Facebook is pushing back on Apple’s new iPhone privacy rules
npr.org
npr.org
Now that so much news has spread about these privacy additions, Apple selling out will actively hurt this image they have spent a lot of time building. It’s going to have to be an extremely lucrative agreement between them and Facebook for it to be worth it.
> Apple’s most recent earnings report revealed that it earned $12.51B from Services in calendar Q3/fiscal Q4, though there is no breakdown on how much of this comes from ad revenue.
Notice the 'could's:
> Samik Chatterjee argued the company could leverage the millions of users who search its App Store and Safari browser daily to generate the stellar growth seen by Facebook and Google in recent years.
> he launch of Apple TV+, coupled with Apple Inc’s foray into digital services, could help the company increase its income from advertising by more than five fold to $11 billion annually
This article is literally just speculation. Actually, it's quoting someone's speculation.
> The report seems highly speculative…
And even the wildest estimates put it far short on the actual money maker, which is hardware sales. When push comes to shove, if they have to choose between ad and devices, they won’t hesitate long.
Apple also knows which App Store ads I saw given that their server sent them to me in the first place. The ads are (at least for now) limited to the App Store and don't carry over across the web or other Apple apps.
Thus I don't see the problem with Apple using the data they've already got to provide anonymized conversion metrics to app developers.
No it doesn’t.
It provides aggregate statistics on downloads, just like any analytics server.
No data on users is shared.
Ads do not always mean user tracking.
Google built a super successful ad business on search terms alone, long before they got into user tracking.
Do you have any evidence that Apple tracks users for their ad business - which only sells ads for apps when users search for them?
As requested, evidence of tracking in iPhones - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/11/16/appl...
That isn’t evidence of Apple tracking anything.
IDFA is used by Facebook and ad-tech companies.
Apple are switching IDFA to be Opt-In rather than opt out.
That’s what Facebook is complaining about.
The mechanism for tracking users is already present. What more proof do you need?
Even if you manage to toggle 3rd parties out of your phone. You cannot toggle the Apple out of it.
Evidence that Apple uses it.
The mechanism relies on libraries which send user behavior from other app to Facebook. These are correlated by the ID.
The identifier is not the mechanism. The mechanism is Facebook’s library.
Apple has no such mechanism.
> You cannot toggle the Apple out of it
False.
There is a toggle for the entire feature.
Calling tracking a cardinal rule of ads is like calling HTML a cardinal rule of communication. Sure it might be ubiquitous now, but if HTML were to suddenly disappear I guarantee communication between humans won’t stop — it would adapt. Tracking isn’t a foundation, it is merely what has worked this past decade or so.
Fact of the matter is, advertising today / web marketing relies on user tracking. I'm yet to see anyone debunk this.
Let's call it what it is -- stalking.
It’s ‘disingenuous’ to claim that as some cardinal rule.
It’s not - it just happens to be the most popular business fad of the 2010s.
What works in business changes over time. That is a cardinal rule.
But in no way does it need it. We could easily go back to untargeted, reasonably effective ads that appeal to broad markets instead of extremely specific ones.
Ecosystem concerns aren’t as relevant today, since both Android and iOS have everything you’d want, but in the olden days of Blackberry, Microsoft, and many other mobile operating system vendors trying to compete, they were always seriously hampered by their lack of ecosystem.
Utterly baffled.
because it would create an obvious a compelling opportunity for someone to finally break the stranglehold of FB's monopoly.
I miss my friend and family connections, but most people in my community won't go near that ecosystem with a flaming 10' pole any longer, and many friends like me, despair that our loved ones' reaction to e.g. the Social Dilemma and ongoing revelation after revelation of sociopathic corporate amorality is "yes that is sad but I have choice" because "all my friends are only insta" or "my cottage business depends entirely on my pages" etc etc.
I cannot wait for them to go down in flames.
Bring it Apple.
Few things could flat out annihilate Facebook, but punching a large hole in their network is probably one of them.
So FB has Apple with some leverage over them saying accept this or else. FB is in a weak position because it would be hard to tell your users hey leave Apple because they won't let us take all your data without permission. I don't feel for them at all.
If there is some documentation you claim shows iAds being privileged, please post a link.
Apple isn't a monopoly -- they're a walled garden.
I'm all for regulations that force Apple to open up their hardware so that people can install different software on it, or to disable the walled-garden mode of their software platform akin to how you can install lineageOS or freedroid on android devices but I don't think it's reasonable to mandate that Apple must allow Facebook to do something with their software simply because Apple does it with theirs.
FB's noise around this feels very out of character, even for something that's devolved into a personal conflict. They may be truly scared of the update.
This is definitely good for privacy in the short term, but long term will depend on if Apple decides to monetize this data themselves.
Or they could simply update the data-sharing default to "Yes" and 75%+ would never disable it.
> The don’t collect this data. How could they monetize it?
Your answer is essentially -
“in principle they could build tracking into all their software”
You seem to be suggesting that their plan is to fein interest in privacy to undermine all the tracking companies first, and then reverse their stance and become a super-intrusive tracking company.
That seems very far fetched and weirdly conspiracy like.
Also obviously not true, given that they have been lobbying for privacy legislation.
Even if Apple’s motives are somehow nefarious, Facebook is being scummy in the first place, so it’s a fair move for Apple to take advantage of that, IMO.
You nailed it. Facebook wants to confuse and distract. There's absolutely no reason why Apple's push for user permission on tracking would cause the Facebook app to become subscription-based. WTF?
So it's hard to come to a conclusion that Apple hates ads. It's easier to say that Apple dislikes advertiser networks, since their own attempt at a generic network (iAds) failed miserably. It's not even clear to me that blocking tracking is going to kill ads as a revenue stream, all it will do is make ads more expensive because they're slightly less targeted on iOS?
Also, Apple runs their own seemingly successful ad market within the App Store app — something I'm reminded of each time I search for an app and see a competitor's app I don't want at the top of my search results, filling my screen with the new design. So it's hard to say that Apple does this for the best user experience. Showing extra popups isn't great UX. And Apple likes free apps, it makes their phone and platform more valuable, so they can charge more for the hardware knowing folks can get great apps inexpensively or free.
While I'm in favour of Apple losing its complete monopoly over App Stores and apps that compete with its own, I actually am in favour of Apple enforcing these policies on apps from its own App Store and platform. And while I would say that third-party stores could have different stances on permissions, the idea that a third-party app store could prevent a popup asking to share a phone's identifier, for example, is frankly a security bypass. The same is true if apps want to communicate with other apps without the operating system knowing.
Personally, I'd love it if Apple went a step farther and used the network layer and code signing to identify which apps actively use which trackers and tracking networks the same way they currently identify apps that use the microphone and camera. It'd be fascinating to see an operating system feature that says 50% of my network traffic in Application X was telemetry being sent to Facebook, for example.
If you had broken this paragraph out into a separate post, it might get more and highly deserved attention.
It wouldn’t become unviable for Facebook because even with a smaller number of users consenting to tracking they would still have a gigantic ad market.
That's a very healthy attitude towards Apple's claims. They developed all these APIs that allow app makers to spy on their users, and then blame the app makers for spying.
For example, why does any app need to know which other apps I have installed, and how long I use them? This permission should very sparingly pass the review process, and only for apps in specific categories.
What are you referring to? As far as I know, one app can't query the list and usage time of other installed apps on iOS. This stackoverflow question[1] seems to confirm this. But please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51634436/how-to-get-a-li...
This should be done the same as with location and microphone access... ie. "ask the user". "Flashlight 2000 DX app wants to access list of apps installed - allow once, allow always, deny now, deny always". Facebook wants to track 50 different things? Well.. ask the user 50 different times and try to explain why you want access to their call history and calendar data (adding calendar entries could also be a write-only option, with optional unique ids to change/remove entries).... and give your UX team a headache. Also, "deny" should be the "bolded" default. Maybe even give the user a list of unchecked permission the app wants, with explanations why it needs them, and have the user check the ones they want to give to the app (default state is unchecked (deny)).
Also granularity is key... giving location access for bluetooth connections, giving "manage calls" access to stop playing music when you get a call, etc. is just stupid.
Apple needs to force them to be up front from the very beginning that their stupid game or screensaver or else is also a tracking app. And boot any app that uses your phone to do anything beyond what they told you they would do in the app store description.
My how things have changed
Nowadays, people are more aware about such things, so maybe you can start to assume the users are more comfortable about computing and the internet. So they should change their direction.
I'd agree with the sentiment if it was like Samsung making fun of removing a headphone jack, only to do the same thing less than a year later.
Vista popped up inscrutable boxes for all kinds of actions, with no explanation.
This is a small number of permissions, each explained clearly.
If Microsoft had done it this way, nobody would have laughed.
Yes.
Basically, i'd be happy if those "risky" permissions would be hidden in app management in settings, disabled by default, and enabled only by power users.
The problem now is, that due to fscked up permissions schemes, some apps are unable to work at all, even the stuff they work now, some due to play store issues (eg. termux because they want to run downloaded code), and some due to missing apis (eg vnc servers).
That a big No. List of apps uniquely identifies the device and the user. Is this api available??
I just want the app to ask me, and me to decide if the app really needs it or not.
They don't give you the ability to block them.
and of course, you can't find out what is going in and out of your phone over the network, and you definitely can't firewall it. ("content blockers" are nerfed)
The problem is all of these things you mention are also useful for things users want. Often they are useful for things users want inside their applications. Nobody wants a neutered OS.
It is not apple's way to advertise this capability is available, and give you granular control.
People want apps to be able to do things and those things can often allow tracking in addition to being useful to the user. There is pretty much one API Apple devised specifically for tracking users and this very issue is Apple attempting to shut down.
Clarification: Just to be clear, Apple isn’t shutting down the API entirely, they are changing it from opt-out to opt-in.
It helps collect data that can be used to help detect malicious users of services.
What are you talking about?
They didn’t develop any such APIs, and have been progressively closing up anything that can be exploited that was left over from Mac OS.
Also, they aren’t blaming anyone for using anything they have built.
They are just asking users to consent to apps using it.
Why is that a problem?
- There was never any API for a third party app on iOS to get the time spent in another app. The only workaround I saw to this was an app that asked you to screenshot your app usage screen, and it was able to process those screenshots in an automated way (can't find the link).
- There is an API to open URLs between apps, so that one app can link to another app. When developers realized that they could check whether or not a given URL was openable to check if an app is installed, they started abusing this API to check every app on the system. Apple cracked down on the API in iOS 9 and made it so that all apps declare which other apps they can check, and App Review decides if they have a legitimate use: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiapplicatio...
Since I can't edit my original comment, I chose to reply to it instead of replying to everyone who corrected me. Yes, there's no API to directly query installed apps and usage on iOS. I think I got the wrong impression from years ago, when the function canOpenURL() could be abused to detect which apps were installed[0]. Thank you all for the corrections.
0. https://useyourloaf.com/blog/querying-url-schemes-with-canop...
SB's absolutely need a platform to compete, but I'm absolutely incredulous that FB is that platform, much less Google or any other like company.
I'm definitely not disagreeing "small business" has been turned into a propaganda term. That process was helped by the silly tax classification of what's a "small business". A lot of marketing dollars go into making people think the mom and pop florist when they hear the term and not the hedge fund.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...
What tools or platforms for advertising are a better fit for small business in your mind?
I am against Facebook, but they are not lying at all. Facebook’s walled garden offers a robust advertising platform for small businesses that actually evens the field.
I do programmatic advertising on top of the open web, and your experience is correct there, but FB is different.
My understanding is that Facebook does not sell this data, but rather lets advertisers create hyper-targeted ads, which are only possible because of this data.
Edit: Certainly not trying to defend Facebook here (in the slightest). Just trying to correct an inaccuracy in the article.
I'd phrase it more along the lines of Facebook indirectly selling the data as hypertargeted ads, while keeping control of the data themselves.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/122...
Facebook collect data to sell targetted adspace, they do not sell data. This is a plain fact.
"In total, it said the social network had special arrangements with more than 150 companies to share its members' personal data. Most of these, it said, were other tech firms, but the list also included online retailers, car-makers and media organisations, including the NYT itself, among others."
A plain fact that requires looking realistically at how colloquialisms are used combined with a little bit of technical know how. How many businesses do you know actually "sell data"? The only market I can think of are companies like Zoominfo. Outside of that there really aren't that many companies that "sell your data". However, you'll see a ton of social justice campaigns against "stop companies selling your data". They aren't going after Zoominfo, they're going after Facebook.
Does facebook capture data? Yes.
Do they literally take that data and sell it byte for byte to other people? No.
Is that data absolutely necessary to sell their products or services? Yes.
So, in effect, its easier to say to the common person "they're selling your data" than "they're harvesting their data so they can sell products and services". Facebook is trying to defend itself in the public eye by responding to this slogan - not by the real factor that matters.
There are conferences. Much of the data can be obtained as Salesforce "apps" - connect your CRM to our massive data portal and we'll fill in information that you don't have. The biggest of these is owned by SF and called Data.com.
Not to hand waive away anyone's pre-baked hatred of Google/FB/etc., but there is an actual data industry that does buy and sell your data, with no controls over it and what it can be used for. By comparison, FB and Google are much better stewards.
From a user privacy perspective, I’m skeeved out that Facebook sells access to data rather than giving out copies. The only difference is that Facebook makes more money.
It’s like those asshole companies that say they don’t sell data, but only rent it. That’s not the point that I care about.
The more info they have, the more accurate they can be about renting out the right ones.
Until/unless personal data becomes a liability for corporations they will continue to mine it and let us mortals deal with the fallout.
You certainly say they exploit it on behalf of their customers, but we need to maintain the distinction between this, and the companies that actually do sell the data they collect, because once sold, you can never trace who is using the data, whereas with Facebook and Google’s model, you can.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not in Facebook’s interest to sell the data. If they did, they would lose their advantage quite quickly.
Facebook has definitely undermined trust on what data it shares.
However that is not it’s normal model.
For example Telegram has a very specific approach to security based on "you can trust us", by default chats are not end-to-end encrypted, they use non-standard encryption and the app is free, but they are upfront on why such tradeoffs are made and their point of view in making them.
Facebook could have a position of "personalized advertising is the future" and allow ipertargeted marketing by means of gathering every scrap of data they could find. But they could draw the line to keeping it within their own databases and never distributing any of it. Apparently their main line of bussiness is exactly like that, but they do not do only that, they also partake in sharing that data.
Facebook, if you know any small business that have a specific region of operation (e.g. one city) derive significant benefit and growth from Facebook's targeted advertising that they just were not seeing before.
Of course, if anyone logs in and fetches their data from facebook as a download and go through it, it is really rather unbelievable how much data there is beyond geographical data. Some of it pretty scary.
What intrigues me further, after i tried to do the same with google, i don't believe google are nearly as open to how much data they hold on a person. There doesn't seem to be any takeaway service that indicates the same depth of information. But of course we know for a fact they do hold some of it.
Anyway, the long and short of it is advertising is all we have to support enormous social networks and I feel some level of personalised data provides mutual benefit. It should of course all be opt in with no exceptions.
I'm actually conceptualising a service/product around this concept right now.
In fact, if they "sell" their user data, anti-trust regulators will be very happy; they want big techs to share user data to its competitors but the big techs are using user privacy and security as their excuses to rule out new competitions in the industry. Apple took the lead and other big techs are now following.
Even if they don't, Facebook is not the only app in the world. Tracking being disabled by default is a good thing, no matter what Facebook does with it.
But when you parse out what it means you are left with something more accurately stated as: "<Company> will not sell its proprietary assets."
It sort of like the operator of a hotel saying "I don't sell rooms".
We only sell the finest artisanal sausages rendered from gently-euthanised young canines.
Selling the actual data and selling access to use the data is a meaningless distinction.
Money changes hands. The data is used.
Perhaps we should say "renting" the data. Just the way a hotel rents you a room, but you use it on the hotel's premises.
(I'm surprised a bit, i thought phones offer app isolation).
The only things that comes to mind is to correlate device ids from different apps if the apps use the same analytics/advertising networks.
Pls enlighten me...
This, and also anything that uses "Sign in with Facebook". (That's one of several reasons I have for never using anything that requires signing in with Facebook or Google; if I can't create a username or enter an email address, I generally don't want to use it.)
Is this more due to FB dragnet network analytics that they can put enough data together that it doesn't matter if you isolate the app?
Exactly this.
This is probaly in the “/tmp” or similar directory and probably useful for the system as a whole to be readable (or probably /dev or /proc). It is not a big deal unless you are facebook and, for instance, want to know if your user watches foxnews or has the cnn app or whatever.
AFAIK just doing “ps” gives you a LOT of info on any unix env.
They can tie all of this data neatly together using an identifier which Apple has to date provided as an opt-out service. Apple is now changing this to opt-in, so all these developers who have included APIs which are sneaking data out to the Google and Facebook will need to include a pop-up to get permissions to tie their data to the rest of Google and Facebook’s acquired knowledge about you.
A long time ago, device IDs were available to apps. But that changed because those are typically immutable and the user has no control on revealing a different one to apps. So the makers of the operating systems brought a new identifier (IDFA in Apple’s OSes) that can be controlled through settings. Even before the forthcoming iOS update, you could just turn off cross app tracking completely by turning on Settings->Privacy->Advertising->Limit Ad Tracking in previous versions. But this was off by default, meaning tracking was allowed unless disabled by the user. Now it’s an explicit prompt when an app asks for the IDFA. The IDFA can be used to uniquely identify and connect a user across apps.
If it's not obvious, these Facebook libraries are trojan malware, full stop. And, even though iOS apps are sandboxed, if 50% of a user's apps have the same Facebook library baked into them, it's not hard for Facebook to link all that data together to determine usage patterns across apps.
The reason why they're fighting with Apple now is that it used to be much easier for Facebook to obtain a device-unique identifier that each app could forward along to Facebook, giving them device-level usage data. Apple now sees the privacy flaws in device-unique ids, and has either started or plans to start rotating those device ids and making them unique at the app-level only, which reduces the resolution of its tracking from the device level to the network level.
I know apple probably has deals with malicious governments regarding data access, but at least they are standing up to FB and exposing their vulnerable points where it hurts badly, Zuckerberg has no clothes.
Even my SSO works well enough. Some notifications rely on Google Play Services though, but I find I don't really miss those apps anyway.
The advanced knowledge i'm referring to is to first know that GrapheneOS exists, know how to enable OEM unlocking, know how to select the correct factory image and so on.
People don't care and cannot be expected to care. Apple, as much as i dislike several of their practices, provide a phone that works when you need it to. AFAIK, the iphone's primary purpose as a phone - has never had an incident where a software bug prevented someone from placing a call.
It's a reason I keep thinking about replacing my current phone with a used iPhone X, though the 12 mini would be nicer for the screen size.
What do you mean by this, exactly? Not being funny, just don't understand this as a con.
What would you like to customise, and why? How is being unable to do so harmful to users?
Genuine questions, because I can't think of much I'd like to customise. Personally, I like not having options because it keeps things simple.
People with apple products tend to keep better care of the products than the latter too.
Why is this important. Are you saying that PC users are stupider than Mac users or something? The end result is that PC users go through more hardware than Macs. I consider myself pretty decent with computers and use both. My five year old MacBook Air runs fine, I’ve gone through two PC laptops (that were always bigger) and they don’t tend to survive windows updates. I’ve even churned through yearly chrome books that seem to be made out of paper mache or something.
Perhaps people are trainable to do the right thing. But it’s been decades, maybe we think about why this training fails on aggregate.
In the meantime, my personal experience of cost/year being cheaper with Mac vs PC stands for me.
My personal experience is my all my laptops last. People have problems with macs. People have problems with PCs. Doesn’t mean any are better than the other. But people with pc laptops will more often update their laptop for next to no gain over what they already had.
I waited a long time for a new small iPhone and eventually got to the point where I had to buy a new phone, because my SE lasted about 15 minutes & I needed to carry around battery packs just to use it.
Apple Pay in particular is better with thumb reader instead of the tap, look at, tap again buggy process.
I could really get behind having both (esp if I could combined).
Similar to how they let the Mac line languish for a while because it wasn't their top seller without realizing if they sleep on that segment it will hurt the iPhone in the long run.
I can't find the equivalent on iOS. All my searches lead to ad blockers using Safari's content blocking, but the VPN-style ad blockers appear to violate Apple's terms, and so aren't in the app store. I've also seen recommendations to use Pi hole on my network, which is fine until I leave the house.
If anyone has recommendations for system-wide VPN/DNS-based blockers for iOS, please share. That's the last real thing keeping me on Android.
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html
DNScloak and an ad blocking hosts file, such as the one here: https://github.com/BlackJack8/iOSAdblockList would be another option.
[1]: https://nextdns.io/
https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robpegoraro/2020/10/15/apple-to...
And so many others. Apple phone users weren't allowed by Apple to have Spotify as their default music program until recently.
How do I feel now? I absolutely love this ecosystem. I don't fear OS updates like I used to with Android. I don't fear my device will be stranded without updates. The UI is clean. The 11 is as fast today as when I got it. It seamlessly works the watch and my Bose headphones. BT was always finicky with the Android phones I had.
And there's the privacy angle.
Having to jailbreak to side-load apps that aren't on an approved storefront is not acceptable.
Being born a male a few decades ago
I suspect it’s as stupid as ranking all members based on some dumb algorithm like “25 year olds like females, this is a female” and just shoveling garbage.
Years ago Facebook just kept recommending people I hated over and over. I wish they would have a mode of “you’re good, we can’t think of anyone else you like.”
It’s like going into a store and the salesperson says “this is perfect for you” and they are just showing you every item in their store.
Would love to see some evidence of that. That's quite an accusation and it should be taken seriously.
Isn't it opt-in by using their platform? Or is your argument that targeted ads are not common knowledge to Facebook users? I likely wouldn't use Facebook or Google etc. if I had to pay cash; fine with paying with personal data; but for people who aren't fine with that, they shouldn't use it.
I realize that any attempt to discuss this is inviting downvotes, but I just ask for a quick comment if you do choose to downvote. I try to be very open minded.
Separately, opt in implies informed consent. Most users have no clue what data Facebook is capturing. It's not informed.
The iPhone update doesn't even immediately forbid tracking, it just requests apps to ask for permission. That simple change pushed Facebook to buy newspaper, radio and TV ads to try to get people to reject the update. Think about it: they feel threatened by user awareness.
The dialog pops up and you give your consent for the FB app to track whatever it wants, because you're fine with that.
Other users similarly are allowed to make their own choice as to whether they accept that trade off.
I don't think this is an entirely fair argument unless it is exceedingly clear what you are opting in to. The fact that FB (and others) are so resistant to being more transparent about this is in itself informative.
Sadly there is some truth to that. In a better world it would be regarded as the absolute, bare minimum.
I applaud the fight in that it hopefully makes Facebook weaker but I'm not cheering for Apple having this power either. I'd rather wish for their greed to cause these two to destroy each other.
I still haven't heard anything about a privacy consent screen regarding the default Google search box.
Can't fix the whole world all at once, but Apple is not uncompromising in their privacy stance by any means.
Now if Apple exempted Google from Adblock and cross site cookies that would be a different story.
A Google search on an iPhone and a Google search on an android produces very different data gathered by Google.
Apple is positioning itself as The Privacy Company today, but they've benefited immensely from the attention economy over the last 15 years.
They would not have sold as many millions of iPhones, iPods (heck, even Macbooks) in the last decade, if Instagram & Facebook weren't there to suck people in to their platform (clearly, the same is true for Android). Now that the iDevices are a self-sustaining status symbol with mass adoption and institutionally-ingrained utility outside of social media, Apple no longer needs to trade user privacy to build their moat, and they can pretend that they've been on the user's side all along.
Don't get me wrong, Apple's motions here are very good. But the entire mobile computing industry was bootstrapped with addiction. Facebook and its ilk might have been the perpetrators, but they were not the only beneficiaries.
Google can’t provide privacy that users want as it would bankrupt them. Apple can. Other than that, they can both do the same hardware, software, apps, etc.
I’m surprised it took them this long to really start driving it home. I think they were either trying to figure out if monetarily they wanted to start selling data. Or the buying public finally started caring.
The truth is that all the huge advertising revenue is just a plus for the investors, the apps would have been created anyways, and then network effects take care of the content.
I really don’t see the logic in this.
It’s pretty obvious these devices were useful for many things - messaging and the web would have been enough to guarantee growth.
I think you have the causality the wrong way round.
People only use Facebook so much because the iPhone put it in their pocket rather than on their desk.
Facebook would be giving away money if they ever actually sold your data. As everyone here knows, they use that data to target the ads that they sell.
Do journalists phrase it this way out of ignorance, or is it an intentional lie to make Facebook look even worse than it is?
I don't expect the usual reader to understand how that data is commoditized inside Facebook to serve better ads. Do you remember how a US Senator had a hard time understanding how ads allowed Facebook to remain free? People will not grasp without significant effort the ads economy and no journalist wants to take on that every time they write about tracking.
It's a tough situation. I'm not satisfied with how they do it, but I understand it's a limitation related to the medium and target audience.
Only being able to show me ads in some apps is a comically narrow way of way of “having sold all my data”, akin to “Thugs have sold my house” for “temporarily skinny-dipping in my swimming pool while we were on holidays”. Not nice, but they didn’t sell my house, and Facebook didn’t sell my data, just told an advertiser they could put a picture in a window where there would be house-owners passing by.
I mean, it was always kinda obvious, but seeing them confirm it out right is interesting, to say the least.
E.g. if anti-vaxxers started pushing a campaign saying "doctors want to stab your arms with needles", I'd expect a similar pushback from the medical community about the perception-coloring of this phrasing (even if it's technically true). In both cases, it seems like the argument is more of "Yes people can opt in to that, but the opt-in process shouldn't bias you against opting in"
Whether that's a fair argument or not, I'll leave to society.
Is this better?
"This owners of this app are looking to gather as much information about you as possible so they can use it as leverage against you. They will sell that information to political agents who will use your demographics against you. There will be advertisers who know when you are having your period, when you are pregnant, and that you've searched for penis enhancing tools. While they probably won't share this information around, they will let advertisers buy adverts discretely targeting your race, gender, and sexual preferences."
Is that a better message?
I think Apple is being quite generous here myself. I'd have the dialog be bright red with a toxic logo on the yes button.
I’ve been successful enough to train my family to use 1Password[4], calendar their school works, etc. I’m not against paying for the things that my family and I get happiness from, such as YouTube Premium, Zoom, and the like.
I stopped using Facebook 5+ years back but maintained my account just so I can help families, friends who will usually ask me to fix their page for their tiny businesses, find or set up something new.
When Mark Zuckerberg said something to the effect of -- we do algorithms to help and serve people get the right ads; my thoughts were, “Wrong Question. Why the f*k would someone wants ads in the first place?”
But then, I realized that my wife likes the ads that come up on her Facebook, Instagram accounts. That is where she “discovers” all the awesome things she likes. So does my daughter. She loves the ads about Roblox, Minecraft, and the like. She had warned me to stop messing with her computers and trying to make them “behave like yours!”
The real world is an entirely different place where most people barely know anything of the underlying technology beyond the thin veil of interfaces that they use. Facebook and many others take advantage of that. If I'm choosing between the devils, I'd choose the lesser one.
This kind of stuff happens a lot. Almost every (Android) app I've downloaded in the past two years refuses to run if I don't allow it to see my location. Why does an HP photo printer app need my location? Answer: It doesn't. So now I have to install a GPS spoofer app just to print a photo.
The way to fix this nonsense permanently is to give the user a single dashboard that lets him/her determine for every app whether it can see true or random data when it tries to snoop. That way the FB app cannot tell when it's being denied something it wants, and thus it cannot arbitrarily decide not to work for that reason.
It's critically important that by default apps should not be allowed to know when they are being denied access to private data.
"This discouragement, this is going to have a real impact on the Internet as we know it, which is increasingly going to move to a paid experience, which again, benefits Apple's bottom line..."
If you are starting a company with a very specific market, you might pay for your first customers more.
Second may have some ground. But does seem shallow once you consider that in order to support small business you are opting to take away privacy controls from individuals. What ethical model favors the ability of small sized businesses to spend less on marketing over individual's right to privacy?
The gist of the argument being that, regardless of what you think about Facebook, hyper-targeted "lookalike audience" models to target ads against actually do level the playing field for small businesses who do not the resources to produce large scale ad campaigns. Highly recommended reading.
Typically, the "ends" is to "maximize aggregate utility across all actors" i.e. also often described as "the greater good". As shown by your example: "By stealing your kidneys we can give them to starving orphans."
However, when it comes to targeted advertising, the "ends" is "maximize aggregate utility for small and large capitalists". As such the example should be: "By stealing kidneys from starving orphans, we can sell them to temporarily[0] sustain capitalists". Which frankly is a very poor "ends" from my (and hopefully the majority of consumer's) perspective.
[0] Why "temporarily"?: Because the capitalist growth mindset will require more kidneys soon. Arguably, this implies there is no "ends" and therefore it might be incorrect to use any "ends justify the means" argument in this context.
I think transparency and allowing people to make the choice is fair. I don't suspect a lot of people give the "free" aspect much thought, and I'm glad this is getting the news out there.
I really wish companies would give you the option to pay to not be tracked, or exchange your information for tracked ads. I don't love that even though I subscribe to some online publication they still have ads.
Jaron Lanier a good set of videos on the problem and has a proposal to get you paid for your information (videos).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/23/opinion/data-...
So essentially, people here tend to agree in principle with Apple protecting user privacy and think Facebook is overbearing and infringing on user privacy, but think Apple should be legally stripped of any tools to actually protect users' privacy, because muh sideloading is more important than people's privacy.
Just bury a toggle deep in settings somewhere.
Going further than that effectively removes the point of app review - Facebook/etc will immediately demand that you sideload to bypass the app review and just demand all permissions.
this is not a theoretical problem, Facebook has already been busted for asking users to sideload a version signed with their developer credentials that scrapes up data that apple won't let them collect on the public release. You are basically suggesting that they be allowed to do that officially.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-hits-back-facebook-revo...
This is what the data sharing is about. If you’re a regular user a Facebook that ad from the Charleston SC burger joint will still reach you. They don’t share that data with anyone else.
It’s the random game or app you install that will no longer push their data to Facebook.
Edit. Fixed typo.
That's all they are doing. They aren't preventing companies from tracking users in this way. They are just requiring them to get permission.
Says a lot about Facebook's business model that this is a cause for "all-out war," and that they'd rather try to stop the feature than convince their users to enable it. I guess they know that at the end of they day if they can't do this behind their users' backs, they probably aren't going to be able to do it at all.
I dislike Apples closed ecosystem (anf google trying to do the same), but if it can weaken FB's grip on people, it might bring some benefit even to non apple customers.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-hits-back-facebook-revo...
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2019/01/apple-p...
The burger restaurant clip in the audio...couldn’t they still target users just based on interests? And not actually linking those interests to a specific person?
And on the other hand, I don’t hear much from Google.
I can't get that article to load, so I'm hoping they address how she knows that 90% of her business comes from facebook, and how hyper targeted ads are more effective than just geo-located tags.
It seems like ads for her business would be good for users within 'x' number of miles/blocks/whatever of her business, and not necessarily based on their interests, correct?
This isn't about privacy or user data, it's a disagreement over how revenue is shared.
So rather than this sort of wording from the article: centers on the iPhone data of millions of people and whether companies should be able to track
We be read something like this: Facebook and Google go to war with Apple over revenue sharing agreement.
When one or another of them does things that changes who gets what sized slice, the others get upset.
There’s one big pie of US GDP. That doesn’t mean anytime someone gains or loses revenue that they are sharing it with someone else. Or at least there is no utility to be gained from that statement.
I think Apple is smart enough to know how to spin it if Facebook or Google left the App Store because of privacy issues. Some users would be annoyed at Apple, sure, but I would bet many users would see it as a Facebook/Google problem. I didn't hear people blame Apple for requiring listing what data is being collected when Google started not updating their apps and warnings started appearing.
That is the price Apple charges for providing payment-related services on its platform. It is not a tax.
There is no opt out, and price is a function of earnings rather than value added.
Taxes imposed by a government are compulsory.
Words still have meaning and using tax to refer to Apple's fees is completely incorrect.
You can opt out by moving out of the country. /s
In that sense, I don't think you can opt out of the "Apple tax" because there are exactly 2 platforms both of which you have to be present on, otherwise you're not gonna reach your users.
This isn't bad for consumers, it's bad for producers.
I think you'll find we have more than two customers for our wares.
There are tons of things that are paid for on a percentage basis, and the "is this value added or not" line is pretty difficult to define clearly.
It doesn't make sense to think of it as a tax, really, sure taxes can be used to provide services (or other things) but the fee being paid here is directly tied to the service you are receiving. If you want to draw parallels with government, it would better match a toll road or bridge; you can still argue the total collected toll doesn't fairly match the cost of providing the service, but the mechanism is at least clear.
Yes, you can. Put your app on Android. Done.
BS.
If you are someone who can't afford 30¢ a day to use Apple's App Store, you can get the fee reduced or waived.
This is definitely a true statement. The vast majority of small businesses who advertise on FB will be hurt by this change. The best estimate to date is a 20-30% drop in marketing efficiency due to worse targeting capabilities. Some of these small businesses will inevitably go out of business due to this change (for better or worse).
I worked at a small hardware store as a kid and we got all our business from word of mouth. IDK what the best argument here is, so I suppose I'm just admitting my feelings with this comment.
I think the honest answer is, yes if facebook protects their profit margins then it will impact small business as they pay more to get the same results. OR Facebook could reduce their margins since Apple's change will reduce their product effectiveness.
Once we frame it that way it is clear what the battle is about. Facebook is fighting apple to protect their own profitability and is using a sympathetic actor (small business) as a shield.
I don't think I've ever seen a source for this. Could you post one, ideally one which is not subject to conflicts of interest (e.g. funded by the advertising industry)?
That is, Facebook is a behemoth in advertising because of its capabilities to predict which users will convert from an ad unit. By predicting conversion rate accurately, FB empower small businesses to get more conversions out of fewer ad impressions and spend.
FB's ability to predict conversion rate is driven by a ML algorithm that takes as inputs: all the user data it tracks via the Facebook Pixel, all the user data it collects through its own domains, and data sent via server API's from advertisers.
Apple's tracking change reduces the amount of available user data to its ML algo by a large percentage.
As a result, prediction power will decrease. And therefore, marketing efficiency.
The actual 20-30% estimate is just that, an estimate. But, directionally, there's no question efficiency will decrease.
In the long term, I think Facebook is the biggest loser in this scenario, not the small businesses.
And, I also agree that most businesses will be willing to pay less of a premium for FB ads after this change. But, even for the businesses that adapt their spend accordingly, their final marketing budget will be smaller, and therefore, their net income/profit from ads.
What's even more interesting is that I don't think many considered those as threats 10 years ago.
Facebook's behavior becomes more and more disgusting with their continued push against privacy and transparency. although I think a 30% cut by apple in app store is too much I prefer apples way of building something users actually want to buy.
There is 0 drawback for users to ask for their consent before tracking them and sharing that data with who knows whom.
I'm only somewhat kidding. I imagine a flood of super cheap, but decent spec Androids would be pretty disruptive, despite sending everything to the FB mother ship.
Next order of business is removing the Apple's marketplace monopolisation; the App Store should not be the only marketplace available.
Wouldn't Facebook then simply stop distributing it's app through the Apple App Store and then create it's own app store that doesn't have any of the anti-tracking restrictions?
Advertising vs. paid content.
Apple wants the tide to switch to paid content, and want to encourage people to do so through their own merchant gateways.
In my opinion, this feel reasonable _only_ if consumers have real choice. Telling users they can use a different platform if they're not happy, is not real choice.
With iOS, Apple was able to create a mass market of easy to use device for regular people that didn't get infested by various adware and malware. I think that's a really significant and impressive achievement. People choose to buy into Apple's ecosystem partially for this reason. When the next "must have" social/communication app is only available on a future Facebook AdStore we'll have the choice between installing some form of adware or not participating. That's even less of a real choice than having the freedom to switch platforms.
If app stores get regulated I fear we'll end up where windows PCs were in the late 90's. I don't know about you but I quite enjoy not having to remove spyware from the mobile phones of friends and family on a regular basis.
Also, slightly tongue in cheek, if Epic is able to force Apple to allow an Epic App Store on iOS will that mean that Epic will be forced to allow alternative cosmetics stores in Fortnite? How far should app store regulation go?
>Telling users they can use a different platform if they're not happy, is not real choice.
Finally why is this argument always made on behalf of users? I've never heard a user that wasn't also a developer complain about the lack of app stores where they can more easily download crapware.
I think this is a lot more about developer rights masquerading as user rights. I think it's self evident that in a lot of cases that the interests of developers are totally at odds with the interests of users.
What's stopping an alternative market place being hot on screening for bad apps and crapware too?
> I think this is a lot more about developer rights masquerading as user rights.
I disagree it's about the rights of everyone _accept_ Apple.
I was trying to think of a good metaphor for these sanctioned app marketplaces.
To me it feels like living in a city where you're forced to buy from one city sanctioned shopping mall.
Every shop in the mall has to provide thirty percent of their takings to the city gov.
If you're not happy with the setup you need to move to another city.
Can you think of anyone who would think this represents a positive model?
On Android, it doesn't matter the source of the app. If the app wants to access your location, camera, files, etc, you need to give it access. I don't see why this new iOS feature to "ask apps not to track" has to be different, isn't it all part of what the "app sandbox" lets them do?
Apple can't control what's in the 3rd party stores, but they control iOS and what apps are allowed to do.
I don’t think iOS would be capable of protecting against, for example, the running of hidden cryptocurrency software.
Also iOS has private api’s but their use is prevented by the review process.
Cons: small retail sellers will find it hard to advertise and won't be able to compete with big ad spenders that use more wholesale ad strategies
I wonder how much of an issue this is in the real world, i.e. outside of the valley or where ever people change their buying behavior based on targeted advertising. I buy peanut butter when I need peanut butter and not based on any kind of advertising. I'm running low on socks, I'll go buy socks wherever I bought socks last time. Why would I buy something just because an algorithm shows it to me, that idea is so weird to me. I wonder if I'm the exception or if I'm missing something.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of this statement! Nothing comes from the new consent requirements that directly stop you from keeping your app free. Can't do it because commercially not viable? Well then, how much are users paying you right now?
Good on Apple. I fear if it was any other company Facebook would be able to persuade them to change.
Hash up the tracking data in the app, send it back to the app's servers, send it to whoever you like? Same is happening with browsers and 3rd party cookies.
There appears to be a point of diminished returns.
Overall though, it’s amazing Facebook/Google have made “targeted ads” a thing.
I've never interacted with anything that should bring those up and I've never clicked on that sort of suggestion. The only reason I can think they'd show me them is my demographic, 30 something male. I haven't clicked on anything on FB or elsewhere on the web that should be getting me random foreign women as friend suggestions.
Facebook is terrible quality and has no idea what it's doing.
It could also be _you_ are the target for keep these ladies engaged. Who knows how many creepy psychological-mechanisms are behind their algorithms.
Let me re-iterate. Because I'm male and on the internet I knew people would question my premise.
I haven't clicked on anything on FB or *elsewhere* on the web that should be getting me random foreign women as friend suggestions. I'm not naive. And even if I were clicking on correlated things elsewhere, which I'm not, I have never clicked on one of these suggestions in FB. That's two layers of ridiculously bad targeting that just annoys their users.
And I think most users will see no problem with this.
If I value the service enough, I'll pay for it. That Apple gets 30% is another discussion and as a user, not my problem.
If I don't value the service that much, I now get to be informed and can decide whether I value using it more than my privacy. Facebook's all out propaganda campaign shows which choice they think most users will make in this instance.
Now imagine they charge $1 monthly for their app subscription. Hell, even a couple of cents would be an improvement. Or even better: they charge a one-time payment to buy the app.
I think they got it coming.
I had to change some of my Business Manager settings this week in preparation for the iOS changes before my new ads would run. They specifically mentioned "Aggregated Event Measurement" for anybody who wants to look into it.
Nice.
Even the most cursory investigation will reveal that Facebook does not sell this data as it is too valuable, they just rent out access to your eyeballs.
I believe this dialog does control access to apple's advertiser-id (IDFA), so apple did implement some technical measures. Unfortunately that's not the only way for an app to track a user, so giving the impression that Apple enforces this denial would be misleading. People already blame Apple for apps lying on their privacy labels.
However, when phrased like this, it does not JUST represent the access to the IDFA, it is a direct request from the user to not track you in any OTHER way either. And yes, the app can ignore that, but then Apple is free to deny it access to the App Store.
A doctor giving someone a new lease on life with an arm transplant isn't a hero unless they're threatening _their own_ arm by volunteering it.
-
In what world do things work like that?
Please don't misread me though--I'm glad Apple is doing this, I just don't think they're heroes for it.
In the real world there are few "heroic" deeds that don't benefit the entity doing them.
The doctor doing the transplant gets professional acclaim that is not worthless, would you say the doctor did it to market themselves?
Turns out doing good things can be profitable, it's not an either or.
This tired cynicism any time a company does something good and people admire them for it (ie consider the action heroic) is not novel or useful. Companies at the size of Apple and co are never going to be pure forces of good with no bad deeds, but they are still capable of being heroes in a specific context. Right now Apple is being a hero of their customer's right to privacy
After all, to me Chuck Yeager is less of a hero than someone who helps out at a soup kitchen every weekend. One was doing their job (and a questionable person honestly) and the other is taking their own time to help others.
Apple could have also built a business around tracking their users and selling targeted ads etc.
They have forgone all the revenues associated with such practices because in the long term, they think society won’t accept them.
Ads don’t automatically imply data collection without consent.
They didn’t have data for targeting, which is possibly why they didn’t pursue it.
Also, I think markets have changed so that those companies who have great products don't need to advertise at all. Those companies who have the worst products will spend most on advertising. So, when I see an ad for an product, I know that it's likely to be a bad product.
Re: Indian full newspaper AD about Whatsapp privacy.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90593913/whatsapp-facebook-priva...
Even the Facebook app itself could refuse to work unless tracking is turned on.
It's still a positive change overall, and still affects Facebook but it appears to me the effect will be minor, even temporary.
People prefer seeing ads that are relevant to them compared to random ads. This is not controversial, it's very much established.
Of course, the benefits to the businesses, especially those businesses without existing brand recognition, are quite obvious.
I'd happily pay five bucks once to never be tracked on some dumb app, and that pretty much is the Apple demographic at this point.
While two titans of Silicon Valley are fighting for control over our data my question is how we protect our data from both of them.
FB is a product designers nightmare. Its a horrible product trying to force its way into every aspect of your life to slurp cash from the massive stupidity of humans.
Apple seems to be doing nothing legally wrong. So, I'm guessing FB is trying to sway public opinion. But, does the public really care that much about the health of small businesses who advertise on Facebook?
This is most stupidest hill to die on for a business. I am continuously amazed at how shortsighted Zuckerbeg is.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that if your business relies on unethical practices, they're the problem - not those who pursue privacy. If your business relied on breaking into people's homes and reading through their personal file cabinet, it wouldn't even be a question whether or not that business should exist. Taking people's digital data without consent is okay though? Plenty of small and large businesses thrived just fine before Facebook. Sorry/not sorry that not everyone buys into surveillance capitalism.
1) Try to destroy all ad platforms 2) Build their own ad platform
Big company behavior is so predictable... oh humans
AFAIK, Google does this on its apps. Whenever you install a new Google app - you're asked if Google can "use your data to improve your experience". If you say no, you're almost not tracked all.
However, AFAIK, the majority of users actually do agree to this.
Forcing all other apps to do the same doesn't hurt Google much, but it could crush their competition.
That actually does make some sense, I do enjoy this infighting between Big Tech, since the user will ultimately benefit by seeing each companies true colors (and that includes the "Cult" Inc., not just Facebook)
The insanity of the modern web.
I don't understand why iOS Location perms wouldn't be better for targeting ads than full-tracking across apps and sites?
Don't get me wrong. The Apple Tax has potential to get out of control. But FB needs to present better arguments than SMBs who can already geo target ads using basic tools.
It's disgusting what some apps do to slurp off personal information, that they are only able to get away with because users don't understand whats at stake.
I’m boycotting all or nothing now that it’s been made better for photos.
Whether Apple will have the courage to enforce them is another matter. We've already seen evidence that their new "privacy nutrition labels" are sometimes inaccurate with no consequences for the app developers.
I was wondering due to the recent changes of Reddit T&Cs
AAPL vs FB vs GOOG?
I'd like to see that!
Every measure that weakens platforms like FB is to be welcomed.
Apple is big enough to confront FB and harm them. That alone makes Apple even more valuable in my eyes and makes me keep buying their products although I dislike their walled-garden-approach and their philosophy that is against open systems.
Edit:
A couple of years ago my impression was that FB is so big that it‘s futile to fight them. Recently more and more people seem to realize how harmful these kind of platforms are, and it seems there is hope in confronting them.
The argument still stands - just replace TS with mom jeans. My point wasn't actually about Taylor Swift marketing - it was that demographic targeting is a reasonable way to identify an audience. Those mom jeans are not going to sell very well in a younger, urban demographic compared to Iowa.
More information here. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
Nearly every company in the world does not fit that description, and I would bet that the vast majority of them would benefit from targeted advertising. One example being local stores targeted only to local people.
>TADELIS: Yes. So, for non-branded search, we actually had no idea what the results are going to be. Because here, if I am searching for, example, a studio microphone I’m sure that on eBay I might find a variety of used ones. But if I’m not thinking about eBay, and I just search for “studio microphone,” if eBay doesn’t pay an ad, they might not even show up on the first page. And by the way, the automated machines at eBay that were doing the online bidding, they had a basic library of close to 100 million different combinations of keywords, because eBay has practically everything you could imagine for sale on the site. So, we really had no idea what the returns for the non-branded searches would be.
>TADELIS: And we took a third of these D.M.A.’s, and we turned off all paid-search advertising. This was an extremely blunt experiment where we’re saying, “What would happen if we didn’t advertise at all?” And to our surprise the impact on average was pretty much zero.
The interesting question is much tracking adds on top of simpler targeting based on location and context.
Or make it optional and just show that ad to users that have set their location field.
Facebook and others have convinced people that they can do better than simple location based advertising.
People would call the last one personalized and not "location targeted", but it's pretty hard to see where that flips.
Mass advertising needs to die off already. Just hold better search and filtering tools and empower people to discover what they want instead of telling them what they should want.
There are hundreds of thousands of businesses that happily pay for ads on Facebook over other platforms and see improved results after tweaking the targeting.
The issue is the privacy loss we get, not the efficacy of targeting.
No... ~targeted~ advertising only enriches ad platforms not the buyers of the ads.
> In our previous episode, we learned that TV advertising is much less effective than the industry says.
Sounds like almost all advertising is just a zero-sum game.
All that said, I am not an authority on if any evidence exists, I have never looked into the literature my self, so perhaps this evidence already exists and I just don’t know about it.
Regardless of its efficacy, the legality should be out of the question.
Targeted ads work really well for many scenarios, b2b software.
I’m also not sure if it matters whether they are actually effective. At least for the short term. If people believe they are effective, is there any difference in the dynamic?
One can directly measure ROI and prove the value of this advertising. Especially FB provides for my business (political marketing) at least 10X better direct response value and that is mostly using 1:1 targeting and lookalike modeling.
What I like about the HN discourse is that if someone slings out a statement which is demonstrably false, someone that knows better might respond with a correction. That is why I left this comment, as I all my knowledge with the targeted ad business was anecdotal, and I desperately needed a correction.
there are a lot of ways to measure outside of FBs analytics tools.
including the very simple simply using a refcode or even a specific product/url. How many purchases did you get / how much did you spend?
this is what i'm referencing. like that's so incredibly basic and it bugs me HN just either doesn't understand or lets their opinion on it go first
In my experience FBs inaccurate reporting is just a tiny amount of impressions delivered and they refund the $1 or whatever it is a couple times a year. Have they ever had a reporting anomaly on their analytics tools for tracking off FB conversions? they very well could have but I haven't heard of one.
There is no way to validate their impression/click data that all the downstream metrics are reliant on. If you have a way, I'd love to know about it. The claim isn't that they make up conversions, the claim is that they overstate the ROI and cv% based on the denominator.
There is also an academic researcher who regularly publishes as well.
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.2019.118...
and of course there's Tim Hwang.
https://www.fsgoriginals.com/books/subprime-attention-crisis
Internet ads do not work past simple location based targeting.
I have routinely gotten over 100% immediate last-click roi from fb ads, for many clients.
I know for a fact many others have too. There are a ton of direct to consumer online-only products that easily measure this. Just make a page or item which you only use to advertise on FB. sales/spend. Game developers track this closely too.
No, probably more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRlxSGf_ns
I mean, it goes against the business model they operate under, but they could, right?
They're clearly at least trying to move in the opposite direction and have been making those moves for some time now.
Maybe they won't always go that way. Maybe they will.
No one is saying they're our savior, though. No one is begging Apple to please save us.
Why would I need to be saved? I'll just buy a device from a different manufacturer. If there are literally no privacy-respecting options, and a majority of people think there should be one, either a company will form on its own, or constituents will make enough noise that the government will step in.
If not in the US, the EU still seems to have some basic respect for the rights of their citizens.
... which is really no mystery, because Apple users are customers, and Facebook users are product.
Apple makes money by selling more products which means they innovate by making Watches, Earpods, M1, etc. Facebook makes money by selling your attention and data, which meants they innovate by extracting data from every experience they can (Oculus, Whatsapp, ...), using more complex technologies (Facebook AI), and encouraging whatever behaviors create more ad spend (hint: outrage).
Add in the fact that Apple has made privacy a core part of their brand promise and it means that Apple has strong incentives to protect their customers in a way that most companies, especially Facebook, do not.
But regardless it’s not Facebook’s value prop to business that people have an issue with but ya know, how they actually deliver it.
On the other hand, it's argued that Apple doesn't care about their developers because they enforce draconian regulations on what iOS developers are allowed and not allowed to do, and don't hesitate even to shut down billion dollar apps (i.e., Fortnite).
I have mixed feelings about Apple's walled garden, both as a developer and a user, but when it comes to user privacy, I'm firmly in Apple's camp. I can't think of a single other large tech company that has a strong stand in favor of user privacy and acted on that. Basically, if Privacy is a killer feature for a consumer, then Apple is literally the only game in town.
Every other company would have been falling over themselves to unlock a terrorists iPhone.
Apple said no, hired Ted Olsen, and litigated (along with lots of other less well known cases).
This may have even hurt them in some consumers eyes (hard to understand them protecting someone who killed a bunch of people). So the PR risk was very significant.
So they do seem to have a pretty committed consumer focus (and now make money because of that).
It is virtually inevitable though that someone will go after them (anti-trust etc) because this is a game of billions and folks who for example do in-game loot boxes (fortnite) and marketing (facebook) etc are going to be in regulators ears and in ny times ads and op-eds calling for this horrible situation to be broken up.
It's fairly obvious that, given Epic was saying "you can pay $2 less to get the same amount of vbucks" that Apple was going to lose a huge portion of revenue from the App if they didn't pull it, and if they actually left it up, they'd have to allow every other app to institute third-party payment processors as well to not appear like they're playing favorites and the PR nightmare that would come from that.
It doesn’t mean anything at all.
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
Anyone who wanted to flout any rule could claim Apple was playing favorites with Epic.
It has nothing to do with being screwed out of $2 per purchase of in-game currency.
Saying that developers are "buying" users makes no sense. Devs are not a customer of apple. If anything, devs are a supplier to apple. Since the net money flow is from Apple to Dev.
As always, just follow the money.
Now, the legal view of Apple's ecosystem is being litigated right now. What I posted above might be how the court sees it, or what you posted might be how the court sees it. We won't get a definitive answer until either Epic or Apple go home with the key to processing payments on iOS and all of the other systems that are effectively an iPhone with a different form factor (eg PS5, xbox series).
(I’m not entirely opposed to this arrangement; I’m typing this on my iPhone. But I bought it knowing and accepting that I’m partly the product)
It’s not what people mean when they say ‘you are the product’.
What they mean is that if you aren’t paying, then the company is only interested in retaining you as a user so that they can satisfy their actual customers.
When you are paying, you are the customer
It’s also true that iOS developers are customers of Apple’s distribution service.
Buy Apple’s users are not a product in the sense that anyone uses this phrase.
First the money flows from from end user to Apple, and then from Apple to developer.
The simplest way to model it is as a supply from dev to apple, plus a value-adding supply from apple to end user.
People here are arguing it is a supply from end user to dev, plus a supply from Apple to dev. That's obtuse way to model it IMO. Then again those are the kind of people who probably devising tax avoidance schemes and making big bucks so what to I know.
Not in China:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
I doubt you would be arguing that, if Apple bricked basically every iPhone in China, it would be evidence that their "incentives are aligned with their customers".
Being a separate device, as you said, means the phones would still work independent of Apple.
The Chinese government would block updates and sales, hencecustomers would blame them, not Apple, because Apple was incentivized with customers instead of the government moving forward.
It is not "bricking phones" as you said. As much as you don't like this fact, Apple had a choice and decided to put the Chinese government before it's users.
An iPhone that cannot connect to Apple’s servers is essentially bricked. Not only do a significant number of critical features on the phone require reaching out to Apple to function, but IIRC, after a certain period of time without being able to contact Apple, the phone will require you to log in with your Apple ID. I believe this is to prevent activation lock bypasses by blocking network resources.
I remember reading about an issue a while back, where a person got locked out of their phone at sea, because they didn’t have network access for an extended period of time.
You're splitting hairs here about Apple choosing to share their user data with the Chinese government over their user's privacy.
Will they put the consent pop up on App Store and News?
You can think of it as a common. Blocking tracking essentially is a destruction of a bit of commons; the app developer will get less revenue. By systematically encouraging this block, Apple is making it comparatively less worthwhile to have an ad-supported app instead of a paid app, thus moving revenue to the app store (where Apple can tax it) instead of the advertising side (where it is monetarily free for the user.)
If we really wanted to find out what is right for the user[1], the correct thing is to see if users want to buy their way out of tracking. Offer the apps with advertising with tracking, with advertising without tracking, and without advertising - at different prices, representing the value of the advertising and tracking. My bet is that a majority of users would not want to pay the cost of non-tracked advertising - either they'll want to buy away advertising (and that will only be a small fraction) or they'll want the free variant. Basically, all data I've seen indicate that most people don't want to buy their way out of advertising - it's too expensive. I expect the same applies to tracking.
[1] Under the assumption that we've got an efficient market and will see an equilibrium of development that correspond to value created.
Everything in it is structured around forcing you to pay Apple for access to things you want. Microtransactions, apps etc. All of it must go through Apple and they must have a cut of everything.
You can say they're more honest because they're taking your money up front as opposed to facebook selling you to advertisers, but I don't think it's in Apple's customers' best interests to be milked like cows
It's in Apple's short-term best interest to win over public opinion. It not only cools down anti-competitive rhetoric, but it also helps sell phones.
But everyone seems to conveniently forget about the absolute moral nightmare that is Apple’s supply chain.
Remember when they had to put up nets to stop people from killing themselves? [1]
What about when they were accused of using literal slave labour? [2]
Or the time they actively lobbied Congress when a vote came up to restrict American companies using slave labour [3]
I don’t say this as a shit post, I mean it, it’s really not at all clear to me that Apple are somehow morally less reprehensible.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-human-cost-of-an-...
[2] https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
[3] https://www.axios.com/apple-lobbied-congress-uyghur-slave-la...
For the record... this posted from an iPhone. I got rid of the MacBook already but it’s a process.
Presumably if you were going to criticise companies using Chinese suppliers, a company like that wouldn’t be top of your list. Or is there something else going on here?
I'm making a point that the largest company in the world not only does so but actively took steps to ensure they wouldn't be legally prevented from doing so in the future.
No, everyone hasn't. Apple has its problems, too, and nobody denies that. But arguments like yours amount to no more than "Hey, look over there! Don't look at Facebook, look at this other thing!"
Deflection. Whataboutism. Call it what you will.
I am responding to someone calling Apple a hero. I did nothing other than to point out the fact that like many things in life, it's not that simple.
There is no attempt to help Facebook or whatever you had in mind, that was your own projection. We can talk about 2 issues at the same time.
In fact they were offered billions of dollars in revenue by Google for customer location data in Google Maps. Apple turned it down and instead spent billions of dollars and several years building Apple Maps instead.
If they were intent on monetising users data, you’d expect them to make a deal with Google to allow tracking in Safari in exchange for a higher fee for default search.
In other words they don’t seem to be doing any of the things We would expect to see if this theory was correct.
Devices do listen to all sounds to listen for their "prompt" - how do I know what is actually discarded? And with precedence, I don't think it is 'crazy'.
Example: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/25/614470096...
Just as if my location/microphone were able to be physically turned off on my phone I would not have to trust that someone isn't always listening in on me. If I can't do that it is not unreasonable not to trust it. There have been plenty of instances of these things being abused.
(I'm not making a claim either way on whether or not in this case it's true that devices are spying on us, just that this line or thinking is absurd that it doesn't really matter if a given thing is true)
Fast forward to 2013 and Snowden.
Our defaults for "they wouldn't do that" when it comes to your privacy are all wrong.
If that's a "conspiracy theory" that you need to dismiss so that you can go about your life, fine. But the truth is, these people are constantly up to no good and you can't trust closed software nor hardware. The technical capability for draconian mass surveillance exists.
Kind if like, 'I cant believe it's come to this, but given all the evidence, it's justified."
At the same time we see the incentives, and the incentives are to collect and analyze things.
A device which does not have a hardware cutoff switch, which you've allowed to listen for it's own prompts ("Hey Siri, etc") can listen to you. So far we're all speaking "current knowns". Nothing about that is conspiracy.
The trust part is "storage of data received" and "use of that data". Sure it probably does not today - but will the terms of service change tomorrow?
An example parallel are Alexa devices listening, and accidentally storing whole convos.
Insurance companies analyze purchase records for modeling lifestyle risk.... if I were discussing a family member who had a health scare how do I know that info isn't 'surfaced' to insurers, etc?
It's kind of fascinating how hard they (not just Facebook) push you to use their "so much better" app even when their HTML version seems just as good if not better. It's just so much better for them. If you try the app and it's not better then you know what it's really about.
If she adds a friend, it’ll send me a messenger message telling me I have to approve it, with a link. If I try to follow that link, it will tell me that my desktop browser can’t be used to manage Messenger Kids and that I have to install the app on my phone. Although it seems like in most cases you can open up Messenger Kids in the panel on the left, and then there will be an approve/deny button, so it’s mostly lies that you can’t do this on desktop.
I don't think the "threat" is the obvious one... Nobody trusts Facebook -- many, if not most, people honestly believe they listen to their conversations already. The real message is how emotional and immature the leadership is to a perceived slight.
A message that said "Cigarettes will kill you" didn't stop smokers, and some label won't stop Facebook users or meaningfully impact Facebook. Hell, when Microsoft faced anti-trust breakup, the company didn't sit and whine. They fought the threat and sold billions of dollars of software and solutions to their antagonist.
I think there are parallels here. I see a focus on getting _current_ users to stop tolerating naked privacy. I think that ship has sailed. But in time the entire culture can shift where future generations do not accept naked privacy.
Once reality started setting in and denial didn't cut it, they acted to protect the shareholders. Phillip Morris bought things like Kraft that they could spin-out later. They settled claims and paid states billions of dollars for healthcare costs a few years before healthcare started going up 30% a year... which capped their liability AND made it politically impossible to put them out of business.
Google seems to at least attempt to do something similar by entering and investing billions into businesses like Cloud, cars, etc. I don't see that with Facebook... Facebook digs in and spouts some nonsense about connecting people, like the capitalist version of Soviet PR people.
Can confirm. I visited many a windowless office in Manhattan where everyone smoked, and air circulation was nil.
Fixing electronics in those days always started with swabbing a thick layer of tar off the circuit boards.
The customer had built a wall blocking all of the windows in the late 80s (this was circa 2000), we had to go in the the area inbetween.... 10-15 years of no interior cleaning and high temps resulted in these weird formations of tar drips. It almost looked like a cave formation. Absolutely vile.
The story from the site staff was that the print and mainframe operators back in the day would essentially sit and continuously smoke, all day, all night. IIRC, we found a half dozen defunct cigarette machines.
Nicotine is as hard to quit as heroin. The fact that we still punished smokers through public shaming, exclusion and excessive fines just shows how unsympathetic our culture is to perceived "moral failings."
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/10/17/why-its-so-hard-to-...
So, what do you advocate? Reward smokers? Encourage smoking?
P.S. Before the downvotes come, I'm rather fat and a mostly ex-smoker, so I'm not attacking obese people, just wondering at the inconsistency.
The main difference seems to be that smoking in public inflicts secondhand smoke on others, while obesity inflicts... taking up more room on public transit? IF shaming is effective at curbing public smoking, and there is no shaming for smoking in private, then I think you could have a logically consistent position.
I don't know if the first of those is true, and the second definitely isn't (although maybe a different level of intensity), so I'm not saying there is consistency, just that it's possible.
Where do you live where obese people and crack addicts are not shamed?
So, generic "smoke is bad for you", "overeating is bad for you", "junk food is bad for you"; and positive reinforcements like "say no to smoke", "say no to junk food" would be a good start.
And if some groups comes out and state that those messages are "shaming" well, those people are idiots.
P.S.: ex-smoker and ex-fat person here
I mean why do people feel it's their duty to get into someone else's life? How about assume fat people and people who smoke know it's bad for them and just leave them alone. I think people in society would be much better off of they worried themselves with their own lives. I guess that's a lot harder than pointing out other people's problems though.
I agree 100% with the "perceived moral failings" part. Shaming people does not help. I couldn't kick the H until I stopped shaming myself. The guilt made my usage worse. It was caused by complex mental health issues, dealing with those got me healthy.
The whole ordeal has made me a much more understanding, compassionate person. I'm extremely grateful to be one of the few that made it out.
If Android follows suit (not guaranteed but iOS and Android often converge on features within a few versions of each other), then they are going to take another hit. Executives want to prevent this change in the interest of their personal wealth.
While I welcome the change as an iOS user (for privacy with my other apps, I don’t even have a Facebook account) I can understand why Facebook is coming out hard against the change.
Google might be incentivized to do it, as doing so would harm the effectiveness of other ad networks without affecting their own (as long as the user has a Google account)
poor little snow flakes. i have zero sympathy
This would be amazing. Imagine all the talent that would be freed into real problems.
BTW: I remember while working in the financial sector, in the financial bubble, how terrified they were if markets were to be corrected, like they did.
I don't agree with this. It seems less of an emotional response than a business one: the changes from iOS will have a large, material impact on Facebook's business, and it will get even worse if other gatekeepers follow suit (not likely, as Google's model is pretty close to Facebook's).
I think the real takeaway is how much money is riding on surveillance capitalism, and how these business models take a real hit when you just explain clearly to the user what's going on and give them a choice.
It's very telling that personal privacy has Facebook's leadership fudging its collective Huggies, while every other company — even Google — is going along with it.
One unexplored possibility is that they actually needed to do quite a bit of analysis to determine all the uses the data is put to within their organization and doing a legal review so that they didn’t end up making a false statement.
That's the opposite of true. It didn't stop _every_ smoker, but research has established that anti-smoking marketing and labeling has a massive impact on how many people smoke overall.
> Power cycle device.
'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.'
> Tap 'Not Now'
'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.'
> Tap 'Not Now'
'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.'
> Tap 'Not Now'
'Apple Verification. Enter the password for "<email>" in Settings.'
> Tap 'Not Now'
Probably they are competing for engineers, Messenger / WhatsApp vs iMessage, time spent on Facebook content vs on Apple content and other things I'm missing.
On the other side they benefitted from the popularity of Facebook (and many other internet properties companies) because they gave an extra reason to people to buy smartphones and using them a lot.
They're both huge companies whose largest risk of disruption comes not from the marketplace (they can monitor, acquire and influence challengers), but from regulators. The appearance of competition helps both companies to reduce that risk.
(It's debatable whether or not Google is any better. At least they're a lot less overt about their contempt for user privacy and data sovereignty.)
The way to reduce potential damage is to evolve, adapt, pivot, and diversify. Not to kick and scream.
Facebook has enough money and enough smart people to do and be anything it wants. It chooses to be the neighborhood creep in the bushes watching your daughter through your windows.
It is enough to highlight the policies and products of Facebook that you disapprove of.
Nothing existential about it at all. It's an actual threat to Facebook's business model. And I'm OK with that.
"Existential threat" means a threat to the very existence of a thing, so a thing that is an "existential threat" is a very big actual threat. I think maybe you're confusing "Existential" with "Hypothetical"?
Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago, and the internet has latched onto it and now misuses it all the time.
"Existential threat" means something so devastating it threatens the subjects very existence.
It's meant that for as long as the phrase has been in use.
> an existential threat is a threat to the existence of something.
I can't decide if this comment is very clever ironic satire or... not ;-)
> Politicians started using that phrase en masse about a year ago
"Existential threat" has been in wide-spread use for a really long time. The first time I heard the phrase used was probably some time in the late 90s. And that's more a function of my age than of how long the term has been used. The cliche is at least half a century old and has been used by politicians for at least decades.
For example, the phrase was commonly used in anti-proliferation and denuclearization advocacy during the last quarter of the 20th century, when nuclear weapons were characterized as an "existential threat" to humanity. This use persists today; see, for example, https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/nuclear-weapons-and-ex...
But the term isn't particularly partisan or limited to extinction-level threats. it's also been used throughout modern history by right-wing populists to refer to one group or another being an "existential threat to our way of life". See for example https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44498438
The point is, the phrase has been used for a long time, always with the same meaning, and its use hasn't been particularly partisan as far as I can ever remember. Both sides use the phrase for various things. But they all definitely mean the same thing -- a threat to the existence of something (humanity, dominant cultural norms, the country, etc.). Not a "perceived" threat.
I'm genuinely and sincerely curious where you got the idea that "Existential threat means an implied, or perceived threat" rather than "a threat to the existence of a thing". The former has never been anywhere close to the dominant accepted meaning. Possibly you heard a politician or pundit use the term in a sarcastic way and misunderstood their sarcasm as literal? Or you heard someone use the phrase in a hyperbolic way?
Can you share one or more sources where people are using the phrase in the way you describe?
They see it as the beginning of a slippery slope. And I hope they're right!
The concept of social media and living our lives on the internet is new, in the scale of things. The last ~10 years have been like the period of time where the sun goes in but the thermostat hasn't noticed yet. Now people have decided they don't like being cold (having their data harvested) and are pushing back.
Do I qualify as too much alarmist when I'm horrified from seeing doctors and lawyers happily exchanging photos of clients sensitive documents using Whatsapp? (read: forgetting them in their phone gallery, ready to be exfiltrated by any malicious software or repair technician). The sad part is that people is slowly adapting to not give a damn about their and others privacy because today's electronic gadgets and services are designed in a way so they're almost unusable by privacy conscious users.
Buh bye facebook. May you rot in hell.
I hate FB like the next guy, but I don't like the idea of Apple playing government.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Now, current situation is also not good, with the amount of tracking/ers not only affecting privacy, but also the look, speed and size of the web pages in a very bad way.
Also no advertising on the web at all, as much as people say they would want it, I think they would even less want the effect of no advertising at all. So many services would be not be feasible, and everything else would be pay per month to access kind of thing. And you can only pay so much.
There should be a middle ground. But me personally would rather prefer _some_ (where that amount is less than today) targeted advertising to the alternatives. Even though I almost never click on ads, on any platform.
In the long run this will be a net loss for the Apple customers whose experiences will likely suffer compared to Android and other players. Already in my subjective opinion Android on Pixel phones provides a much richer and engaging environment than iOS and the difference will only become even more pronounced.
Now it's a race. Will Apple superior hardware and privacy focus draw the majority of users before Google and others deliver clearly better software experiences, or whether the difference in software smarts will cause users to gravitate away from the walled garden of iOS and towards more permissive ecosystems.
That seems off to me. Apple isn't crippling anything, they're giving their users the choice of opting in/out of tracking. If, as you say, choosing not being tracked makes the users' experiences so bad, they can simply opt-in and all will be good again. What am I missing?