I haven't followed the whole apple privacy push and how it impacted advertising. However, isn't everyone always logged into Facebook? If so they already know who is using it and any interaction will tell them exactly who used it. How does the Apple's platform level change effect them? Am I missing something?
Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
261–270 of 579 posts
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's "search" is pretty crappy WRT seeing what a dev has released Click on the dev's name and it shows everything that dev has published. https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/google-llc/id281956209
I did (on my phone, fwiw), and it only showed 12, and not their big ones.
Perhaps because on your phone it shows only phone apps?
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#263Facebook's revenue up 35% year over year: -26% (P/E ~16) Amazon's revenue up 15% year over year: +12% (P/E 60+) I don't get the stock market. Facebook can simply turn on billions in revenue whenever they want still with WhatsApp, which has north of 2 billion MAU, and has not been monetized at all yet. Facebook is a reverse meme stock.
> I don't get the stock market.
There's nothing to get, it's just gambling for rich people.
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't really have apps though. Their users see ads through the browser and so, from what I understand, are unaffected by the change.
Not counting gmail, calendar, or the docs/drive suite, Google has >12 applications on the app store. Apple's "search" is pretty crappy WRT seeing what a dev has released (or at least the Google LLC "dev"), hence the range. And ads definitely show up in YouTube and such.
I didn't say they had no apps. I said they don't really have apps and they don't. Their main product is search and it's accessed through the browser.
If what FB is saying is true then the move by Apple helps Google. There's more or less two options for online advertising. So if companies spend less on FB then they're probably going to spend those dollars with Google
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you’re complaining that Apple gave users a choice not to be tracked?
You keep making this kind of reply to all of my comments. I've already enumerated my problems with Apple here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30196852 I would be fine if Apple removed tracking if the DOJ removed their app store.
Because this article is not about developers having to pay 30%
Your problems outside of the 30% (which is valid) is that you want to be able to ship crappy cross platform web apps and know more about your users (which I don’t want).
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not perfect but you can look at average revenue per user on Facebook. There are huge differences based on the country (note this is quarterly): Q4 '20 Worldwide: 10.14 US: 53.56 Europe: 16.87 Asia Pacific: 4.05 Rest of world: 2.77 So you're worth just over $200 a year. This has gone up a lot over time and is considerably higher than other social networks. Just a year ago, it was 41.41 (23% less) and a year befor…
And likely a working professional adult who can afford an iPhone is worth at least a deviation or two above that.
Maybe, but I'm not sure a working professional adult is an ad-clicker, and I'm not sure that the ads they click on can con them into doing something they wouldn't normally do very often.
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just like the phrase. Tyranny probably brings along a bad assumption, but it really just means that most people will stick with the default. It's something I learned independently, though it had been realized many times before I did. I'm also happy with the outcome in this case.
Tyranny definitely has a negative connotation
I agree, but default connotes that you are able to change it. Maybe it's that sort of built in contradiction that appeals to me.
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is double bullshit: 1. All Apple did was giving users a choice (and they should've done that ages ago). If users didn't mind being tracked, or liked the "more relevant adverts" tracking provides, they would not have opted out. 2. Google is subject to exactly the same rules as Facebook is. Their apps have to ask for permission to track as Facebook's do, and Safari (which enforces privacy in many ways, too) is the…
Part of the issue is the language. Apple used the “ask no to track language”, but when it came to their own services chose “turn off personalized ads”: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/02/apple-personalized-ads-target... Not saying tracking shouldn’t be stopped. But remember Apple is much less privacy aware when it’s their wallet.
Is the issue the language? It's not clear from the language or the article that Apple's version disables any tracking at all. It seems like two different things.
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the government is a monopoly with its own agenda. In addition it already kind of owns us (well a large percentage), what would it gain if it negotiated this deal for us? I would argue it can gain more power by making a deal with facebook.
Everyone who doesn't vote and ignores their role in Democracy let's this happen. The president matters much less then the Mayor or the Governor.
Which is why all the choices are pre-approved by the people who would be most damaged by a President.
Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept you are describing is a government.
Quoted post unavailable.
“ In short, if you're excited about iOS 14, you are more likely to be poor than not”
Why are supposing that all rich people made their money through online advertising? It’s clearly untrue and certainly not a robust enough a conclusion to feel bad about your relative success.