10 ms·

I don't understand Facebook's concern. Apple is merely allowing users to OPT IN to tracking. It doesn't matter if tracking is good for small business, because i

I don't understand Facebook's concern. Apple is merely allowing users to OPT IN to tracking. It doesn't matter if tracking is good for small business, because it's the users that are being tracked. And if Facebook tracking is so great for the users, then clearly every user will opt in. So why is Facebook worried? The only reason Facebook could be worried is if they know tracking is bad for users.

fingerlocks 6y ago
Imagine for a moment that you want to advertise your new iPhone app on Facebook. It’s important to know if someone clicks an ad and downloads your app. That’s called a Conversion. It’s used to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaign and the value you gain from spending money on an ad. The flow of information from Facebook to iPhone app install needs some kind of per-user unique identifier. That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, which breaks the advertising model in entirety. It also hurts small businesses that want to advertise on Facebook. Does that help understand the situation?
- nojito 6y ago
  Where’s your proof that advertising or tracking conversions even works in the first place? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
- Aaargh20318 6y ago
  If I put an ad in a newspaper, or a commercial on TV, and this ad results in a customer purchasing my product, they don't give me a 'unique ID' for the ad that triggered their purchase. Hell, the ads aren't even targeted to a specific user, only to the audience of a paper or TV network. Yet, when I open a paper or turn on the TV, there are plenty of paid advertisements. Why would the web need to be any different ? Don't charge for clicks, just charge for showing the ad. Don't target ads based on personal data collected from users, target them based on the content of the page they're shown on. You know, just like TV and print ads have always done.
  - avree 6y ago
    ...because paper and TV advertising is dying, largely because it is horribly ineffective for the reasons you described.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      And yet we're all buying diamonds and slathering on deodorant... [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers-convinced-americans-they-smelled-bad-12552404/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers-convi...
  - alibarber 6y ago
    Looks like Facebook agrees with you: "The social media giant rolled out full-page ads across popular publishing houses such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and more..." There seems to be a certain irony in this.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Ads that don't give the advertiser direct tracking usually give users a code or url specific to a campaign to track their effectiveness. This is an "if they could do more they would" situation.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    There are simple low-tech ways to do this. Differing phone numbers for call-in orders, adding a meaningless suite or department to the address for mail-in orders. Even a slight variation on the URL for web contacts. None of this requires Facebook-style tracking.
  - rush340 6y ago
    The cable company and newspaper would absolutely love to do that if it were possible on their technology. If you put an ad on TV, the cable company is wasting valuable time showing your ad to a ton of people who will never purchase your product (I wonder how many hours of my childhood was spent in front of things like diabetes ads, funeral home ads, depression medication ads). Same goes for newspapers. If they could somehow target ads based on who's watching, the ads would be massively more effective and they could charge a lot more for showing ads. By targeting ads and charging so much more for ad time, some companies can even afford to offer their services for free, which massively increases the audience, which brings in more money, which gives them the budget to build a bigger, better service, which increases their audience, which brings them more money, etc etc And that's how you end up with Facebook and Google. Obviously the problem is that this isn't transparent. Many people don't know why they get all of this complex technology for free. It's not explained when you sign up for a new account.
- foxhill 6y ago
  > Imagine for a moment that you want to advertise your new iPhone app on Facebook. i don't think that's what you're describing here. > It’s important to know if someone clicks an ad and downloads your app. That’s called a Conversion. It’s used to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaign and the value you gain from spending money on an ad. i think you've conflated A/B testing with user-profiling. you will obviously know if a campaign has been "effective", if sales increase. you absolutely do not need to uniquely identify a user to do this (which is what happens today). > That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, as stated, apple don't want to remove it, merely make it opt-in. and if the end user isn't opting in, they probably don't want it.
  - realityking 6y ago
    > you will obviously know if a campaign has been "effective", if sales increase. This is simplifying marketing too much. You’re likely to run concurrent campaigns on different platform, Facebook, Instagram, Google Search, Twitter, etc. Marketers would like to understand what campaigns and what medium helps drive sales/installs. No need to waste money on Twitter ads if it turns out no one actually ends up buying.
    - engineeringwoke 6y ago
      As I understand it there would still be a unique identifier related to the specific campaign.
    - dhosek 6y ago
      This is easily managed by changing the url based on the source of traffic (e.g., the omnipresent ?camId=foo on so many links). Heck, back when I published a magazine, I did this in analog form by using slightly different addresses for mailed in subscriptions (adding a Dept S to the address for the ad in Step by Step, Dept H for How Magazine). It doesn't take intrusive user tracking to be able to measure this sort of thing.
      - mingfli 6y ago
        There are no URLs in app installs. The ad links to the iOS app store, and Apple does not give you any information post install on where the source came from.
- ThePhysicist 6y ago
  You can measure conversions without relying on personally identifiable information. Adding e.g. a non-personal tag to your URL will enable you to track the source of a conversion. If this happens in a browser you can even store that (non-personal) information in the localStorage or a cookie, so even if the user doesn't convert immediately and only comes back after e.g. a week you will be able to tie the conversion to the specific ad. Where in that process do you need personally identifiable information? Also, Facebook doesn't only use these identifiers for conversion tracking, it uses them to create a persistent profile of a person that often ends up containing a ton of sensitive information. Believe it or not, a lot can be inferred about you from your app downloads and website visits. As of now FB was mostly able to perform this kind of tracking without the user really knowing, the only thing Apple does here is drag this practice into the open and give users a real choice. In my opinion a privacy-first OS should inhibit any kind of cross-app / cross-device personal tracking, I predict this will happen in the next 5-10 years, for now it seems to be too extreme still.
  - fingerlocks 6y ago
    I never said personally identify, just uniquely. The IDFA, the thing surrounding all of this drama, does exactly what you describe.
    - ThePhysicist 6y ago
      Well, a unique identifier that is tied to a specific device is considered personal information.
      - fingerlocks 6y ago
        Even if you can change it at will?
        ThePhysicist 6y ago
        Yes, even then. If that wasn't the case it would be trivial to circumvent the GDPR, as then basically any pseudonymous data would be considered non-personal. A Google Analytics user ID is also random and can be changed at any time, still the data that Google collects is considered personal.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, which breaks the advertising model in entirety. You say that like it's a bad thing.
m463 6y ago
users don't opt-in to ads/tracking. Facebook is worried because they want it to be complicated and confusing to opt-out.
- SamuelAdams 6y ago
  It's really a lot simpler than that: users don't change default settings. Some studies say only 5% of users change any settings at all [1][2]. So Facebook is concerned that their ability to track about 95% of their people will simply disappear. [1]: https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-their-settings/ https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-chan... [2]: https://service-design.co/95-of-the-people-stick-to-the-default-option-9e16316a64e1 https://service-design.co/95-of-the-people-stick-to-the-defa...
  - m463 6y ago
    But in this case, isnt' there a dialog? (and THEN they don't change settings)
spinningslate 6y ago
> I don't understand Facebook's concern. That's OP's point. Facebook's concern is nothing to do with "protecting the poor little businesses". It's everything to do with protecting their own business. Because they know that opt-in will drastically reduce their ability to track. But they can't say that. They can't put out an ad that says: "hey. We've been sucking up your data for years, without your informed consent. And we've made a ton of money from it. Now Apple wants to stop us doing that unless you're OK with it". So instead they're pulling every lever they can to make Apple look like the bad guy while avoiding the truth. Hypocracy, exactly as OP says. That they're stooping to these levels just emphasises how much they think the change is going to hurt them.
silveroriole 6y ago
I’m hoping we get some kind of hilariously obvious astroturfed Twitter campaign telling people that opting in to ads is woke left-wing praxis to help content creators. At least I can get some entertainment value out of that.
danieldk 6y ago
Apple is merely allowing users to OPT IN to tracking. I think opt-out tracking (if opt-out is even offered) with personally identifiable information is probably not even permitted under the GDPR, especially the broad, unnecessary cross-app tracking. Apple is actually doing app developers a favor by improving compliance with the GDPR.
ksk 6y ago
>And if Facebook tracking is so great for the users, then clearly every user will opt in. IME for most users the default action for any popup falls into two categories - (a) Quickly close it without reading, (b) Accept it blindly without reading. The ratio changes, but I think its about even.

fingerlocks 6y ago

Imagine for a moment that you want to advertise your new iPhone app on Facebook. It’s important to know if someone clicks an ad and downloads your app. That’s called a Conversion. It’s used to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaign and the value you gain from spending money on an ad. The flow of information from Facebook to iPhone app install needs some kind of per-user unique identifier. That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, which breaks the advertising model in entirety. It also hurts small businesses that want to advertise on Facebook. Does that help understand the situation?

nojito 6y ago
Where’s your proof that advertising or tracking conversions even works in the first place? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
Aaargh20318 6y ago
If I put an ad in a newspaper, or a commercial on TV, and this ad results in a customer purchasing my product, they don't give me a 'unique ID' for the ad that triggered their purchase. Hell, the ads aren't even targeted to a specific user, only to the audience of a paper or TV network. Yet, when I open a paper or turn on the TV, there are plenty of paid advertisements. Why would the web need to be any different ? Don't charge for clicks, just charge for showing the ad. Don't target ads based on personal data collected from users, target them based on the content of the page they're shown on. You know, just like TV and print ads have always done.
- avree 6y ago
  ...because paper and TV advertising is dying, largely because it is horribly ineffective for the reasons you described.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    And yet we're all buying diamonds and slathering on deodorant... [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers-convinced-americans-they-smelled-bad-12552404/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-advertisers-convi...
- alibarber 6y ago
  Looks like Facebook agrees with you: "The social media giant rolled out full-page ads across popular publishing houses such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and more..." There seems to be a certain irony in this.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Ads that don't give the advertiser direct tracking usually give users a code or url specific to a campaign to track their effectiveness. This is an "if they could do more they would" situation.
- dhosek 6y ago
  There are simple low-tech ways to do this. Differing phone numbers for call-in orders, adding a meaningless suite or department to the address for mail-in orders. Even a slight variation on the URL for web contacts. None of this requires Facebook-style tracking.
- rush340 6y ago
  The cable company and newspaper would absolutely love to do that if it were possible on their technology. If you put an ad on TV, the cable company is wasting valuable time showing your ad to a ton of people who will never purchase your product (I wonder how many hours of my childhood was spent in front of things like diabetes ads, funeral home ads, depression medication ads). Same goes for newspapers. If they could somehow target ads based on who's watching, the ads would be massively more effective and they could charge a lot more for showing ads. By targeting ads and charging so much more for ad time, some companies can even afford to offer their services for free, which massively increases the audience, which brings in more money, which gives them the budget to build a bigger, better service, which increases their audience, which brings them more money, etc etc And that's how you end up with Facebook and Google. Obviously the problem is that this isn't transparent. Many people don't know why they get all of this complex technology for free. It's not explained when you sign up for a new account.
foxhill 6y ago
> Imagine for a moment that you want to advertise your new iPhone app on Facebook. i don't think that's what you're describing here. > It’s important to know if someone clicks an ad and downloads your app. That’s called a Conversion. It’s used to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaign and the value you gain from spending money on an ad. i think you've conflated A/B testing with user-profiling. you will obviously know if a campaign has been "effective", if sales increase. you absolutely do not need to uniquely identify a user to do this (which is what happens today). > That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, as stated, apple don't want to remove it, merely make it opt-in. and if the end user isn't opting in, they probably don't want it.
- realityking 6y ago
  > you will obviously know if a campaign has been "effective", if sales increase. This is simplifying marketing too much. You’re likely to run concurrent campaigns on different platform, Facebook, Instagram, Google Search, Twitter, etc. Marketers would like to understand what campaigns and what medium helps drive sales/installs. No need to waste money on Twitter ads if it turns out no one actually ends up buying.
  - engineeringwoke 6y ago
    As I understand it there would still be a unique identifier related to the specific campaign.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    This is easily managed by changing the url based on the source of traffic (e.g., the omnipresent ?camId=foo on so many links). Heck, back when I published a magazine, I did this in analog form by using slightly different addresses for mailed in subscriptions (adding a Dept S to the address for the ad in Step by Step, Dept H for How Magazine). It doesn't take intrusive user tracking to be able to measure this sort of thing.
    - mingfli 6y ago
      There are no URLs in app installs. The ad links to the iOS app store, and Apple does not give you any information post install on where the source came from.
ThePhysicist 6y ago
You can measure conversions without relying on personally identifiable information. Adding e.g. a non-personal tag to your URL will enable you to track the source of a conversion. If this happens in a browser you can even store that (non-personal) information in the localStorage or a cookie, so even if the user doesn't convert immediately and only comes back after e.g. a week you will be able to tie the conversion to the specific ad. Where in that process do you need personally identifiable information? Also, Facebook doesn't only use these identifiers for conversion tracking, it uses them to create a persistent profile of a person that often ends up containing a ton of sensitive information. Believe it or not, a lot can be inferred about you from your app downloads and website visits. As of now FB was mostly able to perform this kind of tracking without the user really knowing, the only thing Apple does here is drag this practice into the open and give users a real choice. In my opinion a privacy-first OS should inhibit any kind of cross-app / cross-device personal tracking, I predict this will happen in the next 5-10 years, for now it seems to be too extreme still.
- fingerlocks 6y ago
  I never said personally identify, just uniquely. The IDFA, the thing surrounding all of this drama, does exactly what you describe.
  - ThePhysicist 6y ago
    Well, a unique identifier that is tied to a specific device is considered personal information.
    - fingerlocks 6y ago
      Even if you can change it at will?
      - ThePhysicist 6y ago
        Yes, even then. If that wasn't the case it would be trivial to circumvent the GDPR, as then basically any pseudonymous data would be considered non-personal. A Google Analytics user ID is also random and can be changed at any time, still the data that Google collects is considered personal.
nobody9999 6y ago
>That’s unique ID is what Apple wants to remove, which breaks the advertising model in entirety. You say that like it's a bad thing.

m463 6y ago

users don't opt-in to ads/tracking. Facebook is worried because they want it to be complicated and confusing to opt-out.

SamuelAdams 6y ago
It's really a lot simpler than that: users don't change default settings. Some studies say only 5% of users change any settings at all [1][2]. So Facebook is concerned that their ability to track about 95% of their people will simply disappear. [1]: https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-their-settings/ https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-chan... [2]: https://service-design.co/95-of-the-people-stick-to-the-default-option-9e16316a64e1 https://service-design.co/95-of-the-people-stick-to-the-defa...
- m463 6y ago
  But in this case, isnt' there a dialog? (and THEN they don't change settings)

spinningslate 6y ago

> I don't understand Facebook's concern. That's OP's point. Facebook's concern is nothing to do with "protecting the poor little businesses". It's everything to do with protecting their own business. Because they know that opt-in will drastically reduce their ability to track. But they can't say that. They can't put out an ad that says: "hey. We've been sucking up your data for years, without your informed consent. And we've made a ton of money from it. Now Apple wants to stop us doing that unless you're OK with it". So instead they're pulling every lever they can to make Apple look like the bad guy while avoiding the truth. Hypocracy, exactly as OP says. That they're stooping to these levels just emphasises how much they think the change is going to hurt them.

silveroriole 6y ago

I’m hoping we get some kind of hilariously obvious astroturfed Twitter campaign telling people that opting in to ads is woke left-wing praxis to help content creators. At least I can get some entertainment value out of that.

danieldk 6y ago

Apple is merely allowing users to OPT IN to tracking. I think opt-out tracking (if opt-out is even offered) with personally identifiable information is probably not even permitted under the GDPR, especially the broad, unnecessary cross-app tracking. Apple is actually doing app developers a favor by improving compliance with the GDPR.

ksk 6y ago

>And if Facebook tracking is so great for the users, then clearly every user will opt in. IME for most users the default action for any popup falls into two categories - (a) Quickly close it without reading, (b) Accept it blindly without reading. The ratio changes, but I think its about even.