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

281–290 of 579 posts

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

#281

Post by ebruchez »

sfe22 wrote: post #220
CaptainZapp wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how direct democracy works. If we assume that Switzerland is probably closest to the ideal of a direct democracy please take note that voters can not directly vote for the executive government (The Bundesrat, or federal council). They elect members of the two houses, which in turn elects the 7 executives. Usually this is based on the recommendation by the parties and with a specific formula considering par…

I looked up the Swiss system, and it certainly is not direct democracy.

> it certainly is not direct democracy

You appear to make up your own extreme definition of what the words "direct democracy" should be and what they should mean. But it's not like that. There are ways words and condepts are commonly used. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

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

#282

Post by falcolas »

treis wrote: post #264
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.

I didn't say they had no apps. I said they don't really have apps and they don't. Their main product is search and it's accessed through the browser. If what FB is saying is true then the move by Apple helps Google. There's more or less two options for online advertising. So if companies spend less on FB then they're probably going to spend those dollars with Google

I give you Google, the app:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google/id284815942

Google search, in an iOS app. Not everyone uses it, sure, but has over 341k reviews. Facebook, as a point of comparison, only has about 4x more reviews at 1.2M. 4x is a lot, but it's also a lot less than I'd expect over something primarily used in the browser.

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

#283

Post by ineedasername »

throwaway4good wrote: post #61
samwillis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an enormous deference between Search Ads (such as those in Google search results) and display advertising such as Facebook and Googles Display Network. I assure you Google are paying Apple to be the default search engine exactly because it's basically a licence to print money . It has nothing to do with display ads. If Facebook had a search engine they would bid against Google for that role, but as it appear…

FB could surely muster the engineering resources to create a search engine that matches what Google has today. I think OP is right, it is pride that is holding Zuck back.

>FB could surely muster the engineering resources to create a search engine that matches what Google has today.

I wouldn't be so sure. Bing is an excellent counter example to that statement. And not just because (from my experience) it doesn't produce the same quality of results. It's also about user adoption. MS built a reasonable, if not clearly superior alternative to Google and spend enormous sums of money marketing it, making it the default option on the default browser installed on millions of new PC's each year, and is has single-digit market share.

Facebook doesn't have those inroads on the PC market to leverage. They'd have to build something so much better than Google that it would make Google look like Yahoo when Google first arrived on the scene. At which point Google could probably stop sandbagging their own search efforts that favor ads space over results and make up any lost ground pretty quickly.

I'm also not confident in Facebook's ability to create high quality new products anymore. The most recent big successes have come from acquisitions. I suppose they might be able to buy DDG, but they'd almost immediately lose all of its users. And unless the still wanted to build their own actual engine, they'd have to rely on the goodwill of MS to continue getting most results via Bing's engine.

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

#285

Post by ajayyy »

FearlessNebula wrote: post #240
scim-knox-twox wrote: post #19

> For years, Apple helped by offering an “identifier for advertisers” (IDFA), giving advertisers a way to track people’s behaviour on its devices. (...) But last year, citing privacy concerns, Apple turned off IDFA by default and forced apps to ask people if they want to be tracked. And everyone praised Apple for it. But if Apple really care about privacy, they'd never allowed for IDFA in the first place… > Google wi…

Why does Facebook even need the IDFA? Isn’t your Facebook account UUID also a unique ID that only you have? It’s not like people are browsing Facebook without logging in.

to link between the facebook app and other apps with the facebook ads sdk

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

#287

Post by CaptainZapp »

sfe22 wrote: post #220
CaptainZapp wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how direct democracy works. If we assume that Switzerland is probably closest to the ideal of a direct democracy please take note that voters can not directly vote for the executive government (The Bundesrat, or federal council). They elect members of the two houses, which in turn elects the 7 executives. Usually this is based on the recommendation by the parties and with a specific formula considering par…

I looked up the Swiss system, and it certainly is not direct democracy.

I'd argue that it's closest practical example of direct democracy. As in initiatives and referendums.

But I'm always happy to learn if you can come up with a counter example.

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

#288

Post by ericmay »

cercatrova wrote: post #275
jliptzin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t understand why you need Facebook or TikTok or Instagram to stay connected with friends and family. What even is “being connected”? I think people hold on to friends they meet too hard. People come and go. If you don’t maintain a friendship outside of social media then that’s ok. Let them go. Move on.

We run a family Slack group. All the functionality of being connected, none of the bullshit.

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

#289

Post by lovefeature »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#290

Post by dom96 »

alephnan wrote: post #141
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…

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…

On a more general note, anyone know of any good guides/articles describing these sorts of bets? I often have a sense of where a stock price will go but have no idea how to take advantage.
Post reply on HN