Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#321

Post by nojito »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #48
nojito wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just them. Anyone who still has the wrong assumption that targeted advertising even works is in for a massive revelation.

Some level of targeting is necessary, for example it clearly makes no sense for a typical restaurant to advertise globally. The interesting question is much tracking adds on top of simpler targeting based on location and context.

That's not targeting. That's simply location based advertising.

Facebook and others have convinced people that they can do better than simple location based advertising.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#322

Post by dillondoyle »

runarberg wrote: post #89
nojito wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just them. Anyone who still has the wrong assumption that targeted advertising even works is in for a massive revelation.

Targeted ads don’t work any better then static ads. This is new for me. Actually now that I think about it, all evidence I remember at the moment is anecdotal. So perhaps you are right. Regardless of its efficacy, the legality should be out of the question.

Yes they do. It really bugs me all these HN threads state this and rely on their own personal experience not as an ad buyer but as a consumer. It's not true.

One can directly measure ROI and prove the value of this advertising. Especially FB provides for my business (political marketing) at least 10X better direct response value and that is mostly using 1:1 targeting and lookalike modeling.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#323

Post by kstrauser »

reaperducer wrote: post #263
23iofj wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. "Existential threat" means a threat to the very existence of a thing, so a thing that is an "existential threat" is a very big actual threat. I think maybe you're confusing "Existential" with "Hypothetical"?

"Existential threat" means an implied, or perceived threat. Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago, and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.

Merriam-Webster says (ref: https://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/existential...)

> an existential threat is a threat to the existence of something.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#324

Post by sjm »

smilliken wrote: post #195
dleslie wrote: post #99

I wish journalists wouldn't refer to Apple's app store cut as "tax" ; it's a service fee. That is the price Apple charges for providing payment-related services on its platform. It is not a tax.

Apple also insists that you must use their payment services, you can't use a competitor's. the policies are designed so that they get a cut of all revenue in the ecosystem, that's effectively a tax.

This isn't strictly true. Plenty of iOS apps use e.g. Stripe for payment processing, including the last company I worked for. The App Store billing/subscriptions requirement is only for apps providing strictly digital goods/services. Google has the same policy on the Play store.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#325

Post by katbyte »

viktorcode wrote: post #143
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #11

Apple should be applauded for this. Their revenue does not depend on software to clandestinely steal and sell users data. One day, we will look back at history and see facebook similar as to how people view myspace now (junkyard of software). Good on Apple not selling devices with a facebook backdoor in them. I know apple probably has deals with malicious governments regarding data access, but at least they are stand…

> I know apple probably has deals with malicious governments regarding data access Would love to see some evidence of that. That's quite an accusation and it should be taken seriously.

they dropped plans to e2e encrypt icloud backups because of the FBI: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#326

Post by Spivak »

tobib wrote: post #299
multiplegeorges wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an opt out. You might not like the opt out, but it remains a choice. You don't have to use Apple's platform or services. Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory. Words still have meaning and using tax to refer to Apple's fees is completely incorrect.

> Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory. You can opt out by moving out of the country. /s In that sense, I don't think you can opt out of the "Apple tax" because there are exactly 2 platforms both of which you have to be present on, otherwise you're not gonna reach your users.

But that’s exactly the point. You pay it because they have something you want. You can say they shouldn’t be allowed to gatekeep their markets but that’s a separate thing. Taxes you have to pay even if you don’t want the services.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#327

Post by Clubber »

SMAAART wrote: post #236
Clubber wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A message that said "Cigarettes will kill you" didn't stop smokers Nicotine is as hard to quit as heroin. The fact that we still punished smokers through public shaming, exclusion and excessive fines just shows how unsympathetic our culture is to perceived "moral failings." https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/10/17/why-its-so-hard-to-...

Ex-smoker here. So, what do you advocate? Reward smokers? Encourage smoking?

Maybe as a society we should quit our Spanish Inquisition style moral crusades.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#328

Post by 5cott0 »

dleslie wrote: post #99

I wish journalists wouldn't refer to Apple's app store cut as "tax" ; it's a service fee. That is the price Apple charges for providing payment-related services on its platform. It is not a tax.

devs also pay $100 - $300 a year for the privilege

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#329

Post by chris_wot »

user-the-name wrote: post #151
stefan_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are apps left using this after Facebook hard broke them REMOTELY twice? I think they got it coming.

Yup. The only way to implement Facebook login is through the SDK, so unless you are willing to give up all your users that use Facebook login, you are stuck with the invasive, crashing SDK.

No developer should tie themselves to Facebook. I sympathize with the existing developers, but no new developer should be insane enough to rely on Facebook.

Re: Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules

#330

Post by sakis »

I wonder what would happen if FB and Google went a step further and decided to give Apple the Windows Phone (or Huawei) treatment, by pulling all their apps from the App Store, citing these changes as the reason they can't support Apple's platform. I'm not sure the majority of iOS devices users would be happy with any of the involved parties, and that includes Apple.
Post reply on HN