsapp/instagram etc., there would be basically no value proposition for the average consumer in India at least. Apple’s share is low and growth in India is a huge priority for the company.
By llort on 02.01.19 9:56am
.
By mnbqaw on 02.01.19 12:48pm