Secret talks that could have prevented the Apple vs. Facebook war(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Secret talks that could have prevented the Apple vs. Facebook war
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-privacy-fight-11660317376
136 comments
https://archive.ph/oKuGM
Secret talks? Conspiracy. Between two market leaders. To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition. I understand completely why this was kept quiet. I cannot see any firm dates, but it looks like most of these reported discussions were in 2017-2018, 4+ years back, conveniently long enough enjoy SOL protection against antitrust actions. Who really wrote this piece? Who paid for it?
SOL citation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html...
SOL citation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html...
> I understand completely why this was kept quiet.
Are you suggesting that Apple and Facebook normally have these kinds of discussions in public? Because that is not at all the case.
Possibly there is something nefarious going on here. But the fact these talks were secret means nothing, since all talks between companies are secret by default.
Are you suggesting that Apple and Facebook normally have these kinds of discussions in public? Because that is not at all the case.
Possibly there is something nefarious going on here. But the fact these talks were secret means nothing, since all talks between companies are secret by default.
Right now there is a desperate PR push to make Apple look like they wanted Facebook's ad business and that tracked ads really aren't all that bad.
It seems part of a larger campaign to force apple to drop tracking protections by making these efforts appear not as privacy protection, but rather an anti-competitive strategy to boost their own ads sales.
HN is falling over themselves in the process. Anyone that tells you that tracked ads are just about matching your preferences is lying to you on purpose.
It seems part of a larger campaign to force apple to drop tracking protections by making these efforts appear not as privacy protection, but rather an anti-competitive strategy to boost their own ads sales.
HN is falling over themselves in the process. Anyone that tells you that tracked ads are just about matching your preferences is lying to you on purpose.
The same HN is telling me all Ads are evil, one could argue they are delusional?
Even though I am glad this whole Anti-Ad thing is finally receiving some push back, I do agree and I am slightly suspicious of some PR push behind it. But I will give them benefits of doubt because it could also be people finally waking up to Apple's insane Hypocrisy.
Even though I am glad this whole Anti-Ad thing is finally receiving some push back, I do agree and I am slightly suspicious of some PR push behind it. But I will give them benefits of doubt because it could also be people finally waking up to Apple's insane Hypocrisy.
It’s not isolated to Apple. Seeing it against Duck duck go as well.
For both it’s the same faulty arguments that are built around a false equivalence that all types of data collection are the same and aggressively downplaying the harm of tracked ad networks. They also happen to be full of technical mistakes that are incorrect enough to be intentional lying.
For both it’s the same faulty arguments that are built around a false equivalence that all types of data collection are the same and aggressively downplaying the harm of tracked ad networks. They also happen to be full of technical mistakes that are incorrect enough to be intentional lying.
Conspiracy to do what, have less privacy violations?
Also if people were injured by this and are just finding out about it now the clock probably just started.
Also if people were injured by this and are just finding out about it now the clock probably just started.
>To settle their differences and thereby reduce direct competition
How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.
How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.
> How do you reach this conclusion? Businesses working together to increase each of their profits is what every business relationship to strives to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
That's generally the threshold, and without saying as much (in fact, the author of the article seems to miss this), the article suggests that the talks in question came close to cresting that boundary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
That's generally the threshold, and without saying as much (in fact, the author of the article seems to miss this), the article suggests that the talks in question came close to cresting that boundary.
If Marriott and Best Foods work together to increase both profits, that's not an anti-trust violation just because they work together. The article you cite enumerates a number of categories of violations, but you haven't identified which one you think "working together" inherently violates. My guess is you are talking about Monopolization, but since neither Facebook nor Apple is a monopoly, and since Facebook and Apple do not compete against each other, I'm not sure how that fits.
'monopoly' is a shorthand for an unacceptable abuse of market power
It is not being used literally. Of course FB & Facebook are not 'literal' monopoloies
Your pedantry does not detract from the point being made by the comment above
It is not being used literally. Of course FB & Facebook are not 'literal' monopoloies
Your pedantry does not detract from the point being made by the comment above
Are you trying to say that the poster I replied to, who specifically linked to a Wikipedia article about US Anti-trust Law, was not literally referring to US Anti-trust Law? And that I am being pedantic for assuming the parent poster meant what they said about the law they linked to?
Did you perhaps mean to respond to a different comment?
Did you perhaps mean to respond to a different comment?
Regarding below comments, and Apple's desire to enter the ad business and still keeping data/not respecting privacy, that's definitely a bad thing, but I still am really happy Apple did this to Facebook/Zuck. Imagine building an entire business that ceases to be profitable as soon as you can't spy on users. It's entirely corrupt. If you took the same ability away from Apple, they would be fine, because most of their business model is actually trying to provide something of value to the world, instead of profiting off of catalyzing it's downfall like Meta.
I wish we could do the same thing to Google.
I wish we could do the same thing to Google.
Apple kills many small businesses/apps unrelated to privacy but often wearing that shield as a defense. Why celebrate taking down another multinational when the reasons are self serving and creates bigger privacy issues?
If Apple's self-serving reasons are "because our users want it" then I am all for it.
That 2/3 of users opted out of being tracked suggests Facebook has no similar reasoning for their business model.
That 2/3 of users opted out of being tracked suggests Facebook has no similar reasoning for their business model.
the point is they aren't, they say we are against ads, and the whisper "except ours".
if this will be they true purpose you may say what can they do?, don't sell ads.
They never said they're against Ads - that's silly, digital advertising is here to stay and it will continue to grow.
They are against building specific profiles of people while tracking them across 3rd party sites without consent.
Here's Tim Cook talking about it: https://www.webpronews.com/tim-cook-were-not-against-digital...
They are against building specific profiles of people while tracking them across 3rd party sites without consent.
Here's Tim Cook talking about it: https://www.webpronews.com/tim-cook-were-not-against-digital...
>Here's Tim Cook talking about it: https://www.webpronews.com/tim-cook-were-not-against-digital...
Oh. The magic of PR.
Tim Cook came out to say they are not against Ads precisely because everyone thought they were against ads. Including the Ad industry. That piece, along with dozen of other interviews, during late 2021 or early 2022 were all about damage control. The Ad industry were absolutely pissed.
Why didn't Tim Cook said anything in 2019 when they started their war against Ads? The PR against Ads, from Mainstream to Social Media. How their Business Model were not to Sell Ads? How recording customer interaction at your own shop is still Apple's definition of tracking? And Apple somehow doesn't do any of that.
Yes, you may be right. Apple didn't said any of that by the strictest definition. But the market received it as such. And that is the beauty of their PR and marketing.
Edit: Just read this thread alone, suddenly people are coming out with First party data collection being different than third party data collection. Did we even had that discussion in 2019? May be that is the wrong question to ask, were we even allowed to have that discussion in 2019?
Oh. The magic of PR.
Tim Cook came out to say they are not against Ads precisely because everyone thought they were against ads. Including the Ad industry. That piece, along with dozen of other interviews, during late 2021 or early 2022 were all about damage control. The Ad industry were absolutely pissed.
Why didn't Tim Cook said anything in 2019 when they started their war against Ads? The PR against Ads, from Mainstream to Social Media. How their Business Model were not to Sell Ads? How recording customer interaction at your own shop is still Apple's definition of tracking? And Apple somehow doesn't do any of that.
Yes, you may be right. Apple didn't said any of that by the strictest definition. But the market received it as such. And that is the beauty of their PR and marketing.
Edit: Just read this thread alone, suddenly people are coming out with First party data collection being different than third party data collection. Did we even had that discussion in 2019? May be that is the wrong question to ask, were we even allowed to have that discussion in 2019?
Apple has personalized (i.e. targeted) ads in the app store, no?
Are you asking if Apple has ads in the app store that are personalized using data that apple collects from third party applications? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no.
If you are asking if Apple has personalized ads using data from within Apple, then yes; but Facebook has that too and isn't banned from doing that.
I think it's very strange people keep equating the level of Apple's and Facebook's data collection. Facebook tried very hard to track you across the entire internet. Apple said you need consent to do that. Then people say "Apple tracks you too". Yes so does every other app out there that installs an analytics library. But you know what I can do? Just not use apple products. However with Facebook, you'd find that the Facebook SDK is installed on every app that didn't even have a social integration and Facebook would build shadow profiles on you, with no reasonable way to opt out.
If you are asking if Apple has personalized ads using data from within Apple, then yes; but Facebook has that too and isn't banned from doing that.
I think it's very strange people keep equating the level of Apple's and Facebook's data collection. Facebook tried very hard to track you across the entire internet. Apple said you need consent to do that. Then people say "Apple tracks you too". Yes so does every other app out there that installs an analytics library. But you know what I can do? Just not use apple products. However with Facebook, you'd find that the Facebook SDK is installed on every app that didn't even have a social integration and Facebook would build shadow profiles on you, with no reasonable way to opt out.
Apple sells app install ads and charges advertisers for conversions on those ads. Apple blocks Facebook from doing the exact same thing (recording conversions on app install ads). Apple has defined “third party data” so it doesn’t include transactions on an advertiser’s app through the App Store, so they can say they don’t use “third party data”. But also, Apple won’t let anyone else run an App Store. So they are forcing transactions to go through their store, defining their own use of the transaction data as privacy-compliant, and then banning other means of collecting the same data. A pretty genius way to use their power as platform owner to cut out the competition and somehow get good PR while doing it.
Apple has defined themselves as party one or two in any interaction with the device, so the data they touch is not “third-party” data. That’s a masterful work of lawyering and whoever came up with that strategy is a genius, but we shouldn’t accept the definition and repeat it.
Let’s be clear about what is actually happening: Apple sees that other companies are making money on iPhones (in part, through data), and they are using their platform ownership to collect all that money/data for themselves.
Apple has defined themselves as party one or two in any interaction with the device, so the data they touch is not “third-party” data. That’s a masterful work of lawyering and whoever came up with that strategy is a genius, but we shouldn’t accept the definition and repeat it.
Let’s be clear about what is actually happening: Apple sees that other companies are making money on iPhones (in part, through data), and they are using their platform ownership to collect all that money/data for themselves.
App Store transactions are probably the least important transactions in terms of general consumer spend and ability to target ads. Weird to single that out and paint it as some crazy important thing.
Advertisers want to know if you’ve bought shirts from Banana Republic or if you’ve been searching for a washer and dryer recently.
Advertisers want to know if you’ve bought shirts from Banana Republic or if you’ve been searching for a washer and dryer recently.
“Global app install ad spend to double by 2022 to hit $118 billion”
https://www.appsflyer.com/blog/trends-insights/app-install-a...
It’s actually an extremely lucrative market. The major players usually don’t bring this up, because nobody wants to talk about how much of their business is Clash of Clans whales.
Everybody talks about targeting, but conversion measurement is the elephant in the room. You don’t really need fine-grained info to target Clash of Clans ads, but you definitely need to track conversions to get credit for the whales.
One way to think about this is that advertising revenue allows Apple to effectively increase the size of their 30% cut on digital goods.
There’s a lot of collateral damage, and other markets to pursue in the future, but this pot of gold is what Apple is going after first.
https://www.appsflyer.com/blog/trends-insights/app-install-a...
It’s actually an extremely lucrative market. The major players usually don’t bring this up, because nobody wants to talk about how much of their business is Clash of Clans whales.
Everybody talks about targeting, but conversion measurement is the elephant in the room. You don’t really need fine-grained info to target Clash of Clans ads, but you definitely need to track conversions to get credit for the whales.
One way to think about this is that advertising revenue allows Apple to effectively increase the size of their 30% cut on digital goods.
There’s a lot of collateral damage, and other markets to pursue in the future, but this pot of gold is what Apple is going after first.
I understand the size of the app install market and you're absolutely right to point that out.
However you're saying Apple is blocking Facebook. No one is blocking anyone. Apple is saying you have to ask for user consent before gathering that data.
For Apple to use their own first-party data to personalize the App Store, you have to give them permission - they ask you for consent upfront.
However you're saying Apple is blocking Facebook. No one is blocking anyone. Apple is saying you have to ask for user consent before gathering that data.
For Apple to use their own first-party data to personalize the App Store, you have to give them permission - they ask you for consent upfront.
I’ve seen the prompt that Apple gives when asking if you want personalized ads (different from the “ask app not to track” prompt they apply to Facebook). I don’t believe that rejecting this prompt blocks conversion measurement. For Facebook and others, Apple lumps these concepts together into the term “tracking”, but they don’t apply that standard to themselves.
Apple talking about how users who reject personalization in the App Store convert at the same rate, according to Apple’s tracking of their conversions: https://9to5mac.com/2022/05/11/ios-15-users-opt-out-of-perso...
Apple talking about how users who reject personalization in the App Store convert at the same rate, according to Apple’s tracking of their conversions: https://9to5mac.com/2022/05/11/ios-15-users-opt-out-of-perso...
Not only do they ask for consent before personalizing, they use random/anonymized device identifiers to correlate only first-party data (aka data they already have when you use their apps). This correlation isn't even associated with your name. It's also super easy to reset this identifier whenever you want.
They don't build extremely targeted data profiles with every piece of personal information possible and they don't track you across 3rd party apps and websites across the internet generally.
Apple's view is consistent with their actions. They do the bare minimum level of data correlation to deliver a useful feature - personalization. They also ask you before they do it. And they make it extremely easy to opt-out.
Again, they're not against personalization. They're against data practices that are dishonest/sneaky, don't ask for consent, or collect/store way more data than is necessary.
They don't build extremely targeted data profiles with every piece of personal information possible and they don't track you across 3rd party apps and websites across the internet generally.
Apple's view is consistent with their actions. They do the bare minimum level of data correlation to deliver a useful feature - personalization. They also ask you before they do it. And they make it extremely easy to opt-out.
Again, they're not against personalization. They're against data practices that are dishonest/sneaky, don't ask for consent, or collect/store way more data than is necessary.
They never said they were against ads though.
I was referring to privacy, not ads.
But I agree that as Apple moves toward advertising they will lose the loyalty of their base (myself included).
But I agree that as Apple moves toward advertising they will lose the loyalty of their base (myself included).
Apple never cared about privacy to begin with. as soon as they are in a position to use their monopoly power to force their way into the ad eco system they will do so in force. I look forward to seeing how apple will market or more likely choose to hide this approach from their users.
[deleted]
There are plenty of legitimate gripes with the consumer Internet megacorps. All of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more have done user-hostile and privacy hostile things. I was just taking them to task for their bullshit about AI ethics on the big language models yesterday.
But as someone working on my own Internet hyperbole problem, I’ll gently suggest that rabid-sounding hyperbole is just going to turn off the zillion employees at those companies who are also HN users and might be able to do something about it.
“Third-party cookies” === “spying”, a bit of a reach in 2022. “Grandma” knows about cookies now. It’s not an absurd argument, but it’s a bit extreme.
FAANG is “catalyzing the downfall of the world”? We’re in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory.
But as someone working on my own Internet hyperbole problem, I’ll gently suggest that rabid-sounding hyperbole is just going to turn off the zillion employees at those companies who are also HN users and might be able to do something about it.
“Third-party cookies” === “spying”, a bit of a reach in 2022. “Grandma” knows about cookies now. It’s not an absurd argument, but it’s a bit extreme.
FAANG is “catalyzing the downfall of the world”? We’re in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory.
> FAANG is “catalyzing the downfall of the world”? We’re in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory.
All the free software and privacy activists needed was Edward Snowden to leak the illegal harvesting and collection of user data done by the NSA and with Big Tech helping along quietly with the PRISM project.
Ever since they were all caught in the act, they are now screaming about privacy all of a sudden as they pretend to care about it whilst they waste resources and burn up the planet with their broken deep learning models in tens of thousands of data centers on user data only for surveillance.
Little to nothing has changed. Despite these regulations, Big Tech is still getting bigger and pushing for more surveillance and aiding the existence of another digital dystopia.
All the free software and privacy activists needed was Edward Snowden to leak the illegal harvesting and collection of user data done by the NSA and with Big Tech helping along quietly with the PRISM project.
Ever since they were all caught in the act, they are now screaming about privacy all of a sudden as they pretend to care about it whilst they waste resources and burn up the planet with their broken deep learning models in tens of thousands of data centers on user data only for surveillance.
Little to nothing has changed. Despite these regulations, Big Tech is still getting bigger and pushing for more surveillance and aiding the existence of another digital dystopia.
If that's the reason, why is it never ATT, or Verizon, or Comcast who are dramatically more implicated in ongoing cooperation with NSA/FVEY? Why is it never Palantir or Kratos or Pegasus whose business models are to explicitly market malware to the intelligence community? Why is it not Booz Allen Hamilton where Snowden worked when he took the files and is still chugging right along?
And why is the ultimate responsibility, which lies with the legislators and executives who put together these FISA kangaroo courts and NSL procedures, like a parenthetical on the way to blast Silicon Valley?
If, like me, you're deeply concerned about NSA/FVEY overreach, there are far, far more pressing issues, present day concerns than Google or Meta or Microsoft most likely having knuckled under to a bunch of NSLs rather than send their CEOs to Leavenworth in like 2009 or whatever when the Obama administration was collecting scalps from everyone with a datacenter who didn't play ball.
And what in God's name does the Federal government's energy policy have to do with it? You want clean energy (nuclear) take it up with the NRC and EPA.
And why is the ultimate responsibility, which lies with the legislators and executives who put together these FISA kangaroo courts and NSL procedures, like a parenthetical on the way to blast Silicon Valley?
If, like me, you're deeply concerned about NSA/FVEY overreach, there are far, far more pressing issues, present day concerns than Google or Meta or Microsoft most likely having knuckled under to a bunch of NSLs rather than send their CEOs to Leavenworth in like 2009 or whatever when the Obama administration was collecting scalps from everyone with a datacenter who didn't play ball.
And what in God's name does the Federal government's energy policy have to do with it? You want clean energy (nuclear) take it up with the NRC and EPA.
Everyone hates the telecom and cable providers. But that hate is wrapped up in complacency because 1) everyone knows they’re oligopolistic dinosaurs with terrible customer service and 2) they are fundamentally unshakable because they are utility companies.
Certainly we should call for them to be broken up too, but we already did it to AT&T once and it got better. And it seems a little old hat compared to the new FAANG big tech giants that have arisen in the current generation.
Certainly we should call for them to be broken up too, but we already did it to AT&T once and it got better. And it seems a little old hat compared to the new FAANG big tech giants that have arisen in the current generation.
I don't agree. Third party cookies exist almost entirely for the purpose of spying.
SSO is an exception but a minor one
SSO is an exception but a minor one
Reasons why cookies get dropped exist along a gradient. I like that Stripe knows who I am and only needs my CVV to buy something. I like that I can make a StackOverflow account with my GitHub. Within limits, I even like that the ads I see are relevant to me at least some of the time as opposed to the statistically roughly never that they would be without some basic demo stuff.
HN remembering that I'm logged in is unambiguously not spying. The Five Eyes dumping all my phone calls into a giant complex in Utah unambiguously is spying. Everything else is somewhere along that line.
Like most users on this forum, I have control over when and how I'm cookied and/or tracked bounded only by my "give a shit" factor, it's not technically advanced to send unwanted cookies to `/dev/null`.
Likewise, because I live in the US, all my basic demo information is a matter of public record because I've like, bought a house and interacted with the police and been born and stuff.
I know that the ad-supported Internet is extremely unpopular around here, but jump over to Reddit and people are flipping their shit that Netflix went from $10/month to $15 (or whatever it was): it's not hard to see why there's a certain skepticism that people will pay for Google in large numbers so it could be ad-free. I'd pay 50 or 100 bucks (or more) a month for Google because I'm a computer programmer and it saves me literally hours every day, but I'm demonstrably in the minority on that, and it would be a little narrow of me to project my preferences onto Internet users at large.
HN remembering that I'm logged in is unambiguously not spying. The Five Eyes dumping all my phone calls into a giant complex in Utah unambiguously is spying. Everything else is somewhere along that line.
Like most users on this forum, I have control over when and how I'm cookied and/or tracked bounded only by my "give a shit" factor, it's not technically advanced to send unwanted cookies to `/dev/null`.
Likewise, because I live in the US, all my basic demo information is a matter of public record because I've like, bought a house and interacted with the police and been born and stuff.
I know that the ad-supported Internet is extremely unpopular around here, but jump over to Reddit and people are flipping their shit that Netflix went from $10/month to $15 (or whatever it was): it's not hard to see why there's a certain skepticism that people will pay for Google in large numbers so it could be ad-free. I'd pay 50 or 100 bucks (or more) a month for Google because I'm a computer programmer and it saves me literally hours every day, but I'm demonstrably in the minority on that, and it would be a little narrow of me to project my preferences onto Internet users at large.
> HN remembering that I'm logged in is unambiguously not spying.
It also unambiguously doesn't require third party cookies :)
> Reasons why cookies get dropped exist along a gradient. I like that Stripe knows who I am and only needs my CVV to buy something. I like that I can make a StackOverflow account with my GitHub. Within limits, I even like that the ads I see are relevant to me at least some of the time as opposed to the statistically roughly never that they would be without some basic demo stuff.
A lot of these things don't need third party cookies. Stripe can remember who you are with a first party cookie if the page just refreshes to them.
But we do have a different viewpoint yes. I don't even see ads as I block them all and I never make exceptions. I never ever use the 'log in with <big tech company>' options and I avoid the services that don't bother to offer an alternative (eg pushbullet). But note that this is the SSO usecase I already mentioned. I do pay a membership for the sites I use a lot by the way.
I'd never pay for Google even if it were possible. But I'd pay for another search engine. I just lost trust in Google so badly that I'll never be able to come back from it. I've been trying kagi but it's not good enough for me yet.
It also unambiguously doesn't require third party cookies :)
> Reasons why cookies get dropped exist along a gradient. I like that Stripe knows who I am and only needs my CVV to buy something. I like that I can make a StackOverflow account with my GitHub. Within limits, I even like that the ads I see are relevant to me at least some of the time as opposed to the statistically roughly never that they would be without some basic demo stuff.
A lot of these things don't need third party cookies. Stripe can remember who you are with a first party cookie if the page just refreshes to them.
But we do have a different viewpoint yes. I don't even see ads as I block them all and I never make exceptions. I never ever use the 'log in with <big tech company>' options and I avoid the services that don't bother to offer an alternative (eg pushbullet). But note that this is the SSO usecase I already mentioned. I do pay a membership for the sites I use a lot by the way.
I'd never pay for Google even if it were possible. But I'd pay for another search engine. I just lost trust in Google so badly that I'll never be able to come back from it. I've been trying kagi but it's not good enough for me yet.
> Imagine building an entire business that ceases to be profitable as soon as you can't spy on users.
>I wish we could do the same thing to Google.
You’re assuming Google’s core business would not exist without spying on users and I disagree. You can run a search business and still protect privacy, this is DuckDuckGo’s whole model. This is a fundamental difference between a search product and a social product.
>I wish we could do the same thing to Google.
You’re assuming Google’s core business would not exist without spying on users and I disagree. You can run a search business and still protect privacy, this is DuckDuckGo’s whole model. This is a fundamental difference between a search product and a social product.
Google is not a search product. Their revenue come from Adwords, which is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users.
> is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users
This isn't true in my experience. When I was an affiliate marketer in a past life, it was extremely profitable to promote health and fitness products on generic search terms such as "basketball" and "football scores". User demographic data wasn't required.
Unfortunately, Google decided that they don't like affiliate marketers.
This isn't true in my experience. When I was an affiliate marketer in a past life, it was extremely profitable to promote health and fitness products on generic search terms such as "basketball" and "football scores". User demographic data wasn't required.
Unfortunately, Google decided that they don't like affiliate marketers.
Of course we'll never know how much of a difference targeting makes to the bottom line, but I doubt that it's huge.
Google's revenue comes from people searching for queries like "good traffic ticket lawyer", and from competitors bidding up each others' brand names. It would probably work just fine without targeting.
Google's revenue comes from people searching for queries like "good traffic ticket lawyer", and from competitors bidding up each others' brand names. It would probably work just fine without targeting.
Google's ads do not seem particularly well targeted, even with the 20+ years of information they have collected on me. I feel like I've given up way, way too much of my privacy for what I've been given in return.
By far, the best targeting is to show an ad as I explicitly search for something and that's not going to go away for them anytime soon.
By far, the best targeting is to show an ad as I explicitly search for something and that's not going to go away for them anytime soon.
> which is only effective with good targeting to the fitting users
You talk like that’s the only way. Instead of fitting the ad to users, we could fit the ad to the content, like we’ve always done. Tracking users isn’t necessary.
You talk like that’s the only way. Instead of fitting the ad to users, we could fit the ad to the content, like we’ve always done. Tracking users isn’t necessary.
As a long time DDG user, Google Search is better. I end up searching again on Google about half of the time I search for technical stuff (software) or for non English sites. I just feel DDG didn't understand what I want and Google usually does. I don't login on Google and use a Firefox extension to clear the cookies so Google might only rely on the search term, not my history, but who knows.
Breaking up Google and Meta would be a huge boon to all of us. Think of all the extremely intelligent and driven people who are being paid dump trucks of money to build internet surveillance or psychological manipulation technology at scale.
They could be working on so, so many more interesting and important problems.
They could be working on so, so many more interesting and important problems.
I'm sure there are some extremely intelligent and driven people working on internet surveillance or psychological manipulation, but if the only reason they're doing it is for the dump-trucks of money then I have zero confidence they will go work on interesting and important problems should MetaGoo somehow tank.
They'll just go wherever the largest dump-trucks are offered. Because they already did that, and it made them relatively wealthy, and yet there they still are.
They'll just go wherever the largest dump-trucks are offered. Because they already did that, and it made them relatively wealthy, and yet there they still are.
I don’t disagree with you, but the destruction of those particular business models would still be a net good for society, no? And these people, ostensibly smart and driven, would seek their dump trucks somewhere else. It’s a guess that those other places with the dump trucks up for grabs are better then Metagoo, but I’ll take it.
>I wish we could do the same thing to Google.
Sell computers with chrome preinstalled with a good adblock extension.
Sell computers with chrome preinstalled with a good adblock extension.
You can't, because the Chrome license is personal and non-assignable. If you enter into a contract with them to deploy them on computers, I assume this is precluded explicitly by the terms.
You could with Chromium, but that's problematic and annoying in minor ways. (Some of the things consumers value involve Google integrations).
You could with Chromium, but that's problematic and annoying in minor ways. (Some of the things consumers value involve Google integrations).
I thought google was changing chrome so that adblockers can’t work anymore on that browser?
Your chrome id still is used to link you and the sites you visit.
I someday hope to see pihole like dns filtering built into residential routers.
I still dream of a Firefox OS device in the vein of a Chromebook. I was gutted when Mozilla abandoned Firefox OS.
That is exactly what is wrong. When Apple does it, it is all good. As if other business provides zero value to the world.
And to answer your last point. Apple are already doing it to Google. Apple collect $10+ Billion per year from Google just to be the default search engine. Squeezing Google left and right, partly forcing Google to increase the amount of Ads around the web.
And to answer your last point. Apple are already doing it to Google. Apple collect $10+ Billion per year from Google just to be the default search engine. Squeezing Google left and right, partly forcing Google to increase the amount of Ads around the web.
My thinking of late is we need to change the laws of incorporation to prevent product and service companies from making money off ads.
We could do the same to Google; it would require Apple working with the government, though, and adding more regulations is the last thing Apple wants. This is a shame, because we're never going to make lasting change by having private corporations do our battles for us. Furthermore, we have no way of holding Apple accountable if they're doing the same thing as Facebook. I don't care if you're the biggest company in the world, you still have to play by the rules.
> If you took the same ability away from Apple, they would be fine, because most of their business model is actually trying to provide something of value to the world
Sure, they make money hand-over-fist by exploiting Uighur labor for your shiny metal laptop. Bettering the world is just their nature!
Pragmatically, though, none of these companies will ever champion true privacy. What's the point of even arguing over this stuff when every one of these corporations is compliant in PRISM? Here on HN we love to white-knight for multi-trillion dollar companies and quibble over whitepapers, but everyone has lost. Privacy is unattainable. Security is feasible, but privacy? It doesn't matter if you're on iPhone or Windows or MacOS; you're not in control of your data. Period.
> If you took the same ability away from Apple, they would be fine, because most of their business model is actually trying to provide something of value to the world
Sure, they make money hand-over-fist by exploiting Uighur labor for your shiny metal laptop. Bettering the world is just their nature!
Pragmatically, though, none of these companies will ever champion true privacy. What's the point of even arguing over this stuff when every one of these corporations is compliant in PRISM? Here on HN we love to white-knight for multi-trillion dollar companies and quibble over whitepapers, but everyone has lost. Privacy is unattainable. Security is feasible, but privacy? It doesn't matter if you're on iPhone or Windows or MacOS; you're not in control of your data. Period.
> they make money hand-over-fist by exploiting Uighur labor for your shiny metal laptop.
your case would be stronger if you don't overreach .. overall component assembly business is race-to-the-bottom for worker rights, in China now.. that ethnic cleansing you mention is horrible but not exactly the same thing, and intelligent readers may know that. From my point of view, it is the Tibetans to be concerned with, not Uighur. And that is possible a more potent insight .. that Apple knowingly profited from race-to-the-bottom worker conditions, orchestrated under a government responsible for Tibetan cultural genocide. But, it is not the Tibetans that did the assembly, nor to my knowledge the Uighur.
your case would be stronger if you don't overreach .. overall component assembly business is race-to-the-bottom for worker rights, in China now.. that ethnic cleansing you mention is horrible but not exactly the same thing, and intelligent readers may know that. From my point of view, it is the Tibetans to be concerned with, not Uighur. And that is possible a more potent insight .. that Apple knowingly profited from race-to-the-bottom worker conditions, orchestrated under a government responsible for Tibetan cultural genocide. But, it is not the Tibetans that did the assembly, nor to my knowledge the Uighur.
> What's the point of even arguing over this stuff when every one of these corporations is compliant in PRISM?
PRISM = subpoenas. It’s not an illegal spying program. You don’t want companies to answer subpoenas?
PRISM = subpoenas. It’s not an illegal spying program. You don’t want companies to answer subpoenas?
Not FISA ones that are never public.
> provide something of value to the world
Just for a limited time when the purposely made their phones unusable through OS updates.
Just for a limited time when the purposely made their phones unusable through OS updates.
Apple in my experience has a marvelous track record with this sort of thing.
I upgraded from an iPhone 4 to X because it worked fine for so long. This summer I updated my mom’s 8 year old Macbook Air to Monterey and it works great.
And I’m starting to think about upgrading my 2018 iPad only because of memory issues with 3rd party apps dumping context when multitasking.
I upgraded from an iPhone 4 to X because it worked fine for so long. This summer I updated my mom’s 8 year old Macbook Air to Monterey and it works great.
And I’m starting to think about upgrading my 2018 iPad only because of memory issues with 3rd party apps dumping context when multitasking.
They were fined 5 years ago for this very reason (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724), so not so marvelous.
The fine was for not giving notice. They have implemented the same battery saving update on several more devices without any objection from the regulators because they gave notice for those.
European fines are entirely cope, it doesn’t mean they’ve actually done anything. Similarly laws like the GDPR and DMA aren’t made with the intent of being followed, just with the hope they’ll get fines or lead to the breakup of foreign tech companies.
There was no slowdown of devices; what happened is the devices didn’t randomly turn off anymore.
There was no slowdown of devices; what happened is the devices didn’t randomly turn off anymore.
Then why did they go about replacing batteries for free?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ne4a8d/apples-iphone-slowdow...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ne4a8d/apples-iphone-slowdow...
Cause old batteries are why the devices were randomly turning off.
Nevertheless, the "slowdown" is in fact faster than the alternative, because if your device turns off the task never completes.
Nevertheless, the "slowdown" is in fact faster than the alternative, because if your device turns off the task never completes.
Thank god they didn't agree, I don't even think they should be able to talk about shit like this. We should force them to use regulators as mediators.
[deleted]
It's weird-but-unexpected that they seem to frame this a bit as if such a war would have been a good thing to prevent. But usually it's best if these big companies ARE at war as much as possible.
What war? This is about user privacy. Apple implemented replacement APIs allowing for tracking that doesn’t impinge user privacy. Facebook is just mad that they can’t microtarget you on iOS anymore.
> Apple implemented replacement APIs allowing for tracking that doesn’t impinge user privacy.
Just like android?
Just like android?
Yeah Apple’s Board of Executives put all profit motive aside and are sacrificing for our privacy.
I don't see those as mutually exclusive. Apple seems to believe that a company that values a user's privacy can make a profit from that stance.
Apple nerfed everyone else's ads to grow their own ad business. Apple's version of privacy is that if Apple has the data it is private, but if anyone else does it is not private. Just go read Apple's TOS. They collect browsing history, location data, etc. For everyone else they just put it behind a setting. Not for their own data collection though.
> I don't see those as mutually exclusive. Apple seems to believe that a company that values a user's privacy can make a profit from that stance.
The reason Apple doesn't want targeted third party ads is so that they are the only ones that can sell targeted ads to their users. Their platform, their rules. For now at least.
The reason Apple doesn't want targeted third party ads is so that they are the only ones that can sell targeted ads to their users. Their platform, their rules. For now at least.
Apple was never going to add Google or Facebook ads into the App Store or News+.
And iOS/OSX users will still see targeted ads whenever they open their browser or third party apps.
The apps just need to either (a) ask the user for permission to track or (b) authenticate them.
And iOS/OSX users will still see targeted ads whenever they open their browser or third party apps.
The apps just need to either (a) ask the user for permission to track or (b) authenticate them.
[deleted]
Right.. Apple isn't playing 4D chess to challenge Facebook's Ad business. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/21/apple-advertising-privacy-t...
Meanwhile, Apple collects the same types of user data as Google [1], and wants to grow its advertising business [2].
[1] https://www.scss.tcd.ie/doug.leith/apple_google.pdf
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-...
[1] https://www.scss.tcd.ie/doug.leith/apple_google.pdf
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-...
First party data collection and use is not the same as third-party tracking.
I have relationships with Apple and Google. The line around what data usage is appropriate with those companies somewhat nebulous, and also somewhat a personal decision.
For instance - the paper you site shows that Apple and Google send location data from devices to the server. Those devices also both ship with functionality for things like mapping and local weather. So for iOS, you have to approve sharing location data (even for the built-in weather app and maps app) on an app-by-app basis. Android has gotten better about this over the years, but I don't know current state.
Facebook is (was) correlating detailed profiles of users who had no relationship with Facebook, through interactions with third parties that were not part of Facebook, and without disclosure. That is a much simpler line to draw.
Even then, Apple gave the user choice - and the users almost universally chose not to give that capability.
I have relationships with Apple and Google. The line around what data usage is appropriate with those companies somewhat nebulous, and also somewhat a personal decision.
For instance - the paper you site shows that Apple and Google send location data from devices to the server. Those devices also both ship with functionality for things like mapping and local weather. So for iOS, you have to approve sharing location data (even for the built-in weather app and maps app) on an app-by-app basis. Android has gotten better about this over the years, but I don't know current state.
Facebook is (was) correlating detailed profiles of users who had no relationship with Facebook, through interactions with third parties that were not part of Facebook, and without disclosure. That is a much simpler line to draw.
Even then, Apple gave the user choice - and the users almost universally chose not to give that capability.
> First party data collection and use is not the same as third-party tracking.
I can't disagree with this more. User privacy is user privacy.
I can't disagree with this more. User privacy is user privacy.
> Even then, Apple gave the user choice
Interestingly, Apple puts tracking for its own apps behind another setting that ignores the global setting.
Unlike its competitors, Apple does not give users a choice about whether to send location data to Apple (if you want to see your location at all) or about whether to send app install and search information to Apple. Apple's devices are worse on privacy on every axis when you consider whether they give users a choice.
Interestingly, Apple puts tracking for its own apps behind another setting that ignores the global setting.
Unlike its competitors, Apple does not give users a choice about whether to send location data to Apple (if you want to see your location at all) or about whether to send app install and search information to Apple. Apple's devices are worse on privacy on every axis when you consider whether they give users a choice.
a) Apple does give a choice about whether to send location data. It's in System Services within the Privacy section and consists of 18 checkboxes. Do you have evidence that with all of these disabled they are still capturing location data ?
b) How would the App Store even work at all if they didn't store your purchases.
b) How would the App Store even work at all if they didn't store your purchases.
a) Apple does not give you a choice about whether to send your location data to Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24585353
b) Most of the apps I use aren't purchased. Why should Apple know which apps they are? Apple's privacy-respecting (in actuality instead of in marketing) competitors don't require this.
b) Most of the apps I use aren't purchased. Why should Apple know which apps they are? Apple's privacy-respecting (in actuality instead of in marketing) competitors don't require this.
a) We are in 2022. A lot can and has changed in the last 2 years especially with regards to privacy. Again do you have evidence that location data is being sent to Apple when all the options have been disabled.
b) I’m not sure if developer installs are being tracked by Apple. Are they ?
b) I’m not sure if developer installs are being tracked by Apple. Are they ?
a) The apple.com webpage linked in that HN comment moved to https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/location-service..., which contains every quoted section essentially verbatim.
b) Developer installs on iOS are even worse for privacy than App Store installs, requiring an up-to-date payment method to associate with your device instead of just an email address or phone number.
b) Developer installs on iOS are even worse for privacy than App Store installs, requiring an up-to-date payment method to associate with your device instead of just an email address or phone number.
[deleted]
It's about users' money.
Apple's take on privacy is the same as FB's.
If user data stays at Apple/FB it's private.
But that's not privacy at all. Any additional confidant besides the sender and the recipient is a breach of privacy.
You wouldn't let it count as respecting privacy either if the post office read all your letters and stored the texts.
But that's not privacy at all. Any additional confidant besides the sender and the recipient is a breach of privacy.
You wouldn't let it count as respecting privacy either if the post office read all your letters and stored the texts.
Different tiers.
Facebook is impacted by third-party tracking - such capturing information and generating profiles for people, even those without Facebook accounts. They would do this via Facebook javascript and Facebook native app SDKs.
Apple's solution was App Tracking Transparency - a user consent on whether to provide a handy identifier to use for correlation across apps, and App Store rules which ban tracking using other mechanisms (such as IP address correlation).
For apps outside the store (e.g. web apps), the privacy proxy stuff and third-party state isolation/blocking are used to greatly reduce such correlation.
For first-party data collection, storage and sharing, there are consents for sharing information from the device (location, contacts, health information, and so on). There is also a privacy label (which App Store rules require to be accurate) on what data collected by an app used, for what purpose, and whether that use is linked to you or anonymized.
So a post office app that read the letters and stored the text would say that 'user content' was captured, and whether or not it was 'linked to you'.
Facebook is impacted by third-party tracking - such capturing information and generating profiles for people, even those without Facebook accounts. They would do this via Facebook javascript and Facebook native app SDKs.
Apple's solution was App Tracking Transparency - a user consent on whether to provide a handy identifier to use for correlation across apps, and App Store rules which ban tracking using other mechanisms (such as IP address correlation).
For apps outside the store (e.g. web apps), the privacy proxy stuff and third-party state isolation/blocking are used to greatly reduce such correlation.
For first-party data collection, storage and sharing, there are consents for sharing information from the device (location, contacts, health information, and so on). There is also a privacy label (which App Store rules require to be accurate) on what data collected by an app used, for what purpose, and whether that use is linked to you or anonymized.
So a post office app that read the letters and stored the text would say that 'user content' was captured, and whether or not it was 'linked to you'.
How many people do you think make an informed consent decision? 0.001% is my guess.
Apple is playing dirty. Less dirty than Facebook, but that’s not a high bar.
Apple is playing dirty. Less dirty than Facebook, but that’s not a high bar.
62% of users are opting out of third-party tracking, according to https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/13/apples-privacy-changes-show-....
That would be nearly 40% of users who are not hitting the 'Allow' button on the consent pop-over.
That would be nearly 40% of users who are not hitting the 'Allow' button on the consent pop-over.
> Apple's solution was App Tracking Transparency
It remains an open question whether Apple itself is subject to those rules, though. If a user, via a third party app, takes an action Apple can identify, is Apple allowed to use that information to sell you ads? As of right now, it seems that they're leaning to "yes".
They haven't crossed any rivers yet, but the signs are there and we should all be worried.
It remains an open question whether Apple itself is subject to those rules, though. If a user, via a third party app, takes an action Apple can identify, is Apple allowed to use that information to sell you ads? As of right now, it seems that they're leaning to "yes".
They haven't crossed any rivers yet, but the signs are there and we should all be worried.
> If a user, via a third party app, takes an action Apple can identify, is Apple allowed to use that information to sell you ads? As of right now, it seems that they're leaning to "yes".
The solution which will likely emerge is one of local profiling, both for native applications and at the web platform level. Advertisers and agencies will not gather user profile information, even in aggregate. Instead the profile will be something managed (or reset, or disabled) on-device/in-browser, and used to drive ad selection locally.
For example, the App Store interface might give you a set of recommendations for apps when launched, perhaps based on location information. This can be driven by downloads in your area, as well as purchased advertisements. But there's no reason that exact location needs to be shared at all - a set of coarser regional files containing the needed data can be grabbed, and the decision of what to display can be made locally.
The solution which will likely emerge is one of local profiling, both for native applications and at the web platform level. Advertisers and agencies will not gather user profile information, even in aggregate. Instead the profile will be something managed (or reset, or disabled) on-device/in-browser, and used to drive ad selection locally.
For example, the App Store interface might give you a set of recommendations for apps when launched, perhaps based on location information. This can be driven by downloads in your area, as well as purchased advertisements. But there's no reason that exact location needs to be shared at all - a set of coarser regional files containing the needed data can be grabbed, and the decision of what to display can be made locally.
> The solution which will likely emerge is one of local profiling
That sounds nice indeed, but it would be a lot nicer if we got a statement to that effect from Apple Computer instead of dwaite on HN.
That sounds nice indeed, but it would be a lot nicer if we got a statement to that effect from Apple Computer instead of dwaite on HN.
It's not about Apps it's about privacy, about the data that Apple gets and stores.
It's not privacy if only Apple has it, it's privacy if even Apple hasn't it
It's not privacy if only Apple has it, it's privacy if even Apple hasn't it
And how do you feel about the data that Apple collects and stores? Both companies are operated by scumbags who don't give a rat's ass about your personal privacy, it's a 'battle' in the sense that neither company can agree who should profit off of advertising.
Apple, because of their proclaimed fealty to user privacy clearly have the most to lose if they should violate that bond.
Any company’s “proclaimed fealty” is just marketing copy!
They already have. Apple complies with hundreds of thousands of federal data requests every year, they send messages back to HQ every time you launch an app, they help China hunt down religious minorities, they give the FBI access to iCloud data without a warrant, they collect a list of unique identifiers for every photo on your phone, and at the end of the day you're still vulnerable to exploits like Pegasus and RCE through iMessage image decoders.
If you think Apple hasn't violated that promise, you must have an extremely selective definition of privacy.
If you think Apple hasn't violated that promise, you must have an extremely selective definition of privacy.
It’s to the benefit of Facebook, and other businesses harvesting and selling access to personal information, to call this a “war.” It’s similar to the modern headline news approach to politics — everything is a horse race, everything is sports. The competition becomes the story, rather than the substance behind it.
Calling this a “war” lays bare the views of many who believe this is only two tech giants duking it out over market territory, that the only substance here is the competition itself. It’s just like sports! We can root for our favorites!
It shows the fundamentally nihilistic attitude of many capitalists, that every commercial entity is _of course_ solely concerned with making as much money as possible, and that any talk of ethics or principles or honest benefit to their customers is smoke and mirrors. Of course, this is simply untrue. Many businesses do operate at least partly on ethical principle. Many businesses do try to do right by their customers, and not only because of the monetary rewards associated with success.
This scares the shit out of some capitalists, though, who want to believe that making money is the highest ethical good to which a commercial entity can aspire. Apple is an inconvenient example for these people. What if what Apple says is true? What if it really does matter to Apple that their customers have privacy? Then we have an example of a financially-successful business which is not operating in the most rapacious way possible, and this throws all sorts of wrenches into their late-stage capitalist fantasies.
I’m not demonizing capitalism — it works for me. But the WSJ is definitely the high priest at the altar here, and it seriously fucks with their narrative to even admit that commercial competition can be about anything other than money. Thus it must be a nihilistic “war.”
Calling this a “war” lays bare the views of many who believe this is only two tech giants duking it out over market territory, that the only substance here is the competition itself. It’s just like sports! We can root for our favorites!
It shows the fundamentally nihilistic attitude of many capitalists, that every commercial entity is _of course_ solely concerned with making as much money as possible, and that any talk of ethics or principles or honest benefit to their customers is smoke and mirrors. Of course, this is simply untrue. Many businesses do operate at least partly on ethical principle. Many businesses do try to do right by their customers, and not only because of the monetary rewards associated with success.
This scares the shit out of some capitalists, though, who want to believe that making money is the highest ethical good to which a commercial entity can aspire. Apple is an inconvenient example for these people. What if what Apple says is true? What if it really does matter to Apple that their customers have privacy? Then we have an example of a financially-successful business which is not operating in the most rapacious way possible, and this throws all sorts of wrenches into their late-stage capitalist fantasies.
I’m not demonizing capitalism — it works for me. But the WSJ is definitely the high priest at the altar here, and it seriously fucks with their narrative to even admit that commercial competition can be about anything other than money. Thus it must be a nihilistic “war.”
Quick question...
Why would we really want to prevent a war between these two giant companies?
Why would we really want to prevent a war between these two giant companies?
A humbling lesson on why you must control your supply chain or have commoditized suppliers. Facebook grew on a commoditized platform i.e. browsers on PCs. But then got pinched on mobile and was too slow to react.
WSJ / Murdoch standing up for Facebook is ... a new look.
Hopefully this one removes the paywall:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-pr...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-pr...
Thank you. Cueing mirror keyword for others.
It did and I thank you!
I'm glad they didn't. Apple did the right thing. Still not sure whether they did it for the right reasons but it was 100% the right thing IMO
There's only one sane outcome of the current shifts in privacy that I can see.
Something like FLoC, with
- The data stored-in and served-by a neutral, not-for-profit, regulated entity
- With user primacy and control of their own data (opt-out, wipe, request copy, etc)
You're never going to drag tracking out of Chrome, because Google is revenue addicted at this point. So at least you can keep it out of Google's control.
Something like FLoC, with
- The data stored-in and served-by a neutral, not-for-profit, regulated entity
- With user primacy and control of their own data (opt-out, wipe, request copy, etc)
You're never going to drag tracking out of Chrome, because Google is revenue addicted at this point. So at least you can keep it out of Google's control.
If we can't drag tracking out of Chrome because Google won't agree, why would we think they'd agree to keeping anything "out of Google's control"? If our decision-making hinges on what Google would agree to, we might as well wait for Google to announce what they're going to do anyway.
Because one of the few things more powerful than Google is national governments, and their mutual mistrust of each other.
Then we can use government to drag tracking out of Chrome.
Or, just use Firefox. It works just as well as chrome, in my experience.
That's not a scalable solution for people who are not me.
Why not? Firefox is freely available and works on (almost) every platform Chrome does.
Because Mozilla doesn't have USD$250b+ in annual revenue, or ownership of the top web destinations, with which to push Firefox.
People who care about tracking will do the research and pick other browsers, people who don't will use Chrome.
Yes. And I care about decreasing tracking for people who don't care about being tracked, because that's most of the world.
People mixing 2 things: tracking over your apps vs tracking on 3rd party apps are different things.
Apples tracking protections ( allow apps to track ) applies to 3rd party apps.
Apple’s tracking for ads, applies only to Apple apps.
Facebook can track people on their apps ( facebook, instagram, whatsapp etc ) if they want. Problem is about tracking with facebook SDK on 3rd party apps.
Apples tracking protections ( allow apps to track ) applies to 3rd party apps.
Apple’s tracking for ads, applies only to Apple apps.
Facebook can track people on their apps ( facebook, instagram, whatsapp etc ) if they want. Problem is about tracking with facebook SDK on 3rd party apps.
> Facebook can track people on their apps ( facebook, instagram, whatsapp etc ) if they want. Problem is about tracking with facebook SDK on 3rd party apps.
Right. Google mostly didn't mind, because they can simply push people a bit harder to log in for Youtube as well as Maps and Search, to build a first-party profile as people do searches and follow results.
This is different from building a profile as someone browses the internet, regardless of whether they have a relationship with your company.
Right. Google mostly didn't mind, because they can simply push people a bit harder to log in for Youtube as well as Maps and Search, to build a first-party profile as people do searches and follow results.
This is different from building a profile as someone browses the internet, regardless of whether they have a relationship with your company.
Is it a one sided war, right?
FB can only lose money and Apple can only make more.
The best outcome for FB would be to legally deny Apple from blocking ads and keep the status quo.
The worst outcome for Apple would be to make only as many money as before without the share they are taking from FB.
FB can only lose money and Apple can only make more.
The best outcome for FB would be to legally deny Apple from blocking ads and keep the status quo.
The worst outcome for Apple would be to make only as many money as before without the share they are taking from FB.
Apple isn’t blocking ads. They’re blocking cross app tracking which was mostly run by Facebook. The apps are still advertising, they just can’t use facebooks profile to target you.
> Apple isn’t blocking ads. They’re blocking cross app tracking
They aren’t even doing that! All they are doing is saying that if an application wants to do that, it has to ask the user first. Cross application tracking is absolutely fine according to Apple as long as the user consents.
They aren’t even doing that! All they are doing is saying that if an application wants to do that, it has to ask the user first. Cross application tracking is absolutely fine according to Apple as long as the user consents.
True, but one should ask why was cross app tracking allowed to begin with.
I think that should have never been allowed.
Was it ever specifically allowed? Or was it just implemented by Facebook et al using normal things like filesystem and internet access -- the sort of stuff you'd expect an operating system to provide?
The idea that users want to protect information, particularly information held by their account, from the programs they run would probably have been pretty surprising in the days when iOS was first being dreamed up...
The idea that users want to protect information, particularly information held by their account, from the programs they run would probably have been pretty surprising in the days when iOS was first being dreamed up...
It seems one-sided to me.
If your business relies on convincing your users that targeted advertising is a Good Thing, then you are fighting a war from an indefensible position.
If your business relies on convincing your users that targeted advertising is a Good Thing, then you are fighting a war from an indefensible position.
WSJ view: if only they'd conspired together against consumers like they were supposed to.
... and here I thought they weren't even supposed to conspire directly. Don't industry majors usually have to conspire indirectly, like by all hiring the same consultants?