Hacker News Reader

Comment by librish | Hacker News Reader

Apple vs ad-tech is a really interesting battle. It shows the immense power Apple has in the consumer market today, where they can affect some of the largest businesses in the US unilaterally. Meta is in a very tricky position in that unless they put up an actual paywall users don’t really have any incentive to allow tracking. But putting up a paywall introduces a lot of friction, not to mention the adverse selection (the affluent people you most want to advertise to are probably the most likely to pay to not be tracked).

I know most people on here really dislike targeted advertising. I’m not going to speculate on the potential future problems that tracking could lead to, and I think it’s very reasonable to be concerned. But so far targeted advertisement has been a net positive for me. I’ve gotten to use some really good applications for free, and I’ve gotten ads that are actually relevant.

View on HN

It's much more difficult to scale price (user pays more) than it is to scale ad revenue (user sees no difference, more / more-per advertiser).

At the end of the day, that's why Google and Facebook will fight tooth and nail to avoid subscription offerings.

And fundamentally... Facebook's stock should be hammered. They're effectively a legacy platform attempting to milk more revenue from their existing users.

They missed the 2010-2020 opportunity to diversify away from ad-based revenue, and now they look more like 2000s Microsoft, unable to imagine outside their core revenue generator. Which is why their acquisitions have been "new Facebook" instead of "different than Facebook."

Google is up 7.5% today. Google had one of the best valuation growths in the past 2 years of mega cap companies.

It makes little to no financial sense, compared to other tech and web companies, for Facebook stock to remain down 25%. Their PE is going to be like 17.5 now.

Aren't all current tech valuations still playing chicken with future growth expectations? So when sentiment with regards to them changes, it compounds back on the current price.

But the whatever% is after hours trading, so we'll see what the market does tomorrow when it's open.

Yeah. I mean even besides the playing chicken...it's playing chicken in general with sentiment and stuff too. I guess that is saying the same thing you are saying. Like Apple's PE going from a fairly low number to now being around 30. I don't know what to say or think of that or anything.

It's funny and silly. Not misinformation, but a stretch to say the drops and gains of stocks on a day to day basis is honesty to the general person.

If instead, if by default, numbers in charts and articles talked about these one day changes in stock prices alongside trailing 3, 5, or X day/week percentage changes.

Sure. Snap is up 45% today. However it was down 25% yesterday. Really, it went from $32.XX to $35.XX across two days and the entire week. A solid 10% gain.

Would be nice if the culture would include

It’s anecdotal but the adds I get on DuckDuckGo by it matching what I search for tend to be better than the targeted adds I get on Google or Facebook which are typically advertisements for things that I have just bought.

Like when I search for hiking shoes, that’s when you should advertise, now for the next two months. I’m not going to buy a second pair for another 20 years after all, and if it’s to reassure me I made the right purchases then they shouldn’t be for variating brands.

But I mean, you’re probably right, why else would various sales decision spend so much money on advertisement companies?

I think the “pay with your privacy” model is probably coming to an end though. At least here in the EU that seems to be the long term plan, and I think Apple might agree with me.

I think that people here (rightly) dislike advertising and having their privacy invaded to target them, not specifically targeted advertising vs. untargeted.

As an aside, something happened to my instagram ad-targeting profile a few months ago and the ads that I normally get (tech-industry stuff, photography, art shows, books...) were replaced by what I assume were lowest-common-denominator general population ads (replica-of-expensive-items scams, crypto scams, investment scams, sports, populist politicians, pawnshops, wedding services...) for a couple of weeks; it was as if looking in a nightmarish mirror universe.

Were you on ios?

No, Android. I dislike notches or holes in screens, so I don't have much choice (I don't have much choice even with Android, but there are a few high-spec phones without those).

I noticed the ads got worse on Facebook lately. They used to be more relevant, now they're just totally random amazon products that I only click on because I have no idea what they are. I actually used to like the ads on Facebook because they were pretty relevant.

I think the tracking backlash helps the big consumer goods conglomerates and hurts the startup niche product marketers. Look at Dollar Shave Club and all the other consumer products underdogs that were able to take massive marketshare from Proctor and Gamble and the like through smart ad targeting.

>Apple vs ad-tech is a really interesting battle. It shows the immense power Apple has in the consumer market today, where they can affect some of the largest businesses in the US unilaterally.

It shows that Facebook positioning itself as a "platform" in the first place is total nonsense. That's why Zuck wanted Oculus to succeed so bad. He knows he is at the mercy of actual platform providers like Apple and Google for everything.

I don't see why it needs to be a binary descriptor. They can be a platform that's itself built on platform(s): in fact, most platforms are. Full vertical integration is not that common.

Apple dislikes ad-tech for reason x because it's a fundamental threat to their business from their compitators making money though it or mindshare being pushed towards other products; the further the reach and the lower the cost the worse it is for them

I think TikTok has it figured out. They have a thing called "Live" and there are people throwing money at the hosts every single day, and guess what : the company gets the 30% (I suspect did not calculate) cut. This may not be enough to pay the bills, but starts the virtuous circle where people buy your (FB) currency and start subsidizing the platform.

The idea of buying something based on an advertisement and not a need is foreign to me. What is a kind of ad that you consider to be “relevant”? I just block all of them so I might just not be aware of the potential.

Just because you block ads doesn't mean you are immune to advertisements. How many of your interests are shaped by media campaigns. Even if you go and choose to buy things based on "need" (which I doubt). How do you choose which to buy of the various things that satisfy your needs? Maybe you go to one of many consumer reporting sites? Maybe you look at reviews? How do you know those are truly unbiased, they aren't most of the time.

Naturally, that’s true, but it wouldn’t affect my decision. If I could unilaterally ban billboard ads, I would; but the fact that certain kinds of ads are not block-able does not affect my decision to keep blocking other kinds of ads, and limiting the effectiveness of ads I can’t block.

No entity has the innate right to psychologically manipulate me into contributing to its bottom line.

> Naturally, that’s true, but it wouldn’t affect my decision

Your decision for what you buy or your decision to block ads? Which is completely beside the point of my comment. My point is that you are going to be manipulated whether you like it or not. That cute Bernie Sanders slogan, that "Eat the rich" slogan, all the beautiful art produced by your favorite political cause, it's all psychological manipulation by your definition (and it is). And by that point, all human interaction is manipulation.

I've seen a comment like this quite a few times now and I am curious: what exactly is the goal of pointing out that advertisement affects your life somehow, to someone who said they can't think of a relevant ad? It's not like they claimed they're immune to advertisement. They just can't think of a relevant ad, and I'm in the same boat, unless you twist the implied definition of "an ad" enough; a common trait for these threads is to start attacking the "marketing doesn't affect me" straw man, which is of course easy to attack when you go down the everything is marketing line of thought.

> It's not like they claimed they're immune to advertisement.

> The idea of buying something based on an advertisement and not a need is foreign to me.

My point is that despite believing they have not bought something based on an advertisement, they have in all likelihood.

Quite likely, if you twist the implied meaning of "an ad" enough.

I'd take it for granted that zwkrt is not talking about reviews and glowing endorsements and sponsored videos or placement on store shelves or .. you get the idea. They're talking about ads! The crap that surrounds the real so-called content when you try to read an article without an adblocker. The nonsense that interrupts a movie on TV (or any video on YouTube) every three minutes. The trash results that gets a special place in front of all the other trash when you search on Google. All unsolicited, not sought for. I'd say if uBlock Origin doesn't block it, then it likely isn't an ad in the sense zwkrt means?

Buying something after seeking out reviews and seeing one that was biased and paid for could happen but it's not necessarily happening to everyone, and it's probably not what the fellow upstream meant when they said they find buying things based on an advertisement foreign.

I wonder.. I don't think that applies to everyone.

Most of the stuff I buy is either commodity (clothes, always the same t-shirts, pants, shoes, my colleagues joke it's my 'uniform'), food, or weird-ass stuff that nobody advertises for. Like second hand computers or electronic components to build cool stuff.

And reviews I usually get in depth from other users on tech forums like XDA and local ones. Before I buy a phone I know pretty much every little thing there is to know about it :) Not just the gloss, all the annoying bugs too.

The only thing I buy that's really advertising sensitive is games I think. Or some hacker/maker stuff you'd see on hackaday. I know advertising affects me. But I'm pretty certain not a lot of my purchasing is driven by advertising.

I don't particularly want to be tracked and generally block as much as it pratically possible (browser plugins, piholes etc.), but I occasionally encounter useful ads (for example an interesting temporary exhibition I wouldn't have known about, the reprinting of a book that I had been looking for or a better offer for some service that I'm already paying for).

It's usually more that the ad results in someone buying something they were already planning to buy from you instead of someone else. There's pretty much 3 types of online advertising, Intent based where you show an add when someone is actively searching for a place to buy the thing, remarketing where you show an add because you were able to detect they were shopping for it recently, and then the window shopping ones which just show you things you might be interested in (these are the lowest converting) Online ads objectively work though. Online ads basically drive the revenue of millions of small and medium sized businesses.

An ad that is “relevant” to me is an ad that leads me to think “yes, this item is exactly what I was looking for”. Sometimes you know you want to buy something (let’s say a backpack) but you don’t know which brand/model to go for.

This is where ads come in: a backpack company can run ads that should be shown to people interested in buying backpacks, and it’s potentially a win-win: you find a cool item that you buy, and the company gets a new customer.

It's only really a win-win if the backpack was the best choice you could have made if you were fully informed about the entire market.

And that best choice is probably from the manufacturer that spends the most on making their product. Not the one spending the most on advertising. This undermines the win-win concept.

The ads I've been genuinely grateful to see and make a purchase through have generally been for concerts and other live events.

I saw an ad for a phone plan that was a lot cheaper than the plan I was about to buy.

While some ads drive impulse purchases, much ads are getting brands into your decision consideration.

E.g When you need something of you have 100's of options. If you saw an ad previously it now might be 1 of several products you compare as you are aware and familiar. The product still has to impress you on price and quality etc but the ad drove you to consider it. That is hugely important in a crowded marketplace. Also that ad might have shifted you perception of quality or features.

And ultimately 'need' is a very subjective thing. I highly doubt if you look around your house there is nothing you couldn't throw away and not get on with life as normal. Ads can make you feel like you need something at the time. That's why so many ads rely on fear based propositions, this emotion is strong in creating need like showing negative events for insurance.

I think you're forgetting about the reason why they switch names in the first place. Meta is signaling that they are all in with their own hardware platform.

It's not about hardware really. The hardware is just to sell the service in the best way possible. They had to make it. Because there was no good affordable standalone headset so far. The metaverse idea is all about the platform/service.

I'm a big VR fan and even I'm not sure whether the metaverse will take off. But without hardware like the quest 2 it wouldn't have a chance.

The service is key, but I somehow doubt they will open their platform to 3rd party hardware like Valve. imo The hardware is just as important.

I think they will restrict it at first, to control the user experience. In the starting phase it'll be crucial to avoid bad reviews due to substandard hardware. Google did exactly this with their cardboard headset. People lost interest in VR because they watched a rollercoaster vid on a crappy cardboard setup and thought they had seen it all. All these $5 eBay headsets flooding the world didn't promote VR at all. They just imprinted the idea "VR is just a gimmick" in people's minds. As a VR enthusiast I still need to explain the difference between 3DOF and real interactive 6DOF all the time. It took a long time to build interest in real 6DOF VR back up.

But I think once (or, if) the metaverse has proven its value to the consumer their goal is to be the leading platform and opening it up would make sense there, it would be key to maximising marketshare. Especially as they're not even making money on the hardware, it's being sold at a loss. That'll change too once the platform proves itself but still I don't think they expect it to be a major money maker.

Zuckerberg mentioned in his keynote that they want to go for a different business model. They want to sell the platform and enable creators to sell their designs, taking a cut in the Apple store way. And they can still take a cut on third party hardware by licensing. Which means revenue without even having to bother manufacturing anything.

I think hardware to Meta will be what hardware is to Microsoft. Setting a good baseline standard, promoting new designs and usecases (e.g. the surface pro convertible) and directing the market. But not being the sole vendor.

But I may be wrong of course. It'll be interesting times ahead!

But it is doomed to fail unless they act like a startup and can be nimble and pivot quickly. They should have at least had something to demo that anybody could play with before talking about it publicly. This whole thing reeks of "big design upfront". They are gambling tons and tons of money and political capital on something that is completely unproven.

When is the last time a huge company really went "all in" on a completely unproven idea and have it become a success?

> They should have at least had something to demo that anybody could play with before talking about it publicly.

They already do. It's called Quest 2. Their 1st version of the "metaverse" is Horizon and Venues, though 3rd parties on meta's platform like VR Chat and RecRoom are also metaverse plays.

How much would it have cost you to use those applications if you had to offset the ad revenue? 10 bucks a year? 50? Do you really value your attention that low?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com