That's an interesting way to look at it. If I understand Apple's position, it's that Facebook can't deny functionality based on privacy settings. But it's less clear to me whether they're prohibited from offering something of actual value. Like if Facebook had a point system—"Facebucks"?—where users could buy stickers/apps in exchange for targeted ads, I wonder if Apple would permit that.
That, I honestly wouldn't have an issue with. If people choose to sell their privacy for something they actually want, that's up to them. It's the shady coercive crap that I despise.
I think that's what offends me most about Facebook's whole ham-fisted victim routine. They adopted a business model that was dumbfoundingly, arrogantly unsustainable: trying to fool all of the people all of the time.
Even the smartest, most devious minds in tech should have realized that that gravy train had a limit.
The "without their permission" part can't be reiterated enough here.
Apple didn't hurt Facebook. Apple simply gave its own users more control over what was happening, and people acted in their own best interests, as they have every right to do.
If revealing the truth to people and giving them a choice worked out very badly for Facebook, I'd say that speaks vastly more about Facebook than it does about Apple.
That, I honestly wouldn't have an issue with. If people choose to sell their privacy for something they actually want, that's up to them. It's the shady coercive crap that I despise.