4 ms·

96% of US users opted out of app tracking in iOS 14.5. iOS has a majority market share in the US, and over a quarter of the mobile OS market worldwide. https:/

96% of US users opted out of app tracking in iOS 14.5. iOS has a majority market share in the US, and over a quarter of the mobile OS market worldwide. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide Based on this data, it seems extremely unlikely that 95% of users would prefer the "customer experience with tracking" on YouTube or any other mainstream social media site.

mgraczyk 5y ago
Yes it's an interesting counterpoint, but as a former Facebook employee I can say that those users will almost universally have a worse experience on the app, as measured by self-reported enjoyment. That is, if you run a randomized AB test where some users lose personalization, then ask everyone "are you enjoying Facebook", the responses are much better for the users who have personalization. Because the number 96 is large, it's not the case that some ads-averse subpopulation made an individually optimal choice. You either have to reject my empirical claim about surveys, or you have to agree that these users made a choice that is worse for them on timescales of 1-2 months. (There's room for an argument that they're worse off in the short term by opting out but everyone will be better off in the long term, but then we're no longer debating individual preferences)
- tomjen3 5y ago
  >You either have to reject my empirical claim about surveys, Facebooks personalization seems to just send me to more and more content that makes me angry. Some people may find some pleasure in that, I suppose, but rejecting the temptation is not a suboptimal choice, like rejecting the 3rd beer is not a bad idea, even if you want it right now. And I don't think it is unrealistic that ~everybody is adverse to ads, but I think it is fairly likely that everybody who has seen apples privacy ads are going to think what Facebook and others do as creepy and opt out based on that. Finally I nearly always say no or give a low rating for those popups, because I find the popups annoying.
- Larrikin 5y ago
  This comment assumes that Facebook is actually an enjoyable product as opposed to something that has morphed into a platform for engagement at all cost. The people who are being presented with rage inducing topics that they feel their circle of friends are fighting agaisnt from personalization of their feed from a mix of old and new content is likely to say they enjoy Facebook over the old feed where a friend of a friend from high school is posting baby pictures again and people are actually just living normal lives not being shaped by a desire for clout.
- picardythird 5y ago
  This is like A/B testing people with heroin to see whether they like a higher or a lower dose, finding out they like the higher dose, and then thinking that you’ve found out how to improve their lives.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Why not treat economy class customers better? Dupuit explained it all in four simple words. It's not out of vindictiveness, or even saving money Instead, it all boils down to this: "To scare the rich." ... It is not because of the several thousand francs which they would have to spend to cover the third class wagons or to upholster the benches. ... [I]t would happily sacrifice this [expense] for the sake of its popularity. Its goal is to stop the traveler who can pay for the second class trip from going third class. It hurts the poor not because it wants them to personally suffer, but to scare the rich. https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/why-does-air-travel-suck-so-bad-this-19th-century-economist-explained-it-with-ju.html https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/why-does-air-travel-suck-... Jules Dupuit was a 19th century French engineer and economist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Dupuit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Dupuit His insights on nonrivalrous public services and induced upselling apply across any number of goods and services. That would include informational and online ones. This is before one considers the inherent bias of A/B testing and "market choice" mechanics generally to short-term highly-attractive options, and disregard of long-term value, long-term risks, and of less apparent or manifest value and benefits (see Robert K. Merton on manifest vs. latent functions).
mgraczyk 5y ago
By the way, my personal opinion on this is that Apple is extremely astute, and this is their highly effective strategy for growth and entrenchment. From where I'm standing, Apple masterfully manipulated their users into adopting a worldview that transfers future cash flows from other tech giants to Apple. It's great for me as an Apple shareholder, but just another punch in a bout amongst the titans.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Apple is definitely doing this to make money, and as a fellow shareholder I don't mind (I brought the shares based on their successful transition to ARM, but any growth is nice). I am not really sure they manipulated me into switching to the iPhone, as much as they produced a product that advertised the things I want, and that I can get nowhere else.

mgraczyk 5y ago

Yes it's an interesting counterpoint, but as a former Facebook employee I can say that those users will almost universally have a worse experience on the app, as measured by self-reported enjoyment. That is, if you run a randomized AB test where some users lose personalization, then ask everyone "are you enjoying Facebook", the responses are much better for the users who have personalization. Because the number 96 is large, it's not the case that some ads-averse subpopulation made an individually optimal choice. You either have to reject my empirical claim about surveys, or you have to agree that these users made a choice that is worse for them on timescales of 1-2 months. (There's room for an argument that they're worse off in the short term by opting out but everyone will be better off in the long term, but then we're no longer debating individual preferences)

tomjen3 5y ago
>You either have to reject my empirical claim about surveys, Facebooks personalization seems to just send me to more and more content that makes me angry. Some people may find some pleasure in that, I suppose, but rejecting the temptation is not a suboptimal choice, like rejecting the 3rd beer is not a bad idea, even if you want it right now. And I don't think it is unrealistic that ~everybody is adverse to ads, but I think it is fairly likely that everybody who has seen apples privacy ads are going to think what Facebook and others do as creepy and opt out based on that. Finally I nearly always say no or give a low rating for those popups, because I find the popups annoying.
Larrikin 5y ago
This comment assumes that Facebook is actually an enjoyable product as opposed to something that has morphed into a platform for engagement at all cost. The people who are being presented with rage inducing topics that they feel their circle of friends are fighting agaisnt from personalization of their feed from a mix of old and new content is likely to say they enjoy Facebook over the old feed where a friend of a friend from high school is posting baby pictures again and people are actually just living normal lives not being shaped by a desire for clout.
picardythird 5y ago
This is like A/B testing people with heroin to see whether they like a higher or a lower dose, finding out they like the higher dose, and then thinking that you’ve found out how to improve their lives.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Why not treat economy class customers better? Dupuit explained it all in four simple words. It's not out of vindictiveness, or even saving money Instead, it all boils down to this: "To scare the rich." ... It is not because of the several thousand francs which they would have to spend to cover the third class wagons or to upholster the benches. ... [I]t would happily sacrifice this [expense] for the sake of its popularity. Its goal is to stop the traveler who can pay for the second class trip from going third class. It hurts the poor not because it wants them to personally suffer, but to scare the rich. https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/why-does-air-travel-suck-so-bad-this-19th-century-economist-explained-it-with-ju.html https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/why-does-air-travel-suck-... Jules Dupuit was a 19th century French engineer and economist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Dupuit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Dupuit His insights on nonrivalrous public services and induced upselling apply across any number of goods and services. That would include informational and online ones. This is before one considers the inherent bias of A/B testing and "market choice" mechanics generally to short-term highly-attractive options, and disregard of long-term value, long-term risks, and of less apparent or manifest value and benefits (see Robert K. Merton on manifest vs. latent functions).

mgraczyk 5y ago

By the way, my personal opinion on this is that Apple is extremely astute, and this is their highly effective strategy for growth and entrenchment. From where I'm standing, Apple masterfully manipulated their users into adopting a worldview that transfers future cash flows from other tech giants to Apple. It's great for me as an Apple shareholder, but just another punch in a bout amongst the titans.

tomjen3 5y ago
Apple is definitely doing this to make money, and as a fellow shareholder I don't mind (I brought the shares based on their successful transition to ARM, but any growth is nice). I am not really sure they manipulated me into switching to the iPhone, as much as they produced a product that advertised the things I want, and that I can get nowhere else.