Dueling Views on Apple v. Facebook (Premium)

This week, Apple took aggressive steps to counter Facebook privacy abuses on iOS. We should collectively cheer these actions. Right?

It depends on whom you ask.

Reading The New York Times this morning, I found a rare editorial that I actually agree with, contending that only Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, has the power to fix Facebook’s privacy problems. The editorial evaluating Apple’s recent actions to ban the distribution of Facebook’s internal testing apps on iOS because the social media network violated the terms of Apple’s Enterprise Developer Program.

“We designed our Enterprise Developer Program solely for the internal distribution of apps within an organization,” an Apple statement explains. “Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple.”

The New York Times editorial praises Apple’s “firm stand” against Facebook. And suggests that Cook could pull the nuclear level to punish Facebook even more.

“If Mr. Cook truly wants to protect Apple users from privacy-violating apps, he could remove all of Facebook’s products — including Instagram and WhatsApp — from the App Store until the company can prove, in a real and measurable way, that it cares about its users’ privacy,” The publication’s Kevin Roose ventures. “In the absence of government regulation, there may be no other option for bringing the company to heel on privacy.”

And there it is.

Because there are no governments---in the U.S. or elsewhere---taking material steps to curb Facebook’s voracious behavior, Roose believes that Apple could work in their place to use its own market power to harm the firm. Apple’s iPhones, after all, are a favorite of social media darlings, and they still command roughly 50 percent share in the United States and some Western European countries. Perhaps Apple could use its size to do some good.

I actually agree with this notion.

And it’s not as radical as some may believe. I’ve often made the point privately, to friends and family, that the very largest companies we often associate more with “bad” than “good” are in positions to positively change things in ways that would benefit their customers and, as important to them, their own bottom lines.

For example, a company like McDonald's---which many outright blame for America’s obesity endemic---could require its suppliers to deliver only healthy, antibiotic- and chemical-free offerings, dramatically improving the healthiness of its own offerings. Likewise, Walmart, which already has stringent supplier requirements, could demand similar requirements around food and other goods with regards to environmental protections, recyclability, and so on. These companies are simply too big for their suppliers to ignore.

Anyway, The New York Times correctly argues that an imagined Apple attack on Facebook’s core apps---because they �...