8 ms·

It's just bluster. No way Facebook/Instagram is writing off a quarter of the world's smartphone users (who also probably on average have a higher net worth than

• spamalot159 5y ago
  Maybe iOS users are less price sensitive than Android users and therefore this might be the perfect way to test out the business model. It would be hilarious if they actually started making more money because Apple forced their hand.
  • benbristow 5y ago
    Since the payments would have to be made through the App Store platform (unless Facebook forced the user to subscribe through a web browser) Apple would most likely be profiting though.
    • N1H1L 5y ago
      30%. Either way Apple wins.
    • wernercd 5y ago
      "would have to be made through the app store platform" not necessarily. Netflix operates through the app store and doesn't sell subscriptions on the App Store as a big FU to the 30% gouge... Could Facebook make it happen and profitable in a way to get around Apples rules? I think so... I think Apple would change the rules shortly after though...
      • benbristow 5y ago
        Yes, that's why I mentioned Facebook forcing users to subscribe through a web browser as that would be out of Apple's control. AFAIK the rule is that users can subscribe to a service/product outside of an app and use their account's status on the app, but if the user wants to subscribe from within the app they need to go through the App Store subscription service.
    • bostonsre 5y ago
      I wonder if Apple's motives were mainly this all along. It's a brilliantly capitalistic move if it was. Either way, props to Apple for fighting against zuck. To me, it seems like he's taken way too many liberties with people's data all under the guise of disruption and making the world a better place.
  • alert0 5y ago
    I have a rough enough idea of how much image hosting costs. If they want to charge more than a dollar per month I will write a competitor.
    • RandallBrown 5y ago
      I'd pay $12 per year for ad free Facebook.
      • vineyardmike 5y ago
        Unfortunately it seems like they make a lot more money per US user than that now: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-by-region/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average... ($53 per US user)
      • randomhodler84 5y ago
        I’d pay $12 a year for a Facebook free internet. If you are seriously considering paying for the poison that is Facebook, might I recommend you delete your Facebook account instead, and give your money to someone that needs it?
        • vetinari 5y ago
          You know that you can blackhole all facebook domains and enjoy facebook-free internet today?
          • lostlogin 5y ago
            Maybe OP is suggesting everyone pay $12 to take down Facebook? The method needs articulating as everyone on earth paying US$12 wouldn’t get close to buying them out and shutting them down.
      • ISL 5y ago
        Facebook annual revenue is ~$47/daily-active-user . The number for US users is comparable.
• Justsignedup 5y ago
  Yeah empty threats all around. If only there was a way for google to follow suit. Personally this is enough of a feature for me to switch to an iphone as my next phone. And I've been an android user from the start. Even enough to advocate for it as well.
  • lamontcg 5y ago
    firefox + facebook container
    • websites3434 5y ago
      The fact you even have to go to such lengths, and that a mainstream browser even developed such a feature is such a red flag. It's like taking Tums after ever meal. There's something wrong there, and I hope users are taking a hard look at those hoops they jump through and determining whether it's really worth it or not.
      • lamontcg 5y ago
        I'd love to never touch facebook again, but my 80 year old mother uses it and won't give it up because its how she stays in touch with all her friends, and I'm kind of stuck with using it to communicate with her. I also suspect that through browser fingerprinting that facebook can track everyone across the web anyway, particularly people who run a lot of customization on their desktop (O/S, graphics card, fonts, config settings, etc) that shows up in the fingerprint. If you're visiting sites which cause you to make requests to facebook servers you're leaking information to them, even if you've deleted your facebook account (and they can probably still track who you are).
        • websites3434 5y ago
          >If you're visiting sites which cause you to make requests to facebook servers you're leaking information to them, even if you've deleted your facebook account (and they can probably still track who you are). This is an important point that raises the question of threat model. For me, the threat is not "Facebook can track me," in the same way that my threat model doesn't include state-level actors. Because, let's be real, Facebook is as good as a state-level actor. The threat is in showing me ads or content that modify my behavior. For this reason, I: * Block facebook/insta at the DNS level * Don't have a Facebook account * Block all ads * Block all comment sections, like buttons, etc I know this isn't something everyone can do. I know that there are tons of people out there who find value in Facebook. I just hope they are taking steps to at least block ads and are aware of when the platform is manipulating their emotions through targeted content, and have the sense to walk away from it from time to time. Perhaps that's asking too much, but I'm not going to stop making noise about it, not going to stop telling people they need to watch what they post / look at, because I think the platform is really damaging to people's attention and mental health. For your grandmother -- I doubt it's making her buy stuff (fixed income) and I doubt it's making her turn to rage-tweeting about politics, so it's probably OK. And you're probably OK, too, being someone in tech who knows how this shit impacts people. But everyone else? I just worry, y'know?
• smoldesu 5y ago
  I doubt they really care. Remember, these users are the products, not the customers: being able to sell exclusively "premium" (or targeted) ads isn't going to somehow tank anyone's business, which is why Apple's sideways approach here is asinine. They're slowly cutting off all means of distribution until every app is accessed through a subscription routed through the app store, where Apple can take yet another cut. It's all petty landgrabs in the end, this is why I can't stand using MacOS. Can't Apple treat my computer like something other than a hostage for negotiation?
  • z3t4 5y ago
    Interesting though, what if Apple gave away the hardware for free? It's a crazy business model, but if they can take 30% cut from everything it might work.
    • reaperducer 5y ago
      what if Apple gave away the hardware for free? It's a crazy business model, It's been done before. Remember in the 90's when thousands (millions?) of people got free computers in exchange for allowing banner ads at the top of their screens?
    • FredPret 5y ago
      They’d be forgoing a huge upfront cash injection when the user pays for the device. And by targeting consumers that can shell out circa $1k for a premium device without too much bother, they not only collect a high-income user base, but create an aura of exclusivity around their devices and ecosystem. Giving hoi polloi free iPhones would throw a spanner in these highly profitable works
    • smoldesu 5y ago
      While it's not as crazy, the video game console industry operates on negative cash flow in the hardware sales department. Consoles that cost $500 at retail cost $525 to build, and the Nintendo Switch was famously being shipped at a loss of nearly $50 per console sold. It's not an entirely foreign concept, but it is definitely lucrative. Apple could defend their 30% cut if they reduced the price of their hardware, but I get the feeling that their business relies on pumping those profit margins as fat as the customer can tolerate...
• riantogo 5y ago
  Writing off is the not the issue. The real problem is that it will create an opening for another social network to first fill the vacuum, then pull away users from fb.
• macspoofing 5y ago
  For sure it's bluster. Even putting a 1 penny fee would cut their userbase significantly.
  • intergalplan 5y ago
    It's bigger than that: iOS is big enough that Facebook charging on that platform would be an existential threat to the company. How? It opens up the perfect opportunity for some competitor burning VC cash to swoop in and grab a ton of market share in a hurry, with a free iOS app. FB knows this, so yeah, it's a completely hollow threat. But, just the idea that one of the tech giants has been backed into a corner by the risk of competition from paying-for-marketshare VCs or operating-in-the-red-on-purpose other tech giants, is really, really funny to me. No fun, eh Facebook? Hahahaha.
    • laurent92 5y ago
      The strategic lesson is, always move upstream until you own the hardware. Google had the search and moved upstream to own the OS and protect his search. But still has to beg Apple for 25% of its users (and 40% of its revenue, if I understand). Content (films, instagram personalities) are at the mercy of apps; Apps, even on Heroku or Atlassian platforms, are at the mercy of the platforms; Platforms are at the mercy of cloud platforms (AWS, etc) who own the hardware. The only counter-example is telecoms, who owned the hardware but became dumb pipes, after 20 years of extremely bad behavior (including modifying HTTP pages on the go and injecting JS to insert ads, for Verizon).
      • N1H1L 5y ago
        I was just thinking of this. And came to the conclusion how fragile Facebook really is compared to the rest of FAANMG. Google has search/YouTube/Android. Apple has a thriving iOS and hardware business. Amazon has AWS. Microsoft has Azure abd Office. All of Facebook's business is based on data mining. If Whatsapp starts charging money Signal will laugh all the way to the bank. I won't be surprised if Facebook starts shopping for a phone manufacturer and spins their own Facebook mobile distro in the future.
• ricardobayes 5y ago
  It's interesting to see when there is no way to 'PR' out of the situation, how the tone changes. There is absolutely no way someone to explain to the general public why it's good to be tracked.
• DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  > who also probably on average have a higher net worth is this really the case? I know so many people who have the latest phones but the bank owns their house and car. lot of bling but empty pockets.
  • N1H1L 5y ago
    A lot of Android is on dirt cheap phones - huge user bases in India or Africa.
• ViViDboarder 5y ago
  They track enough first party interaction that you’re absolutely right. The loss of users from asking for subscriptions would be a net loss for them.