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

721–730 of 734 posts

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

#721

Post by paulmd »

cacarr wrote: post #665
paulmd wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One need only look back at the previous threads on the App Store to find people arguing that Apple should be legally forced to open their platform up to competitors, which would pretty much gut these kinds of privacy-protecting moves. Facebook will immediately move exclusively to a separate app store that doesn't ask developers to justify user-relevant reasons for the permissions it requests, and immediately start de…

Not being able to sideload apps really is feckin' idiotic, though. One ought to be able to install whatever they please on a handset they've purchased -- especially when they've spent that much. Just bury a toggle deep in settings somewhere.

You can sideload, just pay for a developer account and you can sideload whatever you want.

Going further than that effectively removes the point of app review - Facebook/etc will immediately demand that you sideload to bypass the app review and just demand all permissions.

this is not a theoretical problem, Facebook has already been busted for asking users to sideload a version signed with their developer credentials that scrapes up data that apple won't let them collect on the public release. You are basically suggesting that they be allowed to do that officially.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-hits-back-facebook-revo...

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

#722

Post by nuker »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #716
nuker wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> APIs are great.. i want an app to be able to list all the apps installed. That a big No. List of apps uniquely identifies the device and the user. Is this api available??

Contact list access does that too... and a bunch of apps get it. I just want the app to ask me, and me to decide if the app really needs it or not.

On iOS they ask for contacts access, and you can deny.

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

#723

Post by jonfw »

samatman wrote: post #695
jonfw wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In business terms, however, it's much easier to target consumers of a different country than of a different App Store. Even if you blacklist the top two countries, US and China, you still have a lot of consumers largely in India and Europe to buy your product. If you blacklist two major app stores it's effectively impossible to make money developing apps. This isn't bad for consumers, it's bad for producers.

Producers in this instance are fairly described as "software developers", correct? I think you'll find we have more than two customers for our wares.

I would say 'app developers' is the category

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

#724

Post by SergeAx »

ummonk wrote: post #482
SergeAx wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil advocating attempt: they obviously did a measure how much of their userbase will allow the app to serve personalized ads and how it will impact their revenue. Even if it is in a ballpark of 10%, it is still a ton of money and, as a commercial enterprise acting in the interests of its shareholders, FB should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage.

I recall reading the percent of people refusing consent was something like 95%. No idea how much that will impact revenue though.

I've heard about 40%, which is still a lot. And it doesn't mean 40% revenue drop: non-personalized ads will still make money.

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

#725

Post by SergeAx »

reaperducer wrote: post #334
SergeAx wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil advocating attempt: they obviously did a measure how much of their userbase will allow the app to serve personalized ads and how it will impact their revenue. Even if it is in a ballpark of 10%, it is still a ton of money and, as a commercial enterprise acting in the interests of its shareholders, FB should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage.

should do it's best to avoid or reduce potential damage. The way to reduce potential damage is to evolve, adapt, pivot, and diversify. Not to kick and scream. Facebook has enough money and enough smart people to do and be anything it wants. It chooses to be the neighborhood creep in the bushes watching your daughter through your windows.

Still devil advocating. Imagine you have a well developed silver mine, which produces a metric ton of silver every week. And you have an idea that there can be a gold vein somewhere on your land plot. But to find and develop it you should spend a lot of resources, including your well trained miner workforce. Rational decision would be to maybe do some research on a "last served" basis and continue to expand your silver mine, which is your primary source of income, until it depleted (if it will deplete at all, you don't know it for sure).

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

#726

Post by runarberg »

dillondoyle wrote: post #720
nojito wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true and has been verified from companies who conduct proper studies internally and choose to release it such as eBay. There is also an academic researcher who regularly publishes as well. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.118... and of course there's Tim Hwang. https://www.fsgoriginals.com/books/subprime-attention-crisis Internet ads do not work past simple location based targeting.

There are plenty of examlpes on both sides. I have routinely gotten over 100% immediate last-click roi from fb ads, for many clients. I know for a fact many others have too. There are a ton of direct to consumer online-only products that easily measure this. Just make a page or item which you only use to advertise on FB. sales/spend. Game developers track this closely too.

This is anecdotal evidence. Nobody is disputing those exists. However I think FB and Google owe their existence a little better evidence, such as A/B testing, control group studies and even experiments to actually demonstrate their effectiveness. Until we have those (and perhaps we do; I seriously know nothing of the existing literature) the anecdotal evidence we do have should be taken only as indicative of effect, not proof of effect. Anecdotal evidence come with a ton of bias.

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

#727

Post by arrosenberg »

dillondoyle wrote: post #719
arrosenberg wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB has also lied consistently about the performance of their ad products, so who knows if you are really getting that ROI.

i know... and so do probably most major and direct response marketers. there are a lot of ways to measure outside of FBs analytics tools. including the very simple simply using a refcode or even a specific product/url. How many purchases did you get / how much did you spend? this is what i'm referencing. like that's so incredibly basic and it bugs me HN just either doesn't understand or lets their opinion on it go fi…

> there are a lot of ways to measure outside of FBs analytics tools.

There is no way to validate their impression/click data that all the downstream metrics are reliant on. If you have a way, I'd love to know about it. The claim isn't that they make up conversions, the claim is that they overstate the ROI and cv% based on the denominator.

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

#728

Post by dang »

phabora wrote: post #585
firephreek wrote: post #553

"Personalized Ads for Small Businesses" What a bunch of malarkey. I've worked in ad space and the actual ability for SB's to compete is laughable. Their budgets are so comparatively small that they simply don't get the assistance necessary. They're drinking through paper straws while the big dogs swim in lakes. SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much l…

Small business is just a propaganda tool. The idea has some allure, maybe because it reminds Americans of their priomordial beginning as settlers, homesteaders, yeomans, craftsmen (or so the stories go).

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...

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

#729

Post by minsc__and__boo »

kube-system wrote: post #683
minsc__and__boo wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would lose iCloud access. That's what the Chinese Government threatened them with. It is not "bricking phones" as you said. As much as you don't like this fact, Apple had a choice and decided to put the Chinese government before it's users.

Yes, it is. An iPhone that cannot connect to Apple’s servers is essentially bricked. Not only do a significant number of critical features on the phone require reaching out to Apple to function, but IIRC, after a certain period of time without being able to contact Apple, the phone will require you to log in with your Apple ID. I believe this is to prevent activation lock bypasses by blocking network resources. I rem…

So then Apple pushes an quick update to disable login after N days.

You're splitting hairs here about Apple choosing to share their user data with the Chinese government over their user's privacy.

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

#730

Post by ajliu »

tgv wrote: post #36
jahlove wrote: post #4

> Some apps, like Facebook, allow for some data tracking to be manually disabled. But by default, it is turned on. That gives the company reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells. My understanding is that Facebook does not sell this data, but rather lets advertisers create hyper-targeted ads, which are only possible because of this data. Edit: Certainly…

Didn't they have a deal with Cambridge Analytica, rebranded as Palantir?

No?
Post reply on HN