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

421–430 of 579 posts

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

#421

Post by samwillis »

nonameiguess wrote: post #409
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…

You attribute 0% of purchases to repeat loyal customers who just check in on what you're selling every now and again without needing to be reminded by a marketing campaign?

Sensible question, we took this into account in our assessment. I stand by it.

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

#422

Post by ddingus »

tetraca wrote: post #379
paulcole wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I don't earn money to watch it sit in the bank. If there's something fun out there that I might like to buy, show it to me!

This mindset is so weird to me. I can't imagine just wanting to buy things for the sake of buying things. I generally only buy things because I have problems I recognize and want to solve. And the more heavily advertised a solution to one of my problems is, the more I inherently distrust it to actually be a quality lasting product/service instead of something that's just desperately trying to program me that it's act…

I go back and forth.

I like to buy things myself, but I generally have a purpose of some sort, or having used similar things, am targeting a very robust thing that I can camp on and use for a decade or two.

A good friend is always buying products, trying them out, gadgets and such. And they spend a lot, but they are always super happy with their new things and frankly, give me a lot of their older things so they can get more new things!

(that's crazy, but they do them, and we are great friends, and I make good use of the stuff falling my way too)

That said, I generally don't gauge off the AD campaigns. Big spends are a rational choice as are modest ones and or guerilla type campaigns, which the latent rebel in me is a sucker for.

What I can say, knowing someone like that, is they are entertained by new things. I'm sometimes that way, but it's rare. Like a great watch might do that, or some cool tech thing I can use with my hobby computing / making. But, my entertainment is more centered on doing stuff, and or hanging with people, maybe doing things with them.

I do hate getting a thing that sucks. Shuts me down for quite a while.

I LOVE a good score, like a thing that is just awesome and I know it will perform for ages.

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

#423

Post by jjulius »

chillage wrote: post #310
jjulius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't care. My privacy shouldn't be forced to be sacrificed just because you decided to make a cheese grater that's better than every other cheese grater in existence. >If you feel cheese graters are useless and somehow deserve to remain unbought, then replace it with any other item which does match your bar for utility value. I am doing this for nearly everything I can think of, and my privacy wins every sin…

This is off topic, I was responding to OP's statement that online ads are always useless You may well find that any societal usefulness is offset by your own principles, whether that's privacy or aversion to tech or aversion to capitalism or aversion to marketing or aversion to small businesses or what have you. Can't argue with principles, and I won't try. The topic though is whether there is any societal usefulness…

In a thread that is broadly about giving users the choice in how their personal data is tracked, analyzed, and utilized for the sake of ads, how is my comment off-topic? I mean, OP posited that perhaps we're better off without companies whose goods rely on targeted/invasive advertising, you provided the perspective of someone who might really rely on that sort of advertising, and I suggested that my right to privacy should not be superseded by someone's "need" (though I think "desire" would be more apt there) to get the word out about their product.

Privacy is incredibly useful to society, as is advertising I suppose, so I'm not quite sure how you can have a conversation about targeted advertising's societal usefulness without also talking about the impact it has to other things that are useful to society, eg privacy, that that advertising depends on.

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

#424

Post by danudey »

geoduck14 wrote: post #418
samwillis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Word-of-mouth exists True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct.

>True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct. I'm really curious what you sell now. Can you tell us? If not, can the rest of HN create fun speculations?

Maybe they had a drop-down saying "How did you hear about us?" with just "Facebook Ads" and "Not Facebook Ads", that's my theory.

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

#425

Post by GeekyBear »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #127
GeekyBear wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But Google are much, much less dependent on apps because they get all that sweet juicy search data from each iPhone (which they can then use to track you across their apps, potentially (this is possible to implement, I have no idea if they do it)).

So antitrust regulators should break up Google?

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

#426

Post by nonameiguess »

tiborsaas wrote: post #388
FearlessNebula wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess im talking about something else. You’re talking about being shown ads that are related to your interests which is fine with me. I’m talking about Facebook radicalizing people and manipulating their viewpoints and selling them on things they otherwise would have never wanted in a million years if they hadn’t used Facebook. I’m not talking “Facebook showed me a cool pen and I like to collect fountain pens so I…

If you can be manipulated by ads to be a terrorist I guess you have greater problems than tracking. In this case I'd say it's better for the public if these people are keep getting tracked.

It's not about him. Society at large has a problem if any people at all are able to be manipulated like this. And clearly, some are.

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

#427

Post by SllX »

geoduck14 wrote: post #418
samwillis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Word-of-mouth exists True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct.

>True. However in this case we are confident, based on our own internal tracking and metrics, that this is correct. I'm really curious what you sell now. Can you tell us? If not, can the rest of HN create fun speculations?

> If not, can the rest of HN create fun speculations?

Human armpit-scented cat toys.

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

#428

Post by sa1 »

simpss wrote: post #406
alanlammiman wrote: post #309

The problem isn't just Apple's action on IDFA. It's that Facebook seems to be so poorly managed on some fronts that its reactions, rather than mitigating problems, has caused further harm. For example - in a rushed effort to get their privacy issues in order, they are deactivating the live facebook integrations of customers based on cursory/mistaken/possibly machine-based readings of their privacy policies. They did…

> we don't want to track individuals - we just want to measure if the ads we paid for led to sales well. if your goal isn't tracking individuals, then why are you attaching unique ID's (in cookies) to track individuals on your website? And I'm not talking about third-party cookies disguised as first-party. logglytrackingsession (lifetime: session) notion_experiment_device_id (lifetime: 1 year) Both are unique to a sp…

One could choose a better host than Notion, but that's Notion's fault.

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

#429

Post by curious_cat_163 »

paxys wrote: post #404

Snap is still somehow up 50% today. Google is similarly doing great. The problem is more on Facebook's end than Apple's. TikTok did way more damage than Apple ever could.

What they need to realize is that there are advantages _and_ responsibilities that come with sheer scale. Their apps are rife with misinformation and gaslighting.

Facebook has become associated with argument, fight and social misery in the minds of their consumers. They need to take some substantial steps to change that. Merely wishing these issues away with posts, launching new products or changing the company name does not cut it.

Post reply on HN