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

441–450 of 579 posts

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

#441

Post by npongratz »

jboy55 wrote: post #346
dom96 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just note, the poster most probably did not actually 'short' facebook, the poster used options to do this. Its pretty simple for the buy case. Options have a strike price and an expiration date. You buy a CALL option, with a strike price, that gives you an option to buy that stock for that price. Or you can buy a PUT option, that gives you the option to sell at that strike price. Example using made up numbers. FB is…

> In my example this is roughly due to the time between now and the exercise date. Over time, this shrinks, this is called beta-decay.

I think you mean theta decay. Theta is the time factor of an option's value.

Beta is, roughly, a comparison of a security's (or portfolio's) volatility versus market vol.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beta.asp

Beta decay is studied in a completely different industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

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

#442

Post by bduerst »

SllX wrote: post #427
geoduck14 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Mechanical keyboard keys that are 10" tall for standing desks.

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

#443

Post by HWR_14 »

scarface74 wrote: post #391
cheriot wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they lacked the imagination. The Facebook app would have become a web browser where Facebook controls user auth, contacts and then payments. Big $$$

By 2009, Apple and Amazon already had more credit cards on file than any other company in the US if not the world. In Apple’s case because of iTunes, before the App Store and Amazon because Amazon. Why would you use FB for payments when you were probably either shopping on Amazon, Apple or EBay using PayPal?

In 2009 neither Apple nor Amazon allowed P2P payments.

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

#444

Post by bduerst »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #258
throw0101a wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nice how Zuck said $10bn in the analysts call with nothing to back it up, but the whole press jumps on it. If Zuck knowingly gave investors bad guidance, I don't think that would go over well with the SEC: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b-5#Forward-looking... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_statement

Yeah, the CEO of a company saying numbers on official communication to investors is pretty compelling evidence on its own, especially if it's bad news. Executives don't generally lie about specifics to their investors, unless they're doing something completely fraudulent. And if you think that's the case for Facebook, you're going to need more evidence then just a gut feeling.

Not to mention supporting data for announcements like these tend to come up in discovery requests for lawsuits so I highly doubt they'd make such a definitive statement w/o the points to back it up.

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

#445

Post by DaveExeter »

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…

>So, this will definitely be effecting marketers decision making process

Affecting, not effecting.

>It certainly made us more courteous about spending on Facebook.

We assume you meant "cautious" and not "courteous".

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

#446

Post by alanlammiman »

sa1 wrote: post #428
simpss wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, agree, we wanted to try it out for this because we like it for work and it was quick to write up and publish and we thought it might be more flexible for writing up documentation, linking, etc. But we are not satisfied either: Very slow to load, formatting is fiddly and imperfect. We will have to use something else.

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

#447

Post by Irishsteve »

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…

If this holds true the headline should really be companies / brands double marketing roi due to apple privacy changes

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

#448

Post by alanlammiman »

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…

Yes like the peer reply said that's Notion, not us. But good point, another thing to keep in mind if you try to use the "Share to the web" notion feature.

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

#449

Post by deckard1 »

throwhauser wrote: post #168
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…

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…

> The "metaverse" is an idiotic, last-ditch attempt

Exactly. It's a bet-the-farm move from a company that has a track record of, best I can tell, a big fat zero in terms of in-house innovation. This is like Google deciding to shift the entire company to Google+, except Google+ was just a clone of an existing thing that actually worked. Meta has no precursor. It's an entirely new thing that Facebook is trying to will into existence without even so much as testing the waters first.

I have a feeling Zuckerberg is going to enrage investors enough that he has to flee Facebook in the middle of the night under the cover of darkness with the help of a few loyal toadies providing safe passage, or he's going to start building his Führerbunker and be the last man standing while Facebook turns to rubble. I'm slightly joking, but also... Zuck has to be in the running for the worse tech CEO ever. They paid $16 billion for WhatsApp and then started promoting their own Facebook Messenger which no one used. I feel like their intent was to kill WhatsApp in the crib. But the "crib" turned out to be the entire global population and was, in fact, too big for them to kill and get people to switch to their own garbage chat app.

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

#450

Post by [deleted] »

ksec wrote: post #63
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…

I cant upvote you enough. This single comment contains many of the contrarian view against HN. It is nice we have these real world stories on HN to balance the ideological fight against ads, where All Ads are evil.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN