561–570 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be Facebook's legal argument in the US?
That Apple is unfairly privileging its own ads business. It's a tough cookie though; the offending behavior is simply Apple's truthful (if arguably hyperbolic) notice and consent popup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me like you're more playing "semantic ju-jitsu" than OP. Facebook collect data to sell targetted adspace, they do not sell data. This is a plain fact.
Facebook don’t sell data, they rent out their users. The more info they have, the more accurate they can be about renting out the right ones.
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…
> [FB revenue model] depend[s] on software to clandestinely steal and sell users data Isn't it opt-in by using their platform? Or is your argument that targeted ads are not common knowledge to Facebook users? I likely wouldn't use Facebook or Google etc. if I had to pay cash; fine with paying with personal data; but for people who aren't fine with that, they shouldn't use it. I realize that any attempt to discuss thi…
I don't think this is an entirely fair argument unless it is exceedingly clear what you are opting in to. The fact that FB (and others) are so resistant to being more transparent about this is in itself informative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google had the advantage that their service was separable from the physical devices using it. I doubt you would be arguing that, if Apple bricked basically every iPhone in China, it would be evidence that their "incentives are aligned with their customers".
Hyperbole. Being a separate device, as you said, means the phones would still work independent of Apple. The Chinese government would block updates and sales, hencecustomers would blame them, not Apple, because Apple was incentivized with customers instead of the government moving forward.
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.
Is my income tax a price the government charges for providing roads, schools, and protection? Just because there are services rendered doesn't mean it's not a tax. There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.
There are tons of things that are paid for on a percentage basis, and the "is this value added or not" line is pretty difficult to define clearly.
It doesn't make sense to think of it as a tax, really, sure taxes can be used to provide services (or other things) but the fee being paid here is directly tied to the service you are receiving. If you want to draw parallels with government, it would better match a toll road or bridge; you can still argue the total collected toll doesn't fairly match the cost of providing the service, but the mechanism is at least clear.
I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.
It's one giant fighting another. Apple wants to destroy ad revenue and shift everyone to a paid App model because Apple can get its 30%. I bet you if Apple loses control of the AppStore for anti trust reasons, they would be all for ads.
Even if Apple’s motives are somehow nefarious, Facebook is being scummy in the first place, so it’s a fair move for Apple to take advantage of that, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember back in 2002 when I took a college course on Computer Security and the prof told story after harrowing story of the lengths to which spy agencies went to get the information they were after. I remember thinking, "Well if the NSA really wanted to track everyone and record everything that was ever transmitted over the internet, I suppose they could. But nah, that's crazy." Fast forward to 2013 and Snowden. O…
The poster you're replying to did not say that AMZN/GOOG/AAPL wouldn't spy on you, they simply stated that evidence should be considered to justify claims, especially if you're trying to spread those claims to other people. Your argument "we should sound alarms without evidence because tomorrow we'll have evidence" is classic conspiracy theory reasoning, which is why people will classify you as one. In essence, we sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one giant fighting another. Apple wants to destroy ad revenue and shift everyone to a paid App model because Apple can get its 30%. I bet you if Apple loses control of the AppStore for anti trust reasons, they would be all for ads.
This is Facebook’s narrative, but if Facebook makes a bit less money, how exactly does that “shift everyone to a paid App model”? Facebook’s annual net profit is an 11-digit number. Apple’s move is bad for Facebook’s stock price and good for users, and that’s probably all the noticeable impact. Even if Apple’s motives are somehow nefarious, Facebook is being scummy in the first place, so it’s a fair move for Apple to…
I don't have Facebook and I'm generally skeptical of Apple's pro-privacy messaging. However, seeing this response from Facebook has gotten me very excited for this update. There must be more to it then Apple's generic 'Most Advanced Update Ever' marketing. I'm still skeptical of Apple's commitment to privacy, but I'm certainly happy to get this update. Apple should thank Facebook for the free marketing.
It's one giant fighting another. Apple wants to destroy ad revenue and shift everyone to a paid App model because Apple can get its 30%. I bet you if Apple loses control of the AppStore for anti trust reasons, they would be all for ads.
So it's hard to come to a conclusion that Apple hates ads. It's easier to say that Apple dislikes advertiser networks, since their own attempt at a generic network (iAds) failed miserably. It's not even clear to me that blocking tracking is going to kill ads as a revenue stream, all it will do is make ads more expensive because they're slightly less targeted on iOS?
Also, Apple runs their own seemingly successful ad market within the App Store app — something I'm reminded of each time I search for an app and see a competitor's app I don't want at the top of my search results, filling my screen with the new design. So it's hard to say that Apple does this for the best user experience. Showing extra popups isn't great UX. And Apple likes free apps, it makes their phone and platform more valuable, so they can charge more for the hardware knowing folks can get great apps inexpensively or free.
While I'm in favour of Apple losing its complete monopoly over App Stores and apps that compete with its own, I actually am in favour of Apple enforcing these policies on apps from its own App Store and platform. And while I would say that third-party stores could have different stances on permissions, the idea that a third-party app store could prevent a popup asking to share a phone's identifier, for example, is frankly a security bypass. The same is true if apps want to communicate with other apps without the operating system knowing.
Personally, I'd love it if Apple went a step farther and used the network layer and code signing to identify which apps actively use which trackers and tracking networks the same way they currently identify apps that use the microphone and camera. It'd be fascinating to see an operating system feature that says 50% of my network traffic in Application X was telemetry being sent to Facebook, for example.