>Facebook couldn’t explain in detail why ATT will harm consumers because, in doing so, it would need to reveal just how it personalizes ads — through observing conversions on third-party websites and apps.
This is one important factor that very few FB users realize. The secret sauce is aggregating data captured outside of FB, which is hard to visualize and grasp for most people.
More than once friends/family have asked me if FB really can hear via your microphone, and my response is usually met with blank stares: no, they aren't listening to your microphone, they know much more about you from the sites you've visited.
A step further, they know about you from the sites that other people similar to you visited.
"I just talked about X product the other day, but never searched for it. But I'm getting ads for it now anyway!"
Well, you may not have searched for it after that conversation, but other people in the demographic they think you belong to did. So they think maybe you're interested in X product as well.
Convincing people that Facebook and Instagram aren't listening to them through their microphones in order to target adverts is fascinatingly difficult. There was a great podcast episode about this a few years ago: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/z3hlwr
Yet people have been paying for groceries with checks in grocery stores for decades. I did some work for one of the companies that mine data from checks (20 yrs ago), it was amazing how much they could get from scanning the front of a piece of paper. This data was then used by the chain, as well as being sold to all sorts of other companies. No one gave them permission, but you can't stop scanning a check if you want to use it. It's still done today, but of course now we have credit/debit and loyalty cards, and you think that's not used by the grocery chains to track your purchases? Unless you refuse to use a loyal card and use a more anonymous system like Apple Pay the store can't really track you, but the issuer knows who you are (but can't connect you to what you bought that I know of). None of this is new. Unless you pay with cash and wear a disguise, you are giving something to them.
I wish Apple did not sell ads of any kind (the don't need even more money), but using knowledge you gain just from a transaction to make money, simply because you have to exchange some information to get what you want, is as old as selling anything (Omar in the market sees you bought two sets of flowers, assumes you are an adulterer, turns you in for a reward to the Czar).
I would really like Apple/Google Pay to get a copy of the receipt from the terminal. Paper receipts are a nuisance. The problem is that then Apple/Google has a copy of my receipt. I wonder if this could be done in a way that protects consumer privacy.
>Apple has taken money from a party that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Apple has brazenly, in broad daylight, stormed into the Bank of Facebook, looted its most precious resource, and, camouflaged under the noble cause of giving privacy controls to the consumer, fled the scene.
I find it hard to believe that people can complain about the _concept_ of ATT with a straight face. All that is being asked of you is that you ask the user for permission to track them. If you genuinely have an issue with that you need to reevaluate your business + your ethics.
Another win for Apple is convincing people that it’s somewhat obvious that Apple should have a ton of data about me so I guess best to limit it to one place rather than allowing “anybody” to get access to it. But put that into the context of buying a laptop from say HP and saying to somebody, do you think HP should know virtually everything about your usage of that laptop? So I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us..
"I hope for the day where we end up with hardware that we truly own rather than them owning us.."
so frustrating to read this in 2021, with memories of the personal computer in the 80s and 90s. The exact market placement of PC's was to break a dependence on a central account somewhere. Many, many people knew exactly what that meant, supported a plural market of hardware and software (in the West) with their individual purchases, and things were fun and interesting.
Trading software and hardware was more like trading books and records - in the privacy of your town and home. So many positives to this model.
I actually don’t think the “general purpose computing hardware ownership” model scales in today’s world. Sure, enthusiasts will always buy them, but a locked down OS like iOS is a lot more resilient to the myriad of security threats out there. And there are a lot of them now. In my opinion as a consumer, I’m buying an iPhone because Apple curates the App Store and has strict rules for what gets on there. But to do that, they need a lot more info about me.
We’ve entered the era of “computing as a service” outside the enthusiast / PC gamer realm. At the corporate level, this is literally becoming the case: the new model is to just outsource everything for corporate devices, including ownership of the machines, and lease them through a managed services agreement. But this rebundling is less obvious in the consumer space as PCs have largely been replaced by tablets and smartphones (which do follow more of an “as a service” model).
Is this an article trying to generate sympathy for Facebook, claiming Apple is just as bad in this case and that they dont really care about privacy? Seems kinda suspect to me. Maybe I misinterpreted the tone here. I dont think Apple is all good and Facebook is all bad, but in the aggregate Apple does do more for privacy than Facebook and Facebook does want to know as much as possible about your life to push that into selling ads.
> I dont think Apple is all good and Facebook is all bad, but in the aggregate Apple does do more for privacy than Facebook and Facebook does want to know as much as possible about your life to push that into selling ads.
The article was about how Apple is out maneuvering Facebook. By restricting Facebook's third party access to customer information, Apple reinforces its own advertising position. They recently added another placement to the search page in the AppStore, and will no doubt expand to more areas. Their hiring of a former Facebook ad executive is telling.
It addresses this good guy / bad guy narrative. Apple is better at PR not necessarily better for consumer privacy.
I read it more as an article looking back at things and describing the dynamics at play / unspoken intentions & the result. Apple pulled off a huge power move against Google and Facebook, and it paid off beautifully. It's worth taking a minute to describe what just happened.
No sympathy for Facebook, but the article illuminates the vast anticompetitive hammer that Apple yields.
Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. It's as if there were only two electric companies, and they charged Tesla 30% to charge your car. The electric company is now in charge of the ads being beamed into your skull, because they had all the power and wanted more ways to make money. It's cute to say that it's in the name of consumer privacy and all, but really the powerful company is just thirsty for more.
> in the aggregate Apple does do more for privacy than Facebook
Then you are extremely naive.
Apple takes away from you as much private data as it can. It's just very bad at exploiting it, primarily because the company already earns so much money, it's not even incentivized in recognizing the benefit of data mining.
But with iPhones sells diminishing every year, the situation is changing. Growth must come from services.
Apple will continue to slurp away your private data.
Apple will invest more into this resource, and make more and more use of it, including for the targeted Ads that used to be "so evil" when they came from another Ad network, but hey, if it's Apple, it's different.
This is disingenuous. Using appstore buying behavior to target search ads in the appstore is not something many people would find creepy.
Facebook advertisers being able to target people for being sick, pregnant, poor and similar, based on photos you liked on instagram or even browsing non-facebook sites, is an entirely different level of privacy breech.
It is the same playbook as they did with Google. The $10B/ year placement fees for being default search engine on Apple devices, all while squeezing out most of the Data going to Google in the name of privacy.
A fairly large potion of Facebook Ads are actually Ads for Apps or specifically Games. Previously the Ad network ( in this case Facebook ) would know what sort of Games you have installed, and show you some relevant ( or similar ) games that you may like. There is no point showing you FPS games if you dont play FPS games at all. With ATT no ad network, including but not limited to Facebook will not have any "newer" data. And they cant target those ads for you. This is what the whole "tracking" argument is all about. ( At least from Apple perspective )
But since Apple has all those Data, they can now sell those Ads themselves. Of course the argument is the definition of Tracking. And may be the vast majority understanding of what tracking really mean, portrayed by Apple differs greatly to the actual technical definition. Benedict Evans [1] has quite a few words on it.
On the PR and media side it is the same playbook as they did with Qualcomm. Facebook and Qualcomm are evil, Apple are righteous. But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled.
The amount of hypocrisy from Modern Day Apple is even worst than Google in early 2000s.
They may have sherlocked Tile (though I think this is debatable) but they absolutely did not sherlock Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads is far reaching and monitors you on and off their platform, showing ads in the app store using data about your App Store habits is a completely different ballgame.
How often does an individual actually use the App Store? I’ve already figured out my app load out and since apps can’t exactly share data the way desktop apps do, that’s not likely to change - I can’t get a package that handles data better than the original, using the original files.
Let them advertise there for now. It’s not like I’ll see it much.
I don't understand why FB didn't instead try to appeal to people's desire for freedom. Instead of talking about ads they could have built a whole campaign around how Apple doesn't let people control their own devices.
They could have helped us get real sideloading on iOS.
Apple is acting the same way they did when they kicked out Steve Jobs the first time doing everything they can to extract dollars with very little innovation.
[+] [-] strict9|4 years ago|reply
This is one important factor that very few FB users realize. The secret sauce is aggregating data captured outside of FB, which is hard to visualize and grasp for most people.
More than once friends/family have asked me if FB really can hear via your microphone, and my response is usually met with blank stares: no, they aren't listening to your microphone, they know much more about you from the sites you've visited.
[+] [-] macd|4 years ago|reply
"I just talked about X product the other day, but never searched for it. But I'm getting ads for it now anyway!"
Well, you may not have searched for it after that conversation, but other people in the demographic they think you belong to did. So they think maybe you're interested in X product as well.
[+] [-] simonw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criddell|4 years ago|reply
And also off-line data collection. Do you have a loyalty card for some store you go to often? There's a decent chance that data ends up with Facebook.
I'm frankly a little surprised that Facebook didn't follow Apple by releasing a credit card.
[+] [-] rambambram|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xbar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|4 years ago|reply
I wish Apple did not sell ads of any kind (the don't need even more money), but using knowledge you gain just from a transaction to make money, simply because you have to exchange some information to get what you want, is as old as selling anything (Omar in the market sees you bought two sets of flowers, assumes you are an adulterer, turns you in for a reward to the Czar).
[+] [-] Consultant32452|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warrenm|4 years ago|reply
>Apple has taken money from a party that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress. Apple has brazenly, in broad daylight, stormed into the Bank of Facebook, looted its most precious resource, and, camouflaged under the noble cause of giving privacy controls to the consumer, fled the scene.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|4 years ago|reply
Facebook does not already have money from future ad revenue, therefore Apple cannot have “taken” it.
> that is so unsympathetic that it can’t appeal to a greater authority for redress.
Facebook cannot appeal to a greater authority for redress because no crimes were committed against them.
The rest of the quote is also hyperbolic nonsense. “[Apple] fled the scene” does not make the slightest bit of sense.
[+] [-] kjakm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdminhbg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telendram|4 years ago|reply
Sounds like an obvious monopoly abuse to me. I hope some government (European maybe?) do something about it.
[+] [-] xt00|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistrial9|4 years ago|reply
so frustrating to read this in 2021, with memories of the personal computer in the 80s and 90s. The exact market placement of PC's was to break a dependence on a central account somewhere. Many, many people knew exactly what that meant, supported a plural market of hardware and software (in the West) with their individual purchases, and things were fun and interesting.
Trading software and hardware was more like trading books and records - in the privacy of your town and home. So many positives to this model.
[+] [-] wayoutthere|4 years ago|reply
We’ve entered the era of “computing as a service” outside the enthusiast / PC gamer realm. At the corporate level, this is literally becoming the case: the new model is to just outsource everything for corporate devices, including ownership of the machines, and lease them through a managed services agreement. But this rebundling is less obvious in the consumer space as PCs have largely been replaced by tablets and smartphones (which do follow more of an “as a service” model).
[+] [-] S_A_P|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctvo|4 years ago|reply
The article was about how Apple is out maneuvering Facebook. By restricting Facebook's third party access to customer information, Apple reinforces its own advertising position. They recently added another placement to the search page in the AppStore, and will no doubt expand to more areas. Their hiring of a former Facebook ad executive is telling.
It addresses this good guy / bad guy narrative. Apple is better at PR not necessarily better for consumer privacy.
[+] [-] nerbert|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|4 years ago|reply
Apple shouldn't be in charge of commerce on iPhone. It's as if there were only two electric companies, and they charged Tesla 30% to charge your car. The electric company is now in charge of the ads being beamed into your skull, because they had all the power and wanted more ways to make money. It's cute to say that it's in the name of consumer privacy and all, but really the powerful company is just thirsty for more.
Apple is a monopoly's monopoly.
[+] [-] telendram|4 years ago|reply
Then you are extremely naive.
Apple takes away from you as much private data as it can. It's just very bad at exploiting it, primarily because the company already earns so much money, it's not even incentivized in recognizing the benefit of data mining.
But with iPhones sells diminishing every year, the situation is changing. Growth must come from services.
Apple will continue to slurp away your private data. Apple will invest more into this resource, and make more and more use of it, including for the targeted Ads that used to be "so evil" when they came from another Ad network, but hey, if it's Apple, it's different.
[+] [-] Grustaf|4 years ago|reply
Facebook advertisers being able to target people for being sick, pregnant, poor and similar, based on photos you liked on instagram or even browsing non-facebook sites, is an entirely different level of privacy breech.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] truth_|4 years ago|reply
This is creepy.
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
A fairly large potion of Facebook Ads are actually Ads for Apps or specifically Games. Previously the Ad network ( in this case Facebook ) would know what sort of Games you have installed, and show you some relevant ( or similar ) games that you may like. There is no point showing you FPS games if you dont play FPS games at all. With ATT no ad network, including but not limited to Facebook will not have any "newer" data. And they cant target those ads for you. This is what the whole "tracking" argument is all about. ( At least from Apple perspective )
But since Apple has all those Data, they can now sell those Ads themselves. Of course the argument is the definition of Tracking. And may be the vast majority understanding of what tracking really mean, portrayed by Apple differs greatly to the actual technical definition. Benedict Evans [1] has quite a few words on it.
On the PR and media side it is the same playbook as they did with Qualcomm. Facebook and Qualcomm are evil, Apple are righteous. But when the trial did happen every single accusation Apple made against Qualcomm turns out to false before they were quickly settled.
The amount of hypocrisy from Modern Day Apple is even worst than Google in early 2000s.
[1] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387130787510751239...
[+] [-] cglong|4 years ago|reply
Sorry, could you expound on this a bit? I don't recall hearing about this.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|4 years ago|reply
They just sherlocked Tile and Facebook Ads in the last month alone.
[+] [-] joshstrange|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerbert|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xbar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|4 years ago|reply
Let them advertise there for now. It’s not like I’ll see it much.
[+] [-] nowherebeen|4 years ago|reply
I think the author confused the PR department with the business strategy department. They are the ones that really deserves the pay raise.
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|4 years ago|reply
previous discussion yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27126501
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120693
[+] [-] wayneftw|4 years ago|reply
They could have helped us get real sideloading on iOS.
[+] [-] cglong|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhewes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhewes|4 years ago|reply