> Our view is that Facebook and targeted ads are a lifeline for small businesses, especially in the time of Covid, and we are concerned that aggressive platform policies will cut at that lifeline at a time when it is so essential to small business growth and recovery," Wehner said.
"We need to trample privacy to save small businesses because covid!" is a take I did not expect to read today. Also Facebook acting like it's altruistically helping those poor little businesses - how terrible that Apple is making it harder for them to give Facebook money!
That's somewhat true. The advent of targeted ads allowed lots of niche companies to thrive and compete with the established behemoths that have an oligopoly on shelf space. Internet advertising essentially launched the direct-to-consumer model that's so threatening to the P&Gs and Unilevers out there.
The big companies also use targeted ads, but with orders of magnitude bigger budgets. It's the big companies who have forced the small business to spend on targeted ads or die.
Disclaimer: Worked on a successful ad-tech company for ~2.5 years.
Love it when big companies spend money on targeting ads towards users searching for their smaller competitors and those competitors now have to spend money to get their own search results back. I'm sure there's a Facebook equivalent of this bullshit.
I mean, both positions have merit. I don't see targeted advertising as this evil notion that it seems a lot of people do. For small businesses, being able to get your message to the right people for as cheap as possible can be make-or-break.
Yes; the claim was that targeted ads are important because they let small businesses survive. That seems exactly like arguing that the ends (help small businesses) justifies the means (targeted ads, with the prerequisite tracking).
I know, this is tangentially related to the article and discussion at hand, because small business have little control over this, but I think we're at this point now because along with targeted ads come privacy issues. The ad targeting industry has earned the distrust of people via countless hacks of databases housing personal data that didn't need to be there. Facebook, specifically, is no saint in this regard with its shadow profiles and so on.
If companies could properly secure your data and only collect what is needed, Apple wouldn't feel the need to take matters into their own hand.
You will have the option to enable tracking. We won't all have to see it the same way now. Those of us who don't see it your way will no longer be tracked involuntarily.
Each 100ms delay, each form, each extra page makes service lose percents of users (any service, Google, Netflix, Amazon).
A company can convince users to opt-in, but it will lose quite a lot of people, even those who don't really care if they are tracked or not. Simple because users want to use the service, not become legal and technical experts. Understanding how all of it works is really hard.
Their ads product is indeed beneficial to users: users get relevant personalized localized ads (instead of boring ads which can still be seen on TV or paper magazines) and they get better service because the company gets it's revenue from ads.
But most users don't want to know that. They simply want to use the service. (And I suspect vast majority of users would not really care if they are tracked or not if they really knew how tracking and how ads personalization works; I mean really knew technical details, not boogey man explainations from tabloids).
Targeted ads don’t only serve you with useful information, they serve you targeted anything.
- For instance, if you are a decision maker in a company, buying targeted ads across platforms is an amazingly effective way of changing your opinion. Seeing helpful articles in LinkedIn or in that specialized site for professionals? You might be The target of a salesman, or worse, a competitor trying to slow you down (I’ve seen this last one happening).
- Targeted malware distribution is also a thing.
- Try checking something weird online and see how much the ads everywhere change. That’s a self-forming bubble around you. Start thinking about how all of that works and you will start to doubt which ideas and desires are yours and which were decided for you.
- This has side-effects, Internet profiling is reducing diversity, since ads are shown on a profile basis, there’s a silo-ing of interests.
- The insights that can be gained from profiling can be of a very sensitive nature, and can be inferred by third parties. Let’s say I’m a backwards boss who has ill-formed opinions about homosexuality. It’s trivial and quite cheap for me to use targeted ads with my employees emails (and some fake emails if I need some extra) to send you ads on things like gay dating platforms. If the click-through of the ads goes up, I know I have some pruning to do.
These and other examples you mentioned are improbable and low harm possibilities.
Average damage per user is several orders of magnitude smaller than the average benefit of targeted advertising: for the company, for businesses and even for users of the platform.
The similar arguments can be applied to convince people that cars are harmful:
* cars kill quite a lot of people
* if you drink and drive, you can get to jail
* gazoline is expensive
* cars pollute the air
* cars produce noise which reduces quality of life
A hundred years ago one could convince a lot of people that cars need to be prohibited. And they were quite successful:
> The most draconian restrictions and speed limits were imposed by the 1865 act (the "Red Flag Act"), which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6.4 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3.2 km/h) in the city, as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag to walk in front of road vehicles hauling multiple wagons.
The arguments you are suggesting, all of them are true. Companies need to be more transparent about tracking, perform external audit etc., stricter laws regulating personal data is needed to make sure data is not misused, strict laws regulating what can be advertized.
But killing all of tracking would be similar to restricting speed limit to 3 mph. Well, it will definitely be safer.
I didn’t say you need to ban all tracking, in fact I’d love that Apple is doing this without regulators having to intervene.
The dangers of cars are pretty obvious, the dangers of tracking are not.
And I disagree that these are “low harm”, being forcefully outed is no joke in certain communities. The only thing that is protecting a lot of people right now is a correlation between certain ideologies and low technological know-how.
Plus a lot of the effectiveness of small business advertising on Facebook is zero sum between the competing small businesses. So the more effective it is relative to how well newspaper advertising, etc. worked in the past, the bigger a cut Facebook can extract from them. Which starts sounding more like a big business profit story, not small business.
It’s already a crossover episode. In today’s congressional testimony on COVID, the ranking member’s go to reason for reopening schools was to “stop child abuse”.
If Facebook is that upset they could just pull their apps from Apples app store and let the user decide which they’d miss the most, the iPhone or Facebook and Instagram.
I work in the ad tech space, spent a lot of time on the publishing side. We've always had higher CPMs from Android users than iOS users. There's just more hooks in Android for tracking than their is for iOS, and it'll probably continue to be that way. If you're not a fan of tracking switching to the Apple ecosystem is a good in between. A more extreme route would be to have a rooted Android phone without Google Play Services but the hassle isn't really worth it for me.
Not just Facebook, but the entire $80 billion mobile app advertising industry.
[edit] To clarify, I'm referring to Apple crippling ads that drive net new app installs, not the ability to monetize your app via ads.
The privacy angle is completely justified, but I think Apple is underestimating the second order effects here. Significantly fewer apps will be installed, harming both the developer ecosystem and Apple's App Store profits.
There will be fewer companies able to afford ads to drive installs for their apps.
IDFA trades privacy for market efficiency. It's used by ad networks to allow me to optimize for either the cheapest or most valuable installs, and validate that my marketing spend is actually driving these behaviors with an acceptable ROI.
Without it, ad networks will be much less effective and it will cost developers at least 2x to drive the same number of installs.
IDFA has obvious privacy flaws, but Apple is making a mistake by crippling it without offering a privacy-safe alternative (and several of those have been proposed by the industry).
Driving installs is a giant business that also needs to die. At a previous employer we took one small app we had maybe at #150 in travel in the App Store. We paid $10K to some app install driver company as a test. I watched as people in countries we did no business in downloaded the app in droves and pushed it to #1 in travel in 24hrs - then the money ran out and we were back at #150 in a couple of days.
The company that we were sold to by our parent company did the same thing on a regular basis and kept their main app in the top 5 for years. Not sure if they do it today (this was 6+ years ago).
I wish Apple would find a way to stop these artificial App Store hacks (maybe they have I no longer pay much attention since our app's downloads do not affect our business).
Here are the working proposals for the privacy-safe replacements for 3rd-party cookies on web. This conversation has been happening in public for over a year. Mobile will likely follow similar solutions, but Apple accelerated the timeline of IDFA deprecation and caught the industry off guard. https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising
I'm referring to the ability of paid apps to drive installs. These are ads that drive TO the App Store and generate paid app installs that are being crippled. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Perhaps it’s my profile but all ads I get for apps is pay to win scam games. Surely Apple profits from these but I don’t think that’s the kind of profits Apple is after.
Those are the apps that will run more ads if targeting is crippled. They take a spray-and-pray approach by buying up all the cheap, untargeted inventory. If you see a lot of them, that means you probably aren't being tracked by the ad network.
Generally speaking, any app you haven't heard of yet is now at a disadvantage.
Specifically, this would have crushed rising giants like TikTok and Wish who each have spent over a billion on app install ads before they reached escape velocity.
There are thousands of medium sized apps that try every day to reach to new users, and now it will be more expensive (potentially prohibitively expensive) to do so.
> Our view is that Facebook and targeted ads are a lifeline for small businesses
LOLOLOL - I service only small businesses (hundreds of them) and 90% of them could give 0 fucks if Facebook disappeared from this planet tomorrow.
The whole "targeted advertising" pipe dream sold to small businesses is tiring. Highly targeted Facebook ads work for a small percentage of business models - if you don't fit one of these models it's a giant waste of money or at least on par with print/radio/tv/un-targeted digital ads.
Most small business owners I know have had more success maintaining a FB/Social media page than doing targeted advertising. Or even just doing simple SEO to get on googles results page.
Organic Facebook (not paid) is still a viable marketing channel for many of my clients. However Facebook is decreasing organic reach to force these businesses to purchase ads. The ideal targeted-ad-scenario that Facebook and ad agency talking heads promote just does't apply to most small businesses. Unfortunately most are still FOMO'd into purchasing these ads.
The same could be said about SEO/Google Ads. Google is essentially a paid search engine now so while SEO will work for some sectors, for most they will never be #1 because the top 3-4 results are ads disguised as organic results (hence why I say Google is a paid search engine)
I ran a business where the target audience was on Facebook and the numbers were just shocking. We had about 3500 followers. If I didn’t run any ads, our posts would only be shown to maybe 200-300 people total, out of the 3500 people who actively make the choice to follow our page. As soon as I turned on $1/day ads (the lowest FB allows), those numbers skyrocketed to about 1000 people seeing each post. Still far short of the number of people who went out of their way to tell Facebook that they wanted to see my posts. Every dollar I spent per day increased that number.
That convinced me that Facebook won’t give business pages the traffic they’ve earned unless that business pays Facebook to let that page’s followers see that page’s posts. It’s a racket and you have to pay to play.
I am personally hoping this change will generate more evidence that targeted advertising is not as valuable as everyone believes. _I believe_ contextual advertising is effective and doesn't come with all the privacy nightmares and ethical issues like allowing targeting alcoholics with alcohol ads. Of course, that is just my own personal opinion. I've seen some articles agreeing with what I just said - but not being a statistician or even in the advertising industry I'm not qualified to say one way or the other.
> targeted advertising is not as valuable as everyone believes
> privacy nightmares and ethical issues like allowing targeting alcoholics with alcohol ads
These two statements are diametrically opposing each other. Either targeted advertising works or it doesn't. You can't say that it isn't valuable and then raise concerns about how it causes privacy nightmares and alcoholics to buy more alcohol.
Alcoholics will buy more alcohol either ways. Targeting makes no difference to their behavior really. But your argument holds no ground because alcohol ads are highly regulated. You can read more about why here: [1]. More often than not advertising companies reject alcohol ads as it hurts their business more than it helps (due to stringent regulations in most parts of the World). It is not as easy as you make it out to be. Else your social media pages should be inundated with alcohol ads. It is not.
I strongly believe that there should be regulations on the content of the ads that are pushed out (just like the alcohol ads). There should be regulation on how often an ad can be retargeted and to ensure that the placements don't hamper user productivity. Blanket bans on advertising methods just for sake of privacy is going to do more harm than good. There has to be some sort of a balance. For people who want privacy they can opt for privacy focused social networks. But if entire platforms move towards privacy then the advertising industry will collapse completely. Targeted advertising is the cheapest way for small and medium businesses to get new customers. It levels the playing field with corporations with big pockets. If you move towards privacy as a focus point with no proper alternatives to advertising it will cause a major shakeup. Many businesses will shutdown. You'll have more consolidation and less competition. Only those with big pockets can advertise their products/services. And in the post-Corona World, this is a lifeline to many small businesses.
As a disclaimer, I work at a different company that makes a lot of revenue from advertising.
However, I think people should try turning off Personalized Ads on Youtube and watching a few videos (without adblock!). IMO it's fucking awful, even compared to regular targeted ads. You'll get the same crappy Trump "socialism survey" 6 times in a row because there's no tracking of ad viewer fatigue.
When I do that that I get political adverts mixed in with meal-kits, diets (I'm not sure what they're trying to sell), and exercise equipment. It's pretty awful and I'm waiting down the seconds to hit skip. It's like going back in time to pop-ups and animated horrors of the 90s and early 00s but with vlog-style ads instead--I guess this style tests well, they all look the same to me.
Instagram does a great job of personalizing ads to both products and the type of companies I like. I don't mind seeing these kinds of ads at all. I'm happy (in this case) for them to track me because it's much much, better than the alternative.
>I'm happy (in this case) for them to track me because it's much much, better than the alternative.
You're acting like there is only one alternative, but what about blocking ads? That's win-win for everyone but the advertiser. And really that makes it win-win-win, unless you work in advertising or for Facebook/Google.
> You're acting like there is only one alternative, but what about blocking ads? That's win-win for everyone but the advertiser. And really that makes it win-win-win, unless you work in advertising or for Facebook/Google.
Win-win for who? If everyone uses adblockers you will have major unemployment. All small and medium businesses will shutdown as advertising is the cheapest mechanism to reach customers. Without advertising these businesses will have to rely on billboard advertising and TV ads. Both are extremely expensive in comparison to internet advertising. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. As simple as that!
The world did not have trillion dollar companies and billion dollar startups form within a span of few years either. Nor did small and medium businesses have the reach they do now. You can literally sell goods to people all over the World from your basement. You don't need a warehouse nor complicated advertising agreements with Media networks and advertise your business on billboards. Believe it or not, internet advertising became a powerful tool for small and medium businesses which they never had pre-internet era and were forced to serve only their local communities. Today the same businesses have a worldwide reach to sell their products and services. It is surprising that I have to explain this to someone who is from the tech field!
There is absolutely no difference to me between a crappy trump ad and an ad for anything else. I'm always waiting to hit the skip button when I'm at a friend's house with out ad nauseum installed with no regard for the content behind it
Exactly! There is a reason why personalized ads are a thing. You are not shown stuff that you have no interest in! Removing targeting is basically asking for watching ads that don't align with your interests at all! I rather give my mind space to ads that are relevant to me than watch an ad that I have absolutely no interest in! Not only is it a waste of my time, is exhausting but also a big waste of money.
> I rather give my mind space to ads that are relevant to me than watch an ad that I have absolutely no interest in!
I don't understand this attitude. Do you like being advertised to? I don't. I find advertising repugnant, and I'd much rather see ads that are irrelevant to me because they're easier to ignore and I'm less likely to be affected by them.
With targeted ads I'm at risk of being influenced. I don't want to be influenced by ads.
You can't do business without advertising. Are you for shutting down small and medium businesses? If you are employed find out how your company gets clients and acquires customers. It is mostly through advertising. And if they don't, the clients they depend on for orders do. It is a chain and if that chain gets disrupted everyone suffers. I don't understand why anyone would find the concept of advertising repugnant! Sure there are horrible ads and then there are scammy ways of advertising. Those should be regulated. But to put the entire advertising landscape under the bus is totally not acceptable!
> I'd much rather see ads that are irrelevant to me because they're easier to ignore and I'm less likely to be affected by them
I bet majority of the people find ads that are not relevant repugnant. I hate it when I am recommended an ad that I have no interest in, over and over again. To the point where I turn off whatever I am reading/watching. Why would I sit through watching an ad for 15 seconds that is irrelevant to me?
In another reply to me you appear to be arguing with a straight face that widespread use of adblock would cause the death of literally all small and medium business.
In this reply you are advocating that I use adblock. I have flagged your post, as trolling is against the HN posting guidelines
I'm advocating you to use adblock since you are so easily influenced by ads. You need your safe space. There are a billion others who aren't as gullible as you are. They don't need to be "protected" just because your Highness feels so. We all have our freedoms to choose what we want to watch and not watch. You are just enforcing your idea of the internet on everyone else because you can't watch a 15 second ad that you fear will influence you. What a load of bollocks!
Btw the other comment was specific to the idea of everyone using ad block which is what you essentially advocated. Everyone won't voluntarily use an ad blocker. It has to be enforced. Now why should I be forced to turn off ads? Just because you feel so? I have my rights to view whatever I want. Who do you think you are to dictate what I should and shouldn't watch? If I don't like ads I'll block them myself. I don't need some authority baby sitting me. If I want privacy focused apps I'll use them. It is ultimately my choice. The moment something is enforced on me it just violates my rights.
> Exactly! There is a reason why personalized ads are a thing. You are not shown stuff that you have no interest in!
I foolishly believed that. I gave Google every chance under the sun: clicked not interested, verified my ad preferences, waited another month etc.
For over 10 years they have showed me ads for scammy dating sites!
Someone will typically come to their defense and say basically: Google know what they are doing.
They do not!
They refuse to understand that a father of more than three kids - all with the same mother - isn't interested in scammy dating sites.
Well, maybe on average it works?
Well maybe on average I get so fed up I start to inform scammy dating sites that they are getting ripped off. The volume seems to have decreased lately, but I mostly use an adblocker so what do I know ;-)
So for anyone who pays Google for views: be aware that their targetting is painfully bad, their feedback systems so broken that they seemingly cannot take a clue if it came gift wrapped and so big it needs a truck for delivery. Keep an eye on the metrics guys and gals.
It still makes sense economically for many companies but be very critical, because Google is not.
Edit: to rub it in: Facebook manages to personalize ads! Again and again I get ads that are relevant and interesting. I've even bought through Instagram ads. Which is a shame since I dislike Facebook even more intensely than Google and only keep an Instagram profile to keep my lovely wife happy. I deliberately keep my contact with Facebook small and yet they seem to know exactly what I am interested in and what not.
When you lock the chicken coop door at night, I have to kick it open, and that hurts the chickens. If you just leave it open all night, then I wont' have to kick it open, and no one will get hurt (well at least from me kicking the door open.)
They were replying on the subject of whether targeted ads are effective or not. Whether they should be allowed is a different matter, but while companies are collecting your data it's not reasonable to ask advertisers to disadvantage themselves against competition by not using the marketing options with the highest ROI.
Send your complaints to politicians, not ad buyers.
(Disclaimer: I've spent millions - not my own money - on ads in my career. I'd support better privacy regulations to prevent some of the targeting I've been able to use.)
Politicians either don't care or can't get changes passed. Until that changes blaming and shaming does and will continue to work, at least better that my elected officials who'd ratherdo anything but challenge their largest donors profits.
Why would I care if you can't use marketing psychology dark patterns to take advantage of me to give you money? It seems like watching this industry fail would be better for my well being.
But targeted advertising is expensive because it is controlled by 2 companies alone. OTOH untargeted advertising is much cheaper, with tons of unmonetized inventory, however there doesn't seem to be much willingness to take up on that.
Interesting. But can you distinguish between the effects of contextual advertising (ad depends on the content around it) and targeted advertising (ad depends on the person viewing it)?
The implication of that would be nothing less than a collapse of multiple tech giants. Ad money, redirected from old media, subsidizes a content economy from which all of them, even apple benefits.
Good. Capitalism decrees that a company founded on a faulty or unsustainable business model should collapse and be replaced by better alternatives. The sooner the market realizes an error and corrects itself the better.
If Google and Facebook died or changed their business model, why should I care? I pay for Apple devices because the transaction is clean - I give them money and they give me stuff.
The same for Microsoft with O365 and subscriptions streaming services.
apple's bestselling devices though are content consumption devices, and people spend most of their times in social apps there. That entire ecosystem is dependent on ads, and in particular on the advantage of having targeted ads, which is what made G & FB rich
Good. Targeted ads not only creep me out, they are usually laughably bad in terms of "I just bought product X from site Y, and now I'm getting lots of ads for product X, which I don't need now that I bought it."
Good riddance, I say. Small businesses can continue to focus more on what they tend to do better in general, like having closer relationships with customers, really listening to feedback, etc., instead of believing in an illusion that Facebook ads will bring them more customers and throwing money that will make Facebook richer and them poorer while they get misled by engagement analytics numbers that don’t translate into a better conversion rate.
I hope Facebook’s relentless and shameless intrusions get more beatings that it truly deserves.
I like this take. It's not like hyper targeted ads are the only thing the internet provides us with now. It's also MUCH easier to build and stay connected with your community. Focusing more on that could be much better overall than ads.
There is this parable about building a house upon sand versus building upon rock. When the storm comes the house on the sand gets washed away.
Facebook didn't have to turn into a global ad platform that does tricky shit like spy on users with blue thumbs up buttons or weird hacks into webrtc to fingerprint users. They could have done the work to provide more direct value and charged for it, like Apple did or did something completely different like building something like Shopify that was still open to the internet but had first class support in Facebook. But they didn't and my hope is that their business model will wash away as security and privacy tighten up on our devices and through our democracies.
Just imagine if Apple had taken a different approach and basically said "we're going to make phones that we monetize by tracking our users" instead. The institutional focus would have been warped and—eventually—someone would have come out with high quality phones and computers that don't track you and they would have lost in the long run.
Market share is just one aspect. If you have 75% market share but you have 1% margins, and your competitor has 25% market share and 80% margins, the 25% is probably going to be the one you want.
I don't see how this is relevant to the GP point that I was addressing? They seemed to be implying that consumers would favor privacy-respecting phones.
The market share doesn’t matter. I don’t care if you have 99% market share and I have 1% if I still make more money than you.
The proliferation of Android’s market share here doesn’t resolve the question you have. We don’t know why people have Android phones. A better question and what’s better to look at is actually installation of Google apps across devices. I see this mistake a lot in Android vs iOS. Google makes money and all the privacy stuff comes into play with their software, not Android OS.
To make the OP’s point for them, the metrics are even more in favor of Google when you use the right ones -> look at Gmail installs across iOS and Android to see how they are winning.
Depends. Market share certainly does not completely answer this at all.
Some Android phones are dirt cheap. If they’re the same price and functionality and you have no cost of switching due to platform lock in, most everyone probably will take the privacy respecting option. Some people care first and foremost about price (whether by choice or not). Evidence from the growth due to the reintroduction of the iPhone SE seems to corroborate this.
Google's profit from their smartphone sales is classified as advertising, not as mobile phone sales. They're still making massive profits off of Android
Anecdotes aren’t data but I wholeheartedly +1 this anecdote. Whether it’s something with the products or something with the users that buy these types of products but I have seen correlation in my own experience, once myself included.
Along with pb7, I'll +1 this anecdote. I know that Google are going for volume while Apple are going for margin, and it shows.
I was an ardent Android user until 2014/2015 (can't remember the exact year). Things like "I have to be able to replace my battery" and "a phone without an SD card slot is pointless" and "hah, my regular USB cords just work."
But finally, after a year or so of every time my phone spontaneously rebooted (a circumstance that, looking back, I'm surprised I put up with for so long) there was a ~20% chance that it would come back up completely wiped. My employer required that phones accessing work e-mail be encrypted and every so often, a reboot would simply lose the user data volume encryption key.
The last time it happened, I permanently lost two pictures that were valuable to me (yes, I know, backups) and it happened while I was sitting in front of a T-Mobile store and around the corner from an Apple store. I went into T-Mobile, got a SIM that would fit an iPhone, then went to the Apple store and loaded up a credit card with a new iPhone 6(?) and all the trimmings and have never looked back.
I do still have the screenshot of my first text with my wife after I switched. "So...I did something...expensive." "What did you do? WAIT, this bubble is BLUE"
For me (as a former Anything But Apple guy), the realization came when I discovered that every problem I’ve ever had with my phone was caused by me screwing something up. I put up with this on my computers, but my phone isn’t something I want to take chances on. It’s got too much data and it’s too critical to my everyday life to have it broken constantly. I just can’t trust myself not to install launchers and root the phone and see if I can get Debian running in a chroot and... whoops bricked it.
I switched to iPhone with the 5s and have’t looked back. I like not being able to break my phone because of my poor decision making skills. I do my hacking on my computer where the consequences are lower and its easier to fix.
I bought a Moto G6 in the fall for $150, for the simple reason that I couldn't find any phone at any price that I didn't hate, so I figured it might as well be as cheap as possible. (In the past, I was happy to shell out for flagships, though not always super close to the release date, but sometimes multiple ones at once.)
What a fortuitous coincidence, because once the pandemic started I've been using the phone once a week or less. If I'd paid $500-1000, I'd be pretty unhappy with myself right about now.
I had an iphone 4, when it was time to upgrade, I saw the prices as too high, so I opted for a nexus 5.
6 months later I had already switched. It was supposed to be a highly polished Google phone, and yet it had very weird bugs. As an example, I remember hearing a weird tone from the phone every once in a while, even with the phone silenced, but there was never a single notification about what was happening. At some point I discovered that the phone was automatically trying to read my contactless card, and there was simply no way of turning it off, I was forced to avoid placing my wallet anywhere near my phone, which I found ridiculous
Anecdotally, I know more people who complain about their (slow, poor battery life) iphones than people who own android phones, especially the ones actually produced by google.
>Google is doing exactly that and seems to have a market share of 75% vs Apple's 25% [1]. What am I missing?
It's easy to have a big market share if you go for market share. Heck, if I start selling dollars for 50 cents I can probably get 100% of the global money market...
This is a bit misleading. Using the same website if you look at North America iOS has 50% and if you look at Europe it is 75%. We have to consider this because Apple products cost significantly more. People in America and Europe are more often going to buy flagship phones than people in different countries. So people that have the money to buy new Apple products are doing so at a much higher rate than what you're suggesting.
You’re missing profits. Marketshare doesn’t make money. It came out in the Oracle trial during discover that Android had only made Google $22 billion in profit from its introduction through 2016.
It’s also reported that Google pays Apple $8 billion a year to be the default search engine. In other words, Apple makes more on mobile from Google than Google makes from Android.
If “one could argue that”, why didn’t Oracle’s high priced lawyers make that argument?
Google’s revenue was down last quarter - the only one that reporter less revenue out of the big 5. Maybe depending solely on advertising isn’t a good idea?
It's surely not that simple. Android allows Google to gather all kinds of location data that makes Google Maps much more effective, not to mention advertising. I doubt that gets categorised as Android profit.
How many of the people in Google’s market would prefer an iPhone but can’t afford one? I suspect some Android users don’t really have a meaningful choice but to allow tracking.
>There is this parable about building a house upon sand versus building upon rock. When the storm comes the house on the sand gets washed away.
Yeah, on the other hand if the house-upon-sound has already made you one of the top-5 billionaires on Earth before it got washed away, I guess that's OK too...
1. It's very hard to say, from a valuation POV, FB did the wrong thing. They are the 5th largest company in the world. If they built on sand, then it was sand made from gold nuggets.
2. I think what is lost is that FB was blindsided by the transition to mobile, at first. They didn't (and probably couldn't) have had the foresight to know to build a mobile phone, when they were hardly focusing on mobile in the first place. They made a huge turn around to focus on mobile then FB exploded.
3. There is no way in hell FB could have built their own phone. Apple didn't wake up one day and decide to build the iPhone, it was step 100 in a very long staircase, that started with the original iPhone.
4. Google tried to build their own Phone, and is failing it at it. Again, I can't imagine a world where FB succeeds at making their own phone, better than the iPhone (while also supporting the iPhone), that isn't a money pit, like it is for everyone who isn't named Apple/Samsung.
They definitely could due to them having so much cash, and it is a money pit, but high risk, high reward.
Seems to me like all these companies with huge cash flow and cash piles like MS/FB/Google/Samsung don’t want to invest in creating a high quality device people can trust, they don’t want to create a network of retail stores people can go to get help. They have their easy money collecting rent on software (Microsoft) or advertising. So be it if they don’t want to risk their cash.
I don’t think the previous poster is suggesting FB build a phone but rather than FB not monetize its users via ads and instead monetize them by providing value they will pay for.
Facebook will do just fine here. The advertisers who want/ need targeted advertising will be even more driven towards advertising friendly platforms like Facebook's feed.
Do they mean the ad targeting that shows me ads to help build a religious building (I'm an atheist) in NYC (I live in Europe)? That ad targeting is going to work less well? How?
In all seriousness, good. Facebook is creepy enough as it is, and this kind of protest is disingenious at best.
I don't install any social media "Apps" into my phones. I use Firefox, ublock orogin, privacy badger, duckduckgo essentials, and facebook fence. It's overkill, but damn, it's trivial to setup, and platforms don't follow me whereever I go.
I think dedicated firewall can help a lot. Like if I use spotify i should be able to use firewall and tell spotify app can connect only to https://*.spotify.com if there are other url it should ask permission for that. I think this would help a lot. Especially when facebook implants its tracker to most app using sdk
DNS blocking/filtering is a flimsy solution which is only effective if most people don't use it. If it ever becomes mainstream (which is starting to happen), trackers will just use CNAMEs or proxies (which is also starting to happen)
And some trackers have already sidestepped that and switched to proxying requests server side.
The only reason anyone is using CNAMEs is because pihole and NextDNS are of negligible adoption, and adding a CNAME is super easy to do. Once CNAME blocking is more prevalent, it will become mainstream to proxy tracking requests as well.
> With the update to its mobile devices, Apple will ask users if they want to let app developers track their activity across other apps and websites.
I'm getting so tired of the bullshit coming out of tech companies. Listening to these tech CEOs lie and give non-answers to every question asked by Congress this week was disgusting.
Would any user EVER want apps to be able to track them across the web and within other apps? Why would this not be off by default?
I used Android for years until enough was enough with the blatant theft of my data by Google. So I opened up my wallet even wider to go with Apple, as I thought they took users' privacy seriously.
“Apple will ask users if they want to let app developers track their activity across other apps and websites.
[…]
Why would this not be off by default?”
How does that _not_ describe “off by default”? Even if that doesn’t, FTA: “In iOS 14, each app that wants to use these identifiers will ask users to opt-in to tracking when the app is first launched.”
I think Facebook has proven sufficiently that playing it straight is just not in their DNA. I'd also assume they'd rather find a novel way of staying shady than change their monetization scheme.
215 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 271 ms ] thread/s
> Our view is that Facebook and targeted ads are a lifeline for small businesses, especially in the time of Covid, and we are concerned that aggressive platform policies will cut at that lifeline at a time when it is so essential to small business growth and recovery," Wehner said.
"We need to trample privacy to save small businesses because covid!" is a take I did not expect to read today. Also Facebook acting like it's altruistically helping those poor little businesses - how terrible that Apple is making it harder for them to give Facebook money!
Disclaimer: Worked on a successful ad-tech company for ~2.5 years.
Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of their words?
what are we missing?
If companies could properly secure your data and only collect what is needed, Apple wouldn't feel the need to take matters into their own hand.
The subtext here is that they know it’s not and many users will opt out.
A company can convince users to opt-in, but it will lose quite a lot of people, even those who don't really care if they are tracked or not. Simple because users want to use the service, not become legal and technical experts. Understanding how all of it works is really hard.
Their ads product is indeed beneficial to users: users get relevant personalized localized ads (instead of boring ads which can still be seen on TV or paper magazines) and they get better service because the company gets it's revenue from ads.
But most users don't want to know that. They simply want to use the service. (And I suspect vast majority of users would not really care if they are tracked or not if they really knew how tracking and how ads personalization works; I mean really knew technical details, not boogey man explainations from tabloids).
- For instance, if you are a decision maker in a company, buying targeted ads across platforms is an amazingly effective way of changing your opinion. Seeing helpful articles in LinkedIn or in that specialized site for professionals? You might be The target of a salesman, or worse, a competitor trying to slow you down (I’ve seen this last one happening).
- Targeted malware distribution is also a thing.
- Try checking something weird online and see how much the ads everywhere change. That’s a self-forming bubble around you. Start thinking about how all of that works and you will start to doubt which ideas and desires are yours and which were decided for you.
- This has side-effects, Internet profiling is reducing diversity, since ads are shown on a profile basis, there’s a silo-ing of interests.
- The insights that can be gained from profiling can be of a very sensitive nature, and can be inferred by third parties. Let’s say I’m a backwards boss who has ill-formed opinions about homosexuality. It’s trivial and quite cheap for me to use targeted ads with my employees emails (and some fake emails if I need some extra) to send you ads on things like gay dating platforms. If the click-through of the ads goes up, I know I have some pruning to do.
The options are pretty much limitless
Average damage per user is several orders of magnitude smaller than the average benefit of targeted advertising: for the company, for businesses and even for users of the platform.
The similar arguments can be applied to convince people that cars are harmful: * cars kill quite a lot of people * if you drink and drive, you can get to jail * gazoline is expensive * cars pollute the air * cars produce noise which reduces quality of life
A hundred years ago one could convince a lot of people that cars need to be prohibited. And they were quite successful:
> The most draconian restrictions and speed limits were imposed by the 1865 act (the "Red Flag Act"), which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6.4 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3.2 km/h) in the city, as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag to walk in front of road vehicles hauling multiple wagons.
The arguments you are suggesting, all of them are true. Companies need to be more transparent about tracking, perform external audit etc., stricter laws regulating personal data is needed to make sure data is not misused, strict laws regulating what can be advertized.
But killing all of tracking would be similar to restricting speed limit to 3 mph. Well, it will definitely be safer.
The dangers of cars are pretty obvious, the dangers of tracking are not.
And I disagree that these are “low harm”, being forcefully outed is no joke in certain communities. The only thing that is protecting a lot of people right now is a correlation between certain ideologies and low technological know-how.
The privacy angle is completely justified, but I think Apple is underestimating the second order effects here. Significantly fewer apps will be installed, harming both the developer ecosystem and Apple's App Store profits.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/24/apple-j...
Surely an app containing fewer ads would make people _more_ likely to install them, not less?
IDFA trades privacy for market efficiency. It's used by ad networks to allow me to optimize for either the cheapest or most valuable installs, and validate that my marketing spend is actually driving these behaviors with an acceptable ROI.
Without it, ad networks will be much less effective and it will cost developers at least 2x to drive the same number of installs.
IDFA has obvious privacy flaws, but Apple is making a mistake by crippling it without offering a privacy-safe alternative (and several of those have been proposed by the industry).
Sounds like a win-win.
The company that we were sold to by our parent company did the same thing on a regular basis and kept their main app in the top 5 for years. Not sure if they do it today (this was 6+ years ago).
I wish Apple would find a way to stop these artificial App Store hacks (maybe they have I no longer pay much attention since our app's downloads do not affect our business).
Do you have any examples/links? genuinely curious
I am not concerned in the least, in fact, it will like drive quality up.
Specifically, this would have crushed rising giants like TikTok and Wish who each have spent over a billion on app install ads before they reached escape velocity.
There are thousands of medium sized apps that try every day to reach to new users, and now it will be more expensive (potentially prohibitively expensive) to do so.
The reason we don’t have as many of these as we otherwise could is precisely because of the incentives of this ad-driven merry-to-round.
Would the world be worse off without TikTok?
Yes. Clearly you are currently aware of every good quality software product in existence, and all their creators are all comfortably rolling in money.
LOLOLOL - I service only small businesses (hundreds of them) and 90% of them could give 0 fucks if Facebook disappeared from this planet tomorrow.
The whole "targeted advertising" pipe dream sold to small businesses is tiring. Highly targeted Facebook ads work for a small percentage of business models - if you don't fit one of these models it's a giant waste of money or at least on par with print/radio/tv/un-targeted digital ads.
The same could be said about SEO/Google Ads. Google is essentially a paid search engine now so while SEO will work for some sectors, for most they will never be #1 because the top 3-4 results are ads disguised as organic results (hence why I say Google is a paid search engine)
That convinced me that Facebook won’t give business pages the traffic they’ve earned unless that business pays Facebook to let that page’s followers see that page’s posts. It’s a racket and you have to pay to play.
Facebook made a "charitable" act to make it zero-rated that people's access to the internet is only thru Facebook.
We have laws against that in the US, but in practice they are very very slow to enforce them.
Like the opening line of a racketeer trying to extract protection money.
> privacy nightmares and ethical issues like allowing targeting alcoholics with alcohol ads
These two statements are diametrically opposing each other. Either targeted advertising works or it doesn't. You can't say that it isn't valuable and then raise concerns about how it causes privacy nightmares and alcoholics to buy more alcohol.
Alcoholics will buy more alcohol either ways. Targeting makes no difference to their behavior really. But your argument holds no ground because alcohol ads are highly regulated. You can read more about why here: [1]. More often than not advertising companies reject alcohol ads as it hurts their business more than it helps (due to stringent regulations in most parts of the World). It is not as easy as you make it out to be. Else your social media pages should be inundated with alcohol ads. It is not.
I strongly believe that there should be regulations on the content of the ads that are pushed out (just like the alcohol ads). There should be regulation on how often an ad can be retargeted and to ensure that the placements don't hamper user productivity. Blanket bans on advertising methods just for sake of privacy is going to do more harm than good. There has to be some sort of a balance. For people who want privacy they can opt for privacy focused social networks. But if entire platforms move towards privacy then the advertising industry will collapse completely. Targeted advertising is the cheapest way for small and medium businesses to get new customers. It levels the playing field with corporations with big pockets. If you move towards privacy as a focus point with no proper alternatives to advertising it will cause a major shakeup. Many businesses will shutdown. You'll have more consolidation and less competition. Only those with big pockets can advertise their products/services. And in the post-Corona World, this is a lifeline to many small businesses.
[1]: https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6012382?hl=en
However, I think people should try turning off Personalized Ads on Youtube and watching a few videos (without adblock!). IMO it's fucking awful, even compared to regular targeted ads. You'll get the same crappy Trump "socialism survey" 6 times in a row because there's no tracking of ad viewer fatigue.
Instagram does a great job of personalizing ads to both products and the type of companies I like. I don't mind seeing these kinds of ads at all. I'm happy (in this case) for them to track me because it's much much, better than the alternative.
You're acting like there is only one alternative, but what about blocking ads? That's win-win for everyone but the advertiser. And really that makes it win-win-win, unless you work in advertising or for Facebook/Google.
Win-win for who? If everyone uses adblockers you will have major unemployment. All small and medium businesses will shutdown as advertising is the cheapest mechanism to reach customers. Without advertising these businesses will have to rely on billboard advertising and TV ads. Both are extremely expensive in comparison to internet advertising. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. As simple as that!
What a load of beans. However did the world survive until these selfless internet advertisers came along to save small and medium business?
I don't understand this attitude. Do you like being advertised to? I don't. I find advertising repugnant, and I'd much rather see ads that are irrelevant to me because they're easier to ignore and I'm less likely to be affected by them.
With targeted ads I'm at risk of being influenced. I don't want to be influenced by ads.
You can't do business without advertising. Are you for shutting down small and medium businesses? If you are employed find out how your company gets clients and acquires customers. It is mostly through advertising. And if they don't, the clients they depend on for orders do. It is a chain and if that chain gets disrupted everyone suffers. I don't understand why anyone would find the concept of advertising repugnant! Sure there are horrible ads and then there are scammy ways of advertising. Those should be regulated. But to put the entire advertising landscape under the bus is totally not acceptable!
> I'd much rather see ads that are irrelevant to me because they're easier to ignore and I'm less likely to be affected by them
I bet majority of the people find ads that are not relevant repugnant. I hate it when I am recommended an ad that I have no interest in, over and over again. To the point where I turn off whatever I am reading/watching. Why would I sit through watching an ad for 15 seconds that is irrelevant to me?
> I don't want to be influenced by ads.
Use adblock.
In this reply you are advocating that I use adblock. I have flagged your post, as trolling is against the HN posting guidelines
Btw the other comment was specific to the idea of everyone using ad block which is what you essentially advocated. Everyone won't voluntarily use an ad blocker. It has to be enforced. Now why should I be forced to turn off ads? Just because you feel so? I have my rights to view whatever I want. Who do you think you are to dictate what I should and shouldn't watch? If I don't like ads I'll block them myself. I don't need some authority baby sitting me. If I want privacy focused apps I'll use them. It is ultimately my choice. The moment something is enforced on me it just violates my rights.
I foolishly believed that. I gave Google every chance under the sun: clicked not interested, verified my ad preferences, waited another month etc.
For over 10 years they have showed me ads for scammy dating sites!
Someone will typically come to their defense and say basically: Google know what they are doing.
They do not!
They refuse to understand that a father of more than three kids - all with the same mother - isn't interested in scammy dating sites.
Well, maybe on average it works?
Well maybe on average I get so fed up I start to inform scammy dating sites that they are getting ripped off. The volume seems to have decreased lately, but I mostly use an adblocker so what do I know ;-)
So for anyone who pays Google for views: be aware that their targetting is painfully bad, their feedback systems so broken that they seemingly cannot take a clue if it came gift wrapped and so big it needs a truck for delivery. Keep an eye on the metrics guys and gals.
It still makes sense economically for many companies but be very critical, because Google is not.
Edit: to rub it in: Facebook manages to personalize ads! Again and again I get ads that are relevant and interesting. I've even bought through Instagram ads. Which is a shame since I dislike Facebook even more intensely than Google and only keep an Instagram profile to keep my lovely wife happy. I deliberately keep my contact with Facebook small and yet they seem to know exactly what I am interested in and what not.
I notice I got carried away yesterday:
I did not inform them one by one, but rather by publically writing about it, at least here on HN.
There are some products and services that absolutely require targeting by preferences to maximize profit.
I'm running such a campaign now and getting wildly high ROI's in the 14X range.
If I couldn't target by audience interest, I'd be happy to get an ROI that is a tenth of that.
Are you able to prove they wouldn't have bought anyway?
As a normal person who just wants to use his phone without creepy crap going on, I don't care—and see zero benefit if your profits are maximized.
Your profit seeking wishes are not my concern.
Send your complaints to politicians, not ad buyers.
(Disclaimer: I've spent millions - not my own money - on ads in my career. I'd support better privacy regulations to prevent some of the targeting I've been able to use.)
The same for Microsoft with O365 and subscriptions streaming services.
I hope Facebook’s relentless and shameless intrusions get more beatings that it truly deserves.
Facebook didn't have to turn into a global ad platform that does tricky shit like spy on users with blue thumbs up buttons or weird hacks into webrtc to fingerprint users. They could have done the work to provide more direct value and charged for it, like Apple did or did something completely different like building something like Shopify that was still open to the internet but had first class support in Facebook. But they didn't and my hope is that their business model will wash away as security and privacy tighten up on our devices and through our democracies.
Just imagine if Apple had taken a different approach and basically said "we're going to make phones that we monetize by tracking our users" instead. The institutional focus would have been warped and—eventually—someone would have come out with high quality phones and computers that don't track you and they would have lost in the long run.
Google is doing exactly that and seems to have a market share of 75% vs Apple's 25% [1]. What am I missing?
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
The question is, given a choice between a privacy-respecting smartphone and a privacy-violating one, will consumers choose the former?
Market share directly and completely answers that question. Profit share doesn't seem to have anything to do with it whatsoever?
The proliferation of Android’s market share here doesn’t resolve the question you have. We don’t know why people have Android phones. A better question and what’s better to look at is actually installation of Google apps across devices. I see this mistake a lot in Android vs iOS. Google makes money and all the privacy stuff comes into play with their software, not Android OS.
To make the OP’s point for them, the metrics are even more in favor of Google when you use the right ones -> look at Gmail installs across iOS and Android to see how they are winning.
Some Android phones are dirt cheap. If they’re the same price and functionality and you have no cost of switching due to platform lock in, most everyone probably will take the privacy respecting option. Some people care first and foremost about price (whether by choice or not). Evidence from the growth due to the reintroduction of the iPhone SE seems to corroborate this.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate...
I was one of those other people, then I just decided I want something that works and bought an iPhone. It was worth it.
I was an ardent Android user until 2014/2015 (can't remember the exact year). Things like "I have to be able to replace my battery" and "a phone without an SD card slot is pointless" and "hah, my regular USB cords just work."
But finally, after a year or so of every time my phone spontaneously rebooted (a circumstance that, looking back, I'm surprised I put up with for so long) there was a ~20% chance that it would come back up completely wiped. My employer required that phones accessing work e-mail be encrypted and every so often, a reboot would simply lose the user data volume encryption key.
The last time it happened, I permanently lost two pictures that were valuable to me (yes, I know, backups) and it happened while I was sitting in front of a T-Mobile store and around the corner from an Apple store. I went into T-Mobile, got a SIM that would fit an iPhone, then went to the Apple store and loaded up a credit card with a new iPhone 6(?) and all the trimmings and have never looked back.
I do still have the screenshot of my first text with my wife after I switched. "So...I did something...expensive." "What did you do? WAIT, this bubble is BLUE"
I switched to iPhone with the 5s and have’t looked back. I like not being able to break my phone because of my poor decision making skills. I do my hacking on my computer where the consequences are lower and its easier to fix.
What a fortuitous coincidence, because once the pandemic started I've been using the phone once a week or less. If I'd paid $500-1000, I'd be pretty unhappy with myself right about now.
6 months later I had already switched. It was supposed to be a highly polished Google phone, and yet it had very weird bugs. As an example, I remember hearing a weird tone from the phone every once in a while, even with the phone silenced, but there was never a single notification about what was happening. At some point I discovered that the phone was automatically trying to read my contactless card, and there was simply no way of turning it off, I was forced to avoid placing my wallet anywhere near my phone, which I found ridiculous
It's easy to have a big market share if you go for market share. Heck, if I start selling dollars for 50 cents I can probably get 100% of the global money market...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate...
It’s also reported that Google pays Apple $8 billion a year to be the default search engine. In other words, Apple makes more on mobile from Google than Google makes from Android.
Apple also didn’t introduce the iPad as a moat around their computer business. The iPad and the Mac are both successful product lines.
How long can Google keep playing defense? Apple,Microsoft and Amazon have created new lines of business in the past two decades.
Google’s revenue was down last quarter - the only one that reporter less revenue out of the big 5. Maybe depending solely on advertising isn’t a good idea?
Yeah, on the other hand if the house-upon-sound has already made you one of the top-5 billionaires on Earth before it got washed away, I guess that's OK too...
2. I think what is lost is that FB was blindsided by the transition to mobile, at first. They didn't (and probably couldn't) have had the foresight to know to build a mobile phone, when they were hardly focusing on mobile in the first place. They made a huge turn around to focus on mobile then FB exploded.
3. There is no way in hell FB could have built their own phone. Apple didn't wake up one day and decide to build the iPhone, it was step 100 in a very long staircase, that started with the original iPhone.
4. Google tried to build their own Phone, and is failing it at it. Again, I can't imagine a world where FB succeeds at making their own phone, better than the iPhone (while also supporting the iPhone), that isn't a money pit, like it is for everyone who isn't named Apple/Samsung.
Seems to me like all these companies with huge cash flow and cash piles like MS/FB/Google/Samsung don’t want to invest in creating a high quality device people can trust, they don’t want to create a network of retail stores people can go to get help. They have their easy money collecting rent on software (Microsoft) or advertising. So be it if they don’t want to risk their cash.
In all seriousness, good. Facebook is creepy enough as it is, and this kind of protest is disingenious at best.
The only reason anyone is using CNAMEs is because pihole and NextDNS are of negligible adoption, and adding a CNAME is super easy to do. Once CNAME blocking is more prevalent, it will become mainstream to proxy tracking requests as well.
example: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
I'm getting so tired of the bullshit coming out of tech companies. Listening to these tech CEOs lie and give non-answers to every question asked by Congress this week was disgusting.
Would any user EVER want apps to be able to track them across the web and within other apps? Why would this not be off by default?
I used Android for years until enough was enough with the blatant theft of my data by Google. So I opened up my wallet even wider to go with Apple, as I thought they took users' privacy seriously.
Apparently not.
[…]
Why would this not be off by default?”
How does that _not_ describe “off by default”? Even if that doesn’t, FTA: “In iOS 14, each app that wants to use these identifiers will ask users to opt-in to tracking when the app is first launched.”
That's exactly the right way to put it.