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

221–230 of 579 posts

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

#221

Post by criddell »

ma2rten wrote: post #204
bko wrote: post #149

Earlier 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…

Why are you assuming that the parent commenter is in the US?

I am. I guess I should have said that.

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

#222

Post by scarface74 »

alexashka wrote: post #169
pnutjam wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#223

Post by skizm »

Facebook'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.

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

#224

Post by erikpukinskis »

I remember when Facebook Platform came out. The super early version where you could embed your app on Facebook and engage with the social graph.

I thought dang, this is smart. They’ll basically own the next level up the stack from the browser: they’ll own the “social chrome” of every application on the web.

Although it devolved into spam, Facebook was a hot spot of weird social games for a while there. And every web dev was learning how to build Facebook apps. We wondered if we’d even really need a domain for much more than a landing page, if 99% of our engagement was going to come through Facebooks.

And then they killed it because they wanted to own the entire experience inside Facebook. It became not a walled garden, but a walled flower pot.

It always seemed short sighted to me. Yes, they lost control allowing third party apps in their frame. But didn’t they want to be a Microsoft and not a WordPerfect?

Looking back, I wonder if it was a missed opportunity. They have to go try to be the metaverse because social never became a platform.

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

#225

Post by scarface74 »

echelon wrote: post #207
criddell wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this isn't a lie and Apple flipping that switch cost Facebook $10bn, then that tells me my personal information is worth a lot. What I was getting from Facebook in exchange for my data was too little. I use Google a lot more than Facebook and frankly what I get from them in exchange for my data is probably also way too little. I wish there was some type of consumer union where we could negotiate with these compani…

Not a lie at all. Apple is as dirty as they come. Apple is a cartel and Google pays the protection money that Facebook failed to. If Apple really cared about privacy and not money, they'd block Google from the platform too. A single policy changed wiped 25% of a trillion dollar company's market cap. That's a gravitational wave that shows what kind of overwhelming monopoly power Apple wields. To be clear, I hate Faceb…

So, you’re complaining that Apple gave users a choice not to be tracked?

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

#226

Post by travisporter »

ksec wrote: post #63
samwillis wrote: post #9

As a rough datapoint, I run a consumer targeted e-commerce site. We ran a campaign before Christmas were we were selling a new product that was only marketed on Facebook, we are certain that (almost) all customers found it though that Facebook campaign. Facebook was only able to attribute about 50% of the sales to the ads, it should have been close to 100%. This then meant that Facebooks estimated CPA was effectively…

I cant upvote you enough. This single comment contains many of the contrarian view against HN. It is nice we have these real world stories on HN to balance the ideological fight against ads, where All Ads are evil.

Well no one's arguing that targeted ads are not effective. This is just an example of how well it works, so upvoting it may not be the best way to bolster your side of the fight.

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

#227

Post by ghaff »

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…

Even in my older demographic (i.e. those of us who got in when you still needed edu addresses or shortly thereafter) which is supposedly more the core audience for Facebook this days, I don't see people "rage quitting." But I do see essentially everyone in my circles (including myself) having dialed down usage a lot.

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

#228

Post by falcolas »

reaperducer wrote: post #209
falcolas wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#229

Post by FearlessNebula »

paulcole wrote: post #134
tromp wrote: post #10

> But last year, citing privacy concerns, Apple turned off IDFA by default and forced apps to ask people if they want to be tracked. It seems most do not: a study in December by AppsFlyer, an ad-tech company, suggested that 54% of Apple users who saw the prompt opted out. Hard to believe that nearly half of all people is ok with being tracked...

Unpopular opinion on HN, but I’m 100% OK with being tracked because it means: 1. I get to use products and services I like without paying money from my wallet. I have plenty of data to share that’s effectively worthless to me. 2. I get exposed to new products and services (through ads) that I’d like to buy. I like buying things!

You want companies to use your personal information to manipulate you into buying products you don’t need?

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

#230

Post by scarface74 »

ksec wrote: post #63
samwillis wrote: post #9

As a rough datapoint, I run a consumer targeted e-commerce site. We ran a campaign before Christmas were we were selling a new product that was only marketed on Facebook, we are certain that (almost) all customers found it though that Facebook campaign. Facebook was only able to attribute about 50% of the sales to the ads, it should have been close to 100%. This then meant that Facebooks estimated CPA was effectively…

I cant upvote you enough. This single comment contains many of the contrarian view against HN. It is nice we have these real world stories on HN to balance the ideological fight against ads, where All Ads are evil.

I have no problem with targeted ads based on what I specifically told Facebook. It’s when I’m shopping on Amazon and see the same products advertised on FB that there is a problem.
Post reply on HN