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

Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 579 posts

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#181

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

mojuba wrote: post #139
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the Ad optimisation from FB/Google/whoever to work, it's important. More generally, if you want to be able to track your own users and where they come from, it matters. If all of your traffic is organic, then it's irrelevant.

So if there's SKAdNetwork attribution, why do I need to give the unique device ID to FB or Google in addition to that? They will know which ad led to the install via SKAdNetwork calls anyway, right? I know IDFA benefits them because they can connect the dots and know which apps are installed on a given device. But does my app's campaign benefit from that so much that I should go for the ATT popup?

> So if there's SKAdNetwork attribution, why do I need to give the unique device ID to FB or Google in addition to that? They will know which ad led to the install via SKAdNetwork calls anyway, right?

Nope, they'll only know that some percentage of impressions of an ad lead to installs. With their SDK, they'll know who installed, and they can then feed this back into their ML models to find more similar people for you.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#182

Post by samwillis »

intrasight wrote: post #171
tnel77 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true, but I’d guess that there are a lot of users that exclusively use the iOS app.

Among my peers where I've observed how they use FB, I think it's an even split. For me, if there's a web site, I skip installing the app. And of course a majority of news and social and commerce web sites now prompt you to install the app.

Personally when I occasionally use Facebook its via the app so that I am not logged in in by browser. Don't want them spying on everything I do online.

Twitter on the other hand I use in the browser as I like to be able to open threads in tabs to come back to.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#183

Post by treis »

d12bb wrote: post #82
00000000005 wrote: post #15

Facebook failed to pay the big money to Apple that they should have been paying for years. If Zuck had been handing Apple $5,000,000,000 per year as google does, then Apple would never have kneecapped Facebook. Larry and Sergei know how the protection racket works. You pay your dues to the local mob, you get to do business in their street corners. What do google pay Apple $5b for? Ummm… to be in the search of Safari.…

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…

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.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#184

Post by dalbasal »

throwhauser wrote: post #168
eric4smith wrote: post #91

Lies. Don’t you all see it? Facebook has been declining over the past year and this is a convenient way to blame someone - anyone. Let’s face it, what are your friends all using now? That’s right - video - YouTube and TikTok. Facebook had no answer for video and thus lost a lot of eyeballs. Instagram is a poor clone of TikTok and most people just repost their popular TikTok videos on Instagram reels anyway - hardly a…

I was with you up to here: > And Zuck is very smart. The moment I saw the rebrand to Meta I knew that he saw this day coming perhaps years ago. He knows the next frontier is the meta verse Zuckerberg has been a surprisingly good steward of the one successful idea he came across, the social network graph. His acquisitions (Instagram, etc) worked very well to supplement the social network graph and keep it going longer…

There's an element of having shot themselves in the foot. FB moviled from content driven purely by your friends and what they post to content that FB have decided to feed you.

That worked great in a lot of senses. You never run out of content. FB have a lot more options for their optimisation efforts. It also made them more of a general media company.

But... it also devalued the social network/friends aspect. Now it's just about content and holding user attention. Well... that means competition is everything again. Anyone can post anywhere, or consume content anywhere.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#186

Post by [deleted] »

sfe22 wrote: post #173
alexashka wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You can't have a democracy with 100 IQ idiot majority, because their decisions are governed by whatever gets poured into their poorly working brains that week, so you end up with corporatocracy or fascism, pretending to be a democracy.

Then we need to fix the apparent problem of idiot majority. If you say most people are stupid why would you want them to vote every 4 years. Can you trust their vote? Do you still advocate for the current form of “democracy”? Maybe we should go back to monarchy and have only one glorious ruler rather than one glorious government.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#187

Post by strulovich »

d12bb wrote: post #82
00000000005 wrote: post #15

Facebook failed to pay the big money to Apple that they should have been paying for years. If Zuck had been handing Apple $5,000,000,000 per year as google does, then Apple would never have kneecapped Facebook. Larry and Sergei know how the protection racket works. You pay your dues to the local mob, you get to do business in their street corners. What do google pay Apple $5b for? Ummm… to be in the search of Safari.…

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.

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#188

Post by gruez »

hnburnsy wrote: post #167
alephnan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like post-hoc confirmation of "I knew it! I told you guys so!" like people who claim a catastrophic recession is around the corner, quarter after next. If you have some special insight that the wider market doesn't and hasn't price in, then the odds and prices are asymmetrically tipped in your favor. As an example, I spent $13,580 shorting Facebook on Wednesday, which I haven't sold but will probably later…

I thought you could not short stocks in an Ira, only sell covered calls? Is there some way around this rule? https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/10311...

options, maybe?

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#189

Post by ineedasername »

eric4smith wrote: post #91

Lies. Don’t you all see it? Facebook has been declining over the past year and this is a convenient way to blame someone - anyone. Let’s face it, what are your friends all using now? That’s right - video - YouTube and TikTok. Facebook had no answer for video and thus lost a lot of eyeballs. Instagram is a poor clone of TikTok and most people just repost their popular TikTok videos on Instagram reels anyway - hardly a…

I don't think it's a (complete) lie. In the short term I think it is very much the truth: 2021 once again saw record revenue for them [0] so, absent a specific threat like Apple, there is no reason to project a $10B loss over expected revenue gains during the short 1-year term at issue during the call.

On the other hand, Apple's actions are part of an overall trend that represents an existential threat, for the exact reasons you mention and others. The main issue is probably something like the innovators dilemma: they've become reactive, and slow in those reactions. Their largest successes in recent year haven't come from their own creations, but from acquisitions. NYT has a pretty good analysis of some of its systemic flaws [1]

[0] https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/technology/facebook-files...

Re: Apple's privacy push cost Meta $10B

#190

Post by nickthegreek »

hotpotamus wrote: post #154
isodev wrote: post #32

All Apple did was give users the choice. Users choosing to deny Facebook the permission to share their data? That's entirely on Facebook.

I see this in the thread but I have to say that I disagree a bit. I'm certainly glad Apple gave users a choice, but you have to consider "the tyranny of the default" which is a great phrase I think. Most people will simply use the default option, so Apple's choice of default says something.

If they tyranny of the default is to protect my privacy, I see no tyranny at all.
Post reply on HN