5 ms·

>Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps

by xxpor 3y ago

>Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions. This conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Look at Meta's revenue since the roll out of ATT. They're essentially back to where they were. They've figured out ML based probability targeting. If anything, they're in a better position than they were pre-ATT, because now they really have some secret sauce in there, because no one else seems to have been able to figure it out.

Nevermark 3y ago
You are suggesting Facebook doesn't mind valuable information restrictions because they have found other sets/means of valuable information. That just doesn't follow. Facebook wants everything. It is a near certainty that yesterday's restricted information is even more valuable today, since they can also increase its value via machine learning systems. And high profits today don't dampen the need for growth, they accelerate the need by iteratively raising the baseline for next year. The year after. And onward. For the shareholders. For Zuckerberg.
- rreichman 3y ago
  Similarly to GDPR - ATT is bad for Meta but much worse for Meta's competitors.
- xxpor 3y ago
  Facebook lobbied against ATT because it was a massive pain in the ass. Plus, they might not have known if the ML based targeting worked out. At this point, they've spent the capital to work around it, and it's a new moat. I doubt they'd want it to be reverted.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Good point. They are going to lean into their advantages in any situation. But given their lead, customer base, tech and capital, they can monetize and leverage surveillance information better than anyone in their space. More information creates more advantages for them than anyone else. Any Facebook killer isn't going to out ad monetize them. The opposite. It is going to be something that provides a better but different experience - and likely to be incompatible with Facebooks surveillance-ad business model. A reverse moat Facebook won't/can't cross.

by xxpor 3y ago

Nevermark 3y ago

You are suggesting Facebook doesn't mind valuable information restrictions because they have found other sets/means of valuable information. That just doesn't follow. Facebook wants everything. It is a near certainty that yesterday's restricted information is even more valuable today, since they can also increase its value via machine learning systems. And high profits today don't dampen the need for growth, they accelerate the need by iteratively raising the baseline for next year. The year after. And onward. For the shareholders. For Zuckerberg.

rreichman 3y ago
Similarly to GDPR - ATT is bad for Meta but much worse for Meta's competitors.
xxpor 3y ago
Facebook lobbied against ATT because it was a massive pain in the ass. Plus, they might not have known if the ML based targeting worked out. At this point, they've spent the capital to work around it, and it's a new moat. I doubt they'd want it to be reverted.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Good point. They are going to lean into their advantages in any situation. But given their lead, customer base, tech and capital, they can monetize and leverage surveillance information better than anyone in their space. More information creates more advantages for them than anyone else. Any Facebook killer isn't going to out ad monetize them. The opposite. It is going to be something that provides a better but different experience - and likely to be incompatible with Facebooks surveillance-ad business model. A reverse moat Facebook won't/can't cross.