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

91–100 of 579 posts

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

#91

Post by eric4smith »

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 any original videos show up there.

As the world transitions to short form video even YouTube is going to feel the pinch.

Don’t you notice every one of your favorite content creators starting “clip” channels which are blowing up with YouTube shorts and reposts to TikTok?

Facebook is beginning its long inevitable decline. Who knows if it will accelerate or just be a slow death?

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 and so he’s trying to make Facebook be the epicenter of it.

Who knows if it will work. But this has nothing if anything to do with Apple. And everything to do with the long term trends of history… or if you will, psychohistory.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

d12bb wrote: post #82
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.…

This is double bullshit: 1. All Apple did was giving users a choice (and they should've done that ages ago). If users didn't mind being tracked, or liked the "more relevant adverts" tracking provides, they would not have opted out. 2. Google is subject to exactly the same rules as Facebook is. Their apps have to ask for permission to track as Facebook's do, and Safari (which enforces privacy in many ways, too) is the…

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by krono »

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…

Yes to everything, but what even is a metaverse? I still have no idea.

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

#94

Post by samwillis »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #88
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…

Agreed. For advertisers with larger budgets, marketing mix models are still the only way to understand the relative performance of FB, Google, TV etc. - each of which is a "walled garden" that doesn't exchange data with others. FB marketing is effective, question is at what price. If those prices drop, ad dollars will flow back. It will take a few quarterly modeling cycles to reflect this though. The contra-contraria…

Exactly, as a small business we are completely dependent on the ad platforms internal attribution tools, if they don't work or can't be trusted we won't use them.

It's unfortunate that the incredably invasive tracking and profile building has become conflated with ad attribution. For us attribution is essential and we have little interest or use for invasive tracking. We just want to know from which ad a customer converted.

Personally we avoid the more invasive remarking tools as I hate it myself when you are chased across the web by a product you have looked at once.

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

#95

Post by wayoutthere »

krono wrote: post #93
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…

Yes to everything, but what even is a metaverse? I still have no idea.

A giant bag of hopium

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

#96

Post by alwillis »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #45
caskstrength wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For Apple, which has a market cap of over $3 trillion, the $10B from Google is the equivalent of sofa cushion money.

Apple isn’t going do any favors for Google for a measly $10B.

It’s much more meaningful for Google and Google knows it. For them, it’s a bargain, as it gives its advertisers access to customers who actually spend money.

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

#97

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> 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

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

#98

Post by jamil7 »

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…

> He knows the next frontier is the meta verse

Agreed with everything in this comment up until that point.

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

#99

Post by rgbrenner »

krono wrote: post #93
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…

Yes to everything, but what even is a metaverse? I still have no idea.

It's the same thing the marvelverse is... a way of referring to all of facebook's products. They're just trying to generate some hype and make their products look more forward thinking.. even though they're exactly the same as always.

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

#100

Post by ksec »

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…

>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 HN does not understand anything about Ads. Ever since I realise HN had some deep misunderstanding with Online ads, I have been stating this difference for over 3 years. The only thing I got on HN was all ads are evil. Targeting Ads, Tracking Ads, Search Ads, or the latest buzzword surveillance capitalism.

Post reply on HN