17 ms·

Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

259 points by danielamitay 6y ago

vaxman 6y ago
Aww the gangsters are fighting. Maybe they should call a truce and focus on making everyone happy before they are busted the hell up by the most powerful government on Earth. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-antitrust-panel-to-propose-fixes-for-big-tech-dominance https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-ant...
AnonHP 6y ago
> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14. Translation: The iOS changes are making the platform more like a printed newspaper. So please continue to spend your ad budget with Facebook because we have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media. > We expect less impact to our own advertising business, and we’re committed to supporting advertisers and publishers through these updates. Translation: We will do everything in our power to track users and collect more information from our already invasive apps. While we’re happy to keep making money here, please continue to advertise with us on our platforms because we have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media. Innovation is at the heart of what we do. Did you see our TikTok clone in Instagram lately?
kalleboo 6y ago
What amuses me is that all Apple is doing here is putting up a dialog asking if the user wants to be tracked. And Facebook knows just how much users hate being tracked, so they are avoiding the API that results in the dialog. Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going to be so sad once tracking is gone!"
- kevindong 6y ago
  > Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going to be so sad once tracking is gone!" I would not characterize Facebook's post that way. Facebook's post doesn't mention the impact on/reaction from the end users at all. My interpretation of all this is that no reasonable user would consent to the tracking anyway and the marginal benefit of users who do consent is outweighed by users who are creeped out and decline the tracking.
Despegar 6y ago
>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses. Yes they would certainly prefer a "UN of ad-tech" that doesn't do anything rather than Apple's unilateral action.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media My guess is that this partnership is very similar to a hypothetical Foxes’ Partnership for Responsible Henhouse Interactions
  - cjaybo 6y ago
    It reminds me of Gavin Belson's "Tethics" from the Silicon Valley TV show.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Presumably they would also like veto power.
- danShumway 6y ago
  To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its name!
  - sli 6y ago
    DNT just became another fingerprinting datapoint, so it ended up being better to just set it to whatever the critical mass is using (which is typically off).
criddell 6y ago
> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. Why should platform makers consult the advertising industry? It's not like the advertising industry consulted anybody before they started collecting every bit of data they could.
- avalys 6y ago
  Because many of the people developing apps for their platform rely on advertising revenue to pay the bills?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - manishsharan 6y ago
    If the app makers were merely showing an ad , even an intrusive one without selling out my information -- I will be able to tolerate that. However when app developers include libraries from foursquare or facebook, what they are doing is violating the users' privacy and selling their information to third party aggregators who will apply data analytics to build a full predictive model of your behavior and then they will sell it to anybody who wants to spy on you. Do you remember Cambridge Analytica ?
    - actuator 6y ago
      FB has done plenty wrong but you can make the point without upping the hyperbole as well. There is a danger of FB manipulating things on its own but they didn't sell the data to any third party including Cambridge Analytica, it was harvested because of poor API policy(your friend auth giving access to some of your details) which was fixed in the future. The behavioral profiles were built by Cambridge Analytica on its own by the data it stole. Why would FB in any instance even sell your data? I would argue it is in FB's interest to keep the data for itself, not letting anyone have it and be the gatekeeper. The right thing to argue is, whether you want FB/Tiktok itself to have the treasure trove of data or not, and whether you want to allow them to use that to do precise targeting.
bonaldi 6y ago
The wording here is subtly different from the text they reportedly emailed out - https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 Notably, it omits the line saying they won't use the prompt in their own apps (which they'd be required to do whether or not they used IDFA) and omits the advice that implies their customers should figure out other ways to gather identifying information
- Despegar 6y ago
  The response to that is to just not allow them to update their app until they comply.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Not sure why you got downvoted for this. I expect that this will be Apple’s response 100%. They would come off so good putting up a fight for users.
    - Despegar 6y ago
      Probably because Apple's total control of the platform is why this change could happen. Their ability to not allow a developer to distribute an app update that doesn't comply with the new privacy change stems from the same power that allows them to collect 30/15% of in-app purchases.
- judge2020 6y ago
  > Use non-IDFA match methods such as adopting Facebook Login or using Advanced Matching to share hashed customer contact information nice
supernova87a 6y ago
"Preparing our partners"? More like notifying them that their businesses may go out of business.
- dylan604 6y ago
  It reads to me like "Wah, we can't do what we want anymore. Boohoo! However, we are working hard to find a way to get around the upcoming limitations."
  - nerfhammer 6y ago
    it will impact small apps that are whose business is dependent on buying or selling mobile ad space more than facebook itself
    - dylan604 6y ago
      I have no sympathy for a company who is so dependent on the invasive use of personal data to survive.
fmakunbound 6y ago
> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies User consultation is more critical, but Facebook doesn't really have "users", per se - they have products.
- jfb 6y ago
  Oh, they have plenty of users; they're just not the people whose labour they're harvesting.
  - fmakunbound 6y ago
    Good point
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14. Seems like Apple is really backing up their rhetoric with real action. Awesome news for anyone that values privacy. Kudos to Apple.
- TACIXAT 6y ago
  This is what gets me to move away from Android. I like the Andoird ecosystem more, but my hate for advertising supercedes all of that.
  - tmpz22 6y ago
    That's ironic given some of the best possible ad blocking on mobile devices is Ublock Origin on Firefox mobile which is only available on Android (Apple only allows third party browsers to wrap Safari on iOS). Its 2020 and the only modicum of privacy you can get is a rooted android device.
    - jamroom 6y ago
      Yeah but that only blocks browser based ads - what Apple is doing here is blocking trackers at the OS level - this is what FB is complaining about since their SDK allows the device to be tracked - not just browsers.
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        Does Android SDK let the device to be tracked?
    - lucb1e 6y ago
      TrackerControl is also a great app (available on F-Droid[1]; probably also on the Play Store but I wouldn't know) that works without root. It blocks a blacklist of known tracker domains and you can turn them on/off per-app. For example, does your HackerNews app need to talk to Google? Probably not, so that gets blocked by default. Does your Newpipe/YouTube app? Yes, so you should unblock that from talking to Google. The Spotify app also tries to talk to like 9 different tracking domains, but only one category is actually required to fully use the app. Screenshot: https://dro.pm/n.png https://dro.pm/n.png (Current version doesn't yet allow toggling per-domain in an attempt to make it easier/more manageable; but iirc allowing that is a planned change.) The app is under active development and the dev seems to listen to feature requests, so if you have any... :). One downside is that it doesn't work alongside other VPN apps because it pretends to be a VPN. If anyone has a good idea how to solve that, the dev asked for ideas if I remember correctly. I already blacklisted advertising domains in /etc/hosts and disabled things like broadcast listeners so certain apps don't receive the OnBoot/OnAppInstalled/etc. events to limit what they notice and can do, but with TC I feel like my privacy on Android got a substantial boost. Spotify was the last app I use with Facebook integration and I was wondering what to do about it, but I think that is not an issue anymore now. [1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.kollnig.missioncontrol.fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.kollnig.missioncontrol.f...
spzb 6y ago
Gosh, there goes Apple with their anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour again. Facebook better join Epic in the queue at the courtroom. (sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious)
- nabla9 6y ago
  I wonder if FB tried to negotiate and Apple's response was "For a small fee, merely 30% of your company's ad revenue, we can remove the permission requirement.."
- ziftface 6y ago
  Apple absolutely does abuse their power as a monopoly. I'm not sure how that's related to asking users for permission to share data with third parties, which is what this was about.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    Apple is exempting itself from this policy, keeping its own tracking on by default: https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21 https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?... Previously, Apple and third-party tracking were both controlled by the same opt-put setting. Using your power as platform owner to turn your competitor’s ad tracking off by default while keeping yours on? Sure seems abusive to me.
    - ziftface 6y ago
      Completely agree. I was not aware they were doing this too.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      iOS 14 has a prompt for third party tracking.[1] It isn't off by default. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-tracking/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-tracking/
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
victor106 6y ago
> We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses. right for people? by people they mean shareholders and zuckerberg not users
laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
Apple pushed an OSX update (10.15.6) just to demand acceptance to their data-sharing practices from all their user. The forced-to-accept "welcome" screen (which shows up before the main desktop and disregard every single accessibility option the user might have (even the mouse scrolling direction!) starts with: > "Apple's ad platform is designed to protect your information ..." A few interesting things. First, I doubt any Advertising platform was or will ever be designed "to protect you information". They are designed to generate revenue by ensuring people see Adverts. Second, I think it is the first time the words "Apple's [Advertising] Platform" was ever shown to Apple's end users. Lastly, what's up with using "ad" on a somewhat legal document you are forcing me to accept? It is not a word.
- easton 6y ago
  When did this happen? Accessibility options have always been available for me in Setup Assistant (which usually does the post-login after update setup).
  - laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
    i mention the version on the now-downvoted-to-oblivion post
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Ad is a word. Get over it.
- TheRealSteel 6y ago
  "A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning" 'Ad' sure seems like a word to me :) I actually think there are more people that would prefer contracts, terms and conditions, and legal documents be written more in plain English, not less. Things that reduce friction of being able to take in that information without reducing clarity seem to me like a net positive.
foogazi 6y ago
Can they follow the Epic route and sue?
- coders 6y ago
  No
- ffpip 6y ago
  Sue Apple for putting privacy first and informing users of clear opt-out choice right below the opt-in?
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Yes. Apple is using their monopoly position to harm their business of selling private data of consumers.
    - daralthus 6y ago
      They are not competitors. Antitrust law might not apply.
      - freeone3000 6y ago
        Apple has an ad platform.
        schoolornot 6y ago
        Yes, how is forcing developers to use Apple telemetry/ads/whatever any different than forcing them to use Apple Pay for in-app purchases? What else can they grasp?
    - _jal 6y ago
      They're also harming my SaaS (Stalking as a Service) offering. Call my lawyers!
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
ffpip 6y ago
For people blocking facebook - https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.facebook.com/business/news/preparing-our-partners-for-ios-14-launch/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.faceb... https://archive.is/9q5Bc https://archive.is/9q5Bc
- invalidusernam3 6y ago
  I'd never thought to do that, thanks for sparking the idea.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _qulr 6y ago
  > For people blocking facebook I love that this is a category of people. (I'm one of them.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- evanreichard 6y ago
  This is the block list I use if anyone is interested: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/corporations/facebook/all https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/...
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    Thanks, but is there not a way to use wildcards?
    - strombofulous 6y ago
      Not if you're just putting these entries in your hosts file
- notatoad 6y ago
ciarannolan 6y ago
What changes are being made in iOS 14 that are so impactful to FB's business?
- ffpip 6y ago
  https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/ https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/ Facebook is getting scared of the prompt (shown by Apple) saying FB will track you, and whether you would like to opt-out. More importantly, they are putting the opt-opt right below the opt-in (yayyy!) Almost every app will have to ask this kinda prompt now. Not just FB. Good move by Apple
  - btmiller 6y ago
    Yep. Great segment from Jobs that seems to hold true today: https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo
noxer 6y ago
The online ads business is collapsing. I predicted that some years ago and now the first signs become visible. First data collecting will be come harder and harder because people simply don't want that anymore. Then if targeted ads are no longer possible we have a level playing field again where everyone can deliver ads not just the big players. And finally if ads do no longer pay for everything on the net we will finally put a piece tag on commercial stuff.
- techbra 6y ago
  Did you predict other stuff too?
- gregorythecat 6y ago
  To be honest, as an internet user, nothing of value will be lost. Wikipedia will survive, my favorite torrent tracker will persist, and so on. But as a SWE who has grown fat on the advertising largesse, I will suffer. And so will most of you.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I think the online ad business is collapsing (collapsing might be a strong word, but there's definitely a bubble bursting and the market needing a big readjustment) not because of technical problems but simply because people have a certain amount of time and attention and anything beyond that is a waste of money. The advertising industry unfortunately did not understand that and most people are saturated with ads (crappy, low-quality ones for the most part too) and learned to tune them out or outright block them. This may not have happened if the ad quantity remained reasonable.
  - creato 6y ago
    Understand that the ad industry isn't a monolith. The advertisers shoveling shit ads onto local news websites aren't making some grand bargain for short term revenue at the expense of long term consequences (blocking, etc.). Those advertisers simply wouldn't exist otherwise. They're filling a small niche while they can. The fact that their behavior might cause the whole industry problems over the long term does not matter to them. Google, FB, et al would love it if these shitware ads disappeared because fewer people would feel the need to block ads. But there's really nothing they can do about it without being shouted down (or worse) as being anticompetitive, regardless of whether that's true or not in this case (and there probably is some truth to it).
gregorythecat 6y ago
Given the attitude on HN about iOS14, I don’t think most here grasp the implication of gutting ad attribution. All publishers (news sites, indie games, etc) are going to see huge drops in CPM. It could easily be a business ending shift. Sure removing IDFA will help protect user privacy, but let’s not kid ourselves that there will not be collateral damage. Being a third party publisher will be that much harder and walled gardens (FB, Google, Instagram) will be further cemented as the only viable business model.
- Spivak 6y ago
  If that was really the case then why are FB and Google fighting it so hard? Shouldn’t they want this then?
  - gregorythecat 6y ago
    I believe it will still comprise a reduction in their revenue. The internet as a whole will be less profitable, and only the big players will be able to survive. Maybe with time there can be a shift in the economics, but I would not bet on it. I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music streaming...
    - fuzzer37 6y ago
      Or we'll shift back to an internet where people make things because they enjoy making them, not because they're trying to get a million clicks on blog spam. I'd be happy if the internet as a whole was a less profitable place.
      - gregorythecat 6y ago
        Don’t assume I’m against that from the perspective of a netizen. I too grew up reading slashdot and idolizing the FSF. I’m just pointing out this well could be the death knell of SWE as we know it. I will definitely miss the ridiculous TC fueled by the ad-laden web, but at least maybe I won’t work alongside physics and math phds on optimizing clicks....
simonh 6y ago
What we really need is an open platform on iOS for app stores, so that Facebook can launch or partner with a third party store that provides built in APIs to enable bypassing Apples restrictions. Maybe Facebook could make their app exclusive to it, so hundreds of millions of users are drawn to an App Store sub-platform subsidised by intrusive, data scraping, privacy compromising policies. Win!
- kevincox 6y ago
  Why are you assuming that app stores get to provide access to private data? I would expect that apps from any app store are just as sandboxed as the ones from Apple's.
  - simonh 6y ago
    They need to be able to communicate with the store, which needs to be able to provide services such as iAP, background update, reviews and recommendations and whatever else the store provider wants to offer. This is how Google Play store works right now on Android, so this is not theoretical, and you'd bet Google would want a store on iOS and they'd want it to provide the same services Play Store provides on Android. Apple Store apps might well be sandboxed from third party store apps, but there are no guarantees apps within a store ecosystem would provide the same privacy, that would be up to the store provider and Apple would have no say in it.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  If a third party could provide an equivalent to Apple's tracking ID, they'd already be able to do that with a library. Having a different app store has absolutely no effect on this issue whatsoever.
  - simonh 6y ago
    It does because Apps have to be able to communicate with their store, and that could enable bridging between apps which breaks the sandbox. It's all up to the store provider, see more detailed reply in parallel comment.
hyko 6y ago
Facebook are not in control of this, so their consultations and conversations will all be for naught. Thank god.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  We remain committed to helping the thousands of developers and publishers that rely on ads from Audience Network, and we’re investing time and resources into building monetization products for publishers as well as supporting other platforms outside of iOS 14. https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/preparing-audience-network-for-ios14/ https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/p... Translation: Facebook will find a way.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
In iOS 13, Apple and third-party ad tracking were both controlled by the same opt-out setting. In iOS 14, the settings have been split, with third party tracking disabled and and Apple’s tracking enabled by default. Blatant anticompetitive behavior to promote their own tracking services in the guise of protecting users. Genius move by Apple. https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21 https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is a pretty shitty move by Apple! Having said that, I can still disable Apple's tracking. I cannot easily do this with Google or Facebook. So while separating the first and third party preferences a shitty move, the changes to tracking protections in iOS 14 still do protect users.
  - dialtone 6y ago
    You can 100% easily disable tracking with Google and Facebook. They both are required by GDPR and CCPA to provide the tools to do that. In both cases you can go in your account and disable targeted ads. Do it.
    - A2D5F69A 6y ago
      > disable tracking with Google and Facebook > go in your account and disable targeted ads Those are not the same thing.
      - dialtone 6y ago
        GDPR and CCPA give you control to stop tracking altogether, not allowed to drop cookies to you. I fail to understand how that would be different.
- csunbird 6y ago
  Do not worry, the device identifier by Apple is rarely used anyways, usually ad networks identify the user either by fingerprinting or the app developer willingly giving away personal information like e-mail or login information.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
I’m all for how these changes are going to negatively affect Facebook and advertisers. But I just can’t also escape the feeling in the long term I’m giving up control of the devices I own and the actual act of computing to get to this result. If it came to destroying advertisers or free open computing I want free computing.
- lm28469 6y ago
  > I’m giving up control of the devices I own You never had control of ios devices to begin with, the iphone always has been everything but "free computing"
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  This is just an operating system vendor designing its own APIs.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Then don't buy an iPhone. There are hundreds of phone manufacturers who are more than happy to take your money. But if you buy an iPhone you need to understand that you are in the minority i.e. that most of us want Apple to make changes like this.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > There are hundreds of phone manufacturers That all ship one OS.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      Not really. Android differs pretty heavily from one manufacturer to another. And there are pure Linux phones as well.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  I'm confused. What about this decision is causing you to give up control of your device? You can just opt into the tracking; which you want to do for some reason. I'm all for bashing Apple for some of their more restrictive policies but what about THIS decision is making you uncomfortable?
hinkley 6y ago
The abuser playbook really is pretty standard. I'm kind of surprised we don't have classes on how to avoid being on the receiving end. Push the person until they crack, then call for discretion and dialog about the 'problem' so you don't get what's coming to you. But that would probably conflict tremendously with the corporate interests that inform our public education system.
- dang 6y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284891.
- cactus2093 6y ago
  You kind of took it off the deep at there with the last sentence. Sure the Trump dept of education has been especially bad, but you can't blame all of the past decades of US public education mediocrity on corporate interests. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    You might want to do a deep dive on the politics of textbooks, standardized tests, and the economics of charter schools. Corporate interests run deep, and it isn't limited to trump or either party.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      I wouldn't call examining the controversy over school text books as a "deep dive" into anything. As far as education topics go, it's as shallow as a google search. I've been to a few thousand school board meetings in my day. There are a lot of unmined topics there.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        You're right, a deep dive does involve more than a single google search. Read multiple stories, dig up references, find what google's filter bubble isn't showing you, figure out what people on "both" (but usually several) sides are saying; maybe hunt down some podcasts if you're into that. And, y'know, reading past the first comma in somebody's comment to notice that multiple topics were listed. I'd love to hear what you consider to be unmined topics.
DangerousPie 6y ago
This kind of thing is why I was happy to pay a premium for my iPhone.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bitxbit 6y ago
At this point you have to assume a round of antitrust lawsuits once the US govt returns to normal. But you have to wonder how they will divide the big tech or whether DC will even have the expertise required to implement something credible and effective.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  What, exactly, would be this grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit for this change? I mean, I can see a viable anti-trust action for the Hey.com/Epic fiascoes and the ongoing 30% app revenue fees...
  - eitland 6y ago
    The WhatsApp acquisition didn't exactly improve the messaging landscape either. On the browser side one company has really been using their market position in a different market (ads) to outcompete at least two commercial browser engines while the independent open source one has been reduced to fraction of what it once was.
Austin_Conlon 6y ago
They never responded to me asking that they document privacy preparation guidance for their SDK in iOS 14: https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/issues/1450 https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/issues/1450.
eitland 6y ago
Today it struck me that at the moment I think I like Facebooks behavior better than Googles. Mind you; I don't think Facebook is less evil, just that they seem to have understood better than Google that users need to be treated with some amount of respect, at least for now.
HumblyTossed 6y ago
So much drama. Ugh. But, I won't be shedding any tears for Facebook.
rv-de 6y ago
fuck facebook and fuck their implications ... I really, really hope this is finally actually a change that puts a dent into ad monetization.
wdr1 6y ago
TL;DR: Apple's move will help the big guys & hurt the smaller ones.
vipulved 6y ago
What a squirmy and deflective piece of writing.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  The more I see ad tech complaining about iOS the safer I feel using it.
nuker 6y ago
Cannot wait for iOS 14. Apple is the only big company taking privacy seriously, well done. How is that so many anti-Apple comments in this thread? Are we already in a stage when giant Ad Corps are intentionally distorting public discussions?
- Razengan 6y ago
  As a user, when developers and other companies complain about Apple’s overreach, it just tells me to avoid those developers and companies. As to your last question: Of course, why wouldn’t they?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
treyfitty 6y ago
It’s interesting that Apple is taking steps that are tough on Ad networks and tracking. From Apples perspective, why are they waging this war? Sure, user experience in the Apple ecosystem is improved, but there has to be more to the story. At first, I thought it was a long-game strategy of chipping away at Google + Facebook while developing a walled-off user base that only Apple (and their affiliates/partners) can monetize. But there has to be something more substantial. Assuming it costs $X to develop these adtech walls, Apple must require $Y in return... where is this $Y going to come from?
- summerlight 6y ago
  It's simple; Apple is aggressively expanding into service business space where many of it doesn't really make sense to make direct revenue while they're largely a underdog. Given that developing those services on par to FB/Google/Amazon's needs at least tens of billions of dollars, they cannot really build a sustainable business without generating actual revenue. And no one has developed a business model applicable to billion user bases for those "free" services other than advertising. Of course, while it's possible that Apple can keep themselves away from those "free" services but it means that they also need to give up a part of their control on customer relationship. Since it is the core part of their long term strategy, I don't think they can easily give it up. I think they will eventually foray into the advertising business rather than giving up user control. Here, the only major advantage of their services is platform control. The major disadvantage is their perception of privacy-friendly company, so their options on ad network level optimization are significantly limited. The only relevant ads service from Apple is app search ads because this is the only area they can get user information without privacy troubles; this clearly demonstrates their strong and weak points. The only logical conclusion that can be derived from this situation is utilizing their platform control to "level the playground"; even if Apple cannot use the same user data, they can force others to give up. This will neutralize Apple's disadvantage while retaining their platform advantages, which likely give them some time to catch up their competitors in service businesses as well.
- bthrn 6y ago
  Apple has usually billed itself as a high quality hardware manufacturer, and more recently they've expanded into services. The lion's share of their revenue is from these two things. Privacy has always been a core tenet of Apple's value proposition. They ask for more money, and in return you get assurance that the system you're using values your privacy more than other ecosystems. I don't necessarily think there needs to be anything more to it than that. Apple knows it can win privacy conscious people and monetize them in ways Google can't, and that's what it does.

259 points by danielamitay 6y ago

Aww the gangsters are fighting. Maybe they should call a truce and focus on making everyone happy before they are busted the hell up by the most powerful government on Earth. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-antitrust-panel-to-propose-fixes-for-big-tech-dominance https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-ant...

AnonHP 6y ago

> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14. Translation: The iOS changes are making the platform more like a printed newspaper. So please continue to spend your ad budget with Facebook because we have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media. > We expect less impact to our own advertising business, and we’re committed to supporting advertisers and publishers through these updates. Translation: We will do everything in our power to track users and collect more information from our already invasive apps. While we’re happy to keep making money here, please continue to advertise with us on our platforms because we have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media. Innovation is at the heart of what we do. Did you see our TikTok clone in Instagram lately?

kalleboo 6y ago

What amuses me is that all Apple is doing here is putting up a dialog asking if the user wants to be tracked. And Facebook knows just how much users hate being tracked, so they are avoiding the API that results in the dialog. Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going to be so sad once tracking is gone!"

kevindong 6y ago
> Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going to be so sad once tracking is gone!" I would not characterize Facebook's post that way. Facebook's post doesn't mention the impact on/reaction from the end users at all. My interpretation of all this is that no reasonable user would consent to the tracking anyway and the marginal benefit of users who do consent is outweighed by users who are creeped out and decline the tracking.

Despegar 6y ago

>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses. Yes they would certainly prefer a "UN of ad-tech" that doesn't do anything rather than Apple's unilateral action.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media My guess is that this partnership is very similar to a hypothetical Foxes’ Partnership for Responsible Henhouse Interactions
- cjaybo 6y ago
  It reminds me of Gavin Belson's "Tethics" from the Silicon Valley TV show.
pwinnski 6y ago
Presumably they would also like veto power.
danShumway 6y ago
To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its name!
- sli 6y ago
  DNT just became another fingerprinting datapoint, so it ended up being better to just set it to whatever the critical mass is using (which is typically off).

criddell 6y ago

> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. Why should platform makers consult the advertising industry? It's not like the advertising industry consulted anybody before they started collecting every bit of data they could.

avalys 6y ago
Because many of the people developing apps for their platform rely on advertising revenue to pay the bills?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manishsharan 6y ago
  If the app makers were merely showing an ad , even an intrusive one without selling out my information -- I will be able to tolerate that. However when app developers include libraries from foursquare or facebook, what they are doing is violating the users' privacy and selling their information to third party aggregators who will apply data analytics to build a full predictive model of your behavior and then they will sell it to anybody who wants to spy on you. Do you remember Cambridge Analytica ?
  - actuator 6y ago
    FB has done plenty wrong but you can make the point without upping the hyperbole as well. There is a danger of FB manipulating things on its own but they didn't sell the data to any third party including Cambridge Analytica, it was harvested because of poor API policy(your friend auth giving access to some of your details) which was fixed in the future. The behavioral profiles were built by Cambridge Analytica on its own by the data it stole. Why would FB in any instance even sell your data? I would argue it is in FB's interest to keep the data for itself, not letting anyone have it and be the gatekeeper. The right thing to argue is, whether you want FB/Tiktok itself to have the treasure trove of data or not, and whether you want to allow them to use that to do precise targeting.

bonaldi 6y ago

The wording here is subtly different from the text they reportedly emailed out - https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848 Notably, it omits the line saying they won't use the prompt in their own apps (which they'd be required to do whether or not they used IDFA) and omits the advice that implies their customers should figure out other ways to gather identifying information

Despegar 6y ago
The response to that is to just not allow them to update their app until they comply.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Not sure why you got downvoted for this. I expect that this will be Apple’s response 100%. They would come off so good putting up a fight for users.
  - Despegar 6y ago
    Probably because Apple's total control of the platform is why this change could happen. Their ability to not allow a developer to distribute an app update that doesn't comply with the new privacy change stems from the same power that allows them to collect 30/15% of in-app purchases.
judge2020 6y ago
> Use non-IDFA match methods such as adopting Facebook Login or using Advanced Matching to share hashed customer contact information nice

supernova87a 6y ago

"Preparing our partners"? More like notifying them that their businesses may go out of business.

dylan604 6y ago
It reads to me like "Wah, we can't do what we want anymore. Boohoo! However, we are working hard to find a way to get around the upcoming limitations."
- nerfhammer 6y ago
  it will impact small apps that are whose business is dependent on buying or selling mobile ad space more than facebook itself
  - dylan604 6y ago
    I have no sympathy for a company who is so dependent on the invasive use of personal data to survive.

fmakunbound 6y ago

> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies User consultation is more critical, but Facebook doesn't really have "users", per se - they have products.

jfb 6y ago
Oh, they have plenty of users; they're just not the people whose labour they're harvesting.
- fmakunbound 6y ago
  Good point

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14. Seems like Apple is really backing up their rhetoric with real action. Awesome news for anyone that values privacy. Kudos to Apple.

TACIXAT 6y ago
This is what gets me to move away from Android. I like the Andoird ecosystem more, but my hate for advertising supercedes all of that.
- tmpz22 6y ago
  That's ironic given some of the best possible ad blocking on mobile devices is Ublock Origin on Firefox mobile which is only available on Android (Apple only allows third party browsers to wrap Safari on iOS). Its 2020 and the only modicum of privacy you can get is a rooted android device.
  - jamroom 6y ago
    Yeah but that only blocks browser based ads - what Apple is doing here is blocking trackers at the OS level - this is what FB is complaining about since their SDK allows the device to be tracked - not just browsers.
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      Does Android SDK let the device to be tracked?
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    TrackerControl is also a great app (available on F-Droid[1]; probably also on the Play Store but I wouldn't know) that works without root. It blocks a blacklist of known tracker domains and you can turn them on/off per-app. For example, does your HackerNews app need to talk to Google? Probably not, so that gets blocked by default. Does your Newpipe/YouTube app? Yes, so you should unblock that from talking to Google. The Spotify app also tries to talk to like 9 different tracking domains, but only one category is actually required to fully use the app. Screenshot: https://dro.pm/n.png https://dro.pm/n.png (Current version doesn't yet allow toggling per-domain in an attempt to make it easier/more manageable; but iirc allowing that is a planned change.) The app is under active development and the dev seems to listen to feature requests, so if you have any... :). One downside is that it doesn't work alongside other VPN apps because it pretends to be a VPN. If anyone has a good idea how to solve that, the dev asked for ideas if I remember correctly. I already blacklisted advertising domains in /etc/hosts and disabled things like broadcast listeners so certain apps don't receive the OnBoot/OnAppInstalled/etc. events to limit what they notice and can do, but with TC I feel like my privacy on Android got a substantial boost. Spotify was the last app I use with Facebook integration and I was wondering what to do about it, but I think that is not an issue anymore now. [1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.kollnig.missioncontrol.fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.kollnig.missioncontrol.f...

spzb 6y ago

Gosh, there goes Apple with their anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour again. Facebook better join Epic in the queue at the courtroom. (sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious)

nabla9 6y ago
I wonder if FB tried to negotiate and Apple's response was "For a small fee, merely 30% of your company's ad revenue, we can remove the permission requirement.."
ziftface 6y ago
Apple absolutely does abuse their power as a monopoly. I'm not sure how that's related to asking users for permission to share data with third parties, which is what this was about.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Apple is exempting itself from this policy, keeping its own tracking on by default: https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21 https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?... Previously, Apple and third-party tracking were both controlled by the same opt-put setting. Using your power as platform owner to turn your competitor’s ad tracking off by default while keeping yours on? Sure seems abusive to me.
  - ziftface 6y ago
    Completely agree. I was not aware they were doing this too.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    iOS 14 has a prompt for third party tracking.[1] It isn't off by default. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-tracking/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-ios-14-ad-tracking/
  - Ensorceled 6y ago

victor106 6y ago

> We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses. right for people? by people they mean shareholders and zuckerberg not users

laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago

Apple pushed an OSX update (10.15.6) just to demand acceptance to their data-sharing practices from all their user. The forced-to-accept "welcome" screen (which shows up before the main desktop and disregard every single accessibility option the user might have (even the mouse scrolling direction!) starts with: > "Apple's ad platform is designed to protect your information ..." A few interesting things. First, I doubt any Advertising platform was or will ever be designed "to protect you information". They are designed to generate revenue by ensuring people see Adverts. Second, I think it is the first time the words "Apple's [Advertising] Platform" was ever shown to Apple's end users. Lastly, what's up with using "ad" on a somewhat legal document you are forcing me to accept? It is not a word.

easton 6y ago
When did this happen? Accessibility options have always been available for me in Setup Assistant (which usually does the post-login after update setup).
- laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
  i mention the version on the now-downvoted-to-oblivion post
saagarjha 6y ago
Ad is a word. Get over it.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
"A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning" 'Ad' sure seems like a word to me :) I actually think there are more people that would prefer contracts, terms and conditions, and legal documents be written more in plain English, not less. Things that reduce friction of being able to take in that information without reducing clarity seem to me like a net positive.

foogazi 6y ago

Can they follow the Epic route and sue?

coders 6y ago
No
ffpip 6y ago
Sue Apple for putting privacy first and informing users of clear opt-out choice right below the opt-in?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Yes. Apple is using their monopoly position to harm their business of selling private data of consumers.
  - daralthus 6y ago
    They are not competitors. Antitrust law might not apply.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Apple has an ad platform.
      - schoolornot 6y ago
        Yes, how is forcing developers to use Apple telemetry/ads/whatever any different than forcing them to use Apple Pay for in-app purchases? What else can they grasp?
  - _jal 6y ago
    They're also harming my SaaS (Stalking as a Service) offering. Call my lawyers!
  - ogre_codes 6y ago

ffpip 6y ago

For people blocking facebook - https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.facebook.com/business/news/preparing-our-partners-for-ios-14-launch/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.faceb... https://archive.is/9q5Bc https://archive.is/9q5Bc

invalidusernam3 6y ago
I'd never thought to do that, thanks for sparking the idea.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_qulr 6y ago
> For people blocking facebook I love that this is a category of people. (I'm one of them.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
evanreichard 6y ago
This is the block list I use if anyone is interested: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/corporations/facebook/all https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/...
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  Thanks, but is there not a way to use wildcards?
  - strombofulous 6y ago
    Not if you're just putting these entries in your hosts file
notatoad 6y ago

ciarannolan 6y ago

What changes are being made in iOS 14 that are so impactful to FB's business?

ffpip 6y ago
https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/ https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/ Facebook is getting scared of the prompt (shown by Apple) saying FB will track you, and whether you would like to opt-out. More importantly, they are putting the opt-opt right below the opt-in (yayyy!) Almost every app will have to ask this kinda prompt now. Not just FB. Good move by Apple
- btmiller 6y ago
  Yep. Great segment from Jobs that seems to hold true today: https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo

noxer 6y ago

The online ads business is collapsing. I predicted that some years ago and now the first signs become visible. First data collecting will be come harder and harder because people simply don't want that anymore. Then if targeted ads are no longer possible we have a level playing field again where everyone can deliver ads not just the big players. And finally if ads do no longer pay for everything on the net we will finally put a piece tag on commercial stuff.

techbra 6y ago
Did you predict other stuff too?
gregorythecat 6y ago
To be honest, as an internet user, nothing of value will be lost. Wikipedia will survive, my favorite torrent tracker will persist, and so on. But as a SWE who has grown fat on the advertising largesse, I will suffer. And so will most of you.
Nextgrid 6y ago
I think the online ad business is collapsing (collapsing might be a strong word, but there's definitely a bubble bursting and the market needing a big readjustment) not because of technical problems but simply because people have a certain amount of time and attention and anything beyond that is a waste of money. The advertising industry unfortunately did not understand that and most people are saturated with ads (crappy, low-quality ones for the most part too) and learned to tune them out or outright block them. This may not have happened if the ad quantity remained reasonable.
- creato 6y ago
  Understand that the ad industry isn't a monolith. The advertisers shoveling shit ads onto local news websites aren't making some grand bargain for short term revenue at the expense of long term consequences (blocking, etc.). Those advertisers simply wouldn't exist otherwise. They're filling a small niche while they can. The fact that their behavior might cause the whole industry problems over the long term does not matter to them. Google, FB, et al would love it if these shitware ads disappeared because fewer people would feel the need to block ads. But there's really nothing they can do about it without being shouted down (or worse) as being anticompetitive, regardless of whether that's true or not in this case (and there probably is some truth to it).

gregorythecat 6y ago

Given the attitude on HN about iOS14, I don’t think most here grasp the implication of gutting ad attribution. All publishers (news sites, indie games, etc) are going to see huge drops in CPM. It could easily be a business ending shift. Sure removing IDFA will help protect user privacy, but let’s not kid ourselves that there will not be collateral damage. Being a third party publisher will be that much harder and walled gardens (FB, Google, Instagram) will be further cemented as the only viable business model.

Spivak 6y ago
If that was really the case then why are FB and Google fighting it so hard? Shouldn’t they want this then?
- gregorythecat 6y ago
  I believe it will still comprise a reduction in their revenue. The internet as a whole will be less profitable, and only the big players will be able to survive. Maybe with time there can be a shift in the economics, but I would not bet on it. I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music streaming...
  - fuzzer37 6y ago
    Or we'll shift back to an internet where people make things because they enjoy making them, not because they're trying to get a million clicks on blog spam. I'd be happy if the internet as a whole was a less profitable place.
    - gregorythecat 6y ago
      Don’t assume I’m against that from the perspective of a netizen. I too grew up reading slashdot and idolizing the FSF. I’m just pointing out this well could be the death knell of SWE as we know it. I will definitely miss the ridiculous TC fueled by the ad-laden web, but at least maybe I won’t work alongside physics and math phds on optimizing clicks....

simonh 6y ago

What we really need is an open platform on iOS for app stores, so that Facebook can launch or partner with a third party store that provides built in APIs to enable bypassing Apples restrictions. Maybe Facebook could make their app exclusive to it, so hundreds of millions of users are drawn to an App Store sub-platform subsidised by intrusive, data scraping, privacy compromising policies. Win!

kevincox 6y ago
Why are you assuming that app stores get to provide access to private data? I would expect that apps from any app store are just as sandboxed as the ones from Apple's.
- simonh 6y ago
  They need to be able to communicate with the store, which needs to be able to provide services such as iAP, background update, reviews and recommendations and whatever else the store provider wants to offer. This is how Google Play store works right now on Android, so this is not theoretical, and you'd bet Google would want a store on iOS and they'd want it to provide the same services Play Store provides on Android. Apple Store apps might well be sandboxed from third party store apps, but there are no guarantees apps within a store ecosystem would provide the same privacy, that would be up to the store provider and Apple would have no say in it.
thomaslord 6y ago
If a third party could provide an equivalent to Apple's tracking ID, they'd already be able to do that with a library. Having a different app store has absolutely no effect on this issue whatsoever.
- simonh 6y ago
  It does because Apps have to be able to communicate with their store, and that could enable bridging between apps which breaks the sandbox. It's all up to the store provider, see more detailed reply in parallel comment.

hyko 6y ago

Facebook are not in control of this, so their consultations and conversations will all be for naught. Thank god.

ignoramous 6y ago
We remain committed to helping the thousands of developers and publishers that rely on ads from Audience Network, and we’re investing time and resources into building monetization products for publishers as well as supporting other platforms outside of iOS 14. https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/preparing-audience-network-for-ios14/ https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/p... Translation: Facebook will find a way.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

In iOS 13, Apple and third-party ad tracking were both controlled by the same opt-out setting. In iOS 14, the settings have been split, with third party tracking disabled and and Apple’s tracking enabled by default. Blatant anticompetitive behavior to promote their own tracking services in the guise of protecting users. Genius move by Apple. https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21 https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...

AlexandrB 6y ago
This is a pretty shitty move by Apple! Having said that, I can still disable Apple's tracking. I cannot easily do this with Google or Facebook. So while separating the first and third party preferences a shitty move, the changes to tracking protections in iOS 14 still do protect users.
- dialtone 6y ago
  You can 100% easily disable tracking with Google and Facebook. They both are required by GDPR and CCPA to provide the tools to do that. In both cases you can go in your account and disable targeted ads. Do it.
  - A2D5F69A 6y ago
    > disable tracking with Google and Facebook > go in your account and disable targeted ads Those are not the same thing.
    - dialtone 6y ago
      GDPR and CCPA give you control to stop tracking altogether, not allowed to drop cookies to you. I fail to understand how that would be different.
csunbird 6y ago
Do not worry, the device identifier by Apple is rarely used anyways, usually ad networks identify the user either by fingerprinting or the app developer willingly giving away personal information like e-mail or login information.

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

I’m all for how these changes are going to negatively affect Facebook and advertisers. But I just can’t also escape the feeling in the long term I’m giving up control of the devices I own and the actual act of computing to get to this result. If it came to destroying advertisers or free open computing I want free computing.

lm28469 6y ago
> I’m giving up control of the devices I own You never had control of ios devices to begin with, the iphone always has been everything but "free computing"
madeofpalk 6y ago
This is just an operating system vendor designing its own APIs.
threeseed 6y ago
Then don't buy an iPhone. There are hundreds of phone manufacturers who are more than happy to take your money. But if you buy an iPhone you need to understand that you are in the minority i.e. that most of us want Apple to make changes like this.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > There are hundreds of phone manufacturers That all ship one OS.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Not really. Android differs pretty heavily from one manufacturer to another. And there are pure Linux phones as well.
Ensorceled 6y ago
I'm confused. What about this decision is causing you to give up control of your device? You can just opt into the tracking; which you want to do for some reason. I'm all for bashing Apple for some of their more restrictive policies but what about THIS decision is making you uncomfortable?

hinkley 6y ago

The abuser playbook really is pretty standard. I'm kind of surprised we don't have classes on how to avoid being on the receiving end. Push the person until they crack, then call for discretion and dialog about the 'problem' so you don't get what's coming to you. But that would probably conflict tremendously with the corporate interests that inform our public education system.

dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284891.
cactus2093 6y ago
You kind of took it off the deep at there with the last sentence. Sure the Trump dept of education has been especially bad, but you can't blame all of the past decades of US public education mediocrity on corporate interests. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
- klyrs 6y ago
  You might want to do a deep dive on the politics of textbooks, standardized tests, and the economics of charter schools. Corporate interests run deep, and it isn't limited to trump or either party.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    I wouldn't call examining the controversy over school text books as a "deep dive" into anything. As far as education topics go, it's as shallow as a google search. I've been to a few thousand school board meetings in my day. There are a lot of unmined topics there.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      You're right, a deep dive does involve more than a single google search. Read multiple stories, dig up references, find what google's filter bubble isn't showing you, figure out what people on "both" (but usually several) sides are saying; maybe hunt down some podcasts if you're into that. And, y'know, reading past the first comma in somebody's comment to notice that multiple topics were listed. I'd love to hear what you consider to be unmined topics.

DangerousPie 6y ago

This kind of thing is why I was happy to pay a premium for my iPhone.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bitxbit 6y ago

At this point you have to assume a round of antitrust lawsuits once the US govt returns to normal. But you have to wonder how they will divide the big tech or whether DC will even have the expertise required to implement something credible and effective.

Ensorceled 6y ago
What, exactly, would be this grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit for this change? I mean, I can see a viable anti-trust action for the Hey.com/Epic fiascoes and the ongoing 30% app revenue fees...
- eitland 6y ago
  The WhatsApp acquisition didn't exactly improve the messaging landscape either. On the browser side one company has really been using their market position in a different market (ads) to outcompete at least two commercial browser engines while the independent open source one has been reduced to fraction of what it once was.

Austin_Conlon 6y ago

They never responded to me asking that they document privacy preparation guidance for their SDK in iOS 14: https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/issues/1450 https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/issues/1450.

eitland 6y ago

Today it struck me that at the moment I think I like Facebooks behavior better than Googles. Mind you; I don't think Facebook is less evil, just that they seem to have understood better than Google that users need to be treated with some amount of respect, at least for now.

HumblyTossed 6y ago

So much drama. Ugh. But, I won't be shedding any tears for Facebook.

rv-de 6y ago

fuck facebook and fuck their implications ... I really, really hope this is finally actually a change that puts a dent into ad monetization.

wdr1 6y ago

TL;DR: Apple's move will help the big guys & hurt the smaller ones.

vipulved 6y ago

What a squirmy and deflective piece of writing.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
The more I see ad tech complaining about iOS the safer I feel using it.

nuker 6y ago

Cannot wait for iOS 14. Apple is the only big company taking privacy seriously, well done. How is that so many anti-Apple comments in this thread? Are we already in a stage when giant Ad Corps are intentionally distorting public discussions?

Razengan 6y ago
As a user, when developers and other companies complain about Apple’s overreach, it just tells me to avoid those developers and companies. As to your last question: Of course, why wouldn’t they?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

treyfitty 6y ago

It’s interesting that Apple is taking steps that are tough on Ad networks and tracking. From Apples perspective, why are they waging this war? Sure, user experience in the Apple ecosystem is improved, but there has to be more to the story. At first, I thought it was a long-game strategy of chipping away at Google + Facebook while developing a walled-off user base that only Apple (and their affiliates/partners) can monetize. But there has to be something more substantial. Assuming it costs $X to develop these adtech walls, Apple must require $Y in return... where is this $Y going to come from?

summerlight 6y ago
It's simple; Apple is aggressively expanding into service business space where many of it doesn't really make sense to make direct revenue while they're largely a underdog. Given that developing those services on par to FB/Google/Amazon's needs at least tens of billions of dollars, they cannot really build a sustainable business without generating actual revenue. And no one has developed a business model applicable to billion user bases for those "free" services other than advertising. Of course, while it's possible that Apple can keep themselves away from those "free" services but it means that they also need to give up a part of their control on customer relationship. Since it is the core part of their long term strategy, I don't think they can easily give it up. I think they will eventually foray into the advertising business rather than giving up user control. Here, the only major advantage of their services is platform control. The major disadvantage is their perception of privacy-friendly company, so their options on ad network level optimization are significantly limited. The only relevant ads service from Apple is app search ads because this is the only area they can get user information without privacy troubles; this clearly demonstrates their strong and weak points. The only logical conclusion that can be derived from this situation is utilizing their platform control to "level the playground"; even if Apple cannot use the same user data, they can force others to give up. This will neutralize Apple's disadvantage while retaining their platform advantages, which likely give them some time to catch up their competitors in service businesses as well.
bthrn 6y ago
Apple has usually billed itself as a high quality hardware manufacturer, and more recently they've expanded into services. The lion's share of their revenue is from these two things. Privacy has always been a core tenet of Apple's value proposition. They ask for more money, and in return you get assurance that the system you're using values your privacy more than other ecosystems. I don't necessarily think there needs to be anything more to it than that. Apple knows it can win privacy conscious people and monetize them in ways Google can't, and that's what it does.