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

Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#151

Post by thomaslord »

simonh wrote: post #84

What we really need is an open platform on iOS for app stores, so that Facebook can launch or partner with a third party store that provides built in APIs to enable bypassing Apples restrictions. Maybe Facebook could make their app exclusive to it, so hundreds of millions of users are drawn to an App Store sub-platform subsidised by intrusive, data scraping, privacy compromising policies. Win!

If a third party could provide an equivalent to Apple's tracking ID, they'd already be able to do that with a library. Having a different app store has absolutely no effect on this issue whatsoever.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#153

Post by Despegar »

shajznnckfke wrote: post #102

In iOS 13, Apple and third-party ad tracking were both controlled by the same opt-out setting. In iOS 14, the settings have been split, with third party tracking disabled and and Apple’s tracking enabled by default. Blatant anticompetitive behavior to promote their own tracking services in the guise of protecting users. Genius move by Apple. https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...

From Peter Kafka:

>Yes. Apple has a detailed answer but essentially says that's not so, and is a misreading of its policy.

https://twitter.com/pkafka/status/1298662980457046016

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#154

Post by amluto »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #58
Joeri wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do newspapers need to know what websites every subscriber visits in order to put ads in the paper? The idea that privacy needs to be conceded in order for a healthy ad market to exist is false.

Sure. As long as the flip side of that argument is equally appreciated - ad revenue pays for the apps, so less revenue will necessarily lead to fewer "free" apps and/or fewer "free" features and/or worse quality. It's a rational response of the intermediary (i.e. app makers) to the customers (i.e. advertisers) having less access to the product (i.e. us).

Newspapers had plenty of ad revenue before tracking. Apps could be monetized by ads that are targeted based on the in-app content only.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#155

Post by multiplegeorges »

ziftface wrote: post #91
spzb wrote: post #17

Gosh, there goes Apple with their anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour again. Facebook better join Epic in the queue at the courtroom. (sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious)

Apple absolutely does abuse their power as a monopoly. I'm not sure how that's related to asking users for permission to share data with third parties, which is what this was about.

Monopoly of what? A platform of their own creation?

It's not of the app market or the mobile phone market, there are strong viable competitors in both.

No one says Toyota is a monopolist of Toyota cars and yet Apple is called a monopolist of the App Store, iOS, and Apple phones.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#156

Post by an_opabinia »

Joeri wrote: post #33
avalys wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because many of the people developing apps for their platform rely on advertising revenue to pay the bills?

Do newspapers need to know what websites every subscriber visits in order to put ads in the paper? The idea that privacy needs to be conceded in order for a healthy ad market to exist is false.

> The idea that privacy needs to be conceded in order for a healthy ad market to exist is false.

You can't in practice verify that clicks or impressions are real, as opposed to initiated by bots, without correlating them with real human behavior.

If you have an idea for how to verify a click or impression was real without also gathering some kind of data, go make ten billion dollars selling that technology.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#157

Post by madeofpalk »

danShumway wrote: post #113
Despegar wrote: post #2

>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with…

To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good pla…

The problem with DNT was that it was off by default, advertisers didnt support it, and that it was yet another bit advertises used to create IDs for anon users.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#158

Post by ocdtrekkie »

justapassenger wrote: post #116
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here is to outlaw targeted advertising, so that marketing budgets can realign to appropriately pay for normal advertising again. As it is, the efficacy of targeted advertising is a myth. Google claimed in a blog post that their own internal study showed over a 50% benefit in targeted advertising for publishers... but an independent, academic study showed a difference of about 4%. https://techcrunch.com/2…

>Adtech giants need advertisers to believe they need targeted advertising, because targeted advertising relies on mass data collection only they are capable of getting. If people realized the necessity of using Google and Facebook's mass user data was... a complete lie... any old ad firm could compete with their businesses. Targeted advertising is as old as advertising. Why do you have cloud companies advertising on…

> Why do you have cloud companies advertising on the billboards in San Francisco, but not in Beatty, Nevada?

To be fair, I think I should specify "user-targeted" advertising. Targeting by content/placement location isn't privacy-invading by nature. :)

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#159

Post by DamienB »

oblio wrote: post #63
criddell wrote: post #3

> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. Why should platform makers consult the advertising industry? It's not like the advertising industry consulted anybody before they started collecting every bit of data they could.

I'm honestly interested about this, Facebook is a big company. Is there no case of FB screwing over its partners? Like locking or limiting an API that they had offered in the past, etc. One thing that comes to mind immediately is that Facebook Messenger used to be accessible through XMPP and then they blocked that.

I'd say they shut down quite a few "partners" when they shuttered Parse.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#160

Post by madeofpalk »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #115

I’m all for how these changes are going to negatively affect Facebook and advertisers. But I just can’t also escape the feeling in the long term I’m giving up control of the devices I own and the actual act of computing to get to this result. If it came to destroying advertisers or free open computing I want free computing.

This is just an operating system vendor designing its own APIs.
Post reply on HN