5 ms·

While this is a "narrative", there is quite a lot data back that this is a fact. You can argue that you trust and fell comfortable to give apple the power of cr

While this is a "narrative", there is quite a lot data back that this is a fact. You can argue that you trust and fell comfortable to give apple the power of crushing any other small businesses they don't care based on Apple's own company decision. BTW, you can here the same story from small businesses' narrative: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087425495/tech-giants-and-tiny-dogs https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087425495/tech-giants-and-ti...

xbar 4y ago
Yup. Facebook ads were evil. And now that wiener-dog ramp guy can't spend pennies to buy millions of impressions on cross-app-accessed data, he has to be smarter and work harder to get his ad dollars in the right place. This remains a Facebook privacy story.
- fancl20 4y ago
  Two seperate facts: 1. Apple did use their market power crush small companies. 2. Facebook does have an awful privacy history. So the question is, do you think improving Facebook's privacy must hurt small companies? Another example, Google is working very closely with UK's Competition and Markets Authority to make sure the plan of replacing third-party cookies won't punch other companies at their faces.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > to make sure the plan of replacing third-party cookies won't punch other companies at their faces. Companies using third-party cookies deserve much more than a punch. They deserve corporate euthanasia.
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    These are not separate facts. FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people which is 1) awful for privacy and 2) makes it easier to serve niche ads to people. Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. You can frame it as "crush small companies" if you want. But that framing is just as valid as "Apple's narrative". Third-party cookies should have never been a thing. Google shouldn't get kudos for barely rolling back this privacy nightmare they created while Apple gets punished for being more pro-privacy and pro-user.
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      > Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. …while rolling out their own alternative, complete with user tracking.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        But if apple's tracking is not sold to third parties, is secure, and people trust apple from a security standpoint, is it actually bad for individual privacy?
        vineyardmike 4y ago
        1. Lots of ifs… 2. Facebook (the comparison here)/Google/etc don’t sell to third parties either. 3. Is tracking customers the issue, or is facebook tracking the issue. Most people seem to indicate they don’t support tracking writ large
    - amf12 4y ago
      > FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people > Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. Google provides the exact same privacy preferences on Android / Google ecosystem: the ability to enable/disable personalized ads, deviceId which is unique to the device, can be reset. The ability to delete your data automatically. It does not sell or share your data. I don't like personalized ads, but we can't hail Apple for being a champion of privacy when its basically doing the same things Google does.
    - greendude29 4y ago
      > FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people Please help me with this - what is Apple doing with its ad network that Google is not? "Privacy" is a marketing angle for Apple to monetize data - they do it in exactly the same way as Google. But why Google bad Apple good to you?
  - r00fus 4y ago
    > 1. Apple did use their market power crush small companies. What small companies? The ones buying/selling my data without my consent? Yeah, they can take a long walk off a short pier. Also, TBH some FB and those "small companies" poor performance cannot be taken with a grain of salt - cheap cash is no longer there given the interest rate hikes and collapse of crypto - so maybe the performance has more in common with all those startups that lost runway this summer than Apple's rules.
uncomputation 4y ago
Yeah, I read about Ramon and his wiener dog ramps when this was first submitted to HN months ago and I said the same thing then as I am now. It’s bullshit. If Ramon wants to sell wiener dog ramps, then the system to do that should be “buy adspace when people search for wiener dog,” advertise on wiener dog enthusiast forums, sponsor videos/meetups, etc. Not “create an all knowing digital surveillance system tying together user profiles across devices and networks and embedding tracking pixels in websites.” So Ramon wants to sell a niche product and that means I have to be tracked across the internet so companies can sell a digital profile of me? Get real.
- fancl20 4y ago
  I mean, wether this is a bullshit won't affect "Small business were crushed by Apple" is a fact? It's a statement based on data. How you or apple justifying their behaviour is another story.
  - rq1 4y ago
    Well so be it, we value more privacy than some random businesses. Get along.
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    Let's say a chemical is found to cause cancer (outside of the state of California), then Walmart pulls all offending products from the shelves. Would you say Walmart is "crushing" these manufacturing businesses, or would you say Walmart is keeping their customers safe?
    - asdajksah2123 4y ago
      For that analogy to be accurate Walmart would have replaced the offending product with their own in house brand of the same product. Which is exactly the justification Apple uses. What I don't understand is why people paying upwards of $600 to buy those shelves from Walmart and use in their own homes are ok with Walmart insisting that those shelves actually still belong to them and putting up their own products in the shelves you bought from them and installed in your home.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
This wiener dog guy story is not compelling. The guy starts umpteen businesses with either little value to society or little ability to execute, as evidenced by him being paycheck to paycheck after starting numerous businesses. Nobody owes him an audience for ads.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I mean, isn't it "people's desire not to have personalized ads driven by cross-site tracking crushed a bunch of small business"? This is a market effect, basically.
spandrew 4y ago
Of course the maker of a platform used by the majority of high-value users would have power. That in itself isn't a damning fact. Nor is the narrative that Apple wanted to expand its services revenue. FB and Shopify want to grow their revenue too. Turns out they're competing on opposing principles, and Apple is winning. A better question is whether or not anyone who isn't in the ad business actually gives a flying f about the shift in power dynamic. Is it an ABUSE of power? To the majority of consumers (by a wide margin) the answer is "NO". They don't want to be tracked and have their data exhaust vacuumed up for capital gains of billion dollar titans. So this is the underlying motivation on why nobody cares that Apple is flexing hard on ad companies.

xbar 4y ago

Yup. Facebook ads were evil. And now that wiener-dog ramp guy can't spend pennies to buy millions of impressions on cross-app-accessed data, he has to be smarter and work harder to get his ad dollars in the right place. This remains a Facebook privacy story.

fancl20 4y ago
Two seperate facts: 1. Apple did use their market power crush small companies. 2. Facebook does have an awful privacy history. So the question is, do you think improving Facebook's privacy must hurt small companies? Another example, Google is working very closely with UK's Competition and Markets Authority to make sure the plan of replacing third-party cookies won't punch other companies at their faces.
- jen20 4y ago
  > to make sure the plan of replacing third-party cookies won't punch other companies at their faces. Companies using third-party cookies deserve much more than a punch. They deserve corporate euthanasia.
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  These are not separate facts. FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people which is 1) awful for privacy and 2) makes it easier to serve niche ads to people. Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. You can frame it as "crush small companies" if you want. But that framing is just as valid as "Apple's narrative". Third-party cookies should have never been a thing. Google shouldn't get kudos for barely rolling back this privacy nightmare they created while Apple gets punished for being more pro-privacy and pro-user.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    > Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. …while rolling out their own alternative, complete with user tracking.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      But if apple's tracking is not sold to third parties, is secure, and people trust apple from a security standpoint, is it actually bad for individual privacy?
      - vineyardmike 4y ago
        1. Lots of ifs… 2. Facebook (the comparison here)/Google/etc don’t sell to third parties either. 3. Is tracking customers the issue, or is facebook tracking the issue. Most people seem to indicate they don’t support tracking writ large
  - amf12 4y ago
    > FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people > Apple is prioritizing user-privacy which necessarily means it is more difficult for advertisers to place their niche ads. Google provides the exact same privacy preferences on Android / Google ecosystem: the ability to enable/disable personalized ads, deviceId which is unique to the device, can be reset. The ability to delete your data automatically. It does not sell or share your data. I don't like personalized ads, but we can't hail Apple for being a champion of privacy when its basically doing the same things Google does.
  - greendude29 4y ago
    > FB and Google have a global surveillance network to track people Please help me with this - what is Apple doing with its ad network that Google is not? "Privacy" is a marketing angle for Apple to monetize data - they do it in exactly the same way as Google. But why Google bad Apple good to you?
- r00fus 4y ago
  > 1. Apple did use their market power crush small companies. What small companies? The ones buying/selling my data without my consent? Yeah, they can take a long walk off a short pier. Also, TBH some FB and those "small companies" poor performance cannot be taken with a grain of salt - cheap cash is no longer there given the interest rate hikes and collapse of crypto - so maybe the performance has more in common with all those startups that lost runway this summer than Apple's rules.

uncomputation 4y ago

Yeah, I read about Ramon and his wiener dog ramps when this was first submitted to HN months ago and I said the same thing then as I am now. It’s bullshit. If Ramon wants to sell wiener dog ramps, then the system to do that should be “buy adspace when people search for wiener dog,” advertise on wiener dog enthusiast forums, sponsor videos/meetups, etc. Not “create an all knowing digital surveillance system tying together user profiles across devices and networks and embedding tracking pixels in websites.” So Ramon wants to sell a niche product and that means I have to be tracked across the internet so companies can sell a digital profile of me? Get real.

fancl20 4y ago
I mean, wether this is a bullshit won't affect "Small business were crushed by Apple" is a fact? It's a statement based on data. How you or apple justifying their behaviour is another story.
- rq1 4y ago
  Well so be it, we value more privacy than some random businesses. Get along.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  Let's say a chemical is found to cause cancer (outside of the state of California), then Walmart pulls all offending products from the shelves. Would you say Walmart is "crushing" these manufacturing businesses, or would you say Walmart is keeping their customers safe?
  - asdajksah2123 4y ago
    For that analogy to be accurate Walmart would have replaced the offending product with their own in house brand of the same product. Which is exactly the justification Apple uses. What I don't understand is why people paying upwards of $600 to buy those shelves from Walmart and use in their own homes are ok with Walmart insisting that those shelves actually still belong to them and putting up their own products in the shelves you bought from them and installed in your home.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

This wiener dog guy story is not compelling. The guy starts umpteen businesses with either little value to society or little ability to execute, as evidenced by him being paycheck to paycheck after starting numerous businesses. Nobody owes him an audience for ads.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

I mean, isn't it "people's desire not to have personalized ads driven by cross-site tracking crushed a bunch of small business"? This is a market effect, basically.

spandrew 4y ago

Of course the maker of a platform used by the majority of high-value users would have power. That in itself isn't a damning fact. Nor is the narrative that Apple wanted to expand its services revenue. FB and Shopify want to grow their revenue too. Turns out they're competing on opposing principles, and Apple is winning. A better question is whether or not anyone who isn't in the ad business actually gives a flying f about the shift in power dynamic. Is it an ABUSE of power? To the majority of consumers (by a wide margin) the answer is "NO". They don't want to be tracked and have their data exhaust vacuumed up for capital gains of billion dollar titans. So this is the underlying motivation on why nobody cares that Apple is flexing hard on ad companies.