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

291–300 of 579 posts

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

#291

Post by sanedigital »

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.

Ads are extremely successful for high-ticket offers. If you'll selling a multi-thousand dollar product or service, you can afford a lot of impressions to get just the few clicks that convert for you.

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

#292

Post by zarriak »

eric4smith wrote: post #219
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…

Zuck did not get to where he is by being short sighted or stupid. The Metaverse is the obvious next evolution of online. Accelerated by the happenings of the last 2 years.

Zuck moved first in “metaverse” with Oculus 7 years ago and what does he have to show for it?

Some decent/good hardware locked behind logging into your Facebook account.

If it had been any other company that had done with Oculus what Facebook has done with it they would be mocked endlessly for such magnitude of failure.

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

#293

Post by willio58 »

yalogin wrote: post #261

I haven't followed the whole apple privacy push and how it impacted advertising. However, isn't everyone always logged into Facebook? If so they already know who is using it and any interaction will tell them exactly who used it. How does the Apple's platform level change effect them? Am I missing something?

It’s not Facebook knowing who used their app, it’s restrictions on what data Facebook can pull from your phone. It’s also making it clear to users how often this data is being fetched, and the option to opt out of data collection is new too.

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

#294

Post by np- »

orbifold wrote: post #200
dalbasal wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Yeah, whenever I see others scrolling through content at Facebook, I can't help but wonder who would voluntarily subject themselves to so much garbage information. It is similar with Twitter, which I use for "science communication". But the amount of miscellaneous memes and low quality click bait ads that one has to endure is almost physically painful.

Pretty sure some people’s brains are just stuck in an infinite dopamine kick loop. I consider it similar to the opioid epidemic, where people’s brains have been re-wired to compulsively do things they might not want to do. Next time try asking someone you see scrolling Facebook if they’re actually enjoying themselves and I guarantee they will express some form of regret (but then will continue doing it).

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

#295

Post by cercatrova »

ericmay wrote: post #288
cercatrova wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can follow all my friends and family on Instagram and see what they're doing. I don't necessarily need all my friends and family to talk to each other like in a big group chat. It's a one to many relationship (me to them) versus many to many (everyone to everyone else).

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

#296

Post by pessimizer »

arepublicadoceu wrote: post #278
pessimizer wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't doubt they work. I doubt the margin of work done by facebook ads on working professional adults over the work of ads that they are exposed to through other means and by word of mouth. And not that that margin doesn't exist and not that it's not worthwhile to advertise on facebook, but the doubt is that as compared to any other demographic being advertised to that it's worth so much more.

Advertising to impulsive spenders is worth more than advertising to less impulsive spenders. Less impulsive spenders are informed by ads, more impulsive spenders are convinced by ads.

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

#297

Post by iamacyborg »

hollowdene wrote: post #39

There's a whole ecosystem of businesses that rely on Facebook that are going to start hurting a lot over the next few years. I used to work at a publisher where 80% of their website traffic came from Facebook. They haven't seen audience growth in years and their audience is skewing older and older, which is bad for their advertising business Businesses like that are going to get steadily squeezed both by Facebook's d…

> They haven't seen audience growth in years and their audience is skewing older and older, which is bad for their advertising business

Older people have more money to spend and are therefore worth more to advertisers.

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

#298

Post by strikelaserclaw »

yalogin wrote: post #261

I haven't followed the whole apple privacy push and how it impacted advertising. However, isn't everyone always logged into Facebook? If so they already know who is using it and any interaction will tell them exactly who used it. How does the Apple's platform level change effect them? Am I missing something?

i had this same question, maybe someone can explain.

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

#299

Post by ineedasername »

d12bb wrote: post #74

Nice how Zuck said $10bn in the analysts call with nothing to back it up, but the whole press jumps on it. Apple is not Facebook's problem, all they did was giving users a choice, which should have happened ages ago. So Facebook just says Apple kills our business without ever thinking that maybe users don't like the way they do business. If they did, they wouldn't opt out…

What would be his motive for saying revenue would be $10B less than previous trends would predict? They posted record revenue again in 2021, so it doesn't look like he's trying to cast a scapegoat for stagnant revenue.
Post reply on HN