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

271–280 of 579 posts

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

#271

Post by alephnan »

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...

You can do Level 2 options trading in a IRA.

So you can sell covered puts / calls, or buy puts /calls. Those do not require margin. You cannot sell uncovered calls / puts, which would require margin.

Part of my position was buying $280 weekly puts which were $1.39 each, now $49.5 each ( still haven't sold lol).

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

#272

Post by Jasper_ »

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.

I know this isn't the point, but you do realize that the IQ is rearranged to fit a bell curve with 100 being the exact middle average, right? By literally the definition of IQ, 100 IQ is not "an idiot".

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

#273

Post by pessimizer »

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…

That's definitely not why they pay Mozilla. Being the default search engine in a browser that a minuscule percentage of the market uses, and then the vast majority of those only use because they're hostile to Google, isn't worth shit.

If I go to my bodega once a month to spend $80 on sticks of $2 incense, it's because I'm buying drugs.

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

#274

Post by thebean11 »

brimble wrote: post #268
strulovich wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How could you possibly server personalized ads without tracking?

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

#275

Post by cercatrova »

jliptzin wrote: post #235
throwhauser wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I joined FB in 2004 as a stanford student. I used it religiously in college because it was the cool new thing at the time, but after that I mostly didn't see the appeal. I really never gave a shit what some guy from high school who I haven't spoken to in 10+ years is posting about. When there is so much more interesting content to consume in the world, why would I bother with the crap someone is posting just because…

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite. I don't really care about content anymore, it's really just mind numbing drudgery. There's a reason there's a meme about getting addicted to HN and doing "deep work" with "digital minimalism".

In recent times I've cared more and more about what my friends and family are doing, because those are the people I'm connected with in actuality, in real life.

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

#276

Post by falcolas »

reaperducer wrote: post #262
falcolas wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, it didn't show Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Sheets, or Docs. All of which are Google apps available on the phone.

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

#277

Post by alephnan »

chillage wrote: post #161
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…

That seems a pretty smart short (in retrospect). I guess you were banking on them releasing concrete numbers on the iOS changes and people panicking from it? Seems really obvious in retrospect and relies on pretty common knowledge so I'm surprised that worked so straightforward. Good job.

I've noticed they stopped showing ads from actual businesses. Instead, it was sponsored posts from individuals self-promoting for purely vain reasons as opposed to some commercial reason.

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

#278

Post by arepublicadoceu »

pessimizer wrote: post #266
d_watt wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

As a working professional adult, who has access to many others working professional adults, I assure you, ads work.

You’re simplifying ads to a barebones click to rate exchange. Ads are way more subtle than that.

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

#279

Post by mathattack »

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…

I concur. At some point I started looking for the best contest over caring about yahoo classmates engaging in political wars. It’s entertainment for them but not for me.

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

#280

Post by pessimizer »

skizm wrote: post #223

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.

WhatsApp has competitors that in Telegram/Signal etc. that are financially stable, offer more features and security, and with the mood of the government right now they would absolutely be prevented from purchasing. They would destroy WhatsApp in weeks if they did that.

Amazon is fine and doesn't need to grow. Facebook is in danger and growth was already priced in. Now it's not.

Post reply on HN