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

41–50 of 579 posts

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

#41

Post by caskstrength »

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.…

Do you suggest that Google apps on iOS are somehow exempt from new privacy protections?

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

#42

Post by catach »

samwillis wrote: post #34
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 appear…

Have to wonder if that agreement would have survived a competitive Google Plus.

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

#43

Post by Nextgrid »

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…

Out of curiosity, why can’t you just make the ad point to a custom URL (on which you can then set a cookie if you wanted) and do attribution that way?

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

#44

Post by mcv »

scim-knox-twox wrote: post #35
viktorcode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I'm totally fine with ads being 4% less effective. I wish it was more.

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

#45

Post by shawabawa3 »

caskstrength wrote: post #41
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.…

Do you suggest that Google apps on iOS are somehow exempt from new privacy protections?

It wouldn't be that straightforward

Probably what OP is suggesting is that in return for that $5B, Apple will call up Google and say "hey we're adding these new privacy protections, will that be a problem?" and Google will have time in advance to get around them

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

#46

Post by Nextgrid »

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…

Good riddance? People will keep finding & buying things they need.

If nobody’s buying anything from these businesses without invasive advertising & tracking then maybe whatever goods they were selling aren’t actually necessary?

Of course there is nuance and edge cases to this, but in general I wouldn’t be surprised if society and the planet was better off once we stop producing useless garbage.

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

#47

Post by YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo »

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.…

dang can you please enforce the rules more? In the last weeks hn is getting overrun with spammy troll accounts splattering conspiracy theories left and right.

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

#48

Post by Lio »

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…

Really what you're saying is that there's a whole ecosystem of businesses that depend on unavoidable surveillance.

All Apple have done is allow users to say no.

They haven't even stopped anyone opting into surveillance if they want to. It just turns out that, when given the choice, people don't like being snooped on.

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

#49

Post by patrec »

gls2ro wrote: post #38
00000000005 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Right, like as without those 5B Apple would screw up its products by handing over all search to some guy with a Bing scraping Perl script cosplaying as a search engine.

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

#50

Post by ksec »

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.…

It isn't $5B, it is $10B+. Google's TAC in 2021 was $13B.
Post reply on HN