9 ms·

The best analysis of this is from Stratechery: https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-audiences/ https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-

The best analysis of this is from Stratechery: https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-audiences/ https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-au... -- "Amazon, meanwhile, is increasingly where shopping searches start, particularly for Prime customers, and the company’s ad business is exploding. Needless to say, Amazon doesn’t need to request special permission for IDFAs or to share emails with 3rd parties to finely target its ads: everything is self-contained, and to the extent the company advertises on platforms like Google, it can still keep information about customer interests and conversions to itself. That means that in the long run, independent merchants who wish to actually find their customers will have no choice but to be an Amazon third-party merchant instead of setting up an independent shop on a platform like Shopify. This decision, to be clear, will not be because Amazon was acting anticompetitively; the biggest driver — which, by the way, will also benefit Facebook’s on-platform commerce efforts — will be Apple, which, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants." -- FB has a point here, but I'm still hoping Apple wins - I'd rather the tracking model not be viable.

echelon 6y ago
The solution is this: 1. Apple iPhone needs to be an open platform. Users can install apps from wherever and don't have to go through Apple distribution. (But Apple can still provide this for convenience and discovery, and still charge a fee.) 2. Installing apps includes a strong permissions API. The filesystem, sensor access, GPS, etc. can be cordoned off and requires user intervention. Heuristics and isolation can prevent apps from sharing data for tracking/identification. The reality is that Apple outgrew their platform and it can't continue to exist as a walled garden without being a monopoly. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Otherwise Facebook has a case. Epic has a case. Etc.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I don't agree with this or want this. I like that Apple has leverage to tell app developers to adhere to their platform rules in ways that benefit Apple's users. If Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one thing, but they're not, they wield it to prevent spammy crap, to make it easy to subscribe and unsubscribe, to prevent spying and tracking, etc. That's why I value and buy Apple products, if someone wants an open platform they can buy something else. They're not a monopoly and they don't act in a way that harms their users.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >if Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one thing walled gardens harm users by definition because they reduce competition. Forcing an open API would immediately create the opportunity for people to offer competing clients for any Apple (or Facebook etc) service, drive down costs, produce new ways to interact with the services of large companies and so on, it would immediately unlock the ability of countless of independent creators to produce new products. In fact if you were to open up Facebook, Apple's apis and so on and turned them into open protocols you would not even necessarily need invasive privacy regulation, people could just build a privacy respecting Facebook client that lets people interact with the service in a way they want, getting an algorithm free news feed if they want, stripping out baggage they don't need. It would solve a large majority of the exact issues that we have with large tech companies. Apple does hold a monopoly over all Apple users, which gives them market power the same way a monopolistic company in a larger market exercises power. It's actually straight up depressing for someone to say "well I benefit from the walled garden". It's no different than someone saying "I like the oligarch because he treats me nicely"
    - spideymans 6y ago
      Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. The government shouldn't force it upon them. Apple has not deceived consumers with regards to their App Store practices. On the contrary, they've been quite boastful about it. There are (and were) plenty of open computing platforms, allowing consumers to experience their benefits and tradeoffs. If consumers prefer to use a more locked down platform, then so be it.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. The hold that Apple has on its billion users and that Facebook has on its 2 billion is too strong to be solved by some magical third party. None of the large firms which control our digital infrastructure provides an actual protocols. The government should absolutely force it on Facebook and Apple and Google the same way the American government forced it on railroad barons a hundred years ago, when they were forced to make their networks interoperable. Imagine if Volkswagen owned the streets and you could only drive your car on 30% of all roads. Sure you can go to Toyota, you just have to drive in circles. We'd laugh anyone out of the room who actually defended this. Yet this is literally how the internet is structured right now. We live in little fiefdoms where Android users can't talk to imessage users because feudal lords have decided to draw a line across the territory.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  I dunno, hasn’t Apple always been the choice for people who want a walled garden? Whether it was the old Macs, iPod or iPhone, Apple’s value proposition has always been a curated experience. Given the availability of Android, I have very little sympathy for claims that Apple is doing something wrong by setting the terms of access to its user-base.
- design-material 6y ago
  Isn't this essentially saying: 1. Make Apple build a strong permissions API that covers the filesystem, sensors, GPS, isolation, privacy, tracking protection etc. 2. Force Apple to provide this for free to all developers (allowing them to charge for access to list on the App Store) ?
  - Rumudiez 6y ago
    They already do. It's called Safari
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  The question is whether iOS is ready to run truly untrusted code. So far only web demonstrated proper sandbox which is rarely penetraded. Take Linux server for example, only few days ago sudo bug was found which could be used to escalate user privileges to root. I'm not iOS expert, but the mere fact that there's private API which is forbidden to use by ordinary apps but that's only implemented by some static code checking rather than by OS means that iOS does not have proper security model ready to withstand arbitrary code execution.
- dwaite 6y ago
  The reality is that the decision to use alternate stores will not be from user choice - it will be from large internet companies telling them the only way to get Facebook is via the Facebook store, to get Fortnight is from the Epic Games Store, to get Netflix is via the Netflix store, etc. And the purpose of these stores will be to skirt Apple requirements on apps in their store - not just payment, but things like network traffic surveillance. These stores will also not be pitched by companies based on informed user decisions. They will be pitched in order to get users to sign up in whatever way they can drive taps through consent screens. So unfortunately to remain a user choice, there needs to be a strong disincentive for parties to force a customer into a third party store, but not so strong that it looks like antitrust. Google Play for instance has tons of "Play Services" which are not available to apps from alt-stores. The Mac has certain security settings which can only be disabled through a process requiring a reboot and command-line action as a way to limit vendors from driving customers through disabling essential security features without proper education. Mac applications are also notarized, so whether they are downloaded through the official app store or a third party channel they can be scanned for static issues and revoked after the fact as malware in the case of dynamic issues.
walrus01 6y ago
> FB has a point here, but I'm still hoping Apple wins - I'd rather than tracking model not be viable. I think it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously: a) it's bad and wrong for apple to demand 30%, or whatever it is, as a cut of any payment made inside an app distributed through their app store b) apple blocking tracking and advertising networks at the operating system level (API calls between the app running on a phone or tablet, and the underlying OS) is a net benefit for the consumer end user. obviously apple has a very different perspective on this since they are not facebook, or google, and not dependent upon advertising revenue.
- Forge36 6y ago
  What's up stop b) from being "goodbye api" and completely removing it? I'd assume at some point any App could be expected to make required updates for a variety of reasons. Like any other tool: what obligations does a manufacturer have to continue creating replacement parts?
  - dylan604 6y ago
    If it is truly a manufacturer making replacement parts, then they have to have enough stock to fulfill warranty requests for the life of the warranty. Otherwise, they have to replace the entire thing.
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    B would result in more law suits faster, this way apple can claim "its the customers decision". Right now, people complain about apple making decisions for them. And, fwiw, i know people who actually opt-in to tracking (no idea why...)
- pradn 6y ago
  b) Apple blocking tracking is only a net benefit if you value privacy enough to overweigh the drop in customers for niche businesses well served by targeted ads.
  - kergonath 6y ago
saltedonion 6y ago
This is true but the solution should be anti trust action against amazon as well, as opposed to let fb be monopolistic and “give small business a chance”
m-ee 6y ago
This presupposes that this tracking heavy targeted advertising has positive ROI for these small businesses. Is there any evidence this is actually true?
- manigandham 6y ago
  Yes. This question seems to come up constantly as if advertising is still some arcane art. Facebook and Google are incredibly good at this and have the valuations to show for it. Highly targeted advertising can produce great results and there was a time where Facebook was basically a money-printing machine for affiliate and ecommerce because it was so good at finding and reaching the perfect customer. This has become saturated and results have dissipated somewhat but it's still very strong.
  - newfeatureok 6y ago
    I'd love to see some research about this from an unbiased source showing that targeted advertising produces great results in small businesses (<100 employees, or <5M revenue yearly).
    - ta1234567890 6y ago
      It would also be important to know, not if ads can produce great results, but how many companies do they provide great results for? Even better, what percentage of all business that run online ads get a positive return on their investment, and what is the average of that return. My personal experience is that it is pretty hard to get consistently good performance running campaigns on FB or Google. It requires a lot of learning and a lot of trial and error. On top of that, they constantly push you to spend more by giving you dubious recommendations on how to “improve” your campaigns. Very hard to believe that the average small business is actually capable of running good campaigns and consistently make money from them.
    - aardvarkr 6y ago
      Anecdotal but I’ve always heard from marketing friends that Facebook ads are hands down the best ads and yield many multiples of the cost of the ads
dereg 6y ago
I do not agree with the quoted train of logic in the context of an antitrust suit. It leads to the conclusion that X (Facebook) should wage an antitrust lawsuit against Y (Apple) in order to achieve an outcome that would help tame the growth of Z's (Amazon) market position. If the United States feels that Amazon is an anticompetitive company, then that position should be litigated in and of itself. It's understandable that Facebook feels righteous in filing a proxy lawsuit for its advertisers. They've had their hand in the cookie jar of so many internet transactions for so long that they cannot imagine the horror of not knowing about any of them.
- fossuser 6y ago
  It's worth reading the entire blog post I linked - it's good and provides more context. I only quoted a relevant subsection because I know otherwise 99% of people won't click through to read any of it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  Its not actually about Amazon. The point is just that Apple limitations will help "self contained" data holders like amazon because they don't need the tracking data that apple is limiting. Amazon is just a simpler target to explain the small-biz impact than "facebook with its marketplace and shopify integration and existing data sources and abilities and pending future products they've announced"
mrtksn 6y ago
So to break Amazon monopoly, the users must be tracked all day long, have complete profile of every living person and these people should not be asked first? Why not break Amazon through regulatory power instead of total population tracking? I also don't buy the small local business argument. If a local bakery wants to reach me, they can put a sign or do a promotion like giving a free cookie with the coffee on my way to work. It will also benefit the local community instead of a soulless corporation in SV. When there's no Facebook, there's no FB for all of these bakeries. I don't die out of hunger because I failed to see targeted ad, instead I look at the maps or walk around and find the shops or ask a friend for a recommendation. The bakeries can excel in quality, have amazing prices etc. to reach me, like the old days. An optimised version of FB's business is one where all the 3 bakeries in my neighbourhood give all their margin to FB in attempt to sell me cookies. Even better for FB if they optimize their cookies for lowest possible quality, just enough that the ads can drive me to buy one.
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  This. Its like arguing: Timmy steals money all day. I also want to steal money but Timmy steals from his rich parents, but since I can't I steal from my neighbors. Big poo poo cops said that stealing is not okay, but that's bad! I want to also steal because Timmy gets to steal from his parents! Instead of "The cops said stealing is no longer permitted, also take a look at Timmy."
- strulovich 6y ago
  Putting a sign or giving you freebies is orders of magnitude more expensive than getting some impressions on Facebook. And this scenario where bakeries grind their margins in an endless ad fight is a bit far fetched, all the bakeries need to do is get your attention enough so that you know/remember they’re there. It’s a few cents with online advertising, FB makes billions because there’s a lot of users. You’re also forgetting that such ads are about telling you about products you didn’t even consider you need. So yeah, you’re not going to die out of hunger due to lack of ads, but you may not learn of more luxurious items that you may want. (Disclaimer, I work at FB, not on ads, and don’t know anything an outsider wouldn’t know)
dalbasal 6y ago
There is the "technically true" way of looking at this, and there's the non-legalistic, subjective judgement of these companies. FB, their business model and modus operandi is filthy. They really moved the overton window on what is morally normative in terms of advertising... and then applied those norms to everything... content, not just advertising. Apple do stuff you might disagree on. They normalised demoting applications to "apps," which exist inside a walled garden, pay rent and play by Apple's rules. This might not be a good vibe. But, the app store isn't their product. Monopoly, by and large, is not Apple's business model. Apple are big enough that they do monopolize markets, like the app store. But the app store isn't the product or business model. Selling phones is. They don't generally pursue dominant market shares, prefering to cream the high end. A business model that isn't inherently monopoly seeking at its core, isn't mostly about data, advertising or somesuch... that basically makes Apple a shining example. Everything is relative. That said, despite hoping FB lose generally, I do hope that antitrust builds up to something meaningful. I'll be hoping for a guilty.
- Epskampie 6y ago
  You must have missed the last five years where Apple is looking to extract increasingly more value from “services” i.e. the app store. They very very much want to retain their monopoly there.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    Yes. I think I was clear enough that I'm speaking in relatives, not absolutes. Apple's size, platform positioning and the fundamental microeconomics of Apple's markets all drives towards "competition for monopoly," to use the term of art. They're not above customer lock ins, closed ecosystems. They're not above creating little tyrannical kingdoms... Apple may become a Facebook (ar amazon/google) eventually, but atm they are not.. and the opportunities have been many. Apple still, essentially, makes new products and hopes people like them enough to overpay for it. They actually exposed themselves to risk of failure if new products aren't good/popular enough. Who does that? One or two Windows Vista level failures could kill Apple. There is no guaranteed income for macs or iphones in 2022. Facebook, Google, MSFT. even amazon... the quality of their work does not pose a risk of failure in the medium term. Google's user base is protected by default. They own android, and pay for iphone defaults. Own youtube, your emails. The search data. On the customer side, they have a (recognised by courts) monopoly. Search advertising is non-optional for many, many businesses. Adwords is the only seller. For a (old) counterexample, think of rss podcasts. Apple named it, popularized it, dealt with a bullshit one-click-like patent claim on subscription audio as a whole. Meanwhile, Apple never tried to dominate, close, or "own" podcasting. Podcast today is the only free, popular medium. Currently, Spotify's is literally trying to buy up all the top podcasts just to exclude them from the open protocol. The aim, naturally, is to own podcasting.. at which point they can force all the little guys to give them content for free and on their terms. Podcasters, they think, are totally disunited, unlike recording artists. That means once spotify has market share, they can dictate terms like youtube does for video. I bet they already have a cute name for podcasters picked out. Vloggers are called "youtubers." Maybe podcasters will be "spotters." Has a nice ring to it. I'm not calling them angels. Half of it is probably being boomer and being slow to adapt to modern ways. That said, if you compare Apple core business models to the other guys...
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> Apple, which, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants Awesome, that's really good news. Now we need to figure out how to destroy the business models of these giants as well so that competing with corrupt global surveillance corporations is no longer necessary.
noobquestion81 6y ago
I’ve thought hard about the summary for this, I think this is a good one: Facebook: we don’t provide anything of tangible physical value. Other people do, and they make money off of it. Where’s our money?!?!

echelon 6y ago

The solution is this: 1. Apple iPhone needs to be an open platform. Users can install apps from wherever and don't have to go through Apple distribution. (But Apple can still provide this for convenience and discovery, and still charge a fee.) 2. Installing apps includes a strong permissions API. The filesystem, sensor access, GPS, etc. can be cordoned off and requires user intervention. Heuristics and isolation can prevent apps from sharing data for tracking/identification. The reality is that Apple outgrew their platform and it can't continue to exist as a walled garden without being a monopoly. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Otherwise Facebook has a case. Epic has a case. Etc.

fossuser 6y ago
I don't agree with this or want this. I like that Apple has leverage to tell app developers to adhere to their platform rules in ways that benefit Apple's users. If Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one thing, but they're not, they wield it to prevent spammy crap, to make it easy to subscribe and unsubscribe, to prevent spying and tracking, etc. That's why I value and buy Apple products, if someone wants an open platform they can buy something else. They're not a monopoly and they don't act in a way that harms their users.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >if Apple was wielding this to harm users that'd be one thing walled gardens harm users by definition because they reduce competition. Forcing an open API would immediately create the opportunity for people to offer competing clients for any Apple (or Facebook etc) service, drive down costs, produce new ways to interact with the services of large companies and so on, it would immediately unlock the ability of countless of independent creators to produce new products. In fact if you were to open up Facebook, Apple's apis and so on and turned them into open protocols you would not even necessarily need invasive privacy regulation, people could just build a privacy respecting Facebook client that lets people interact with the service in a way they want, getting an algorithm free news feed if they want, stripping out baggage they don't need. It would solve a large majority of the exact issues that we have with large tech companies. Apple does hold a monopoly over all Apple users, which gives them market power the same way a monopolistic company in a larger market exercises power. It's actually straight up depressing for someone to say "well I benefit from the walled garden". It's no different than someone saying "I like the oligarch because he treats me nicely"
  - spideymans 6y ago
    Sure, but consumers should be free to make that decision themselves. The government shouldn't force it upon them. Apple has not deceived consumers with regards to their App Store practices. On the contrary, they've been quite boastful about it. There are (and were) plenty of open computing platforms, allowing consumers to experience their benefits and tradeoffs. If consumers prefer to use a more locked down platform, then so be it.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      Most people don't even know what a world would look like in which power was taken away from large companies and a genuine market of services would exists that gives power back to the users and developers rather than platform owners. The hold that Apple has on its billion users and that Facebook has on its 2 billion is too strong to be solved by some magical third party. None of the large firms which control our digital infrastructure provides an actual protocols. The government should absolutely force it on Facebook and Apple and Google the same way the American government forced it on railroad barons a hundred years ago, when they were forced to make their networks interoperable. Imagine if Volkswagen owned the streets and you could only drive your car on 30% of all roads. Sure you can go to Toyota, you just have to drive in circles. We'd laugh anyone out of the room who actually defended this. Yet this is literally how the internet is structured right now. We live in little fiefdoms where Android users can't talk to imessage users because feudal lords have decided to draw a line across the territory.
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
I dunno, hasn’t Apple always been the choice for people who want a walled garden? Whether it was the old Macs, iPod or iPhone, Apple’s value proposition has always been a curated experience. Given the availability of Android, I have very little sympathy for claims that Apple is doing something wrong by setting the terms of access to its user-base.
design-material 6y ago
Isn't this essentially saying: 1. Make Apple build a strong permissions API that covers the filesystem, sensors, GPS, isolation, privacy, tracking protection etc. 2. Force Apple to provide this for free to all developers (allowing them to charge for access to list on the App Store) ?
- Rumudiez 6y ago
  They already do. It's called Safari
vbezhenar 6y ago
The question is whether iOS is ready to run truly untrusted code. So far only web demonstrated proper sandbox which is rarely penetraded. Take Linux server for example, only few days ago sudo bug was found which could be used to escalate user privileges to root. I'm not iOS expert, but the mere fact that there's private API which is forbidden to use by ordinary apps but that's only implemented by some static code checking rather than by OS means that iOS does not have proper security model ready to withstand arbitrary code execution.
dwaite 6y ago
The reality is that the decision to use alternate stores will not be from user choice - it will be from large internet companies telling them the only way to get Facebook is via the Facebook store, to get Fortnight is from the Epic Games Store, to get Netflix is via the Netflix store, etc. And the purpose of these stores will be to skirt Apple requirements on apps in their store - not just payment, but things like network traffic surveillance. These stores will also not be pitched by companies based on informed user decisions. They will be pitched in order to get users to sign up in whatever way they can drive taps through consent screens. So unfortunately to remain a user choice, there needs to be a strong disincentive for parties to force a customer into a third party store, but not so strong that it looks like antitrust. Google Play for instance has tons of "Play Services" which are not available to apps from alt-stores. The Mac has certain security settings which can only be disabled through a process requiring a reboot and command-line action as a way to limit vendors from driving customers through disabling essential security features without proper education. Mac applications are also notarized, so whether they are downloaded through the official app store or a third party channel they can be scanned for static issues and revoked after the fact as malware in the case of dynamic issues.

walrus01 6y ago

> FB has a point here, but I'm still hoping Apple wins - I'd rather than tracking model not be viable. I think it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously: a) it's bad and wrong for apple to demand 30%, or whatever it is, as a cut of any payment made inside an app distributed through their app store b) apple blocking tracking and advertising networks at the operating system level (API calls between the app running on a phone or tablet, and the underlying OS) is a net benefit for the consumer end user. obviously apple has a very different perspective on this since they are not facebook, or google, and not dependent upon advertising revenue.

Forge36 6y ago
What's up stop b) from being "goodbye api" and completely removing it? I'd assume at some point any App could be expected to make required updates for a variety of reasons. Like any other tool: what obligations does a manufacturer have to continue creating replacement parts?
- dylan604 6y ago
  If it is truly a manufacturer making replacement parts, then they have to have enough stock to fulfill warranty requests for the life of the warranty. Otherwise, they have to replace the entire thing.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  B would result in more law suits faster, this way apple can claim "its the customers decision". Right now, people complain about apple making decisions for them. And, fwiw, i know people who actually opt-in to tracking (no idea why...)
pradn 6y ago
b) Apple blocking tracking is only a net benefit if you value privacy enough to overweigh the drop in customers for niche businesses well served by targeted ads.
- kergonath 6y ago

saltedonion 6y ago

This is true but the solution should be anti trust action against amazon as well, as opposed to let fb be monopolistic and “give small business a chance”

m-ee 6y ago

This presupposes that this tracking heavy targeted advertising has positive ROI for these small businesses. Is there any evidence this is actually true?

manigandham 6y ago
Yes. This question seems to come up constantly as if advertising is still some arcane art. Facebook and Google are incredibly good at this and have the valuations to show for it. Highly targeted advertising can produce great results and there was a time where Facebook was basically a money-printing machine for affiliate and ecommerce because it was so good at finding and reaching the perfect customer. This has become saturated and results have dissipated somewhat but it's still very strong.
- newfeatureok 6y ago
  I'd love to see some research about this from an unbiased source showing that targeted advertising produces great results in small businesses (<100 employees, or <5M revenue yearly).
  - ta1234567890 6y ago
    It would also be important to know, not if ads can produce great results, but how many companies do they provide great results for? Even better, what percentage of all business that run online ads get a positive return on their investment, and what is the average of that return. My personal experience is that it is pretty hard to get consistently good performance running campaigns on FB or Google. It requires a lot of learning and a lot of trial and error. On top of that, they constantly push you to spend more by giving you dubious recommendations on how to “improve” your campaigns. Very hard to believe that the average small business is actually capable of running good campaigns and consistently make money from them.
  - aardvarkr 6y ago
    Anecdotal but I’ve always heard from marketing friends that Facebook ads are hands down the best ads and yield many multiples of the cost of the ads

dereg 6y ago

I do not agree with the quoted train of logic in the context of an antitrust suit. It leads to the conclusion that X (Facebook) should wage an antitrust lawsuit against Y (Apple) in order to achieve an outcome that would help tame the growth of Z's (Amazon) market position. If the United States feels that Amazon is an anticompetitive company, then that position should be litigated in and of itself. It's understandable that Facebook feels righteous in filing a proxy lawsuit for its advertisers. They've had their hand in the cookie jar of so many internet transactions for so long that they cannot imagine the horror of not knowing about any of them.

fossuser 6y ago
It's worth reading the entire blog post I linked - it's good and provides more context. I only quoted a relevant subsection because I know otherwise 99% of people won't click through to read any of it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vineyardmike 6y ago
Its not actually about Amazon. The point is just that Apple limitations will help "self contained" data holders like amazon because they don't need the tracking data that apple is limiting. Amazon is just a simpler target to explain the small-biz impact than "facebook with its marketplace and shopify integration and existing data sources and abilities and pending future products they've announced"

mrtksn 6y ago

So to break Amazon monopoly, the users must be tracked all day long, have complete profile of every living person and these people should not be asked first? Why not break Amazon through regulatory power instead of total population tracking? I also don't buy the small local business argument. If a local bakery wants to reach me, they can put a sign or do a promotion like giving a free cookie with the coffee on my way to work. It will also benefit the local community instead of a soulless corporation in SV. When there's no Facebook, there's no FB for all of these bakeries. I don't die out of hunger because I failed to see targeted ad, instead I look at the maps or walk around and find the shops or ask a friend for a recommendation. The bakeries can excel in quality, have amazing prices etc. to reach me, like the old days. An optimised version of FB's business is one where all the 3 bakeries in my neighbourhood give all their margin to FB in attempt to sell me cookies. Even better for FB if they optimize their cookies for lowest possible quality, just enough that the ads can drive me to buy one.

Justsignedup 6y ago
This. Its like arguing: Timmy steals money all day. I also want to steal money but Timmy steals from his rich parents, but since I can't I steal from my neighbors. Big poo poo cops said that stealing is not okay, but that's bad! I want to also steal because Timmy gets to steal from his parents! Instead of "The cops said stealing is no longer permitted, also take a look at Timmy."
strulovich 6y ago
Putting a sign or giving you freebies is orders of magnitude more expensive than getting some impressions on Facebook. And this scenario where bakeries grind their margins in an endless ad fight is a bit far fetched, all the bakeries need to do is get your attention enough so that you know/remember they’re there. It’s a few cents with online advertising, FB makes billions because there’s a lot of users. You’re also forgetting that such ads are about telling you about products you didn’t even consider you need. So yeah, you’re not going to die out of hunger due to lack of ads, but you may not learn of more luxurious items that you may want. (Disclaimer, I work at FB, not on ads, and don’t know anything an outsider wouldn’t know)

dalbasal 6y ago

There is the "technically true" way of looking at this, and there's the non-legalistic, subjective judgement of these companies. FB, their business model and modus operandi is filthy. They really moved the overton window on what is morally normative in terms of advertising... and then applied those norms to everything... content, not just advertising. Apple do stuff you might disagree on. They normalised demoting applications to "apps," which exist inside a walled garden, pay rent and play by Apple's rules. This might not be a good vibe. But, the app store isn't their product. Monopoly, by and large, is not Apple's business model. Apple are big enough that they do monopolize markets, like the app store. But the app store isn't the product or business model. Selling phones is. They don't generally pursue dominant market shares, prefering to cream the high end. A business model that isn't inherently monopoly seeking at its core, isn't mostly about data, advertising or somesuch... that basically makes Apple a shining example. Everything is relative. That said, despite hoping FB lose generally, I do hope that antitrust builds up to something meaningful. I'll be hoping for a guilty.

Epskampie 6y ago
You must have missed the last five years where Apple is looking to extract increasingly more value from “services” i.e. the app store. They very very much want to retain their monopoly there.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Yes. I think I was clear enough that I'm speaking in relatives, not absolutes. Apple's size, platform positioning and the fundamental microeconomics of Apple's markets all drives towards "competition for monopoly," to use the term of art. They're not above customer lock ins, closed ecosystems. They're not above creating little tyrannical kingdoms... Apple may become a Facebook (ar amazon/google) eventually, but atm they are not.. and the opportunities have been many. Apple still, essentially, makes new products and hopes people like them enough to overpay for it. They actually exposed themselves to risk of failure if new products aren't good/popular enough. Who does that? One or two Windows Vista level failures could kill Apple. There is no guaranteed income for macs or iphones in 2022. Facebook, Google, MSFT. even amazon... the quality of their work does not pose a risk of failure in the medium term. Google's user base is protected by default. They own android, and pay for iphone defaults. Own youtube, your emails. The search data. On the customer side, they have a (recognised by courts) monopoly. Search advertising is non-optional for many, many businesses. Adwords is the only seller. For a (old) counterexample, think of rss podcasts. Apple named it, popularized it, dealt with a bullshit one-click-like patent claim on subscription audio as a whole. Meanwhile, Apple never tried to dominate, close, or "own" podcasting. Podcast today is the only free, popular medium. Currently, Spotify's is literally trying to buy up all the top podcasts just to exclude them from the open protocol. The aim, naturally, is to own podcasting.. at which point they can force all the little guys to give them content for free and on their terms. Podcasters, they think, are totally disunited, unlike recording artists. That means once spotify has market share, they can dictate terms like youtube does for video. I bet they already have a cute name for podcasters picked out. Vloggers are called "youtubers." Maybe podcasters will be "spotters." Has a nice ring to it. I'm not calling them angels. Half of it is probably being boomer and being slow to adapt to modern ways. That said, if you compare Apple core business models to the other guys...

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> Apple, which, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants Awesome, that's really good news. Now we need to figure out how to destroy the business models of these giants as well so that competing with corrupt global surveillance corporations is no longer necessary.

noobquestion81 6y ago

I’ve thought hard about the summary for this, I think this is a good one: Facebook: we don’t provide anything of tangible physical value. Other people do, and they make money off of it. Where’s our money?!?!