Hacker News Reader

Comment by dhnajsjdnd | Hacker News Reader

Sure, “tracking without consent” is an easy one.

It seems like Zuckerberg disagrees with you on that. He seems to think it is a very important part of their business.

I’d like to believe you are right and it’s just an implementation choice, but Facebook seems very determined to be able to continue the practice.

I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others.

Will require opt-in to track:

Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store

Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store

Won’t require opt-in to track:

Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon

Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store

Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.

Why would this be relevant if tracking without consent is just an implementation choice?

Why even bother with a lawsuit over it if it’s not an important part of their business?

Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out if the wanted to?

In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.

Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine.

> Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to?

Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above).

> In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.

Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.

Users can opt-out if they are aware of the option. This this is just about users being made aware that they have the option, and being given the chance to grant consent before the action happens.

There is no argument that I see that Apple’s changes will pick winners or losers.

All it will do is reduce the information available from users who don’t consent to it.

Apple added an opt-in requirement for Facebook’s ad business but not for its own. Users, on average, will stick with the default. How is that not picking winners and losers?

“Apple added an opt-in requirement for Facebook’s ad business but not for its own.”

This is a false statement.

Apple has had opt-ins for all tracking and user data collection for a while now.

Also, it’s not possible to seriously claim that Apple has an advertising platform that competes with Facebook.

It doesn’t.

When you go to Apple’s App Store, you see ads for apps. If you click on an ad and install the app, Apple gets paid for that conversion, and that will happen whether or not you’ve opted into “cross-app tracking”. If you see an ad for the same app on Facebook, Facebook will not get paid for that conversion unless you’ve opted in. The market for ads for apps is worth billions, and Apple put this “cross-app tracking” block in place, which will help them capture that market. By using their privileged position as platform owner and setting the default choice, they’ve taken over by fiat instead of through competition. Sounds like an antitrust case to me.

Erm, do you realize you are talking about ads that are shown only to people who are searching the App Store?

I find it hard to imagine that you believe either that this competes with Facebook’s ads even for just apps, or is worth billions.

I’m quite surprised you are trying to claim this.

Apple ad revenue projected to be $11 billion in 2025: https://www.google.com/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2019/11/15/apple-ad...

Why is this hard to believe? Digital content like apps have some of the highest margins out there, and conversion ROI is easy to demonstrate, so the dollars flow easily. It’s a nice business to be in, so it’s not surprising Apple is taking it from Facebook.

We don’t know exactly how much revenue Apple currently gets from ads, because it’s folded into the services category of their financial statements. Apple has set investor expectations that the services will be the main driver of revenue growth going forward, and ads are part of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com