Apple and Meta go to war over interoperability vs. privacy

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Meta’s Interoperability Requests

  • Meta has filed extensive interoperability requests under the EU’s DMA; Apple’s PDF lists asks like:
    • AirPlay / Continuity Camera, App Intents, Bluetooth device info
    • Apple Notification Center, iPhone Mirroring, CarPlay
    • Connectivity to all of a user’s Apple devices, messaging, Wi‑Fi networks/properties
  • Some see these as primarily about hardware integration (glasses/headsets working like Apple Watch/Vision Pro, showing notifications, connecting to Wi‑Fi).
  • Others view the scope as “asking for everything,” effectively deep access to devices, networks, and user data.

Apple’s Position and Self-Preferencing

  • Apple argues privacy, security, and ecosystem integrity justify keeping these APIs private.
  • Critics say Apple is exaggerating risks, using privacy as an anticompetitive shield to protect its own devices and services.
  • It’s noted Apple’s own apps have privileged, undocumented access that third parties cannot get, making true competition impossible.

Privacy, Data Access, and AI

  • Meta is seen as wanting OS-level access for “agentic AI” that can see more of users’ digital lives.
  • Some argue open APIs are required for any serious alternative assistant, including FOSS/local AIs; otherwise only Apple’s proprietary assistant can exist.
  • Others reject the entire idea of highly invasive assistants, especially given Meta’s ad-driven business model and history.

User Consent and Dark Patterns

  • Strong disagreement over whether prompts work:
    • One side: users blindly tap “allow,” so prompts don’t meaningfully protect privacy.
    • Other side: enough users deny access that companies resort to dark patterns and overreaching requests.
  • Ideas floated: bury dangerous options in developer settings, red “hacker/identity theft” warnings, countdown timers, or even fake/empty responses to apps.
  • Counterpoint: apps can and do punish users (e.g., WhatsApp nagging or degrading functionality when contacts access is limited).

Regulation, Walled Gardens, and Sideloading

  • DMA is framed as targeted at big platforms (like Apple) to force interoperability; this case is seen as an early test.
  • Some say Apple will likely open only in the EU, continuing its stricter model elsewhere.
  • Debate over sideloading:
    • Supporters: needed for user freedom, FOSS, and escaping App Store rent & policy limits.
    • Skeptics: fear a flood of shady apps, more fraud, and a weaker security baseline; argue most people won’t sideload, or will do so unsafely.

Trust in Big Tech and Corporate Power

  • Meta is widely distrusted: seen as fundamentally an ad/data company, with all “products” serving data collection; Oculus/Quest and WhatsApp behaviors are cited.
  • Apple is trusted more by some but criticized for:
    • Hidden or quietly-enabled features involving sensitive data (e.g., photo analysis in the cloud/AI).
    • Using closed APIs and App Store rules for self-preferencing.
  • Some argue megacorps are too powerful in general; a few call for breaking them up or “eradicating” the biggest ones.

User Rights and Broader Stakes

  • Several comments stress this is bigger than “Apple vs Meta”:
    • Core question: do individuals have the right to deep access to their own device data (and to delegate it to software of their choice), or is that power reserved for platform owners and a few large partners?
  • One camp emphasizes user autonomy and the right to opt in, including to Meta, FOSS agents, and alternative hardware.
  • Another insists on strong defaults and regulation because most users neither understand nor care enough to protect themselves, and can’t reasonably be expected to.