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

31–40 of 579 posts

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

#31

Post by GeekyBear »

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.…

Users have the same privacy options with Google's apps that they have with Facebook's apps.

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

#33

Post by gnfargbl »

sneak wrote: post #12
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...

I believe that most people live relatively uneventful lives, and truly believe that they have nothing to hide from anyone, and resultantly do not value their own privacy whatsoever. The loss of privacy from surveillance capitalism does not bother them at all, and practically it is all upside, because they lost nothing of value to themselves. It does not enter their minds that mass abandonment of privacy means that it…

I agree to an extent, but I think you're grossly oversimplifying the way that the average non-technical user views their privacy online. It's true that many people don't really care about advertisers tracking them, but they do care about other privacy-related aspects of their digital experience such as having their location tracked or the content of their communications monitored. As evidence of the latter, I present the enduring popularity of Signal and the fact that WhatsApp thought E2EE was an important enough feature to roll out across their entire user base.

The small minority of society that needs privacy (we should be honest and say that it includes some really nasty criminals as well as the good guys) really needs that kind of privacy, the kind that the average user is at least somewhat interested in. Ad-tracking isn't a huge concern to your average union organizer.

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

#34

Post by samwillis »

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.…

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 appears to be the case there is a Google/Facebook gentlemens agreement to not compete in that area.

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

#35

Post by scim-knox-twox »

viktorcode wrote: post #17
matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

Apple probably has the power to kill the advertising industry. Wish it would use its gatekeeper position to do good for once.

I think you are under impression that ad industry depends on tracking of individuals. That's incorrect. It just a tad less efficient without tracking.

~4% less effective

https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/31/targeted-ads-offer-little-...

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

#36

Post by samwillis »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #22
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…

> Facebook was only able to attribute about 50% of the sales to the ads, it should have been close to 100%. Word-of-mouth exists. It's possible Facebook wasn't making it up. Did you use a Facebook-specific link in the ads?

> Word-of-mouth exists

True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct.

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

#37

Post by pcardoso »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

Apple probably has the power to kill the advertising industry. Wish it would use its gatekeeper position to do good for once.

Yes, but let's not get over excited.

I'm fed up with their ads to subscribe to their services in macOS/iOS: the App Store, on Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Fitness+... I'm getting tired of clicking "no thank you".

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

#38

Post by gls2ro »

00000000005 wrote: post #23
danpalmer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that payment be for from Facebook? Opinions aside, Google are paying for a thing, not just donating money. What would Facebook pay for? I'm not sure that them being a search engine makes sense, I don't think Apple would give up the position of iMessage in favour of Messenger. (Disclaimer, I work at Google, but don't have any inside info or opinion on the Apple/Google relationship.)

> What would that payment be for from Facebook? To live. This is Tim’s town and if you think you’re doing business and cutting Tim out then you’ve got $10b concrete boots coming.

I think Google as the default search engine on Safari is a big win.

How is that just an excuse to hand over money?

Do think that putting DuckDuckGo as default in Safari will not have any influence in either DuckDuckGo or Google market share?

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

#39

Post by hollowdene »

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 declining audience share and Facebook's own efforts to change what people see.

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

#40

Post by wjnc »

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.…

Since I detect sarcasm, I'm not sure how to respond.

As someone who chooses Apple partly because of the comparative privacy versus Android I'm actually quite happy that they bargain with other parties? It reminiscent of the working of efficient markets. I have a choice. No privacy (Google, Facebook), or a tidbit (Apple, G/F via Apple) or a lot (custom ROM options, drop all G/F/A). For a tidbit of privacy I pay more, but how much I pay more is lowered by the incoming cashflow at Apple due to these arrangements. So there is a cafateria model with a powerful party bargaining on my behalf and in line with my preferences. For me, that's glass half full.

Post reply on HN