This feature and fb's hate for it makes me seriously consider moving back to. iOS.
I never used an iOS device, but if Apple pulls this off, my next phone might be an iPhone.
Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
191–197 of 197 posts
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m on iOS primarily for this reason. If you don’t want to pay the Apple tax just get second hand devices. I just upgraded to the iPhone 8 and it’s perfect. Feels premium still. Does everything I need.
You still have to pay the Apple tax on all IAPs.
Google takes a similar cut on IAPs too, doesn't it? It just allows to integrate other payment methods in apps. It always felt fishy to enter CC number in an app. I still prefer to pay from the web sites where I can see the URL.
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?" Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way t…
We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.
I assumed that most people on HN are familiar with the dynamics of such opt-ins. For example, setting your newsletter subscription to opt-in vs opt-out will give you vastly different results. This concept of human laziness certainly translates to other industries as well: https://twitter.com/shawnxu/status/1339377828345757699.
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.
I assumed that most people on HN are familiar with the dynamics of such opt-ins. For example, setting your newsletter subscription to opt-in vs opt-out will give you vastly different results. This concept of human laziness certainly translates to other industries as well: https://twitter.com/shawnxu/status/1339377828345757699 .
Apple's change is showing a prompt. Opting out and opting in take the same effort.
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presupposes that consumers are unaware rather than apathetic. Only one in six baby boomers have ever even bothered[1] to adjust the privacy settings on their phone. That takes all of five minutes, and most can't be bothered. [1] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-dis...
It's a conditional statement. Those businesses will suffer if people care and become aware. They won't suffer if people are aware and don't care. The survey only covered the the last 12 months. How often do you have to adjust your phone settings? 47% of all respondents adjusted their phone privacy settings. Why single out the oldest group? 64% deleted or didn't download specific apps because of privacy concerns. At l…
61% of iPhone users said default privacy settings were a significant factor. Half of iPhone users didn't know about IDFA. 61% of the half who did didn't know how to disable it.[1]
[1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/what-half-of-iphone-u...
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They only need one place ( cough centralised cough ) where their customer can easily find them, have all the relevant information, ( Email, Tele, Opening Time etc ), and a small space for newest update. Google also offer this service, which lets small businesses display opening times and updates so that searchers get up to date info. I’d argue this is more useful as it lets new customers find you, as opposed to you…
>If this is too much for you, you’re not a serious player. In fact, a business running on a @gmail or @yahoo address, with the online presence being on Facebook screams “amateur” or even possibly “scammer”. In any case it’s a useful signal that the owner isn’t really committed. This is very much in the context of US. The total Facebook user outside of US exceed the total population of US itself. And most of those bus…
SE Asia and China are a different animal altogether. Privacy laws there are much looser, but this is offset by much stricter government control and much less recourse by companies like WeChat to the courts. Hint: if WeChat doesn't toe the PRC government line, it will run into... problems.
Suffice to say that Asia, and particularly China, has a different approach to governance, privacy, and (broadly) the welfare of their citizens.
However, given the enormous rights corporations enjoy in the West independent of the government, it's important that we don't use SE Asia or China as a model, and ensure that proprietary platforms don't have too much power over small businesses. Luckily, most small businesses in the West know this already, otherwise AOL would still be doing gangbusters business.
PS. Something that's often missed about small businesses in Asia doing business solely on WeChat is that informal trust networks forged by 'contacts', are a huge thing in Asia. It doesn't matter if the seller of really cheap phone covers just has a WeChat ID if a respected merchant vouches for him. And platforms like Alibaba and Taobao exist for people who reach the limits of these informal networks and want to go to the next level.
Re: Facebook criticizes Apple’s iOS privacy changes with full-page newspaper ads
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed that most people on HN are familiar with the dynamics of such opt-ins. For example, setting your newsletter subscription to opt-in vs opt-out will give you vastly different results. This concept of human laziness certainly translates to other industries as well: https://twitter.com/shawnxu/status/1339377828345757699 .
Apple's change is showing a prompt. Opting out and opting in take the same effort.
We're starting to split hairs here. Sure, laziness is not at play here, but the point remains that businesses will have fewer people to serve targeted ads to. With that, you will see either fewer transactions or the same amount of transactions but on fewer websites (eg: Amazon). Either way, if you wanted to launch a small business that - to extend OP's example - sells dog leashes to people with a penchant for the outdoors, your CAC will increase and you will have to raise your price. At that point, some of your customers will go with the cheaper Chinese version sold on Amazon, or simply won't buy any. So we'll get more privacy and a stronger Amazon, and fewer people will be able to make a living with their SMBs. I am not judging either way, all I want is for people to be aware that there's a trade off here that we should discuss openly and honestly.