Apple's Power Move to Kneecap Facebook Advertising Is Working(bigtechnology.substack.com)
bigtechnology.substack.com
Apple's Power Move to Kneecap Facebook Advertising Is Working
https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/completely-running-blind-apples-power
413 comments
> The fraud bots will keep the ecosystem running
It's like that everywhere.
Yesterday a friend of mind was revealing to me that crypto currency exchanges were pressuring them to create bots so that their coin trading volume would go up or they would be delisted.
There are bots to write comments on trip advisor and to star on amazon. Bots to follow on twitter. Bot to click on referal links and bot to farm in games.
I'm pretty sure if we all suddenly went offline, half the internet would seem to keep going as usual.
It's like that everywhere.
Yesterday a friend of mind was revealing to me that crypto currency exchanges were pressuring them to create bots so that their coin trading volume would go up or they would be delisted.
There are bots to write comments on trip advisor and to star on amazon. Bots to follow on twitter. Bot to click on referal links and bot to farm in games.
I'm pretty sure if we all suddenly went offline, half the internet would seem to keep going as usual.
> I'm pretty sure if we all suddenly went offline, half the internet would seem to keep going as usual.
Seems like a reasonable estimate if half the internet is porn.
Seems like a reasonable estimate if half the internet is porn.
There are massive bot farms that watch videos, click on ads, sometimes even do a download of the app after clicking and open the app. I've sometimes thought Google could cut out the middleman and just allow creators to outright buy 'views' on YouTube. You could pay like $100 to get 10,000 additional views which would translate to some additional ad revenue, which ad companies would know is inflated so they would discount the rates appropriately and no money would need to be sent to bot farms. This would also be far greener and need less servers and bandwidth and would be an overall win-win.
It's one thing to read about the click farms, but nothing can prepare one to actually see the videos of them in action - just visceral. It has an eerie Matrix-like feeling to it.
13 sec video of a Chinese click farm (quite loud):
https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1072114511212109824
10 sec - thousands of phones (not loud):
https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1148447866366464000
13 sec video of a Chinese click farm (quite loud):
https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1072114511212109824
10 sec - thousands of phones (not loud):
https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1148447866366464000
That is laughably sad. I've been depressed, but for some reason started to laugh.
And the scene from Silicon Valley
But what about the workers. It's likely that those working at the bot farms aren't wealthy, and that they're from less wealthy countries. So this is good, addressing the immediate problem of energy waste, but doesn't address the underlying problem of wealth inequality that - in general - drives people to work on systems to rip others off.
Those who run the bot farms will find other scummy work, and no end of desperate workers.
Those who run the bot farms will find other scummy work, and no end of desperate workers.
It makes sense. If that happened, who would lose in the short term?
This has been since what feels like forever. Once a couple of people I worked with found and penetrated one of these "click farms". We saw all the stats, the number where impressive.
I had a private contact within google's SRE team and spilled all the beans, ask where I should dump the information within google. The answer was as blunt as telling: no one would be interested since it would hurt their bottom line.
Tried to inform a couple of Googlies at different cons in the months following: as much as they liked the tricks we pulled to get in, as little did they want to bring the subject up in their teams.
Clicks are Google's Crack.
I had a private contact within google's SRE team and spilled all the beans, ask where I should dump the information within google. The answer was as blunt as telling: no one would be interested since it would hurt their bottom line.
Tried to inform a couple of Googlies at different cons in the months following: as much as they liked the tricks we pulled to get in, as little did they want to bring the subject up in their teams.
Clicks are Google's Crack.
One aspect that shouldn't be lost - the implicit framing of the platforms being "under attack" by the bots is wrong - the bots are likely a net positive for the platforms - they're very much complicit with the fraud, or at least condone it. They sell views and clicks - if bots create more views and clicks, so be it. It's the advertisers who bear the cost.
Taking Facebook as an example:
Creating an account, linking Oculus Quest to it and leaving the account dormant - accounts locked en masse.
US account that logs in from Indonesian IPs, never posts anything, likes 5000 random things ranging from a shampoo to a cafe in a small Ohio town, to the new shirts of an Albanian soccer club - in Facebook's view that's a perfectly legitimate account.
Taking Facebook as an example:
Creating an account, linking Oculus Quest to it and leaving the account dormant - accounts locked en masse.
US account that logs in from Indonesian IPs, never posts anything, likes 5000 random things ranging from a shampoo to a cafe in a small Ohio town, to the new shirts of an Albanian soccer club - in Facebook's view that's a perfectly legitimate account.
Maybe in the short term it works like that, but ultimately a platform's value comes from its real users. And bots make the platform less attractive to real users.
But Facebook, like most social media platforms, is addictive, so it is not obvious that in the long term a reasonable usage of them will emerge.
Lack of movement in sales after paying Facebook for advertisements will emerge, and that will certainly be noticed.
You may overestimate the sophistication of ad buyers, and underestimate the ability of Facebook to convince buyers that their ads are working
The increased ability to track the efficacy of ads is the value of the tracking that the internet enabled, hence the value of Facebook. Hampering this ability to match ads to purchases reduces the price these ads can be sold at, it is what the whole article and situation are talking about.
Movies make billions of dollars from users who don't contribute any content. As long as users consume content, who cares who makes it?
The people bearing the real cost are the people trying to sell products with ads. Facebook more or less sets up the system to pass that cost along.
To be fair the cost of ads varies based on demand; advertisers wouldn't pay more than the ROI they're seeing from their ads, so the prices have the cost of ad fraud somewhat priced in?
Most marketing departments I've met don't check their ROI. They request budget, spend it on campaign, then make power points to tell the rest of the company that they were successful.
Dunno who you’ve worked with but in 2021 that’s patently false. Optimizing Facebook ad performance for ROAS is a precise science. Marketing budgets are heavily scrutinized and hard to defend precisely because of dismissive attitudes like this, so you better believe most marketers are working their tails off to measure and deliver ROI.
There's a name for this: The Dead Internet theory[0]
It postulates that the majority of the "organic" content is actually generated by bots, and the number of human interactions online is a tiny subset. We are all wandering unknowingly through a wasteland haunted by robot ghosts.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/08/dead-...
It postulates that the majority of the "organic" content is actually generated by bots, and the number of human interactions online is a tiny subset. We are all wandering unknowingly through a wasteland haunted by robot ghosts.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/08/dead-...
In this case at least the article implies this not to be true, one of the interviewed ceos said he used to generate 80% of his revenue from Facebook ad buys and now it’s only 20%. This would imply he’s getting his ads in front of real people.
Beep beep boop boop. I regular person, like your comment!
> I'm pretty sure if we all suddenly went offline, half the internet would seem to keep going as usual.
That could be a good Black Mirror like scifi movie, everyone dies but chatter and social media just keep living on.
"Did you guys see that amazing sunset last night? Check out this book to capture these amazing moments!"
"Can't wait to see the new [dystopian movie] this weekend!"
"Amazing shows to see this weekend. Download our event app to log on and find the fun!"
"The [other party] are a it again today... protests should be intense today at the capitol."
... no one there ...
That could be a good Black Mirror like scifi movie, everyone dies but chatter and social media just keep living on.
"Did you guys see that amazing sunset last night? Check out this book to capture these amazing moments!"
"Can't wait to see the new [dystopian movie] this weekend!"
"Amazing shows to see this weekend. Download our event app to log on and find the fun!"
"The [other party] are a it again today... protests should be intense today at the capitol."
... no one there ...
sounds a little like autofac by philip k dick[1]. there's an electric dreams episode about it, ironically streaming on amazon[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofac
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6902176/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofac
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6902176/
I love these kinds of stories
> CGI 3D Animated Shorts : "LAST DAY OF WAR" - by Dima Fedotov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJmTeBSEzU
> CGI 3D Animated Shorts : "LAST DAY OF WAR" - by Dima Fedotov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJmTeBSEzU
People “want” the free content and services that this advertising has been paying for. And the actual consequences of Apple’s decision for users and small businesses that rely on efficient advertising to connect with users will take time to become clear.
You mean... they might need to charge money in exchange for goods and/or services?
How capitalistically gauche!
How capitalistically gauche!
Good. This will just accelerate the shift to crypto, where I can pay per page or per click, just tiny amount at a time.
"shift to crypto" mmm that seems unlikely
$0.15 for the page and $50.00 for the gas fee.
Twitter has announced support for lightning. Why would anyone use eth when streamable money in isolated payment channels on top of the most secure monetary network in the world exists, is beyond me.
Because rollups exist on Ethereum that are cheap and are far more suited to end user self-custody then lightning ever can be. At the moment zk-rollups are roughly 100x cheaper then mainnet, don't require the user to run a node to self custody, and the user can force a withdrawal to mainnet even if the roll-up operator completely dies.
Right, you’re only missing one important detail:
> on top of the most secure monetary network
Because eth is a circus: major cult of personality issues, major scalability issues, monetary policy is all over the place, changed at a whim of god knows who or in reaction to past shortsightedness and a planned transition away from the one thing that keeps at least some semblance of stability - PoW towards even less politically stable rich-get-richer PoS, being sold as scalability solution without having anything to do with scalability at all.
It’s a joke.
> on top of the most secure monetary network
Because eth is a circus: major cult of personality issues, major scalability issues, monetary policy is all over the place, changed at a whim of god knows who or in reaction to past shortsightedness and a planned transition away from the one thing that keeps at least some semblance of stability - PoW towards even less politically stable rich-get-richer PoS, being sold as scalability solution without having anything to do with scalability at all.
It’s a joke.
The problem is twofold:
1. I want to look around and find what is useful for me. I'm not willing to spend very much money per unit of information, because I'm sifting through a bunch of crap.
2. For stuff that is valuable, I'm willing to pay, but I can't tell if something is valuable until I look at it in its totality.
1. I want to look around and find what is useful for me. I'm not willing to spend very much money per unit of information, because I'm sifting through a bunch of crap.
2. For stuff that is valuable, I'm willing to pay, but I can't tell if something is valuable until I look at it in its totality.
I've been holding out hope for at least 15 years that Apple would find a way to make micropayments work for news. I pay for a few subscriptions, but I'd happily pay a little bit for news items I read elsewhere.
People don’t “want” the free content at the cost of privacy infringing surveillance and toxic behavior manipulation.
These companies need to find a better business model, otherwise they are about to go the way of the dodo.
These companies need to find a better business model, otherwise they are about to go the way of the dodo.
I'm honestly not sure we've proven that. All this experiment shows is 96% of people want something for free (without ads) and 4% of people feel bad about taking something for free.
I don't want the tracking either, but not badly enough to stop using the free services I get.
I think most people probably actually feel this way, but I don't have data to back my assertion.
I don't want the tracking either, but not badly enough to stop using the free services I get.
I think most people probably actually feel this way, but I don't have data to back my assertion.
96% of people want something for free, sure; but these are iPhone users, so they’ve already paid extra money for a premium product.
At the moment you can't really pay for Facebook. A fair experiment would be for FB to launch a premium version with no ads/spying for a monthly fee equivalent to their average revenue per user in that country and see how many people sign up.
The problem with that is that the premium users then become a more valuable ad target, and the free users less valuable. So you have to charge even more making them even more valuable. Eventually you reach some equilibrium. But by this point the premium users are such an attractive ad target that the platform eventually starts sneaking in an occasional ad, and then more frequently etc…
Cable TV used to be ad free when it started out.
HBO is probably the best counterexample, but if you look at what they’re doing with HBO max, even they might not be able to resist forever.
Cable TV used to be ad free when it started out.
HBO is probably the best counterexample, but if you look at what they’re doing with HBO max, even they might not be able to resist forever.
In my opinion regulation should be implemented to explicitly forbid using someone's willingness to pay to raise prices but that's besides the point here - my point is that until Facebook offers a paid version at a reasonable price (and I think current average revenue per user would be reasonable) it would be misleading to say that people have chosen and prefer free with ads/spying over paid when the paid option simply doesn't exist.
That's one way to look at it, and it's easy to see that conclusion. Nobody wants to pay for anything they don't have to, so it is a fair conclusion.
However, it could also be that people are sick and tired of having all of the data collected with no control over how it is used. It could be initially used for one thing, but then re-accessed later when something new the data is determined useful. It could even be used by a different company than what originally collected it.
When asked in a manner that makes it obvious it is tracking, people clearly are saying no. When phrased in a manner like 'allow us to offer you deals', as it has been in the past, it is less obvious and people have just shrugged their shoulders and said "whatevs just stop bugging me".
However, it could also be that people are sick and tired of having all of the data collected with no control over how it is used. It could be initially used for one thing, but then re-accessed later when something new the data is determined useful. It could even be used by a different company than what originally collected it.
When asked in a manner that makes it obvious it is tracking, people clearly are saying no. When phrased in a manner like 'allow us to offer you deals', as it has been in the past, it is less obvious and people have just shrugged their shoulders and said "whatevs just stop bugging me".
That’s a good observation but it remains that no amount of hosts are going to foot the bill of a billion Facebook users without some serious societal shift to people realizing they can ‘say no to tracking’ if they give up real dollars.
Anecdotal, but I am people so I think it’s fair. I never went back to “free” tv after Switching over to Netflix and Hulu.
I was quite shocked to learn that when US cable tv was a new thing, one of its advertising thrusts was that there were no ads.
Not being in the US, I don't know what the situation is precisely. But I do know that a "1 hour" tv show is over after 42 minutes... apparently, cable went from almost no ads to 1/3rd ads.
I moderate my long-term expectations for streaming accordingly.
Not being in the US, I don't know what the situation is precisely. But I do know that a "1 hour" tv show is over after 42 minutes... apparently, cable went from almost no ads to 1/3rd ads.
I moderate my long-term expectations for streaming accordingly.
Depends on the channel too. I was visiting the US and tried to watch history channel show. The ads made it unwatchable; there where literally a break in the ads to show what was coming up on the show I had been watching for 20 min before going back to ads. Felt like they where saying: “ don’t forget you where watching this”. Never going to watch cable without a dvr again (still annoying but better).
Taking advantage of humanity's cognitive bias towards seeking free & convenient services while ignoring the fine print or the long term consequences is still exploitation.
Frankly, hidden externalities should be illegal.
Frankly, hidden externalities should be illegal.
>Frankly, hidden externalities should be illegal.
I'd love to see how the lawyers would phrase that one.
I'd love to see how the lawyers would phrase that one.
It’s an externality, but certainly not hidden.
We can't know what the Web would look like without spying, data-moated giants wandering the landscape, making everything "free". The thing about a "free" spying service is that it competes with paid services and with actually-free ones. There's a reason open protocols have stagnated over the last couple decades—it's less rewarding to work on and promote a free, open social network based Email + a hypercharged, dynamic, living and evolving RSS (or whatever, maybe Mastadon, who knows) when the competition is Facebook and Twitter, and they're both "free" and the teams you're competing with are funded at eight, nine, or even ten figures.
And let's not forget that every time some promising alternative appears Facebook either fast follows (i.e. plagiarizes) it, or buys it and buries it in a hole somewhere.
This. That's the problem. It's not just one company unfairly being screwed by Apple. They've lied about everything else.
Has Facebook ever done this to an alternative that wasn’t just ‘Facebook 2’, ie. it would have solved the problems and grievances people here have with the Facebook platform?
Hard to say, as many of the industry’s more famous acquisitions/destructions were before any effective attempts to monetise.
I think there's a possibility it would resemble similar industries like mobile services - you would subscribe to a social media service provider of your choice and you'd use their service which is interoperable with other social media service providers. They could sell different monthly plans with some amount of allowed photo/video uploads, messages, etc. To us it might sound strange now, but it would feel entirely normal to people in a world who never experienced free services powered by spying. Not sure if that would be better or worse than what we have now.
That’s almost exactly how Usenet worked back when I was a kid.
The vast majority of the actual content of the internet is provided by people for free to the internet in general. Even your post right now that I disagree with, you likely didn't get paid to post.
That content on Facebook that keeps people coming back? It's not the ads or deals; What keeps people coming back is what their friends, families, and idols post. They're effectively generating content for Facebook which they are then profiting off of "for free".
The straw man argument here is that Facebook is providing the platform and that is how people are compensated for their content. It's kind of fair, but it's been wildly abused. There are competitors, but it's the lock in and invasion that has given Facebook it's value not choice.
There is no informed opt-in, discussion or debate about the value you provide to Facebook in exchange for the value they get out of you. That is the cash-cow Facebook has been milking and when given an informed choice people are now saying, "No, I'm worth more than this garbage."
I'm tearing into Facebook because that's the target of this post but that content is provided on every platform. The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms. The marketing content is noise that people complain about and do not want.
That content on Facebook that keeps people coming back? It's not the ads or deals; What keeps people coming back is what their friends, families, and idols post. They're effectively generating content for Facebook which they are then profiting off of "for free".
The straw man argument here is that Facebook is providing the platform and that is how people are compensated for their content. It's kind of fair, but it's been wildly abused. There are competitors, but it's the lock in and invasion that has given Facebook it's value not choice.
There is no informed opt-in, discussion or debate about the value you provide to Facebook in exchange for the value they get out of you. That is the cash-cow Facebook has been milking and when given an informed choice people are now saying, "No, I'm worth more than this garbage."
I'm tearing into Facebook because that's the target of this post but that content is provided on every platform. The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms. The marketing content is noise that people complain about and do not want.
Idk I find myself scrolling on Instagram and being more interested in the ads they show then some of the content I see. People want to see ads for cool things, there’s a reason places like Pinterest are big.
I honestly cannot fathom this opinion. I literally cannot think of a single instance where I've ever seen an ad and thought "Yes, I'm glad that I'm seeing this instead of the content I came here for." If that's true, why bother even going on Instagram at all?
I'll admit that I don't use Pinterest, but from what I understand, it's main feature is being a place for user-curated image collections, yes? That's very different than algorithmically distributed, paid-for ads.
I'll admit that I don't use Pinterest, but from what I understand, it's main feature is being a place for user-curated image collections, yes? That's very different than algorithmically distributed, paid-for ads.
Well, if ads were never relevant, people would never click them and purchase the products they link to, and CPMs would be $0. The vast majority of people I know either run an ad blocker or don’t click ads - but a lot of people do, especially if the ad provides some discount on an item they viewed last week. I even got a free Nest Mini one time from clicking an official Google store ad.
On Instagram the content itself resembles ads. It's not hard for me to imagine that an ad for something you could actually buy might be more interesting than an ad for some dork's fake online persona you can buy into.
> The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms.
What is missing from your rant is, why would any platform exist then? Nobody is building them without expecting to profit off the mutual relationship. I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free. You want a BBForum, go right ahead. But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
What is missing from your rant is, why would any platform exist then? Nobody is building them without expecting to profit off the mutual relationship. I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free. You want a BBForum, go right ahead. But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though.
Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia fits here to certain extent) or else a federated system like email. Whether the business model that maintains a centralised system is for-profit or not is basically irrelevant. Facebook would have as much difficulty taking over wikipedia’s leadership in online encycolpedias as Wikipedia would have trying to become the dominant social network. It’s just a matter of who got there first (at least until they possibly get displaced by something else that users drift toward).
Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia fits here to certain extent) or else a federated system like email. Whether the business model that maintains a centralised system is for-profit or not is basically irrelevant. Facebook would have as much difficulty taking over wikipedia’s leadership in online encycolpedias as Wikipedia would have trying to become the dominant social network. It’s just a matter of who got there first (at least until they possibly get displaced by something else that users drift toward).
> They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though.
I’m not sure how to reply to someone that compares multimedia, feature-filled social networks to a mostly-read-only information store.
I’m not sure how to reply to someone that compares multimedia, feature-filled social networks to a mostly-read-only information store.
And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. Wikipedia is a method by which users generate, disseminate, and moderate content of a specific media type. Facebook, et al., don't innovate on the content being produced, because they do not produce it. They innovate on removing friction to the first two, or producing new methods for the third.
Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
> And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity.
While you can be pedantic, I did not reply to their actual points.
> Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex.
This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
While you can be pedantic, I did not reply to their actual points.
> Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex.
This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
The comparison to the Dropbox comment is very fair. I maintain that I paid the piper his dues; it's complicated, but not complex, and I would never dare charge that I could make an equivalent service. However, I do charge that it's extremely overblown.
> it's complicated, but not complex
These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
> [complicated, complex] are synonyms.
I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. Though I guess if we’re in a thread of people reducing various platforms to a BBForum/Wikipedia, it wouldn’t make any sense to them.
They aren't synonyms, though they are related concepts:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10459/what-is-th...
I admit the distinction got me at first as it is quite a subtle one but the point made by the parent commenter is valid.
I admit the distinction got me at first as it is quite a subtle one but the point made by the parent commenter is valid.
I'll compare them to a BBForum/Wikipedia.
I disagree that these features are inherently valuable; in fact, I disagree that they have any value at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the basis of any media enterprise is the generation, dissemination, and moderation of content. The smallest, most well-known, prototype of an enterprise that accomplishes all three is Wikipedia. Aside from these features, anything extra is cruft.
Yes, this is overly-reductionist, weirdly neo-ludditic, and speaks past your points without paying your arguments the proper dues. We're cross-talking because we have different values; I do not value the things that you value.
The games, filters, marketplace, and messenger you mention are not features. They are deficiently complicated ways to achieve the core features of media enterprise; further, I don't think they're valuable media to deliver in the first place.
As to how I disambiguate complexity vs complicatedness, the first relates to the variety of interactions in a system while complicatedness relates to the sum total state of a system. A system with one node whose only input is its output, which outputs a TB of data to itself every second, and which stores all data it generates, is complicated. A system with two nodes, whose only inputs are each others' outputs, where one generates a byte of data every century and neither saves state, is more complex than the first but less complicated, and the converse is true.
I only consider the complicatedness vs complexity of features that _I_ deem worthwhile; if I don't consider a feature worthwhile, then all of its complexity is just cruft, which gets lumped into the less-granular metric of complicatedness.
I don't deem any of the features you mention (which differentiate FB, etc., from Wikipedia) to be worthwhile; therefore, they're all just more complicated versions of Wikipedia, without any meaningful improvements in the base complexity.
Also, how inherently complex are these features? Can you give me a best-case complexity? How are you measuring this 'inherent complexity'?
I've read through your replies to this thread. If I had your values, I'd agree heartily with you. What you say makes sense, your arguments are well-reasoned, and you present yourself well. I sincerely appreciate that you've taken the time to engage.
I hope I've confirmed the suspicion that seems to be built into your replies: our disagreement is not logical. It's entirely based on a difference in our values.
I disagree that these features are inherently valuable; in fact, I disagree that they have any value at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the basis of any media enterprise is the generation, dissemination, and moderation of content. The smallest, most well-known, prototype of an enterprise that accomplishes all three is Wikipedia. Aside from these features, anything extra is cruft.
Yes, this is overly-reductionist, weirdly neo-ludditic, and speaks past your points without paying your arguments the proper dues. We're cross-talking because we have different values; I do not value the things that you value.
The games, filters, marketplace, and messenger you mention are not features. They are deficiently complicated ways to achieve the core features of media enterprise; further, I don't think they're valuable media to deliver in the first place.
As to how I disambiguate complexity vs complicatedness, the first relates to the variety of interactions in a system while complicatedness relates to the sum total state of a system. A system with one node whose only input is its output, which outputs a TB of data to itself every second, and which stores all data it generates, is complicated. A system with two nodes, whose only inputs are each others' outputs, where one generates a byte of data every century and neither saves state, is more complex than the first but less complicated, and the converse is true.
I only consider the complicatedness vs complexity of features that _I_ deem worthwhile; if I don't consider a feature worthwhile, then all of its complexity is just cruft, which gets lumped into the less-granular metric of complicatedness.
I don't deem any of the features you mention (which differentiate FB, etc., from Wikipedia) to be worthwhile; therefore, they're all just more complicated versions of Wikipedia, without any meaningful improvements in the base complexity.
Also, how inherently complex are these features? Can you give me a best-case complexity? How are you measuring this 'inherent complexity'?
I've read through your replies to this thread. If I had your values, I'd agree heartily with you. What you say makes sense, your arguments are well-reasoned, and you present yourself well. I sincerely appreciate that you've taken the time to engage.
I hope I've confirmed the suspicion that seems to be built into your replies: our disagreement is not logical. It's entirely based on a difference in our values.
> This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
Or at least the common misconception about it. See [0] for a summary of how the comment was actually mostly spot on, and even YC agreed[1]. Quoting dang, "we should see it as a successful conversation with a graceful ending, rather than mocking someone for not knowing the future".
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275
[1] - "When YC funded Dropbox, it was because they believed in Drew, not file synchronization"
Or at least the common misconception about it. See [0] for a summary of how the comment was actually mostly spot on, and even YC agreed[1]. Quoting dang, "we should see it as a successful conversation with a graceful ending, rather than mocking someone for not knowing the future".
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275
[1] - "When YC funded Dropbox, it was because they believed in Drew, not file synchronization"
No, I disagree. Similar to that infamous comment, the person above was reducing multiple full featured social media platforms to BBForums. While the context and outcome night be different, the gist is still the same.
Last I checked Wikimedia was primarily funded by big donors, with Google.org being one of them (and my understanding is that this is not a google donation matching program, but a direct contribution) https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/don...
Is that purely a donation or is that payment to continue using Wikipedia contents in their search result cards and IOT devices?
No, not in regards to Google.org in the 2018 financials I linked (it’s at least not an official quid pro quo).
They have since asked for some compensation it looks like: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tec...
They have since asked for some compensation it looks like: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tec...
Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily by small donations (<$100), during its fundraising campaign once a year. You're linking to a page that names donors who contributed $1000+.
Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events.
disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events.
disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
Those are donors who have given over $1k. AIUI the vast majority of the wikimedia's money comes from small individual donations
There’s plenty of room between the current vig (0%) and profits.
Which is how I’ve come around to blockchains for social. Not just for equity, but trust: you can see the governance contracts / how equitable / how easy to change the deal is.
Which is how I’ve come around to blockchains for social. Not just for equity, but trust: you can see the governance contracts / how equitable / how easy to change the deal is.
> Which is how I’ve come around to blockchains for social.
I’m speechless. If you’re actually serious, could you give some examples of the social networking apps/features you are using via the blockchain?
I’m speechless. If you’re actually serious, could you give some examples of the social networking apps/features you are using via the blockchain?
There's a ton of small DAOs, I don't think anyone has scaled up yet. But given you're speechless, hard to assume you're even open to the idea.
I’ve never heard anyone describe a DAO as a social network. Could you explain what that means in relation to more commonly known social networks (FB, Reddit, HN)?
There are many, but the best are smaller for now. Many feel a bit more akin to the early web, on purpose.
- https://www.fwb.help
- https://mirror.xyz
- https://www.fwb.help
- https://mirror.xyz
I never understand why crypt enthusiasts can’t explain their crypto applications? Everything is DYOR and links to landing pages or white papers.
I agree on this point more generally in the space, but for DAO's a bit different. Clubs are social and often designed to have a barrier to entry, this mirrors the real world. Small communities are higher quality, so this is rational.
> But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
I'd agree with that on the surface but those platforms you listed are basically forums with a new name! They provide very little over and above that. So, in actual fact, they're only made more complex as a result of rules added by the owners to squeeze as much data from every visitor as is legally (and illegally in some cases) allowed! So they provide nothing of value above a regular forum imo.
In reality, they are lists of submissions from end users that have been categorized, however the categorization engine happens to be algorithmically generated, rather than ordered by date. And the companies themselves are doing whatever it takes to monetize your eyeballs regardless of whether it affects your health or not! They are abusing every visitor to the maximum extent that the laws allow!
Their business model is to centralize all forums on their platform and for that there is a massive cost at that scale. That's their choice to host all forums! However to pay for that they are abusing every visitor.
Using Reddit, a single forum about Ubuntu (/r/Ubuntu) would cost around $5 a month on DO for someone to host themselves. Using something like BBForum or something similar would not require much in the way of maintenance.
The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
I'd agree with that on the surface but those platforms you listed are basically forums with a new name! They provide very little over and above that. So, in actual fact, they're only made more complex as a result of rules added by the owners to squeeze as much data from every visitor as is legally (and illegally in some cases) allowed! So they provide nothing of value above a regular forum imo.
In reality, they are lists of submissions from end users that have been categorized, however the categorization engine happens to be algorithmically generated, rather than ordered by date. And the companies themselves are doing whatever it takes to monetize your eyeballs regardless of whether it affects your health or not! They are abusing every visitor to the maximum extent that the laws allow!
Their business model is to centralize all forums on their platform and for that there is a massive cost at that scale. That's their choice to host all forums! However to pay for that they are abusing every visitor.
Using Reddit, a single forum about Ubuntu (/r/Ubuntu) would cost around $5 a month on DO for someone to host themselves. Using something like BBForum or something similar would not require much in the way of maintenance.
The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
> They provide very little over and above that.
For people who love BBForums (like HN tbh), everything may seem “like a forum”. But that is very reductive and uninspired.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
For people who love BBForums (like HN tbh), everything may seem “like a forum”. But that is very reductive and uninspired.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
> There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia.
Yeah. That's because all those features used to be separate applications, not tied to BBForum/Wikipedia engine. They're all complex, but they're also orthogonal to the platform, and their implementations are pretty much commodities.
The only value provided here is by integration with platform (particularly UX-wise). Which seems fine, except the only reason this is valuable in the first place, is because the platforms prevent everyone else from doing such integrations themselves.
Yeah. That's because all those features used to be separate applications, not tied to BBForum/Wikipedia engine. They're all complex, but they're also orthogonal to the platform, and their implementations are pretty much commodities.
The only value provided here is by integration with platform (particularly UX-wise). Which seems fine, except the only reason this is valuable in the first place, is because the platforms prevent everyone else from doing such integrations themselves.
There is incredible value provided by a marketplace having a forum attached to it. It provides trust and community.
> There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games)
Of course, these are addons to the platform. But the platform is still the same fundamental application as a forum. Nothing more.
Of course, these are addons to the platform. But the platform is still the same fundamental application as a forum. Nothing more.
I don’t think anyone would agree that Snapchat is a forum. It’s primarily for direct (media) messages, and the company themselves considers them a camera app.
> and the company themselves considers them a camera app.
Doesn't matter what the company calls themselves, it's a forum that people upload phone pics to and those photos/images are then displayed in an algorithmic form (used to be chronological with forums)... same as a forum!
Remember, Google is an advertising company but they'd consider themselves more of an engineering or search company... doesn't mean they're right!
Edit: Forgot to ask, how do Snapchat make their money? Is it all through advertising? It's a genuine question, I don't use it and have no idea! If it's all advertising revenue then they're an advertising company like Google and Facebook!
Doesn't matter what the company calls themselves, it's a forum that people upload phone pics to and those photos/images are then displayed in an algorithmic form (used to be chronological with forums)... same as a forum!
Remember, Google is an advertising company but they'd consider themselves more of an engineering or search company... doesn't mean they're right!
Edit: Forgot to ask, how do Snapchat make their money? Is it all through advertising? It's a genuine question, I don't use it and have no idea! If it's all advertising revenue then they're an advertising company like Google and Facebook!
> I don't use it and have no idea
There is no forum aspect to Snapchat. I don’t think you should be arguing about this topic, without having used it. G’day!
There is no forum aspect to Snapchat. I don’t think you should be arguing about this topic, without having used it. G’day!
> Using Reddit, a single forum about Ubuntu (/r/Ubuntu) would cost around $5 a month on DO for someone to host themselves. Using something like BBForum or something similar would not require much in the way of maintenance.
For that $5 however, you're not getting DDoS and spam protection.
> The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
There's a reason ye olde ways of communication are pretty much dead, replaced by centralized platforms... dealing with the obvious noise of hackers, script-kiddies, spammers, piracy and CSAM is the biggest IMO. As a moderator of a sub-reddit, you don't have to deal with any of that, you are free to focus on moderating content - and unlike mailing lists, usenet or classic forums the users can perform self-moderation by downvoting, further lessening your load.
For that $5 however, you're not getting DDoS and spam protection.
> The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
There's a reason ye olde ways of communication are pretty much dead, replaced by centralized platforms... dealing with the obvious noise of hackers, script-kiddies, spammers, piracy and CSAM is the biggest IMO. As a moderator of a sub-reddit, you don't have to deal with any of that, you are free to focus on moderating content - and unlike mailing lists, usenet or classic forums the users can perform self-moderation by downvoting, further lessening your load.
Spam protection has been around for years and years. It's nothing new. Sure, Reddit may have a handful of devs dedicated to perfecting it for their platform but there are a huge number of solutions to spam and I bet many commercial and OSS ones too.
DDOS is provided by many hosting companies now for free.
Now, I'm not trying to make this out like the Dropbox post many years ago comparing it to self-hosting, nothing of the sort.
But Reddit (and other tech giants) provide very little above basic forums imo and in any case, the price is too high!
DDOS is provided by many hosting companies now for free.
Now, I'm not trying to make this out like the Dropbox post many years ago comparing it to self-hosting, nothing of the sort.
But Reddit (and other tech giants) provide very little above basic forums imo and in any case, the price is too high!
Although the point of being centralised is portrayed as a negative, that is the single largest benefit these platforms provide over forums.
Yes it is easy to make a forum and throw it on some low cost hosting, for a person skilled in IT. However FB, Reddit et al. provide a platform (heh) to any kind of group no matter the size. Nobody wants to create dozens of accounts for their local chess club, their local shop, their local pub and whatever. I can be a member of a anti Phillips screw subreddit, but wouldn’t create a forum for it.
The value of centralised identity is enormous.
Yes it is easy to make a forum and throw it on some low cost hosting, for a person skilled in IT. However FB, Reddit et al. provide a platform (heh) to any kind of group no matter the size. Nobody wants to create dozens of accounts for their local chess club, their local shop, their local pub and whatever. I can be a member of a anti Phillips screw subreddit, but wouldn’t create a forum for it.
The value of centralised identity is enormous.
> Nobody wants to create dozens of accounts for their local chess club, their local shop, their local pub and whatever.
> The value of centralised identity is enormous.
That's what OAuth is for. As usual, the technical problem has been solved but social problems remain.
> The value of centralised identity is enormous.
That's what OAuth is for. As usual, the technical problem has been solved but social problems remain.
Reddit’s scale provides eyeballs
Facebook’s friend web provides a bunch of people you know
Counter anecdote: the last traditional forum that I have any interaction with was so plagued by spam that they turned off registration and the new registration system is “send an email to the admin asking for an account”. Needless to say, they aren’t a growing community anymore. They also don’t use SSL because none of their admins are fluent enough to set up LetsEncrypt. Don’t forget that lots of non-technical or less-technical people like to have forums too.
> What is missing from your rant is, why would any platform exist then? Nobody is building them without expecting to profit off the mutual relationship.
Plenty of smaller platforms exist for reasons other than profit (e.g. altruism, or desire for feeling important). But for-profit platforms are fine too! Mutually beneficial relationships are a good thing.
But we're talking about Facebook, et al. here - advertising-based platforms. They way they're making profit off the relationship is not through mutually beneficial exchange of value. The platforms instead are abusing their position of power in the relationship to pull the users in, keep them glued, and expose to maximum amount of advertising. This is not a case "here's an ad box because we have some server costs to cover, you know". These platforms are thoroughly optimized to maximize ad revenue. Every feature they just "can't seem to get right", every weird UX blunder, every feature that's obvious but missing for unexplained reasons[0] - all that are not mistakes, but decisions to give you a shitty product in order to make you more exploitable[1].
Or, in short: as a user, your actual relationship with big social media platforms is the same as between a cow and a farm. Cows are there to be milked, and make more cows for milking. They're not the ones who get to say how the farm is run.
> I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free.
Right? They have costs, after all. But you're looking at the wrong people. This expectations wasn't created by regular people - it was created by companies who figured they can do the ultimate undercut of their competition by offering their product for free, and make money through a side channel. Since most people are extremely price sensitive, nobody can compete on price with $0 - so the model stuck, and it's because of this that people expect everything on the Internet to be free.
> But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
That's mostly because they have more money than they know what to do with, and are competing against other platforms with similar amount of spending cash. Most of that complexity goes to supporting the advertising aspects of the platform and the dark patterns that keep the users in their pens.
I mean, modern factory farms are significantly more complex than the stereotypical family farm of centuries past - but as a cow, you probably don't want to experience that complexity.
--
[0] - E.g. sorting your feed by date, or searching posts by date, or a "dislike" button, or ...
[1] - One interesting facet of attention economy is that it seeks to make every task as inefficient as possible - because money is being made on friction. The longer it takes you to do a thing, the longer you can be exposed to advertising. The more frustrated you are, the more susceptible you are to that advertising.
Plenty of smaller platforms exist for reasons other than profit (e.g. altruism, or desire for feeling important). But for-profit platforms are fine too! Mutually beneficial relationships are a good thing.
But we're talking about Facebook, et al. here - advertising-based platforms. They way they're making profit off the relationship is not through mutually beneficial exchange of value. The platforms instead are abusing their position of power in the relationship to pull the users in, keep them glued, and expose to maximum amount of advertising. This is not a case "here's an ad box because we have some server costs to cover, you know". These platforms are thoroughly optimized to maximize ad revenue. Every feature they just "can't seem to get right", every weird UX blunder, every feature that's obvious but missing for unexplained reasons[0] - all that are not mistakes, but decisions to give you a shitty product in order to make you more exploitable[1].
Or, in short: as a user, your actual relationship with big social media platforms is the same as between a cow and a farm. Cows are there to be milked, and make more cows for milking. They're not the ones who get to say how the farm is run.
> I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free.
Right? They have costs, after all. But you're looking at the wrong people. This expectations wasn't created by regular people - it was created by companies who figured they can do the ultimate undercut of their competition by offering their product for free, and make money through a side channel. Since most people are extremely price sensitive, nobody can compete on price with $0 - so the model stuck, and it's because of this that people expect everything on the Internet to be free.
> But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
That's mostly because they have more money than they know what to do with, and are competing against other platforms with similar amount of spending cash. Most of that complexity goes to supporting the advertising aspects of the platform and the dark patterns that keep the users in their pens.
I mean, modern factory farms are significantly more complex than the stereotypical family farm of centuries past - but as a cow, you probably don't want to experience that complexity.
--
[0] - E.g. sorting your feed by date, or searching posts by date, or a "dislike" button, or ...
[1] - One interesting facet of attention economy is that it seeks to make every task as inefficient as possible - because money is being made on friction. The longer it takes you to do a thing, the longer you can be exposed to advertising. The more frustrated you are, the more susceptible you are to that advertising.
People are not expecting everything to be free at all. But they're making the point that if you are advertising something as 'free' when you're actually paying through the nose by having every piece of personal data extracted and sold to the highest bidder, it should not be advertised as 'free'. Becuase it isn't.
Make it free, or make it paid, or if you really must use the data harvesting model then at the very least make it very clear that it is not free because you are paying via a different means.
Make it free, or make it paid, or if you really must use the data harvesting model then at the very least make it very clear that it is not free because you are paying via a different means.
How are you paying through the nose? i never click on ads so every ad service ive used for the last twenty years really has been free.
Did you just stop reading the comment at that phrase? You are paying through the data collected, regardless of whether you engage with the adverts or not.
What are you paying though. Can anyone explain the consequences to me?
Indeed. They are giving trinkets to the natives for their land. Maybe we need to educate the natives on how valuable their land actually is.
> why would any platform exist then?
If your users are unwilling to pay for the service, then perhaps the value it provides is zero and it shouldn't exist.
If your users are unwilling to pay for the service, then perhaps the value it provides is zero and it shouldn't exist.
What's missing from his rant is the inclusion of wikipedia, showing that platforms can exist without an expectation of profit. What's more, I'm not entirely convinced, we as a society would be worse off without most of the above.
> The vast majority of the actual content of the internet is provided by people for free to the internet in general.
That maybe provided for free. However the hosting infrastructure is paid typically by advertising.
That maybe provided for free. However the hosting infrastructure is paid typically by advertising.
This is absolutely true. Someone needs to pay for the development and infrastructure. Even if open source, real people and machines need to exist for actual value.
NB: I vouched for your comment - not sure why people flagged it.
NB: I vouched for your comment - not sure why people flagged it.
Facebook makes $9.5B in profits per quarter.
I think it's safe to say their ads are doing A LOT more than just paying for the service.
I think it's safe to say their ads are doing A LOT more than just paying for the service.
Yeah. But HN audience are people with good disposable income. So its say for them to say pay for it.
Did people "want" a thousand dollar phone?
People are dumb as hell. Most people just do, say and think what the people around them do, say and think.
Information asymmetry within the chimp troupe is at all time highs and those who have info exploit those who dont. Fact of life.
People are dumb as hell. Most people just do, say and think what the people around them do, say and think.
Information asymmetry within the chimp troupe is at all time highs and those who have info exploit those who dont. Fact of life.
But that bullshit of course. Advertising has existed for hundreds of years in different forms, and it also existed in the Internet, without the planet-scale tracking and spying networks the tech giants have now set up.
Nobody was complaining or refusing to use advertising to their benefit pre-internet, so why wouldn't the same non-privacy-destroying methods work just as well as previously?
Nobody was complaining or refusing to use advertising to their benefit pre-internet, so why wouldn't the same non-privacy-destroying methods work just as well as previously?
[deleted]
Advertisers already settle for non-targeted ads when they need to, ie. the contextual App Store ads pre-iOS 15 (15 or maybe 14.x added personalized ads based on location).
But advertisers will always go to the ad exchange that promises more conversions, and website owners will partner with the ad exchange that promises the highest payout. If you can achieve the highest of both without tracking, I can guarantee you advertisers and web admins will jump ship and swim to your ad exchange.
But advertisers will always go to the ad exchange that promises more conversions, and website owners will partner with the ad exchange that promises the highest payout. If you can achieve the highest of both without tracking, I can guarantee you advertisers and web admins will jump ship and swim to your ad exchange.
Well, the advertisers that have no morals will, naturally. That's why setting up these global spying networks should be made illegal. Or, like what TFA is about, why other parts of the modern technology stack providers should be making a stand that those advertisers are going much too far with much too little upsides.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advertising as a business model and it's awesome how advertising on the web has allowed at least some of the content creators on the web to monetize their valuable work. But I'm strongly against the idea that anything in that equation actually depends on the global spy network of the advertisers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advertising as a business model and it's awesome how advertising on the web has allowed at least some of the content creators on the web to monetize their valuable work. But I'm strongly against the idea that anything in that equation actually depends on the global spy network of the advertisers.
> People “want” the free content and services that this advertising has been paying for.
Eventually people pay for advertising.
First, we pay with our data, and then we pay for the ads too (in the form of more expensive products). We pay twice!
And people don't want these services as most are perfectly fine without them.
Eventually people pay for advertising.
First, we pay with our data, and then we pay for the ads too (in the form of more expensive products). We pay twice!
And people don't want these services as most are perfectly fine without them.
Is the data valuable without ads to monetize it?
No,they want content that advertising paid for and are totalky fine with advertising. They just don't want surveillance or "efficiency" as you call it.
So what changes? Currently you can buy ads and you can buy surveillance, which costs about 3x as much. If surveillance stops being an option, there is no reason to believe prices for ads won't change. However, even if they didn't the only thing that would happen is that ads replace surveillance and the number and size of ads might change a bit. The end. Why is this a big deal to you?
So what changes? Currently you can buy ads and you can buy surveillance, which costs about 3x as much. If surveillance stops being an option, there is no reason to believe prices for ads won't change. However, even if they didn't the only thing that would happen is that ads replace surveillance and the number and size of ads might change a bit. The end. Why is this a big deal to you?
Apple have not stopped advertising or user tracking.
They’ve just made apps behave in an upfront honest way by letting the user know about it and giving the user the option to stop it.
They’ve just made apps behave in an upfront honest way by letting the user know about it and giving the user the option to stop it.
> People “want” the free content and services that this advertising has been paying for. And the actual consequences of Apple’s decision for users and small businesses that rely on efficient advertising to connect with users will take time to become clear.
You are being downvoted, but I agree in principle. This is why I have multi-tier privacy protections (NextDNS, uBlock Origin, etc.) but subscribe to services that offer paid subscription (YouTube, several news sites, etc.). Unfortunately, FB doesn't give users that choice.
You are being downvoted, but I agree in principle. This is why I have multi-tier privacy protections (NextDNS, uBlock Origin, etc.) but subscribe to services that offer paid subscription (YouTube, several news sites, etc.). Unfortunately, FB doesn't give users that choice.
Nobody is banning advertising. They're letting people opt out of tracking advertisements/data brokering.
Just stick with content ads.
Just stick with content ads.
Why does then Apple have a Ad service?. Should they not be tracking nothing?
Different ad services provide different levels of targeting, based on the data that different platforms collect about consumers and what those platforms are willing to let you use for targeting.
What ad service? App Store ads? Those are based only on the actual search term.
No they aren’t. Here https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... have a nice read.
But summary is they use a bunch of stuff about the device (past purchases, location, fingerprinting-like data such as carrier and so on) and your usage of a bunch of apps like apple news and stocks.
But summary is they use a bunch of stuff about the device (past purchases, location, fingerprinting-like data such as carrier and so on) and your usage of a bunch of apps like apple news and stocks.
If you set brand image aside and just think about the huge amounts of money at stake, it becomes obvious that the whole app tracking transparency thing is just Apple taking over the ad market on iOS. They invented the term “cross app tracking” and defined it to not include their own conversion tracking through their various apps to purchases of their advertisers’ products via Apple Pay. Then they forced their ad-sales competitors to send all their conversion data to Apple, while providing separate APIs with richer data to their own advertisers.
Beside AppStore ads, how can I buy ads from Apple for the Apple ecosystem to replace Facebook ads?
Apple is also selling app install ads in the News and Stocks apps. Tens of billions of dollars are spent on app install ads on iOS each year, so this is a very lucrative market for Apple if they can corner it (and probably necessary if they are going to achieve expected Services revenue growth in the years to come). It remains to be seen whether they’ll take another crack at the rest of the ad market, after the failure of iAd. They seem to be laying the groundwork for it.
A company keeping records of it's own interactions with it's customers is fine, nobody is arguing against that.
The problem is companies selling customer data to each other and snooping on customer activity outside the company's own web site or app. This is what is meant by tracking and Apple doesn't do this in their ad service.
It seems like what Apple is doing is trying to cripple tracking for other ad services to make their own service more competitive.
The problem is companies selling customer data to each other and snooping on customer activity outside the company's own web site or app. This is what is meant by tracking and Apple doesn't do this in their ad service.
It seems like what Apple is doing is trying to cripple tracking for other ad services to make their own service more competitive.
Even when that company is responsible for more than half of the mobile software installs in the US?
Amazon and Google have abused this data in the past to undercut the competition with their own better promoted offerings and make purchase decisions with data the competition just could not have access to.
Amazon and Google have abused this data in the past to undercut the competition with their own better promoted offerings and make purchase decisions with data the competition just could not have access to.
>> ...snooping on customer activity outside the company's own web site or app. This is what is meant by tracking and Apple doesn't do this in their ad service.
I'm sure Apple is going to offer exactly that, as the conversion-rate data of an Ad into an actual purchase elsewhere is where the big Ad-money is. Apple will just do all that without handing off any data to another party, providing only the persona of an end-user to the Ad-customer.
Their dilemma is that doing this today at an "Apple-price" has limited competitive value to Advertisers. But if Apple cripples the competition to become the ONLY company able to provide such data, they suddenly become a mandatory supplier for every Ad-campaign in the world, as only Apple will be able to provide effective Ad-analytics on iOS.
>> It seems like what Apple is doing is trying to cripple tracking for other ad services to make their own service more competitive.
Exactly. Which should be a strong sign that regulation is urgently required, but somehow people still are stuck on the wrong narrative.
I'm sure Apple is going to offer exactly that, as the conversion-rate data of an Ad into an actual purchase elsewhere is where the big Ad-money is. Apple will just do all that without handing off any data to another party, providing only the persona of an end-user to the Ad-customer.
Their dilemma is that doing this today at an "Apple-price" has limited competitive value to Advertisers. But if Apple cripples the competition to become the ONLY company able to provide such data, they suddenly become a mandatory supplier for every Ad-campaign in the world, as only Apple will be able to provide effective Ad-analytics on iOS.
>> It seems like what Apple is doing is trying to cripple tracking for other ad services to make their own service more competitive.
Exactly. Which should be a strong sign that regulation is urgently required, but somehow people still are stuck on the wrong narrative.
Legislation to ban tracking and respect customer privacy? Yes, absolutely. Discipline and integrity in this area should be the standard.
Facebook doesnt sell data they sell access to demographics generated based on data.
First that's like saying a bar that gives away drinks with every bag of peanuts isn't selling alcohol. The fact that ad was only shown to a specific demographic reveals that the person clicking it is in that demographic.
But second, sure they didn't sell it, they gave it away. Facebook claims the data delivered to Cambridge Analytica wasn't sold. No, it was given away because facebook calculates that it benefits from research which improves targeting on their platform. Nobody is fooled by any of this, unless they choose to be.
But second, sure they didn't sell it, they gave it away. Facebook claims the data delivered to Cambridge Analytica wasn't sold. No, it was given away because facebook calculates that it benefits from research which improves targeting on their platform. Nobody is fooled by any of this, unless they choose to be.
> reveals that the person clicking it is in that demographic.
But you don't know who that person is [ until they create an account or give you info ]
But you don't know who that person is [ until they create an account or give you info ]
> It seems like what Apple is doing is trying to cripple tracking for other ad services to make their own service more competitive.
This is exactly what they're doing to FB and i hope FB wins a maassive anti-competative suit. I hope they still don't get to track but i hope apple is given a slap on the wrist.
This is exactly what they're doing to FB and i hope FB wins a maassive anti-competative suit. I hope they still don't get to track but i hope apple is given a slap on the wrist.
They should stop advertising, they created a conflict of interest for themselves. That said, they do not track across applications: they don’t need to.
FWIW, iAd for third-party apps was shut down. They still sells adds for Apple News and the App Store.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd
Selling search ads on the App Store kinda sucks--I wish they hadn't done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd
Selling search ads on the App Store kinda sucks--I wish they hadn't done that.
> Of course any time someone looks into it they find that that click-rate fraud is at outrageous levels. So maybe no one needs Apple. The fraud bots will keep the ecosystem running.
Could this be why ad recommendations are so bad? Recommendation engines being trained on (mostly fraudulent) click-through rates instead of ROI?
Edit: It seems like it would be just a little more work to check both, but often incentives aren't aligned to doing the best work...
Could this be why ad recommendations are so bad? Recommendation engines being trained on (mostly fraudulent) click-through rates instead of ROI?
Edit: It seems like it would be just a little more work to check both, but often incentives aren't aligned to doing the best work...
Good. And bad.
I am not sure that Apple deserves this power. What if Apple is the next evil megacorp?
For me this sounds like science fiction. Megacorps waging subtle war against each other. What's next?
I am not sure that Apple deserves this power. What if Apple is the next evil megacorp?
For me this sounds like science fiction. Megacorps waging subtle war against each other. What's next?
As far as I can tell, what Apple is doing with their privacy settings is merely what is required of data controllers (e.g. Facebook) by GDPR anyway, and as an EU resident by choice, I don’t personally see it as a huge issue for them to say “all apps must be compliant with EU law” (but then, if I did have a problem, I would not have migrated to here).
I'm sure corporations have been waging war against each other for as long as corporations have existed.
> I am not sure that Apple deserves this power. What if Apple is the next evil megacorp?
Power to... present user with dialog asking whether they consent to be tracked? The horror!
Power to... present user with dialog asking whether they consent to be tracked? The horror!
Uh. Imagine presenting user with dialog asking if they want to pay 30% apple tax or they want an option to use 3rd-party app stores.
Oops, users are too dumb for that, but Apple will protect them!
Oops, users are too dumb for that, but Apple will protect them!
They are presented with that. Just in real life. When they choose to buy the iPhone or something else.
Russia asked to block Putin's rivals apps. Google and Apple complied. The only people who could side-load it were Android users. I guess that's good for Democracy, right? because Apple said so…
It totally wouldn't happen to us…
It totally wouldn't happen to us…
How is that relevant to the post I replied to?
But they aren't because users aren't aware of this.
If users aren't aware that for-profit companies make money and one of the ways they do that is by adding margins to the prices of items sold, I don't think Apple, Microsoft or Google are your real problems.
Wait till they learn about how shops operate!
Users aren't aware that the only way to install apps on an iPhone officially is through the App Store?
All this "wAlLeD gArDeN!!!11" cries are so trite. People who want 3rd-party app stores are long gone to other platforms (me included).
I’m a new Apple user because I was so fed up with the atrocious UX on other platforms. Yet I still expect normal freedoms.
My decisions to pick one platform over the other have nothing to do with something so subtle.
I kept both platforms for _years_...then in a time where I was actively looking for work, discovered that my Nexus phone and GoogleFi was sending folks to voicemail without actually ringing me through. When my phone can't phone, that's a pretty good reason to jump ship.
The processors are similar, the form-factors are similar, the OS's are at near feature parity...it's the glue that binds it all together that seems to time the scales slightly to Apple.
(Where did that SMS go? I swear, I can choose from 3 or 4 different places for it to do, and now I can't tell if it's in the SMS app, Messenger, GoogleChat...or?)
I kept both platforms for _years_...then in a time where I was actively looking for work, discovered that my Nexus phone and GoogleFi was sending folks to voicemail without actually ringing me through. When my phone can't phone, that's a pretty good reason to jump ship.
The processors are similar, the form-factors are similar, the OS's are at near feature parity...it's the glue that binds it all together that seems to time the scales slightly to Apple.
(Where did that SMS go? I swear, I can choose from 3 or 4 different places for it to do, and now I can't tell if it's in the SMS app, Messenger, GoogleChat...or?)
Surreptitious tracking and breakout of proceed distributions are not really comparable. Does Best Buy tell you “we take a 20% cut out of every purchase you make here.” If they did, would you care? I’m not sure I would, especially if the in store experience is excellent.
Framing matters. What if instead the message was “You’re paying 30% more than the developer wants for EVERY digital good you buy on iPhone. Forever. “ and “We are the wealthiest company in the world and this portion of our business operates at a 75% profit margin but cannot protect you from fraud.”
“Opt out? Yes/No.”
“Opt out? Yes/No.”
you bet your ass consumers would care. ignorance is bliss.
Ok, let's not dismiss the one dialog they show as harmful just because they choose to harm their users by not showing those other two.
Why should a user care what percentage of a transaction a platform takes?
Do you ask every grocery store or 7/11 what their processing fees for the transaction are?
Do you ask every grocery store or 7/11 what their processing fees for the transaction are?
When Facebook does it, "consent to be tracked online".
When Apple does it, "customized user experience".
I am not a fan of either company, but one sells thousand dollar phones to the global 1%, an the other provides services to 2B people, supporting infrastructure through ads.
The fact that one of these companies is considered evil and other other "the good guys who care about your data" blows my mind.
I am not a fan of either company, but one sells thousand dollar phones to the global 1%, an the other provides services to 2B people, supporting infrastructure through ads.
The fact that one of these companies is considered evil and other other "the good guys who care about your data" blows my mind.
Facebook is free to continue showing ads. Apparently, it is just their tracking that is not particularly popular with the users. Maybe it is time for them to introduce paid no-tracking subscription?
As long as they are not acting illegally, I am fine with them stomping on Facebook. Our interests align here.
> What if Apple is the next evil megacorp?
Apple is one of the evil megacorps, this is not in question.
> What's next?
Given that apparently the thing that is in vogue now is making the universe of snow crash more real, probably a long slide into (more) corporatism.
Apple is one of the evil megacorps, this is not in question.
> What's next?
Given that apparently the thing that is in vogue now is making the universe of snow crash more real, probably a long slide into (more) corporatism.
Apple is a company that plans the obsolence of billions of expensive devices per year, wasting more CO2 and energy than almost any other company on the planet.
> Hell, US intelligence agencies block ads at the network level because the ad industry is so infested with tracking/malware/spyware/exploits/etc. That’s a hell of an indictment.
I think this just means that they have a different threat profile than I do, and they take it seriously. There is a chance that an ad could attempt to attack me, but I am not likely to be targeted. If I thought state level attacks were going to target me specifically I would do a bunch of things differently, but it is not currently worth the effort.
I think this just means that they have a different threat profile than I do, and they take it seriously. There is a chance that an ad could attempt to attack me, but I am not likely to be targeted. If I thought state level attacks were going to target me specifically I would do a bunch of things differently, but it is not currently worth the effort.
I think its not about attacks as much as its about information gathering. There is value in knowing what the US Gov is searching for, visiting, from where, and when. The potential for attacks is just an added bonus. The problem is the tracking.
The two times I ever got a virus was both from an advert exploiting flash, the threat is real.
I suspect US Intel staff who browse fear being identified, tracked, and their interests monitored more than they fear being attacked. The host from which they browse should be free of any sensitive data and easily disposable if hacked.
It’s also worth mentioning that apples prompt gives no benefit to tracking. It basically just asks “Facebook wants to track you. OPT OUT, or not”. Who is going to agree to that?
If Apple gave developers a way to add a benefit or two, eg personalized experience or whatever, I bet we would see that % be much lower
If Apple gave developers a way to add a benefit or two, eg personalized experience or whatever, I bet we would see that % be much lower
My "allow apps to ask to track" setting defaulted to off, too. Not sure what determines that, but in my case, I never even got the option to opt-in; the dialog never comes up because apps aren't even allowed to try asking me.
I'm presumably in that 96%, but it wasn't an explicit choice. (I'd have opted-out, obviously.)
I'm presumably in that 96%, but it wasn't an explicit choice. (I'd have opted-out, obviously.)
> My "allow apps to ask to track" setting defaulted to off, too.
I have an employer profile on my phone for email/internal app/etc and one of the things this does is force this setting off.
I have an employer profile on my phone for email/internal app/etc and one of the things this does is force this setting off.
There’s [essentially] no contentful benefit to any major site’s tracking any more, [almost] nothing is ‘collaboratively filtered” and “personalized” around the content and your interests, [by and large] only around ad placement performance or conversion.
The only remaining arguable benefit is that you will see “more relevant” ads, in other words, instead of seeing ads from whoever pays the most for your [well guessed] demographic, you’ll see endless “retargeted” begging for you to buy the thing you ordered last week.
The only remaining arguable benefit is that you will see “more relevant” ads, in other words, instead of seeing ads from whoever pays the most for your [well guessed] demographic, you’ll see endless “retargeted” begging for you to buy the thing you ordered last week.
Does Apple use the same prompt for their own services tracking? If not, why don't they?
The only problem with that is that tracking the end user only helps the developer not the end user.
FB was toying with adding a screen before Apple's prompt: "Here's why tracking is good, actually." Wonder what happened to that.
And the other 4% tapped the wrong button by mistake...
I can tell you marketers are freaking out. And it’s delicious to watch.
appol will seve you its own ads and spyware now!!
[deleted]
I heard Tim Cook say in one of his interviews (not quoting) , businesses built on tracking users without their permission should find another things to do.
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.
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.
I think your second sentence is the one worth iterating ;)
> 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.
It's easier to attract allies with a narrative that Apple is attacking you than it is with the truth that 96% of apple users have opted out of your 'service.'
> 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.
It's easier to attract allies with a narrative that Apple is attacking you than it is with the truth that 96% of apple users have opted out of your 'service.'
This is all chickens coming home to roost too.
If FB had invested in some decent privacy switches and education - instead of trying to dark pattern everyone to just hand over everything - then they wouldn't be in this predicament, because people would already have settled on some suitable privacy settings.
If it's true that 96% are opting out, that just shows what a terrible job FB have done at approaching privacy up until now. After all, why would people opt out of tracking if they trusted the service in the first place?
If FB had invested in some decent privacy switches and education - instead of trying to dark pattern everyone to just hand over everything - then they wouldn't be in this predicament, because people would already have settled on some suitable privacy settings.
If it's true that 96% are opting out, that just shows what a terrible job FB have done at approaching privacy up until now. After all, why would people opt out of tracking if they trusted the service in the first place?
Everything points to the fact that keeping users in the dark is their business model.
Which, makes sense. The steady erosion of any control, the tiny sparks of "settings" to assuage some privacy issue brought out in the open, the behavior of Zuck in the Congress. It is amply clear that for FB to make money, it's users should have no choice.
Which, makes sense. The steady erosion of any control, the tiny sparks of "settings" to assuage some privacy issue brought out in the open, the behavior of Zuck in the Congress. It is amply clear that for FB to make money, it's users should have no choice.
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.
Even the smartest, most devious minds in tech should have realized that that gravy train had a limit.
People are opting out because Apple have explicitly barred Facebook from offering them anything as a reward for opting in (other than better targeted adverts, which most don't see as a positive). Obviously if they didn't do this Facebook would use dark patterns (such as crudely gating the entire functionality of the app behind the opt-in) but it's disingenuous to say that this is a free exchange when one party is prevented from bringing anything to the table.
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.
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.
Apple explicitly barred Facebook from rewarding its users for opting in. Obviously this is done with the color of protecting its users (from, say, Facebook gating the entire functionality of its app behind the permission check) but it's still a restraint on Facebook's freedom of trade.
I also remember Steve Jobs say on stage that Apple tracks user behavior on their devices to inform their business strategy. “We know , we see the data” or something along those lines.
All of Apples moves into services and many other interesting business decisions may theoretically be attributed to their surveillance of potential competitors on their devices.
I would be curious to see the scale of their internal “tracking”
All of Apples moves into services and many other interesting business decisions may theoretically be attributed to their surveillance of potential competitors on their devices.
I would be curious to see the scale of their internal “tracking”
Not sure why you're being downvoted - the current number one story on HN [1] is a list of IOS 0-days, one of which shows that the analytics data is collecting and reporting health metrics like heart rate, menstrual cycle length (?), and other somewhat less unusual information.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28637276
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28637276
And all is explicitly opt in
. . .During device set up, with soft language, amidst a slew of other settings that have a “default” big blue button that consents while a tiny text link that goes into “customise” settings.
You should read the requirements and the user flow for App tracking transparency. Apple prohibits the permission dialog from firing more than three times in a long window. The default big button is negative consent. The language is “Ask app not to track”
It’s ridiculous that the owner of the platform gets to suppress competition that way without regulators getting involved.
You should read the requirements and the user flow for App tracking transparency. Apple prohibits the permission dialog from firing more than three times in a long window. The default big button is negative consent. The language is “Ask app not to track”
It’s ridiculous that the owner of the platform gets to suppress competition that way without regulators getting involved.
> Not sure why you're being downvoted
Said something not positive about Lord Steve.
Said something not positive about Lord Steve.
I believe CoreDuet information is not shared with Apple?
Apple is explicitly asking you for that information when you first activate your device or after updating to new OS.
If you're happy with that, then the same standard should apply to all apps on their platform.
In reality, Apple adopts exactly the scummy UX practices for their permissions flow during device set up that they go out of their way to prohibit third party developers from using.
They use language such as "share device analytics with Apple" which is broad amd covers pretty much everything while they have mandated under penalty of an App Store Ban, the explicit call out of every single use case of every single permission not just in the permission flow but also on the App Store page.
While here we are, with no idea about the usage of core Apple "Analytics" for the things we know about, leave alone the undocumented data access such as their "Find My" network basically giving them the real world secret peer to peer network to identify everything from all the devices in your immediate neighborhood to every single person you've met within range of their proprietary radios carrying a compatible device.
We don't know, because they refuse to have any transparency into their internal use of their data collection and analytics and id' argue, they can simply slip an update with an undocumented library that sends data off over this network even when you have everything turned off and permissions unconsented to because there is NO PERMISSION CONSENT for the Find my network as a simple example.
"Privacy" from everyone who isn't Apple isn't "Privacy", it's an exploitative commercial practice that disadvantages competitors directly and disenfranchises customers for sheer lack of knowledge of the unknown infinity amount of ways this may be abused right now that we have no way of opting out of or discovering.
In reality, Apple adopts exactly the scummy UX practices for their permissions flow during device set up that they go out of their way to prohibit third party developers from using.
They use language such as "share device analytics with Apple" which is broad amd covers pretty much everything while they have mandated under penalty of an App Store Ban, the explicit call out of every single use case of every single permission not just in the permission flow but also on the App Store page.
While here we are, with no idea about the usage of core Apple "Analytics" for the things we know about, leave alone the undocumented data access such as their "Find My" network basically giving them the real world secret peer to peer network to identify everything from all the devices in your immediate neighborhood to every single person you've met within range of their proprietary radios carrying a compatible device.
We don't know, because they refuse to have any transparency into their internal use of their data collection and analytics and id' argue, they can simply slip an update with an undocumented library that sends data off over this network even when you have everything turned off and permissions unconsented to because there is NO PERMISSION CONSENT for the Find my network as a simple example.
"Privacy" from everyone who isn't Apple isn't "Privacy", it's an exploitative commercial practice that disadvantages competitors directly and disenfranchises customers for sheer lack of knowledge of the unknown infinity amount of ways this may be abused right now that we have no way of opting out of or discovering.
All analytics data collected by your iPhone is viewable under Settings -> Privacy -> Analytics & Improvements -> Analytics Data, or via a computer. None of it is hidden from you. And they have published privacy labels for their own apps a long time ago, so there's nothing inconsistent here.
Please show me the logs for the Find My network.
It may help reading the whole comment. The analytics logs on device are not the complete picture of device information sent back to Apple servers and used for intelligence on device use.
It may help reading the whole comment. The analytics logs on device are not the complete picture of device information sent back to Apple servers and used for intelligence on device use.
...Unless they own both the tracking and the end user browser and/or device. Like Google, and Apple.
As a person who has been censored by Facebook for wrongthink, watching them stare down the barrel of Apple "being a private company, and doing what they want" is like watching a kid step on a lego brick that he refused to clean up.
What is "facebook wrongthink"?
I have an example: I tried sending a Simpson gif of Flanders whipping himself to a friend on WhatsApp (1 to 1 message), whatsApp silently refused to send it....
Facebook is evil.
But Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor should equally terrify us all.
Apple has made it clear that they prioritize “privacy” as long as it aligns with their profit making interests with actions not least including the attempt to scan on device content recently and their move to have different standards of compliance with the regime in China.
They are consolidating significant technical power over people’s lives and it’s amazing how little concern there has been to them rolling out their own private network between devices without consent or opt out.
But Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor should equally terrify us all.
Apple has made it clear that they prioritize “privacy” as long as it aligns with their profit making interests with actions not least including the attempt to scan on device content recently and their move to have different standards of compliance with the regime in China.
They are consolidating significant technical power over people’s lives and it’s amazing how little concern there has been to them rolling out their own private network between devices without consent or opt out.
I don’t think Apple is trying to hurt a competitor. This is all very consistent with the stance they’ve been taking for a very long time.
I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.
I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.
I agree. Apple is doing right by their users by empowering them and informing them. This hurts Facebook because their business model relies on ignorance and obfuscation. It's collateral damage.
When developers inform users how big Apple's cut of IAPs is, and empower them to pay a different way, we see how much Apple actually cares about empowering and informing users. This is a business move plain and simple.
I really doubt most users have even thought about or give a hoot about where fees are going for products they are buying on Apples platform. If the argument is "the product would cost 30% less" sure, they'd probably care. But that's not the argument. It's the relatively few (compared to users) developers and companies selling apps that are losing that money that care and are vocal about it. They would rather keep it for themselves. The end user really doesn't even figure into the equation when it comes to Apple transaction fees on their platform, because it doesn't affect them.
I think the parent poster is pointing out an apparent hypocrisy: Apple has rules which prohibit app developers from disclosing the apple cut in their apps, or even offering discounted off-platform purchase options within the app. Apple I think wants to keep their experience very high quality, but this could be interpreted as not "empowering" or "informing" them.
This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers.
This cut is a business relationship between Apple and the developer. Apple's developer contracts mean that Apple is entitled to a cut of revenues even if a different payment gateway is used. So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. This was affirmed by the Judge in Epic v Apple recently.
This cut is a business relationship between Apple and the developer. Apple's developer contracts mean that Apple is entitled to a cut of revenues even if a different payment gateway is used. So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway. This was affirmed by the Judge in Epic v Apple recently.
> This is a disingenuous analogy because the costs to the developer are already reflected in the total price offered to the consumer. This is how stores work. No market that I know of makes a point of showing wholesale prices to retail customers.
I've often bought something off Amazon (or even in a physical shop) and had it come with a flyer for the manufacturer's own site, or a catalogue for ordering accessories from them directly. Plenty of hotels make a point of saying "this is what it costs if you book with us directly".
> So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway.
Then why are Apple so scared of letting customers know the facts?
I've often bought something off Amazon (or even in a physical shop) and had it come with a flyer for the manufacturer's own site, or a catalogue for ordering accessories from them directly. Plenty of hotels make a point of saying "this is what it costs if you book with us directly".
> So it's not like the consumer could be offered a lower cost payment option anyway.
Then why are Apple so scared of letting customers know the facts?
Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers.
I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes. It’s all well and good to argue the reasonableness of such allowances in theory, but here, context is everything.
I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes. It’s all well and good to argue the reasonableness of such allowances in theory, but here, context is everything.
If it's disingenuous, LET THE USERS DECIDE ! Like Steve Jobs said. . . Ask them! Every time! And make it clear!
What's disingenuous to you is remarkably a standard business practice for a tax or a fee of any kind. Buying an airplane ticket? If there are fees and charges , guess what? They get called out so you have a choice.
Buying an iPhone in most parts of the world? Guess what happens when you go to check out? You see the "Includes Tax of xx%" there so you have the information.
This should not even be an argument in this day and age, but unfortunately, here we are. Market conditions and rules of engagement around competition should NOT be dictated by large companies. There is a line in the sand where Apples platform ends and the real world begins. It's ridiculous that they have been allowed to get away with saying "If you do ANYTHING on our platform, you agree to hamper your business voluntarily in EVERY OTHER PLATFORM you choose to participate in". Do it, or don't do business with us. That's anti competitive and has been finally called out by at least one judge so far in the Epic case.
What's disingenuous to you is remarkably a standard business practice for a tax or a fee of any kind. Buying an airplane ticket? If there are fees and charges , guess what? They get called out so you have a choice.
Buying an iPhone in most parts of the world? Guess what happens when you go to check out? You see the "Includes Tax of xx%" there so you have the information.
This should not even be an argument in this day and age, but unfortunately, here we are. Market conditions and rules of engagement around competition should NOT be dictated by large companies. There is a line in the sand where Apples platform ends and the real world begins. It's ridiculous that they have been allowed to get away with saying "If you do ANYTHING on our platform, you agree to hamper your business voluntarily in EVERY OTHER PLATFORM you choose to participate in". Do it, or don't do business with us. That's anti competitive and has been finally called out by at least one judge so far in the Epic case.
The entirety of your post is a flagrant non sequitur. You seem to be oddly obsessed with this issue so I’ll leave you to it.
> Amazon and other retailers are free to not sell products if they don’t want to. Entirely up to them. The relationship between booking sites and hotels is vastly different to Apple and app developers.
Apple is a lot more hotel-booking-like than retailer-like IMO: approximately no-one is browsing through the apple "store" (though people might use it as a search mechanism), it's more or less just an aggregator of a bunch of third-party products. People don't go there because they want to get something from Apple, they go there because it's the only way to get an app onto their phone.
> I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes.
That's completely backwards - Apple is being far more disingenuous. They keep their cut secret because they know the users would - quite rightly - feel they were being ripped off.
Apple is a lot more hotel-booking-like than retailer-like IMO: approximately no-one is browsing through the apple "store" (though people might use it as a search mechanism), it's more or less just an aggregator of a bunch of third-party products. People don't go there because they want to get something from Apple, they go there because it's the only way to get an app onto their phone.
> I doubt Apple would have had a problem with developers noting the 15/30% store fee if it wasn’t being done for such obviously disingenuous purposes.
That's completely backwards - Apple is being far more disingenuous. They keep their cut secret because they know the users would - quite rightly - feel they were being ripped off.
"This is a totally disingenuous argument because the data that Facebook collects is embedded in their privacy policy and extends to any platform that you use Facebook on. This is how business relationships work. I don't know what good would come of showing another permissions dialog on Apple devices" /s
I don't know who you are, but the level of defense you're mounting for Apple makes it clear that you are not a neutral party. This is the first time i've heard someone argue in good faith that _any_ market gets to dictate to independent sellers how they display their price breakdowns.
I don't know who you are, but the level of defense you're mounting for Apple makes it clear that you are not a neutral party. This is the first time i've heard someone argue in good faith that _any_ market gets to dictate to independent sellers how they display their price breakdowns.
I don’t agree with your fake quote and I don’t agree with your description of developers as “independent sellers” when in fact they are not the seller. If you don’t like Apple’s developer agreement, take it up with Judge Rogers who affirmed all but one sentence of it.
I used to believe that but after their latest privacy debacle with the CSAM stuff and their tone deaf responses, it’s clear to me that Apple used other act as a marketing shtick and nothing more.
Why Apple didn’t then restrict the use of the clipboard and make no fuss about it after TikTok was found to be sniffing the user clipboard, astounds me.
Yes, a link without a statement is not helpful. I’m fully aware of Apples response to TikTok’s use of user clipboards without their knowledge.
All Apple did was incorporate a snitch notification for when an app pasted from clipboard.
Contrast that with their approach to permissions and privacy in developer documentation which gates sensitive functionality behind dialogs that let users “Allow”, “Allow while using” or “Don’t allow”
No criticism, nothing. Even the change is not very helpful if it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the abuse, only throws a temporary pop up when abused.
All Apple did was incorporate a snitch notification for when an app pasted from clipboard.
Contrast that with their approach to permissions and privacy in developer documentation which gates sensitive functionality behind dialogs that let users “Allow”, “Allow while using” or “Don’t allow”
No criticism, nothing. Even the change is not very helpful if it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the abuse, only throws a temporary pop up when abused.
> I think hurting Facebook is just a huge bit of serendipity.
No no, its a definite move to kneecap a competitor.
Facebook has _the_ corner in high value mobile advertising. Apple wants some of that.
People don't like facebook, so will cheer when Apple does anything too them. They are doing the same thing to the maker of fortnight.
The problem for the wider computing populace is that Apple is currently the best experience for users. It doesn't mean they are the best for competition. People have seen that Apple can get away with a semi curated capricious ecosystem, and will copy it.
The future is apple shaped App stores. I'm not sure thats good for everyone.
No no, its a definite move to kneecap a competitor.
Facebook has _the_ corner in high value mobile advertising. Apple wants some of that.
People don't like facebook, so will cheer when Apple does anything too them. They are doing the same thing to the maker of fortnight.
The problem for the wider computing populace is that Apple is currently the best experience for users. It doesn't mean they are the best for competition. People have seen that Apple can get away with a semi curated capricious ecosystem, and will copy it.
The future is apple shaped App stores. I'm not sure thats good for everyone.
[deleted]
>Apple using that as an excuse to punish a competitor
Steve Jobs in 2010 being asked how Apple's view on privacy differs from Facebook's view (right after one of the early Facebook scandals)
>Privacy means people know what they’re signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. That’s what it means. I’m an optimist, I believe people are smart. And some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you’re going to do with their data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
Steve Jobs in 2010 being asked how Apple's view on privacy differs from Facebook's view (right after one of the early Facebook scandals)
>Privacy means people know what they’re signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. That’s what it means. I’m an optimist, I believe people are smart. And some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you’re going to do with their data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
They should get off their high horse for a bit, or at least level the playing field: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...
They've already added an explicit prompt for that.
Are you saying you don't support a user's ability to opt out of tracking?
Why would you draw that conclusion unless you want to pigeon hole a complex position into a boolean strawman?
Do i support a users ability to opt out? Of course.
I could pose the same question to you: Do you support a users ability to opt out of Apples tracking in the same way they opt out of App tracking?
The App tracking guidelines mandate that multiple apps owned by the same developer still need to ask for permissions EVERY SINGLE TIME. Contrast that with Apple only asking for a soft share permission once during device setup and extending that across a wide swath of apps within a category like "Device analytics" which covers everything from what apps you're using, what networks you're connecting to, your use of the one device radios etc.
App tracking transparency also forces the big default button in the permission flow being the "Ask App Not to track" link. While, for their own permission requests, Apple has a big blue button that opts users in. This by itself causes an opt-in rate of <10% for external apps and near 90% for Apples internal dialogs. Lets place the same UX requirements for Apples own internal tracking dialogs please.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the undocumented services or APIs that have no permissions gating them. The "Find My" network? Do you know how Apple uses data of nearby devices? Isn't that EXACTLY what they're claiming to clamp down on from the likes of Google And FB cross device tracking while doing it themselves for a different end outcome seemingly justifying it?
Do i support a users ability to opt out? Of course.
I could pose the same question to you: Do you support a users ability to opt out of Apples tracking in the same way they opt out of App tracking?
The App tracking guidelines mandate that multiple apps owned by the same developer still need to ask for permissions EVERY SINGLE TIME. Contrast that with Apple only asking for a soft share permission once during device setup and extending that across a wide swath of apps within a category like "Device analytics" which covers everything from what apps you're using, what networks you're connecting to, your use of the one device radios etc.
App tracking transparency also forces the big default button in the permission flow being the "Ask App Not to track" link. While, for their own permission requests, Apple has a big blue button that opts users in. This by itself causes an opt-in rate of <10% for external apps and near 90% for Apples internal dialogs. Lets place the same UX requirements for Apples own internal tracking dialogs please.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the undocumented services or APIs that have no permissions gating them. The "Find My" network? Do you know how Apple uses data of nearby devices? Isn't that EXACTLY what they're claiming to clamp down on from the likes of Google And FB cross device tracking while doing it themselves for a different end outcome seemingly justifying it?
If Facebook no longer find providing a service on that platform to be profitable, they could just stop providing it, or more likely, corner Apple into banning them. I think at that point people might realise that tracking is a form of payment that they have opted out of.
yuppie_scum(1)
I dislike both companies but definitely Facebook more. So it’s good to watch one eat the other.
This move alone will keep me buying iOS devices: any move that attempts to curb FB (would be nice if the company folded and ceased to exist but …) is laudable by me.
[deleted]
Apple, do please kneecap Google's advertising as well. In fact, eradicate unwanted advertising entirely and do what you did with Music - sell a subscription so I could browse the web without this bullshit, yet site owners would also get paid. Brave is trying to do this, but they lack the critical mass. Apple has the critical mass of basically everyone who has the money to spend, worldwide, as well as their credit card info.
> sell a subscription so I could browse the web without this bullshit
You don't need any subscription, just install uBlock Origin or whatever blocker works best and if you want to provide financial support those FOSS projects mostly accept donations.
You don't need any subscription, just install uBlock Origin or whatever blocker works best and if you want to provide financial support those FOSS projects mostly accept donations.
You can't have uBlock Origin (or anything similarly powerful) on iOS as all browsers are skins for Mobile Safari. But you can install Firefox with full extension support on Android!
It’s not uBlock, but I’ve found AdGuard to be very effective at blocking ads on mobile safari.
Yeah, I have been using Firefox and uBlock Origin on mobile and I am amazed how other put up with the web without ad blockers
That's not a sustainable solution. You should definitely do it, because ad networks are cesspools of lies, fraud, and malware, but let's not pretend that it's an answer to the question of where the money to pay for all this cool stuff comes from.
> You should definitely do it, because ad networks are cesspools of lies, fraud, and malware
And that’s after removing the ads
And that’s after removing the ads
It is the cost of their attempt of centralized monopolist platforms. From the P2P Foundation:
> Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit. [..] But servers require upkeep. Operators need to finance hosting and administration. As the Internet grew beyond its relatively small early base, Internet service came to be provided by capitalist corporations, rather than public institutions, small businesses, or universities. Open, decentralized services came to be replaced by private, centralized platforms. The profit interests of the platform financiers drove anti-disintermediation.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...
> Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit. [..] But servers require upkeep. Operators need to finance hosting and administration. As the Internet grew beyond its relatively small early base, Internet service came to be provided by capitalist corporations, rather than public institutions, small businesses, or universities. Open, decentralized services came to be replaced by private, centralized platforms. The profit interests of the platform financiers drove anti-disintermediation.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...
That's what I already do, but the fact that publishers get zero from this is not lost on me.
I believe you're describing Apple News+
Mainstream news is just naked propaganda, so I'd also like an option to pay them nothing, in the unlikely event such a subscription is actually available. They aren't doing it for money anyway, and whoever is paying for what they do will just continue paying, because they need manufactured consent.
Google's primary strategy is to build a relationship with you, learn everything about you while you interact with them, and be paid to tell you about stuff they think you would be interested in while you use their services.
It is when you capture information across multiple contexts without a user relationship or user consent that Apple decided they needed to step in.
Google's reaction to Apple changes is to move tactically to get users to log in for more base services. Facebook's reaction has been significantly less composed.
It is when you capture information across multiple contexts without a user relationship or user consent that Apple decided they needed to step in.
Google's reaction to Apple changes is to move tactically to get users to log in for more base services. Facebook's reaction has been significantly less composed.
Good. Facebook is a festering sore on civil society.
“I don't think that Tim Cook is this benevolent privacy person,” said Kelcey Lehrich, CEO of 365 Holdings, a company that owns e-commerce brands and advertises extensively online. “They're making strategic decisions that affect the market cap, not practical decisions that serve their customers or serve their users,” he said, speaking broadly of the Big Tech companies.
"Concern over Facebook’s ability to weather Apple’s attack"
It's funny how this is described clearly shows how it is viewed by the writer/speaker. Attack is definitely not neutral.
It's funny how this is described clearly shows how it is viewed by the writer/speaker. Attack is definitely not neutral.
I have a slightly more cynical take on this than it seems most of Hacker News does.
Facebook had found a way to monetize it's iOS app without Apple getting a 30% cut.
Apple decided to cut that off to prevent Facebook from making money without Apple taking their cut. The fact that Apple can sell this to users as "privacy" is all the better for Apple.
At the end of the day Apple is still a corporation. They are beholden to shareholders, not privacy advocates. Apple will maximize profits and has found a way to cut off revenue to competitor and breed goodwill at the same time.
Judging by this comments thread, it is working very well.
Facebook had found a way to monetize it's iOS app without Apple getting a 30% cut.
Apple decided to cut that off to prevent Facebook from making money without Apple taking their cut. The fact that Apple can sell this to users as "privacy" is all the better for Apple.
At the end of the day Apple is still a corporation. They are beholden to shareholders, not privacy advocates. Apple will maximize profits and has found a way to cut off revenue to competitor and breed goodwill at the same time.
Judging by this comments thread, it is working very well.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Google also makes a lot off their apps and circumvents the App Store. Airbnb too. Apple is doing what it thinks is best for its customers. Perhaps people will pick iPhones over Android due to Apples strength with privacy.
Google pays Apple billions to be the default search engine for iphone. They've paid their way into good graces.
Privacy on iPhone, that's a laugh! The only company ever to ship phones with an automated, unverifiable on-device scanning/reporting to authorities system. As we know, CSAM is just to get the foot in the door, of course.
Fuck Apple and their locked-down consumer hostile disposable garbage, and while we're at it, fuck Facebook for just about everything they do. I have no need for either of those garbage companies.
Privacy on iPhone, that's a laugh! The only company ever to ship phones with an automated, unverifiable on-device scanning/reporting to authorities system. As we know, CSAM is just to get the foot in the door, of course.
Fuck Apple and their locked-down consumer hostile disposable garbage, and while we're at it, fuck Facebook for just about everything they do. I have no need for either of those garbage companies.
> The only company ever to ship phones with an automated, unverifiable on-device scanning/reporting to authorities system.
Nitpick but so far this hasn’t shipped.
Nitpick but so far this hasn’t shipped.
Apple's revenue stream isn't as tied to internet advertising as any of its large competitors. They sell products. And also an ecosystem around those products.
The two for one of hurting competitors and making customers happy is about as good a play as they could make. It makes making the 'right' decision easy. Blocking facebook from tracking everything we do online is a win most people can appreciate, except Facebook (and potentially some advertisers taking advantage of it).
The two for one of hurting competitors and making customers happy is about as good a play as they could make. It makes making the 'right' decision easy. Blocking facebook from tracking everything we do online is a win most people can appreciate, except Facebook (and potentially some advertisers taking advantage of it).
> Apple's revenue stream isn't as tied to internet advertising
Actually a significant percentage of Apple’s profit comes from free-to-play iPhone games, which contain a lot of adverts.
Grabbing some figures from different sources:
* “Apple reported a profit of $23.6 billion in its second quarter, on record sales of $89.6”
* “According to the ruling, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenue. That 70% is generated by less than 10% of all App”
* “Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019”
* “Apple's App Store had gross sales around $64 billion last year”
78% of 64G$ is ~50G$, and 23.6G$ x4 is ~95G$, so let us say that 50% of profits come from the App Store.
I would guess that at least 25% of Apple profits come indirectly from in app advertising for apps related to in-app-purchases. You know, those annoying adverts in free games, that are mostly nothing like YouTube adverts, because the highest payout for the adverts is by advertising gambling and pay to play games. The adverts pay well because the in app purchases pay developers well, and Apple takes their cut from that.
Note that Apple do not provide a clear breakdown of App Store profits compared to iPhone sales profits: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
Actually a significant percentage of Apple’s profit comes from free-to-play iPhone games, which contain a lot of adverts.
Grabbing some figures from different sources:
* “Apple reported a profit of $23.6 billion in its second quarter, on record sales of $89.6”
* “According to the ruling, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenue. That 70% is generated by less than 10% of all App”
* “Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019”
* “Apple's App Store had gross sales around $64 billion last year”
78% of 64G$ is ~50G$, and 23.6G$ x4 is ~95G$, so let us say that 50% of profits come from the App Store.
I would guess that at least 25% of Apple profits come indirectly from in app advertising for apps related to in-app-purchases. You know, those annoying adverts in free games, that are mostly nothing like YouTube adverts, because the highest payout for the adverts is by advertising gambling and pay to play games. The adverts pay well because the in app purchases pay developers well, and Apple takes their cut from that.
Note that Apple do not provide a clear breakdown of App Store profits compared to iPhone sales profits: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
> I would guess that at least 25% of Apple profits come indirectly from in app advertising for apps related to in-app-purchases
With that logic you could say that nearly all Apples profits come indirectly from advertising as they trigger people to buy hardware, apps and services.
If people spend x hours and $10 a month on in-app purchases on their favourite game and that game was taken away, many would just spend the time and $10 on another game - ie Apple will always get their share, the ads just help decide which app developer gets the rest.
With that logic you could say that nearly all Apples profits come indirectly from advertising as they trigger people to buy hardware, apps and services.
If people spend x hours and $10 a month on in-app purchases on their favourite game and that game was taken away, many would just spend the time and $10 on another game - ie Apple will always get their share, the ads just help decide which app developer gets the rest.
Games that run advertisement don't pay Apple a single cent out of their ad revenues.
but they will generate advertising revenue for Apple. Just like the developer gets cut of the advertising so does Apple. The developer isn't paying but the advertisers certainly are.
Apple gets a cut of a Google ad in an iOS app?
Its not advertising revenue unless the revenue is generated by selling advertising.
How do you figure? 100% of in-app advertising goes to the split between the ad provider and the developer. Apple doesn't get 1 cent from that (unless the ad comes from Apple, obviously).
It's a loop. The ads don't make Apple money but they market games that profit off in app purchases. Apple gets 30% of those purchases so is incentivized to enable these ads and participate in making them more effective like providing metrics.
Btw, I recently (as in 2 months ago, before the epic ruling) downloaded one of those apps (bec I was given a $40 incentive to spend $10 in app) and they used PayPal not apple to sell their in app coins. I thought that was interesting, that they got around the apple censors.
> Apple's revenue stream isn't as tied to internet advertising as any of its large competitors
I am curious what your take on this is:
https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...
I am curious what your take on this is:
https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/25/analysts-google-to-pay-apple-...
Free money. They don't even have to develop the ad business.
Apple does run a very large ad network themselves in the app store. They tried to run their own 'traditional' ad network and failed, so I agree with parent this is a business decision.
The article has multiple mentions of an upcoming broader Apple network? Is there any solid information on that?
They could win big $ if they rolled out a universal ID and controlled the infra/bids. Similar to their login button, it could be a more privacy focused UUID that users can revoke or maybe partition. Would love to see their marketing sell this as groundbreaking privacy lol
The article has multiple mentions of an upcoming broader Apple network? Is there any solid information on that?
They could win big $ if they rolled out a universal ID and controlled the infra/bids. Similar to their login button, it could be a more privacy focused UUID that users can revoke or maybe partition. Would love to see their marketing sell this as groundbreaking privacy lol
> Apple's revenue stream isn't as tied to internet advertising
It's tied to China instead, an outstanding example of human rights. Yay Apple :)
It's tied to China instead, an outstanding example of human rights. Yay Apple :)
What services or products do Apple and Facebook share that make them competitors?
Apple and Facebook both provides means for other apps to monetize. Facebook provides it's ads SDK and Apple provides in-app purchases/subscriptions.
While these may seem like totally different markets, Apple and Facebook are directly competing for the same dollars here.
While these may seem like totally different markets, Apple and Facebook are directly competing for the same dollars here.
I guess I see that. If I'm an app developer I am choosing between selling my app or placing ads in the app, and I'm directing revenue to either Facebook or Apple depending on that decision.
iAds. The 2.5T behemoth is looking for new revenue streams.
>Apple decided to cut that off to prevent Facebook from making money without Apple taking their cut. The fact that Apple can sell this to users as "privacy" is all the better for Apple.
Whatever. As long as it's damaging Facebook it's a net win for society.
Whatever. As long as it's damaging Facebook it's a net win for society.
I agree, even though it feels a bit icky. I'm sure Apple have their eye on that advertising money in some way but anything that damages Facebook is highly likely to be a net positive.
> I agree, even though it feels a bit icky.
Giving the users the opportunity to make an educated decision feels the opposite of icky. This in itself is unambiguously good. Now, other aspects of Apple’s behaviour are less great, but let’s keep some perspective: asking for user consent should be the legal bare minimum.
Giving the users the opportunity to make an educated decision feels the opposite of icky. This in itself is unambiguously good. Now, other aspects of Apple’s behaviour are less great, but let’s keep some perspective: asking for user consent should be the legal bare minimum.
I meant it feels icky to approve of anything Apple does :P.
EDIT: just to clarify, I 100% agree it's a great change, it's just that "right thing for the wrong reasons" situation. But it's a very good change and I hope it continues.
EDIT: just to clarify, I 100% agree it's a great change, it's just that "right thing for the wrong reasons" situation. But it's a very good change and I hope it continues.
> I meant it feels icky to approve of anything Apple does :P.
Oh, right. Sorry, I misread :)
Oh, right. Sorry, I misread :)
Your cynical take would make sense if you think Apple would somehow get that 30% if Facebook were allowed to collect this data. Apple gets nothing either way.
Apple isn't holding Facebook hostage, it's simply allow FB users to relinquish giving Facebook their usage patterns for free.
Apple isn't holding Facebook hostage, it's simply allow FB users to relinquish giving Facebook their usage patterns for free.
[deleted]
Facebook might pivot towards other monetization strategies when their cross-platform web tracking ads don't work anymore.
For example, Facebook offers you to pay to "increase the reach" of your posts. This happens for example when you try to post a message to a Facebook group. If you want to make sure all members see the message, you have to pay.
This is a way that Facebook monetizes without tracking (targeting is based on people who opted in to join a group) and the users pay directly in the app (allowing Apple to get their 30% for the in-app payment).
With Apples changes, Facebook (and others) might focus more on strategies like that.
For example, Facebook offers you to pay to "increase the reach" of your posts. This happens for example when you try to post a message to a Facebook group. If you want to make sure all members see the message, you have to pay.
This is a way that Facebook monetizes without tracking (targeting is based on people who opted in to join a group) and the users pay directly in the app (allowing Apple to get their 30% for the in-app payment).
With Apples changes, Facebook (and others) might focus more on strategies like that.
> For example, Facebook offers you to pay to "increase the reach" of your posts. This happens for example when you try to post a message to a Facebook group. If you want to make sure all members see the message, you have to pay.
That actually sounds incredibly cynical, and criminal
Edit: Would the person who downvoted me within literally a minute of posting this please explain why?
That actually sounds incredibly cynical, and criminal
Edit: Would the person who downvoted me within literally a minute of posting this please explain why?
I didn’t downvote you, but perhaps it’s because you didn’t back up the word “criminal” with a source. What law does it break if facebook doesn’t send your post to everyone in the group?
If you wanted to send a letter to all of your friends in the traditional post, you’d have to pay 58 cents per person to do so, the business model hardly seems unusual.
If you wanted to send a letter to all of your friends in the traditional post, you’d have to pay 58 cents per person to do so, the business model hardly seems unusual.
I thought the same thing when I found out about that, but it kinda makes sense.
Facebook tries to show you the most "interesting" posts. If you are a member of many groups, there are probably too many posts in your groups to show all of them in your newsfeed. So Facebook just picks whatever they think is interesting.
Or the poster can pay to have everyone see the post.
Anyway, I prefer this monetisation strategy to creepy tracking.
Facebook tries to show you the most "interesting" posts. If you are a member of many groups, there are probably too many posts in your groups to show all of them in your newsfeed. So Facebook just picks whatever they think is interesting.
Or the poster can pay to have everyone see the post.
Anyway, I prefer this monetisation strategy to creepy tracking.
That actually does make sense in a newsfeed way. I had this mental image of a person physically reading the group (being in the group specifically) and just not seeing any posts by x because x didn't pay to play
I would say that a lot of this is about domination of the chat space. FB has the most used messenger app, and iMessage is a predominant feature of Apple.
FB is also an easy target at the moment, so Apple can use them to sell the "privacy" of their product.
That and I think Tim Apple has a bone or two to pick with Zucks.
FB is also an easy target at the moment, so Apple can use them to sell the "privacy" of their product.
That and I think Tim Apple has a bone or two to pick with Zucks.
It is hard to dominate the messaging space when Apple does not offer messaging service to android users.
Do they need to dominate the space, or does Apple just need to dominate their own space? I would suggest that the high usage of iMessage is also a driver for new customers to come on board with iOS and remain there.
This right here. I think a lot of people don’t consider jumping ship at all, primarily because of iMessage (no source, just personal experience).
That’s mostly a US thing. Where apple doesn’t have big enough market share, it doesn’t work and people use alternative chat programs (messenger, whatsapp, telegram)
True! Having moved from Denmark to the US makes this very apparent. In DK everyone uses Facebook Messenger.
Yeah, I know tons of people who won't even consider anything other than iPhone, and their first response is "then I won't have iMessage!"
I have literally never heard anyone say that. IMessage is a nice thing to have, but other than the blue bubbles has almost zero effect on communications. SMS text messages work fine and are free. Same for WhatsApp and FB Messenger.
I saw someone once say that if they don't have a blue bubble, they're not worth talking to.
That does sound like an arrogant arsehole if serious, though that’s the kind of things one would say in jest around here. Not sure how prevalent that is, if sincere. Even in the UK, where Apple has a near-50% market share AFAIK, it means not communicating with half the population, which sounds impractical.
I’ve heard it to, it’s mostly about seeing the delivery receipt. I think that’s why apple refuses to implement RCS.
> other than the blue bubbles has almost zero effect on communications. SMS text messages work fine and are free. Same for WhatsApp and FB Messenger.
That is simply, objectively, untrue.
There are so many falsities with your statement I don't know where to begin.
Lets start with money transfer. I often use applepay right in iMessage to split bills between parties right at the table. I iMessage them the bill and their portion, and right there through iMessage they reimburse me through apple-pay, right to my bank.
During the last major Hurricane in FL, iMessages would send while SMS and all TEXTING would not. Cellular services were down. Texting was down, but iMessage worked just fine with a WiFi connection.
My interactions on iMessage are saved to iCloud. Prior to switching to Apple devices, in 2016, my work phone was damaged beyond repair at a construction site. All of my texts were saved on device, and not recoverable. This does not and cannot occur on iMessage saved to iCloud.
This is all just off the top of my head, and these are features that are desirable and utilized in iMessage, and not available through sms.
Objectively speaking, your statement about iMessage is just plain wrong.
That is simply, objectively, untrue.
There are so many falsities with your statement I don't know where to begin.
Lets start with money transfer. I often use applepay right in iMessage to split bills between parties right at the table. I iMessage them the bill and their portion, and right there through iMessage they reimburse me through apple-pay, right to my bank.
During the last major Hurricane in FL, iMessages would send while SMS and all TEXTING would not. Cellular services were down. Texting was down, but iMessage worked just fine with a WiFi connection.
My interactions on iMessage are saved to iCloud. Prior to switching to Apple devices, in 2016, my work phone was damaged beyond repair at a construction site. All of my texts were saved on device, and not recoverable. This does not and cannot occur on iMessage saved to iCloud.
This is all just off the top of my head, and these are features that are desirable and utilized in iMessage, and not available through sms.
Objectively speaking, your statement about iMessage is just plain wrong.
"Remain there" indeed.
As anyone who has ever switched from an iPhone to an Android device will tell you, iMessage makes the process extremely painful, and in totally unexpected ways. You get your new Android phone set up, and suddenly find that you're not getting messages from any of your friends that have iPhones... because those messages are being routed over iMessage instead of SMS.
So you do a bunch of Googling or contact support for your phone manufacturer or wireless carrier, who directs you to an Apple tool for de-registering your number from iMessage. You go through that process, but it takes days/weeks for your de-registration to finally make it through "the system" to everybody's iPhones so that messaging with your friends on iPhones finally starts working again.
Did Apple do this intentionally? No, probably not. Could they solve this problem? You bet they could. But why solve something that makes switching to Android a nightmare?
As anyone who has ever switched from an iPhone to an Android device will tell you, iMessage makes the process extremely painful, and in totally unexpected ways. You get your new Android phone set up, and suddenly find that you're not getting messages from any of your friends that have iPhones... because those messages are being routed over iMessage instead of SMS.
So you do a bunch of Googling or contact support for your phone manufacturer or wireless carrier, who directs you to an Apple tool for de-registering your number from iMessage. You go through that process, but it takes days/weeks for your de-registration to finally make it through "the system" to everybody's iPhones so that messaging with your friends on iPhones finally starts working again.
Did Apple do this intentionally? No, probably not. Could they solve this problem? You bet they could. But why solve something that makes switching to Android a nightmare?
I remember reading from the Epic vs Apple debacle that Apple decided to not open iMessage for Android phones since 2013:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
Except imessages get uploaded in its entirety to the Chinese government, FB messages don't.
Does FB exist in China?
Yes iMessage can be decrypted by the Chinese government. But China is a much different arena than the rest of the world, it is an almost totalitarian state by default.
Yes iMessage can be decrypted by the Chinese government. But China is a much different arena than the rest of the world, it is an almost totalitarian state by default.
FB doesn't exist in China because they don't want to upload their user data to the Chinese government.
And it's not like Chinese government "can decrypt". Its not encryption if you share the key in plaintext. All imessages in china are scanned by the government.
And it's not like Chinese government "can decrypt". Its not encryption if you share the key in plaintext. All imessages in china are scanned by the government.
If Apple wants a cut, they can just change the terms of the developer agreement so they get a cut from advertising revenue. The more Facebook earns, the more Apple would earn.
if Apple wanted money I'm sure they could've struck a deal with FB just like how they made a pact with Google to put them as a default search engine.
What would they have made FB into? Default social network? Google provides a value addition for most people which is better search results than its competitors and they keep paying Apple for the privilege of being the default search engine.
Facebook provides no such "value". There is no such thing as the best social media app. Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, Reddit, Hackernews etc provide different services to people.
Apple doesn't want a 30% cut. They want a 100% cut.
Watch as Apple rolls out "privacy compliant" ads api that will route all ads through apple.com and block out other advertisers. Apple wants to be the only Ad company on iOS.
Notice the hypocrisy of providing privacy for your internet shopping behavior while dumping your imessages to CCP without a thought as well as your albums to any government entity.
Watch as Apple rolls out "privacy compliant" ads api that will route all ads through apple.com and block out other advertisers. Apple wants to be the only Ad company on iOS.
Notice the hypocrisy of providing privacy for your internet shopping behavior while dumping your imessages to CCP without a thought as well as your albums to any government entity.
Wait, what's the alternative? FB pays Apple 30% of what exactly? Its ad revenue? How is that in any shape or form feasible for Apple to demand from FB, logistically? If there is no clear way for Apple to force FB to pay it has no reason to find an excuse to hinder FB's tracking activities on iOS for monetary reasons.
The world is also not black and white. Just because Apple is not beholden to privacy advocates, but instead its shareholders, doesn't mean it gives 0-fucks about privacy concerns. Of course Apple cares about privacy if it helps it sell more iPhones without lowering its profit margin.
The world is also not black and white. Just because Apple is not beholden to privacy advocates, but instead its shareholders, doesn't mean it gives 0-fucks about privacy concerns. Of course Apple cares about privacy if it helps it sell more iPhones without lowering its profit margin.
Apple has been vehemently against tracking their users from the start. Steve Jobs was adamant about it, it's even why they ditched Google Maps and developed their own mapping service starting in 2009. So Apple has a very long history to back this up, and have sunk billions of dollars into avoiding commercial entanglements that compromised their user's data.
Imagine if Apple had gone heavily into tracking back in 2009, as a lot of analysts predicted they would. They'd have been giants in the tracking industry. Imagine how much the detailed social graph of Apple users for more than a decade must be worth? They would have hauled in tens, maybe hundreds of billions. They walked away from all of that on principle.
Imagine if Apple had gone heavily into tracking back in 2009, as a lot of analysts predicted they would. They'd have been giants in the tracking industry. Imagine how much the detailed social graph of Apple users for more than a decade must be worth? They would have hauled in tens, maybe hundreds of billions. They walked away from all of that on principle.
Only the privacy changes go way beyond Facebook.
Smartphone Apps are universally shit.
This reads like someone starting with the conclusion that Apple did this to prevent Facebook from making money without an Apple cut, and then looking hard for evidence to support that.
> Judging by this comments thread, it is working very well.
Good. A company's motives don't matter. Companies are just reinforcement machines that go where they think money is.
If they release a "privacy" feature, for whatever hidden motive, and users flock to it, they will infer that there is money to be made here and continue in that direction, which is good for us. It makes no difference what their reason to move there was in the first place.
Good. A company's motives don't matter. Companies are just reinforcement machines that go where they think money is.
If they release a "privacy" feature, for whatever hidden motive, and users flock to it, they will infer that there is money to be made here and continue in that direction, which is good for us. It makes no difference what their reason to move there was in the first place.
[deleted]
While this is a great first step, isn’t one very likely consequence that facebook will pour extraordinary resources into much more invasive tracking using less obvious methods that cannot be blocked? I feel like this is just a start of a whole new era for fingerprinting.
I can guarantee you they have been working on this for some time now.
Prompting and honoring the user's choice of whether to be tracked across organizational boundaries are part of the App Store guidelines.
Facebook would lose their ability to publish a native app for iPhone.
Facebook would lose their ability to publish a native app for iPhone.
Facebook is not a company with internal limits to what it sees as acceptable.
They’re like a tobacco company.
Recently they knowingly sat on information that showed that changes to Instagram were damaging teenage girl’s mental health.
If they could track users and non-users in a more invasive way the will do that anyway.
They’re like a tobacco company.
Recently they knowingly sat on information that showed that changes to Instagram were damaging teenage girl’s mental health.
If they could track users and non-users in a more invasive way the will do that anyway.
I'll say it again: Facebook will become the next AOL, Yahoo. It's already set in stone. They are just playing 'not to lose' at this point.
[deleted]
Unfortunate that they'll take Instagram down with them.
They likely won’t take any of their acquisitions down with them. They’ve been pretty good about keeping them mostly separate. They’ll be spun off in any eventual liquidation.
Unless you think they are being mismanaged or mismarketed now?
Unless you think they are being mismanaged or mismarketed now?
Instagram has been an absolute dumpster fire for the last two or three years - it's no longer a photography platform, it's a meme, "influencer", celeb, and viral video platform. Tear it down.
The only recent saving grace is that I'm seeing more photographic content, the problem is that's from other photographers who are promoting their work via paid ads - they're not going to grow their following that way and TBH a lot of it is pretty mediocre.
The only recent saving grace is that I'm seeing more photographic content, the problem is that's from other photographers who are promoting their work via paid ads - they're not going to grow their following that way and TBH a lot of it is pretty mediocre.
Any recommendations on photo platforms to use if I want to passively share my photos with my friends and family? Network effects are pretty hard to overcome.
Yeah how terrible.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/01/27/instagram...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/01/27/instagram...
I really don't think this prediction will age well.
People just love to hate facebook. I've heard predications of it's demise since before it IPO'd.
People just love to hate facebook. I've heard predications of it's demise since before it IPO'd.
Honestly they're doing the right thing with buying the likes of Instagram and WhatsApp and keeping them at arms length rather than slathering them in Facebook integrations and branding, which is something Yahoo in particular never learned and IMO was a big factor in them accidentally suffocating Flickr and tumblr. Of course the Apple provoked porn ban was the final nail in the coffin for tumblr but the direction was clear well before that
WhatsApp is still a negative investment atm. I’m sure Instagram is printing money like Facebook but it relies on the same mechanisms, and thus will fall with Facebook.
Nice. This was a reminder to check my own Samsung browser setting; smart anti tracking was only in secret mode. Now set to always. Hopefully they'll make this the default too.
This post is just an ad. It's a brand new Substack with literally only one article that's more than 50% ad text. All of the comments here are addressing overall HN sentiment or the title, not the article and the giant ad text which I would think would stick out to more people if they had actually read it??
You’re not wrong that this has a lot of ad copy, but it’s a different kind of ad -- a paid sponsorship, personalised to the site rather than to individual users. It’s a more old-fashioned model, like magazine ads.
I think a lot of people saying “but ads are what let us get stuff for free!” would point to this kind of thing as an example of doing it right.
I think a lot of people saying “but ads are what let us get stuff for free!” would point to this kind of thing as an example of doing it right.
I would say this is an ad aimed at a professional audience. I read the science equivalent of these in Nature sometimes. Sure, they are biased and misleading. But it is usually clear enough who sponsored the piece and so you get a useful perspective of the sponsor on some topic.
It's jarring because I've never seen advertising on any of the dozen substacks I've visited before. This one has so many ads.
I couldn't stand magazines back in the day for the same reason. Frankly, magazines are worse in my mind as I've already actually paid several dollars to purchase it. You'd think that'd allow them to get away with less ads as a result but apparently not. TV is the same way - I'm already paying for cable, stop showing me MORE stuff! I cut the cord in 2011, I don't miss it and I'd rather that model of payment+more ads not make a comeback.
You don't think that its important that there aren't any irritating banners, that it opens with the content, and that any advertising copy sits below the article itself? I had to go back and check because the thing you are complaining about literally did not interrupt my flow in any way.
Banner ads don't masquerade as content and aren't nearly as screen-covering as that on-average in my experience. The only way this is better is that there's no chance for malicious JS to be served from the ad (Forbes, cough cough)
This is the kind of ad that makes me feel good about buying Apple products. Unlike the ads that give me creepy vibes from being tracked across the internet by Facebook.
Also, I note, you can’t opt out of tracking on the site either.
The irony of that jumps out at me.
The irony of that jumps out at me.
Has anyone noticed that Apple tracks your app installs and use that data to show app Ads to you?
While Apple doesn't allow others to track users across apps, they themselves can do it because they have a monopoly on app store so it doesn't count as third party data.
While Apple doesn't allow others to track users across apps, they themselves can do it because they have a monopoly on app store so it doesn't count as third party data.
As of iOS15 they ask your permission to do this. If you don't your app ads aren't personalized.
But they don't use the same standard permission box that they force 3rd party apps to use.
That's shady....
That's shady....
Because they're Apple and it's their store. Of course they want the box to look fancier :)
Also: There is a HUGE difference (in my opinion) between Apple recommending me other apps based on the ones I already have installed vs Facebook tracking my presence and activity everywhere around the internet.
Also: There is a HUGE difference (in my opinion) between Apple recommending me other apps based on the ones I already have installed vs Facebook tracking my presence and activity everywhere around the internet.
That’s probably the “personalized recommendations”, and you can switch it off in your profile.
Is it opt in or opt out?
Opt out, because of course very few people would opt in.
I think I remember having to opt in with a new iOS15 installation.
iOS 15 asks on first launch of app store what you’d like.
What is the message in the opt in/ opt ou5lt screen?
This is the pop-up:
Personalized ads in Apple apps such as the App Store and Apple News help you discover apps, products, and services that are relevant to you. We protect your privacy by using device-generated identifiers and not linking advertising information to your Apple ID. Turning on Personalized Ads increases the relevance of ads shown by letting us use data like account information, app and content purchases, and where available, the types of News stories you read. Apple does not track you or share your personal information with any third parties.
Then a button that says “Turn On” and one that says “Turn Off”.
Personalized ads in Apple apps such as the App Store and Apple News help you discover apps, products, and services that are relevant to you. We protect your privacy by using device-generated identifiers and not linking advertising information to your Apple ID. Turning on Personalized Ads increases the relevance of ads shown by letting us use data like account information, app and content purchases, and where available, the types of News stories you read. Apple does not track you or share your personal information with any third parties.
Then a button that says “Turn On” and one that says “Turn Off”.
More or less what I expected. This is basically local device side personalization. You can expect to see this pop up in safari soon. Safari will track your browsing and purchase history locally. At which point all display ads on the web and safari will be served by Apple on iOS.
It's there since a few iOS versions ago, but as an opt out. I'm not on 15 yet. From what other people write, I suppose that's changed.
After you explicitly granted them permission.
I really liked the response Tim Cook gave when Zuckerberg was in trouble regarding Cambridge Analytica [1]
When asked what he would do if he were currently faced with the problems confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Cook said: “I wouldn’t be in this situation.”
...
Cook said that Apple has never believed that detailed online profiles of people should exist. “We can make a ton of money if customers were our product. We have elected not to do that,” Cook said.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/tim-cook-on-facebooks-scanda...
When asked what he would do if he were currently faced with the problems confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Cook said: “I wouldn’t be in this situation.”
...
Cook said that Apple has never believed that detailed online profiles of people should exist. “We can make a ton of money if customers were our product. We have elected not to do that,” Cook said.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/tim-cook-on-facebooks-scanda...
As a begrudging App Store user, I feel like I'm a product that Apple is selling to app developers.
Apple and Amazon both seem to ignore you if you don't do business with them. If they sell you things, they obviously keep track of that. Amazon's ads are really intrusive and give away my Amazon search history. Facebook and Google doxx you in order to exploit your weaknesses.
It's each of our choice how to interpret that and respond to it, whether with "who cares" or "that's terrifying" or "bury gold" or whatever.
But it's important to recognize that, at the core, this mandatory tracking question is curtailing the business of an entire category of startup that we've mostly forgotten. DoubleClick.
I didn't understand that DoubleClick would lead to this nightmare of being stalked by hawkers. I do not like where we have ended up. May their business chip and shatter.
It's each of our choice how to interpret that and respond to it, whether with "who cares" or "that's terrifying" or "bury gold" or whatever.
But it's important to recognize that, at the core, this mandatory tracking question is curtailing the business of an entire category of startup that we've mostly forgotten. DoubleClick.
I didn't understand that DoubleClick would lead to this nightmare of being stalked by hawkers. I do not like where we have ended up. May their business chip and shatter.
As an iOS user, I would like to say that I'm enjoying not feeling targeted by ads that makes me want to spend. The latest focus function is even better.
As much as I hate Facebook, I think that one company abusing its power against other companies is not a good thing.
Where is the abuse of power? The problem (I don't own an iphone! I could be wrong) as I understand it is that Apple is giving its customers the option to opt-in to tracking and that people are choosing not to do that. Yeah, it offers a business advantage I'm sure, but its also hard to see what is wrong with that action you know?
You got it exactly right! And considering that (beginning with iOS 15) they ask you if they can track you too (for eg App Store ads), there’s not much business advantage either.
That’s a straw man argument.
Apple has only given users the chance to say no to Facebook they haven’t stopped them saying yes.
Apple has only given users the chance to say no to Facebook they haven’t stopped them saying yes.
How can it be "abuse", when all Apple has done is to provide users a window saying "Hey, this app is collecting all your data. Do you want to prevent it?".
The abuser is Facebook here.
Fact : Apple is providing an authentic choice to users regarding sharing of their data.
FB Spin : Apple is attacking us and hurting our business.
The abuser is Facebook here.
Fact : Apple is providing an authentic choice to users regarding sharing of their data.
FB Spin : Apple is attacking us and hurting our business.
In my country there's a saying: "a cornered cat makes weird jumps". Expect Facebook to start working on their own mobile phones soon..
I opened the link and my email address is already filled out in the import form for subscription. Where does it have my email address from? I am not using auto fill features.
As a small advertiser, this year I will be pulling all ads. In fact, I may even set the company dormant. What used to work (keyword based advertising) no longer does. The whole ad market is so fraudulent... the only winner here is Amazon
The amount of bias in tech savvy people here is scary.
This is def a power move, don't think they do it for us as consumers tho.
This is also a very expected move. Apple was cutting down trackable stuff from iOS for a very long time now. Obviously, they going to keep improving on that.
"People are opting out of Facebook’s tracking for a reason: they no longer trust the company with their data after years of evidence they should not."
Alternatively, this is the first time mainstream users are able at all to opt-out. I would strongly suspect users opt-out in any case, for any app, regardless of trust history.
Alternatively, this is the first time mainstream users are able at all to opt-out. I would strongly suspect users opt-out in any case, for any app, regardless of trust history.
Yeah, I opt out by default.
It seems Apple wants that money for itself.
It will take a couple of years to see how much of FB ads (amongst others) have shifted to Apple.
It will take a couple of years to see how much of FB ads (amongst others) have shifted to Apple.
Wow can you imagine if the rest of the internet worked like that?
This is a perfect example of why competition needs to exist in tech, even when products seem to exist in harmony.
I know this is contentious, but IMO this has been the strongest evidence thus far that we need regulation or antitrust to break up companies that own a platform and also compete on said platform.
Side note, I don't tend to view Facebook as some inherently evil corporation as many commenters seem to. I hope that by eliminating certain unsavory practices (like predatory tracking), Facebooks interests will better align with its users interests, and we will see a better Facebook for it in the future.
I know this is contentious, but IMO this has been the strongest evidence thus far that we need regulation or antitrust to break up companies that own a platform and also compete on said platform.
Side note, I don't tend to view Facebook as some inherently evil corporation as many commenters seem to. I hope that by eliminating certain unsavory practices (like predatory tracking), Facebooks interests will better align with its users interests, and we will see a better Facebook for it in the future.
Antonio Garcia Martinez of the Pull Request mentioned that Facebook will move all of the advertising matching work to the phone.
Facebook certainly has the intellectual firepower and motivation to pull this off, if it can be.
Facebook certainly has the intellectual firepower and motivation to pull this off, if it can be.
The issue is not where the matching is done with data gathered on facebook, the issue is whether they can track you accross other apps. They can't anymore, and "matching on the phone" won't make a lick of difference.
In a twist of irony, there's a Firefox warning next to the Substack email input field.
"This site may share your email address with Facebook".
"This site may share your email address with Facebook".
Economists talk of the public good, ethicists and privacy folks talk of a right to privacy of a citizen (in some countries, at least)... but has anyone had an actual "experience improvement" from all this blocking? Do you see less ads or "better" ones? Has your business picked up due to this change, in that poor-but-targeted ads have ceased and "contextually relevant" ads let your business thrive?
That is, this action by Apple should have remedied some consumer harm. While de-anonymyzation of advertising data could reveal, in some cases, identities and geo-behaviors, this seemed proof of concept more than actual impacts.
In looking at my own iphone use, the blocking has not resulted in any improvement in ad frequency, relevance, or enjoyment. My android ads on my tablet have also not shown any measurable improvement. The businesses I help are not benefitting from this change.
So, other than the satisfaction of "job well done, privacy is preserved", has anyone found any direct improvement to user experience from this action? I know none was really expected, that wasn't the point, but just wondering what the HN community has experienced so far.
That is, this action by Apple should have remedied some consumer harm. While de-anonymyzation of advertising data could reveal, in some cases, identities and geo-behaviors, this seemed proof of concept more than actual impacts.
In looking at my own iphone use, the blocking has not resulted in any improvement in ad frequency, relevance, or enjoyment. My android ads on my tablet have also not shown any measurable improvement. The businesses I help are not benefitting from this change.
So, other than the satisfaction of "job well done, privacy is preserved", has anyone found any direct improvement to user experience from this action? I know none was really expected, that wasn't the point, but just wondering what the HN community has experienced so far.
I would be very surprised if anybody found an experience improvement, considering there are still ads.
That doesn't do to justify tracking, however.
Fun thought experiment: suppose that Facebook served fewer ads to those who clicked to allow tracking, on the basis that the ads are worth more, and served more ads otherwise. Which do you think consumers would prefer to choose on average? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely wonder because I don't know how much people actually care about tracking versus just picking "don't track me" as an easy win.
That doesn't do to justify tracking, however.
Fun thought experiment: suppose that Facebook served fewer ads to those who clicked to allow tracking, on the basis that the ads are worth more, and served more ads otherwise. Which do you think consumers would prefer to choose on average? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely wonder because I don't know how much people actually care about tracking versus just picking "don't track me" as an easy win.
[deleted]
It seems to me that few if any of the businesses that need all the tracking information are really productive. Most of them are really just playing arbitrage games between the rates for advertising and fees paid for leads from other businesses (I've worked in this industry in the past and it's kind of an icky place to be). If every single business that does this disappeared, outside of their employees, no one would ever notice that they no longer existed.
All of this discussion is worthless without any transparency about the numbers (and I don't mean: FB's lost revenue). I'm still of the opinion that targeted advertising [0] (as opposed to context-aware advertising [1]) is a bunch of BS. So 80% of the traffic to Carousel came from FB, but how useful was it? Is there an actual drop in total visitors who spend money on products? And how is this across the market? Does this mean smaller companies are now getting a larger part of the interested people where as they couldn't pay for them before? Was FB anything more than a "pay us for traffic"-mafia?
Is there any win for the tracked people, or were they just getting served ads for inferior products from companies that spend more on advertising instead of quality? I really hate reading these pieces without this information. It's really useless.
[0]: Tracking and profiling based ads as FB offers
[1]: Just show me a laptop ad when I'm reading a review of laptops, or shows me the latest Trek MTB on an MTB site.
Is there any win for the tracked people, or were they just getting served ads for inferior products from companies that spend more on advertising instead of quality? I really hate reading these pieces without this information. It's really useless.
[0]: Tracking and profiling based ads as FB offers
[1]: Just show me a laptop ad when I'm reading a review of laptops, or shows me the latest Trek MTB on an MTB site.
Look at Facebook stocks, they don't seem to be "kneecaped" at all. My theory is that tracking is a nice to have but not necessary to make huge amounts of money on ads. They lost a few percent of value over this, a huge hit to investors but even with that they are still one of the tech giants with more money than they know what to do with.
Most of Facebooks claims about Apple hurting small businesses always seemed a bit weird, because much of the targeting that make the most sense can be done solely by data users enter into Facebook themselfs.
Age, location, profession, combined with the content of your posts and the stuff you share should be more than enough to do efficient targeting of ads.
The main issue that Facebook might face, in my mind, is that they oversold the value of the tracking of users across the web. So their customers now see a much hyped feature disappearing, so they slow down their ad buying, even though they could get the same results.
The business that are going to be hurt the most a the agencies who honestly don't know anything about good advertising, but who just knows how to click around in Google Adword and Facebook Ads. Those people now need to learn a little more about targeting.
Age, location, profession, combined with the content of your posts and the stuff you share should be more than enough to do efficient targeting of ads.
The main issue that Facebook might face, in my mind, is that they oversold the value of the tracking of users across the web. So their customers now see a much hyped feature disappearing, so they slow down their ad buying, even though they could get the same results.
The business that are going to be hurt the most a the agencies who honestly don't know anything about good advertising, but who just knows how to click around in Google Adword and Facebook Ads. Those people now need to learn a little more about targeting.
I've actually (anecdotally) seen the opposite. Before, you could very accurately track your ROI on your ad spend. Now, it's much harder to do, so Facebook spend starts looking more like traditional marketing where the age old quote "Half of my advertising spend is wasted, I don't know which half" applies.
What does this mean? Some agencies and brands spend MORE because there's no clean data telling them their spend isn't working. They're just shooting in the dark. Over time, you can in aggregate tell which campaigns and ads work and which don't, but the iterations and experiments take longer and are more expensive.
I don't know how long that's sustainable. But traditional advertising has been doing that ruse for decades.
What does this mean? Some agencies and brands spend MORE because there's no clean data telling them their spend isn't working. They're just shooting in the dark. Over time, you can in aggregate tell which campaigns and ads work and which don't, but the iterations and experiments take longer and are more expensive.
I don't know how long that's sustainable. But traditional advertising has been doing that ruse for decades.
That’s an interesting point. Ive seen CPMs rising, almost like people were spending more, but wasn’t sure why that may be.
Also the article missed a few big points.
1) There’s really not much you can do in diversifying your channel mix - this change affects any paid platform.
2) what you can do is spend more on Android, which hasn’t (yet) lost the tracking
3) Facebook is working on work arounds, like a conversion API, where the data is matched on hashed PII. Other platforms without that rich, accurate PII will struggle a bit more.
Also the article missed a few big points.
1) There’s really not much you can do in diversifying your channel mix - this change affects any paid platform.
2) what you can do is spend more on Android, which hasn’t (yet) lost the tracking
3) Facebook is working on work arounds, like a conversion API, where the data is matched on hashed PII. Other platforms without that rich, accurate PII will struggle a bit more.
That's exactly what I said would happen. Big companies can do their own "Nelson" research and know how to tune their ads. As a result, they are willing to increase their bids over the less informed small businesses who now have to resort to a spray and pray approach.
People never stopped to consider that FB would be fine with the changes and was genuine in their pleas for small businesses.
People never stopped to consider that FB would be fine with the changes and was genuine in their pleas for small businesses.
Meanwhile they accidentally leak the exact data to institutions that help with election fraud. Profile generation of individuals. So who is going to consider their “genuine” reasoning. And they’re always and always lying.
As usual many highly upvoted takes here devaluing FB and claiming the ads don't work or are all just fake clicks.
Hate FB or not their ads work well and this article is spot on from my experiences, though words like 'attack' have clear bias.
I run direct response ads raising money for non profits and political campaigns on FB. This month has been a big struggle.
While I can't quantify how much is due to limited iOS targeting, I know that we get lots of value from targeting donor lists which is harder now and ios users donate more. Doesn't help FB reported a 15% discrepancy bug which would effect optimization.
I used to be heavy bull on FB based solely on the ads I buy and the ROI/value they provide. But I this has been a scary month. The bid market will eventually level out but if the targeting value loses say 25% effectiveness that will kneecap a ton of businesses who advertise there with thin margin.
BTW thanks for sharing this format I love Axios and this looks like a great tech focused 'smart brevity'-style
Hate FB or not their ads work well and this article is spot on from my experiences, though words like 'attack' have clear bias.
I run direct response ads raising money for non profits and political campaigns on FB. This month has been a big struggle.
While I can't quantify how much is due to limited iOS targeting, I know that we get lots of value from targeting donor lists which is harder now and ios users donate more. Doesn't help FB reported a 15% discrepancy bug which would effect optimization.
I used to be heavy bull on FB based solely on the ads I buy and the ROI/value they provide. But I this has been a scary month. The bid market will eventually level out but if the targeting value loses say 25% effectiveness that will kneecap a ton of businesses who advertise there with thin margin.
BTW thanks for sharing this format I love Axios and this looks like a great tech focused 'smart brevity'-style
Small retailer here and I can confirm similar dips. Basically it’s pulling out a channel we can use for discovery ads which just leads us all back to making the same boring stuff to feed into the Amazon/Google searchplex.
Hope everyone enjoys having the same of everything!
Hope everyone enjoys having the same of everything!
I got a request on spotify to continue tracking me. On some level I actually thought about saying yes if it meant spotify would get more revenue for my free consumption, and by proxy, musicians. I chose to say no. But I don't know if that was the right call. I don't care what spotify does with my data.
As far as I know, the amount Spotify pays to musicians is pretty low. I doubt musicians are losing out on much by users rejecting tracking.
A quick check suggests maybe 1/11th of revenue is from advertising on spotify. Assuming musicians get a fixed share of this, and non targeted advertising revenue is small... yeah probably not a big drop.
This must be why FB is dumping money into the metaverse.
I'd like to see the look on everyone's face (who's now acting like Apple is this benevolent company looking out for their interest and privacy) when they'll launch their own Ad business in a couple of years; I'll eat my hat if Apple doesn't become one of the biggest Ad companies up there with Google and FB in a few years.
They're just being proactive about weeding out the competition from their platforms.
They're just being proactive about weeding out the competition from their platforms.
The issue here is knowing whether a given ad is leading to sales. But there is an old technique that has been used for a very long time: the ad provides a code or a coupon that gives the customer a small discount. If the advertiser uses multiple channels and different codes for each, they will quickly find out which ads are leading to sales.
There’s a paragraph of this article that is a straight up advertisement with no markings at all.
I have bought a few things by clicking on Instagram ads and enjoyed it. I choose to allow all apps to track me because I really dislike irrelevant ads. Ads will get smarter in the future, and I think this can be a good thing for the consumer. I’d really like to understand what the issue everyone on HN seems to have with this is - to me, this seems more of a personal preference (being privacy-conscious), rather than some sort of a fundamental issue that is bad for users (it’s not).
I don't think HN crowd is against relevant ads. Heck, they aren't even against ads. The issues are more subtle.
I never used IG but I was on FB. I'd frequently see 'unbelievable' ads. I mean I see ads offering me latest iphones selling at 100 dollars. What do you think what'll happen if I order one? Anything except getting a genuine iphone. So much for relevant ads.
Tracking doesn't stop at showing you relevant ads. It also affects what is shown to you in content. Facebook manipulates your news feed. And when your internet browsing is mostly limited to Facebook, your world view is essentially controlled by it.
And how much information do they need to show me relevant ads? My entire list of family members, relatives, friends, colleagues, ex colleagues and everyone I have exchanged numbers? My entire location history? My every interaction? Every financial transaction? My entire medical history? My entire photo collection? Even my sex life? Facebook will simply not stop until it collects every imaginable piece of information about you. Although I deactivated my profile 5 years ago, I still think FB is somehow collecting information about me.
The worst part, they 'trick' you to expose every data. They collect these data absolutely by any means possible. Illegal? Unethical? Spying? Doesn't matter. Imagine a random person asking you some personal questions. You wouldn't feel comfortable.
Besides, companies like FB have no morals. They will sell your data to just about anyone that throws enough money. You think that is a good thing?
I never used IG but I was on FB. I'd frequently see 'unbelievable' ads. I mean I see ads offering me latest iphones selling at 100 dollars. What do you think what'll happen if I order one? Anything except getting a genuine iphone. So much for relevant ads.
Tracking doesn't stop at showing you relevant ads. It also affects what is shown to you in content. Facebook manipulates your news feed. And when your internet browsing is mostly limited to Facebook, your world view is essentially controlled by it.
And how much information do they need to show me relevant ads? My entire list of family members, relatives, friends, colleagues, ex colleagues and everyone I have exchanged numbers? My entire location history? My every interaction? Every financial transaction? My entire medical history? My entire photo collection? Even my sex life? Facebook will simply not stop until it collects every imaginable piece of information about you. Although I deactivated my profile 5 years ago, I still think FB is somehow collecting information about me.
The worst part, they 'trick' you to expose every data. They collect these data absolutely by any means possible. Illegal? Unethical? Spying? Doesn't matter. Imagine a random person asking you some personal questions. You wouldn't feel comfortable.
Besides, companies like FB have no morals. They will sell your data to just about anyone that throws enough money. You think that is a good thing?
Now apple can sell that data!! Anyways, the customer is still being preyed on!
It’s easy to cheer this since ad tracking and FB are both deeply unpopular. But not enough people are talking about who’s left holding the bag here: thousands of small businesses whose very existence is only possible because of the affordable customer acquisition they had via FB. Yes, they can divert budget elsewhere, but for small businesses that can be very hard to do. Coca-Cola will have no problem diverting low-performing spend to other channels. The mom and pop bakery down the street from you may not be so lucky.
Just want more people to be aware of the human implications of this change.
Just want more people to be aware of the human implications of this change.
It’s almost as if no one wants this “feature” Facebook has been “providing” and given information about it and a choice have roundly rejected it.
I can’t wait to see what some of Apple’s other initiatives like the anti-tracking features in Mail on iOS 15 and the upcoming iCloud Private Relay do to the industry.
Hell, US intelligence agencies block ads at the network level because the ad industry is so infested with tracking/malware/spyware/exploits/etc. That’s a hell of an indictment.
Of course any time someone looks into it they find that that click-rate fraud is at outrageous levels. So maybe no one needs Apple. The fraud bots will keep the ecosystem running. /s
https://www.imore.com/96-iphone-users-have-opted-out-app-tra...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93ypke/the-nsa-and-cia-use-a...