I take it no-one here has tried FB advertising? The conversion marketing is ridiculously powerful and effective, because ads are served to the right people at a time they're most likely to buy/convert. They're putting buyers in touch with sellers and the sellers don't have access to any of the data, so this really is Apple trying to hurt FB's revenue model. This will also harm small businesses and start ups who have found it so effective. The alternative for the audience is to see ads that aren't relevant and for advertising to become more annoying that it is currently.
In other news today, Apple announced a surprise release of a new social media app to be named Facelook, which will offer a less privacy-invasive platform to keep in touch with friends and family.
I take it no-one here has tried FB advertising? The conversion marketing is ridiculously powerful and effective, because ads are served to the right people at a time they're most likely to buy/convert. They're putting buyers in touch with sellers and the sellers don't have access to any of the data, so this really is Apple trying to hurt FB's revenue model. This will also harm small businesses and start ups who have found it so effective. The alternative for the audience is to see ads that aren't relevant and for advertising to become more annoying that it is currently.
Lol.
Apple giving the users the OPTION of deciding over what happens with a bit more of their own personal data is nothing but Apple trying to hurt Facebooks revenue model??!
So, what firm are you getting paid by to be a shill, and are you behind the other new accounts pushing the same transparent (and brainless) agenda?
I take it no-one here has tried FB advertising? The conversion marketing is ridiculously powerful and effective, because ads are served to the right people at a time they're most likely to buy/convert. They're putting buyers in touch with sellers and the sellers don't have access to any of the data, so this really is Apple trying to hurt FB's revenue model. This will also harm small businesses and start ups who have found it so effective. The alternative for the audience is to see ads that aren't relevant and for advertising to become more annoying that it is currently.
If only advertising to specific markets didn't exist before Facebook did it!
Oh, wait. It always has.
Anyway, Facebook doesn't care about small business. It never has, and it isn't starting now. It is using them to prop up its own arguments in front of the assorted anti-trust agencies and trials that it has competition and threats. It is using them to try and keep its own bottom line intact, on a platform that is seeing a steady decline in average active monthly users.
If you like Facebook's targeted ads, opt into their continued tracking. Pretty simple. I don't, so I won't be.
Facebook’s success derives from the fact that it is free. A paid service cannot function for broad family-and-friends social networking.
The only solution is to build a robust social networking platform into iOS/Android etc. and macOS/Windows etc., run by an industry consortium that can respond to the ebb and flow of government regulations around the world.
I've suggested awhile ago that Apple should start their own social networking platform with no ads, no tracking, no cost, and no frills (i.e., don't allow news, selling items, etc.). Keep it simple.
Apple learned a lot from the failure of Ping (a Steve Jobs project, IIRC) — I don’t remember precisely what went wrong, but I do remember that they tried to integrate the service with Facebook and that blew up in their face (LOL, no pun intended).
Google has had their own “learning experiences” with social networking — Hangouts is now Meet or whatever, I stopped paying attention a while ago. I guess that is more messaging, but it’s the same arena.
I think the ideal would be for Apple and Google to cooperate on a platform, if the goal is to obliterate Facebook (they’d be doing a public service, to my mind). But I also think whatever Apple is planning, it’s likely to not be dependent upon cooperation from Google or Microsoft or anyone else. That’s the lesson of Ping, to name just one example.
I was struck by the terse clarity of Apple’s response to questions about Windows running on Apple Silicon, “it’s up to Microsoft.” I think we’ll see a similar response when Apple eventually rolls out the endgame of their services and privacy initiatives (which work hand-in-hand), a social network. The answer to questions about Facebook will be, “it’s up to Facebook.”
Comments
So, what firm are you getting paid by to be a shill, and are you behind the other new accounts pushing the same transparent (and brainless) agenda?
Oh, wait. It always has.
Anyway, Facebook doesn't care about small business. It never has, and it isn't starting now. It is using them to prop up its own arguments in front of the assorted anti-trust agencies and trials that it has competition and threats. It is using them to try and keep its own bottom line intact, on a platform that is seeing a steady decline in average active monthly users.
If you like Facebook's targeted ads, opt into their continued tracking. Pretty simple. I don't, so I won't be.
I think the ideal would be for Apple and Google to cooperate on a platform, if the goal is to obliterate Facebook (they’d be doing a public service, to my mind). But I also think whatever Apple is planning, it’s likely to not be dependent upon cooperation from Google or Microsoft or anyone else. That’s the lesson of Ping, to name just one example.
I was struck by the terse clarity of Apple’s response to questions about Windows running on Apple Silicon, “it’s up to Microsoft.” I think we’ll see a similar response when Apple eventually rolls out the endgame of their services and privacy initiatives (which work hand-in-hand), a social network. The answer to questions about Facebook will be, “it’s up to Facebook.”