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

Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

growth.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 359 posts

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#171

Post by heavyset_go »

GeekyBear wrote: post #120
doublerabbit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Apple has always had an advertising business, remember apps with ad banners in the early IOS store? However the fundamental difference is that their model is being an hardware company.

> Apple has always had an advertising business, remember apps with ad banners in the early IOS store? Remember what their advertising clients disliked about Apple's ad platform compared to the likes of Facebook and Google? > A new report on Advertising Age has revealed what advertisers think of Apple's arrogance when it comes to its mobile advertising platform and its tight grip on user data. "One person familiar wit…

This is a decade-old story, and neither Google nor Facebook sell or share data, they sell access to their ad networks. Apple sells access to their ad network, too.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#172

Post by vuln »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #161
kaba0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, not all ads are the same from an ethical standpoint. Displaying an app ad in the appstore upon searching for a similar term is very different than displaying ads based on your whole life, collected in malicious ways.

I don't own an apple device now but why does app store have ads ? After paying upwards of $1000+ on a iPhone, why can't you expect an ad free experience on a first party app store?

They’re promoted apps, the developer pays to promote their app. This tends to help startups that name their company off some random word like _bumble_.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#173

Post by isodev »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #141
hedora wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the top hit for IDFA (the wikipedia article): > Starting in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5, users are prompted to decide whether to opt-in or out of IDFA sharing before apps can query it. This choice can be altered in Settings.[2][3] In May, 2021, Verizon-owned advertisement analytics company Flurry Analytics reported that 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing.[4]

It's by default opt-out and am pretty sure the prompt doesn't apply for Apple's own apps. And since you brought out the opt-out option, one can also block Facebook's trackers through uBlock and/or DNS filters. The defaults are what matters. From the same Wikipedia article, > Users can opt-out of IDFA via the "Limit Ad Tracking" (LAT) setting (and an estimated 20% do). 80% users never change the defaults.

On iOS tracking and access to personal information is always opt-in. It’s literally a modal alert asking if you want to give permission when an app requests to access the IDFA for the first time.

Apple’s own apps don’t need to display the prompt because as per their privacy policy they don’t collect or use information for tracking purposes (which is also visible in the privacy labels of their apps in the App Store).

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#174

Post by vuln »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #141
hedora wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the top hit for IDFA (the wikipedia article): > Starting in iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5, users are prompted to decide whether to opt-in or out of IDFA sharing before apps can query it. This choice can be altered in Settings.[2][3] In May, 2021, Verizon-owned advertisement analytics company Flurry Analytics reported that 96% of US users opted out of IDFA sharing.[4]

It's by default opt-out and am pretty sure the prompt doesn't apply for Apple's own apps. And since you brought out the opt-out option, one can also block Facebook's trackers through uBlock and/or DNS filters. The defaults are what matters. From the same Wikipedia article, > Users can opt-out of IDFA via the "Limit Ad Tracking" (LAT) setting (and an estimated 20% do). 80% users never change the defaults.

> and am pretty sure

Trust me bro.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#175

Post by charcircuit »

kaba0 wrote: post #123
Timber-6539 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, Apple has not invented a new form of advertising that works without tracking users.

I’m fairly sure there are many forms of advertisement that works without tracking.. like a billboard. Displaying an ad next to search results based on the search query for example is similarly benign.

>that works without tracking.. like a billboard.

Billboards still require tracking. If you had the option of putting a billboard up in 1 of 2 neighborhoods and it would get 10k impressions in either location which one would you choose? The optimal strategy is not to pick randomly. The optimal strategy is to predict the conversion rate of both locations. In order to do that you need to investigate who is likely to see your billboard and learn about their interests to see if they would be likely to be interested.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#176

Post by orf »

toastal wrote: post #55
wredue wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And uh. Let be honest with ourselves here. Our alternative is currently android. So instead of meta slurping up all your shit, google vacuums it all up and then some, and lets even more of it trickle in to meta.

Unless you go the custom ROM + microG option that 98% of folks would never do… or you embrace the Linux phone OS which has no ‘apps’ (like that banking app that banned you for rooting your other Linux (Android) phone) & the telephony barely works if it even does. This duopoly sucks.

It’s telling that you think 98% of users wouldn’t do that. It’s 99.9999% of android users my friend.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#177

Post by isodev »

nicce wrote: post #86
goalieca wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have a tracking pixel on half the popular web. Apple's main source of income is through luxury hardware and subscription services. Facebook sells your information and attention to willing buyers.

Apple's ad business, however, is growing all the time. And in significant margins. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://www.statista.com/statistics/1330127/apple-ad-revenue...

Apple shows ads for apps in the App Store sans behavioural targeting. If there is a kind of “ethical ads” that’s as close as it gets.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#178

Post by csallen »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #161
kaba0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, not all ads are the same from an ethical standpoint. Displaying an app ad in the appstore upon searching for a similar term is very different than displaying ads based on your whole life, collected in malicious ways.

I don't own an apple device now but why does app store have ads ? After paying upwards of $1000+ on a iPhone, why can't you expect an ad free experience on a first party app store?

Because Apple has decided so, because it makes them lots of money, and it isn't a big enough dealbreaker for consumers to not buy iPhones. I believe the Google Play Store has ads, too.

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#179

Post by yomlica8 »

OmarShehata wrote: post #147
nirvdrum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given companies are doing subject tracking with in-store cameras and can use facial recognition to tell who you are, cash isn't going to be sufficient. They'll be able to build a pretty compelling shopping profile and can tie associate your cash purchases to your profile. Sure, it's not 100% fool-proof, but it doesn't need to be to be a massive privacy invasion. I suppose you could wear a mask, but that's generally f…

The industry is still struggling to track who's clicking on ads properly in all cases...we're very far from this idea of tracking cash purchases & building a profile with facial recognition. This sounds like science fiction. Are there any companies actually doing anything like this? Closest thing I know is companies who sell "foot traffic" data, of who walks in front of your store. But that's done with phones pinging…

K-Mart apparently tracks with facial recognition.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-13/bunnings-kmart-invest...

Re: Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

#180

Post by heavyset_go »

jonhohle wrote: post #36

I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. I received a letter from Target that by default they’ll sell my information to unaffiliated third parties and I have to call or write a letter to opt-out. I’m sure I agreed to that at some point (and anyone signing up for a loyalty program that doesn’t cost anything should realize that’s what they are agreeing to, even if t…

> None of this improves my life.

Now you'll get some ads that recommender systems think they should show you, based on your shopping experience at CVS, that could be potentially embarrassing if you have anyone over, or have someone else using your devices.

I was able to guess a family member's previously private medical condition based on the ads they got while I was at their place.

Post reply on HN