I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Good points.
The problem is that Apple is interfering with someone else’s business model now. And that’s anti-competitive behavior, even if most of us don’t like Facebook as a company, and like protecting our privacy.
We all know that Tim Cook knows that most people will decline that iOS requester asking for permissions and Facebook ends up with no more user data.
It brings up the question: is Apple allowed to be the data police here? Is Facebook’s way of doing business unacceptable to begin with, and isn’t it then a politics matter?
I think most people perceive social media as a commodity now, almost like an operating system or mini-internet. It’ll be very difficult to ask money for Facebook now.
I would pay for a new type of Facebook built with completely different values, however the problem is that that new platform won’t be able to compete with Facebook on users, and then we’re back to the subject of anti-competitive behavior by another tech giant.
bit in bold - disagree as all that Apple is doing is giving individuals the opportunity to choose. Apple is providing the tools for us to do this, not making the decision for us.
What a dumb assumption of CheeseFreeze.(Sorry as people we need to call each other out, me included)
"Anti-commpetitive" is the new buzz word and people are repeating it for everything. Apple can enter any business it wants whether it's phones, music, gaming, TV or headphones.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users.
The important thing is the motivation. Apple is motivated to provide the most private platform on Earth. If they make money as a result of that, then it's a good business decision, but it's not necessarily the motivation behind the business decision. They could just as easily lose money because consumers don't get on board with that.
Facebook's business model, on the other hand, is a deer in the headlights, and Facebook fears becoming a blurry image in the rear-view mirror. Their business model IS to monetize information, plain and simple. If they cared about your privacy, they would not be doing everything they can to shame Apple's efforts. They would support Apple's efforts. They would look forward to how they can move with the times instead of desperately trying to hold onto older business models.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Apple monetizes the sale of devices by coupling them with software and services that are all designed simultaneously to function together. This is Apple's business model, and it's surprising how many people (including some regulars here) don't see that. Some of the software and services are included in the price of the device (e.g., free OS updates, productivity and music recording software, some news and music), and some are available to hardware purchasers at an additional price. Customer privacy is a value built into all three legs of the stool described above. Because the customers who buy Apple devices are the entire focus of that business model, the idea of creating a side business of collecting and selling customer data isn't just unnecessary, it would actually undermine the central business model.
Facebook and Google traffic in data, and their paying customer is advertisers. They both sell some hardware, but the hardware's purpose is to drive users toward data collection software. Therein lies the problem with something like an ad-free subscription option for Facebook. The trust is already been sold to the highest bidder. There probably aren't many people who would simultaneously be interested in a subscription-based, ad-free social media site that ostensibly would collect and sell the subscriber's data, and who would also trust facebook to honestly deliver that service. How could they, really?
"Apple monetizes the sale of devices .... "
Of course and that's exactly what I am buying. Nothing more or less. That's why I've been buying apple products. I really do see that, and I am able to willing to pay that premium, such as it is, for that.
If everyone else is running on revenue from other parties using the device "customers" data to lower the device price.
Is Apple really charging a Premium or are they charging the market price?
Facebook is angry about this because, this could make transparent the extent Facebook tracks you across all the apps you use on your phone. Apple is forcing Facebook and Google, mainly FB to become more transparent! How do you think the average consumer will react to learning the extent of personal data FB mines about each person?
I think that’s what this is really about, not “loss of advertising revenue” but exposing exactly how FB collects data related to its advertising. Where on your phone they snoop, the practices they use to ease drop on everything you do to make them more money !
If it was just simply about “loss of advertising revenue” I’m sure they could find a work around!
I think it's completely fine that Apple requires opt-in. However, it should also be allowed for apps to require opt-in to show content. For example, it should be possible for an app to require that users either purchase a subscription or opt-in to targeted advertising in order to for the app to work.
It seems that apps will not be able to do that: you cannot make content delivery dependent on a user opting in. I don't see this how this can be right: it's entirely fair to request tracking in exchange for content and there is no deception if the user has to opt-in.
That should be an option that a publisher has. Otherwise, this will just require all of them to switch to subscription.
Targeted advertising (as long as the user understands it) has some nice pricing properties: for example it's a form of progressive pricing as richer consuners' ads are worth more - in other words rich consumers pay more in this system than poorer ones. Most subscriptions cannot replicate that.
Looking at ads on Appleinsider it's obvious that this site relies heavily on targeted ads. If there would a law that allows consumer to opt out without losing access then of course everyone would do it and Appleinsider would have to switch to subscriptions (and lose lots of readers). But this can well be a Prisoners' dilemma outcome in the sense that if free users would get a choice between tracking and subscriptions they would prefer tracking over subscriptions. However, if a website cannot exclude freeriders then free access (paid by tracking) simply ceases to be an option.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Good points.
The problem is that Apple is interfering with someone else’s business model now. And that’s anti-competitive behavior, even if most of us don’t like Facebook as a company, and like protecting our privacy.
We all know that Tim Cook knows that most people will decline that iOS requester asking for permissions and Facebook ends up with no more user data.
It brings up the question: is Apple allowed to be the data police here? Is Facebook’s way of doing business unacceptable to begin with, and isn’t it then a politics matter?
I think most people perceive social media as a commodity now, almost like an operating system or mini-internet. It’ll be very difficult to ask money for Facebook now.
I would pay for a new type of Facebook built with completely different values, however the problem is that that new platform won’t be able to compete with Facebook on users, and then we’re back to the subject of anti-competitive behavior by another tech giant.
bit in bold - disagree as all that Apple is doing is giving individuals the opportunity to choose. Apple is providing the tools for us to do this, not making the decision for us.
What a dumb assumption of CheeseFreeze.(Sorry as people we need to call each other out, me included)
"Anti-commpetitive" is the new buzz word and people are repeating it for everything. Apple can enter any business it wants whether it's phones, music, gaming, TV or headphones.
The true stupidity is you calling someone “stupid” over a disagreement.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Good points.
The problem is that Apple is interfering with someone else’s business model now. And that’s anti-competitive behavior, even if most of us don’t like Facebook as a company, and like protecting our privacy.
We all know that Tim Cook knows that most people will decline that iOS requester asking for permissions and Facebook ends up with no more user data.
It brings up the question: is Apple allowed to be the data police here? Is Facebook’s way of doing business unacceptable to begin with, and isn’t it then a politics matter?
I think most people perceive social media as a commodity now, almost like an operating system or mini-internet. It’ll be very difficult to ask money for Facebook now.
I would pay for a new type of Facebook built with completely different values, however the problem is that that new platform won’t be able to compete with Facebook on users, and then we’re back to the subject of anti-competitive behavior by another tech giant.
bit in bold - disagree as all that Apple is doing is giving individuals the opportunity to choose. Apple is providing the tools for us to do this, not making the decision for us.
Yes, but we all know that this “choice” will be 100% denied by the end-user, even though previously they already accepted Facebook’s EULA at the time of user registration, including accepting Facebook’s policies. Why is Apple even interfering at this point?
Which is the same concept when I (apparently) accepted Apple’s EULA when purchasing movies, and then finding out I only purchased a very limited license that caused my videos to be removed from my library after I emigrated to another country. Aka, I never really “own” those videos. I lost over $700 of purchases as they didn’t survive my iCloud account settings changes (Apple support verified this btw).
Did Apple also include a requester at the time of purchase saying: “Although it looks like we are selling you videos, we really don’t and you don’t own that copy after a full purchase, unlike you would when buying a DVD. Do you accept?”
And could I still purchase it when answering “NO”? Indeed, I couldn’t. I should have read their EULA carefully, but I didn’t.
This privacy thing is not because Apple cares about the consumer. It’s because they sell us their brand with it, and their so-called user-first privacy policies. It’s only a surface-level policy because as soon as they can make money, that prevails.
Remember how they accepted Russia’s and China’s demands - diluting or forgoing their privacy policies all together - for the sake of selling more phones and services? Hosting servers in China because they asked Apple. Or Apple’s behavior with the Hongkong protests - removing apps that helped protestors because China’s regime wanted it?
AppleInsider does ad tracking too, which is why it is free, and here you all are. Same with all the other free tech sites and news sites. They survive by Advertising and Apple wants to cut all that off because they want people to start paying for the Internet. If you think about it, what is the big deal about seeing ads that might pertain to you? You all agree to it by visiting any website and agreeing to their terms of agreement, especially when using message boards. My identity was already stolen, so all my stuff is out there, as I am sure most of everyone else's is too.
Hilarious that you think Apple cares about your privacy when they got caught with their pants down, twice! First, using third-party contractors to listen to and save all your Siri conversations which contained location and other data to identify you. Most recently with the blundered Big Sur rollout and Apple's servers crashing, it was discovered that Apple has been tracking every single app you open on your Mac and recording your unencrypted IP address, which identifies exactly who you are. Now with Big Sur, Apple continues to do it, but in an even more devious way because Big Sur can bypass your Firewall and VPN. Any time you open an app and see the Security/Gatekeeper icon and a progress bar before the app opens, your Mac is phoning home to Apple to send that data. And how does Apple care about your privacy? Apple can identify every single iPhone user through the IMEI number. Apple knows exactly who their customers are and they can track you just like anyone else. They just do this fluff PR about privacy, just like they claim they are saving the environment, yet they are shipping more chargers than ever before as separate accessories.
It’s real simple. If you want to track me, I deserve to know it. Especially when you are tracking me and sharing my moves with others I don’t even know about. That is more than creepy it’s not safe.
If you truly owned an Apple product you would know Apple’s policies and how they ask often for Permission to even send data to them. Even then it removes identifiers and is very explicit and in plain language. The only reason they are shipping chargers in some areas is because they are being forced to by the governments there. Otherwise their move makes sense as most of their buyers are repeat buyers. I have at least 6 or 7 charging bricks at my house as most do.
tedz98 said: I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
That assumes anyone could trust Facebook. Time and again, the company has been caught doing things it promised it wouldn’t do.
And Apple also got caught, twice, doing things it promised it would not do. First with Siri conversations, and now with tracking apps and IP addresses on every Mac running Catalina and Big Sur.
And if you don't understand something, you shouldn't call someone out about it.
Apple was NOT tracking apps & IP addresses. Apple was checking developer certificates to see if they had been revoked, when you launched an app. This is a security feature. They did not know the name of the app launched, and they did not track IP addresses.
Siri conversations was documented in the user agreement. However, I do believe Apple should have made it a separate section & called it out. Now they do.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Good points.
The problem is that Apple is interfering with someone else’s business model now. And that’s anti-competitive behavior, even if most of us don’t like Facebook as a company, and like protecting our privacy.
We all know that Tim Cook knows that most people will decline that iOS requester asking for permissions and Facebook ends up with no more user data.
It brings up the question: is Apple allowed to be the data police here? Is Facebook’s way of doing business unacceptable to begin with, and isn’t it then a politics matter?
I think most people perceive social media as a commodity now, almost like an operating system or mini-internet. It’ll be very difficult to ask money for Facebook now.
I would pay for a new type of Facebook built with completely different values, however the problem is that that new platform won’t be able to compete with Facebook on users, and then we’re back to the subject of anti-competitive behavior by another tech giant.
Apple is not interfering with anyone's business model. Apple is informing the user. Apple is not blocking any ads or particular business practice. Apple is providing the user the choice if they want to participate in the business model - Again it's the user's choice.
Apple is not the data police - the user is their own data police. if you don't see that, you're either being obtuse or not looking in the right direction.
Privacy is a fundamental human right - it's not about politics.
I love to see tech giants in a battle. Apple is trying to monetize privacy. Facebook is monetizing its users. Apple revenue comes from its customers. Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. You pay for free services with your data. At least now you will have the chance to decide if that is what you really want to do. By now Facebook and Google know a lot about their users. Though that data will get stale over time. I wonder how many Facebook users would actually pay for an ad-free subscription?
Good points.
The problem is that Apple is interfering with someone else’s business model now. And that’s anti-competitive behavior, even if most of us don’t like Facebook as a company, and like protecting our privacy.
We all know that Tim Cook knows that most people will decline that iOS requester asking for permissions and Facebook ends up with no more user data.
It brings up the question: is Apple allowed to be the data police here? Is Facebook’s way of doing business unacceptable to begin with, and isn’t it then a politics matter?
I think most people perceive social media as a commodity now, almost like an operating system or mini-internet. It’ll be very difficult to ask money for Facebook now.
I would pay for a new type of Facebook built with completely different values, however the problem is that that new platform won’t be able to compete with Facebook on users, and then we’re back to the subject of anti-competitive behavior by another tech giant.
bit in bold - disagree as all that Apple is doing is giving individuals the opportunity to choose. Apple is providing the tools for us to do this, not making the decision for us.
Yes, but we all know that this “choice” will be 100% denied by the end-user, even though previously they already accepted Facebook’s EULA at the time of user registration, including accepting Facebook’s policies. Why is Apple even interfering at this point?
Which is the same concept when I (apparently) accepted Apple’s EULA when purchasing movies, and then finding out I only purchased a very limited license that caused my videos to be removed from my library after I emigrated to another country. Aka, I never really “own” those videos. I lost over $700 of purchases as they didn’t survive my iCloud account settings changes (Apple support verified this btw).
Did Apple also include a requester at the time of purchase saying: “Although it looks like we are selling you videos, we really don’t and you don’t own that copy after a full purchase, unlike you would when buying a DVD. Do you accept?”
And could I still purchase it when answering “NO”? Indeed, I couldn’t. I should have read their EULA carefully, but I didn’t.
This privacy thing is not because Apple cares about the consumer. It’s because they sell us their brand with it, and their so-called user-first privacy policies. It’s only a surface-level policy because as soon as they can make money, that prevails.
Remember how they accepted Russia’s and China’s demands - diluting or forgoing their privacy policies all together - for the sake of selling more phones and services? Hosting servers in China because they asked Apple. Or Apple’s behavior with the Hongkong protests - removing apps that helped protestors because China’s regime wanted it?
The content owners set the rules about where the content can be sold/consumed, not Apple. It has always been that way. Change that market, and I'm sure Apple will follow.
Nope, but I do remember Apple complying with local laws to they are allowed to do business in those countries.
The values Apple is selling is very real - privacy matters, and I should have 100% control over my privacy on any device/app.
Comments
What a dumb assumption of CheeseFreeze.(Sorry as people we need to call each other out, me included)
"Anti-commpetitive" is the new buzz word and people are repeating it for everything. Apple can enter any business it wants whether it's phones, music, gaming, TV or headphones.
The important thing is the motivation. Apple is motivated to provide the most private platform on Earth. If they make money as a result of that, then it's a good business decision, but it's not necessarily the motivation behind the business decision. They could just as easily lose money because consumers don't get on board with that.
Facebook's business model, on the other hand, is a deer in the headlights, and Facebook fears becoming a blurry image in the rear-view mirror. Their business model IS to monetize information, plain and simple. If they cared about your privacy, they would not be doing everything they can to shame Apple's efforts. They would support Apple's efforts. They would look forward to how they can move with the times instead of desperately trying to hold onto older business models.
It seems that apps will not be able to do that: you cannot make content delivery dependent on a user opting in. I don't see this how this can be right: it's entirely fair to request tracking in exchange for content and there is no deception if the user has to opt-in.
That should be an option that a publisher has. Otherwise, this will just require all of them to switch to subscription.
Targeted advertising (as long as the user understands it) has some nice pricing properties: for example it's a form of progressive pricing as richer consuners' ads are worth more - in other words rich consumers pay more in this system than poorer ones. Most subscriptions cannot replicate that.
Looking at ads on Appleinsider it's obvious that this site relies heavily on targeted ads. If there would a law that allows consumer to opt out without losing access then of course everyone would do it and Appleinsider would have to switch to subscriptions (and lose lots of readers). But this can well be a Prisoners' dilemma outcome in the sense that if free users would get a choice between tracking and subscriptions they would prefer tracking over subscriptions. However, if a website cannot exclude freeriders then free access (paid by tracking) simply ceases to be an option.
Which is the same concept when I (apparently) accepted Apple’s EULA when purchasing movies, and then finding out I only purchased a very limited license that caused my videos to be removed from my library after I emigrated to another country. Aka, I never really “own” those videos. I lost over $700 of purchases as they didn’t survive my iCloud account settings changes (Apple support verified this btw).
Did Apple also include a requester at the time of purchase saying: “Although it looks like we are selling you videos, we really don’t and you don’t own that copy after a full purchase, unlike you would when buying a DVD. Do you accept?”
This privacy thing is not because Apple cares about the consumer. It’s because they sell us their brand with it, and their so-called user-first privacy policies. It’s only a surface-level policy because as soon as they can make money, that prevails.
Those are FAKE VALUES Apple is selling us.
Apple was NOT tracking apps & IP addresses. Apple was checking developer certificates to see if they had been revoked, when you launched an app. This is a security feature. They did not know the name of the app launched, and they did not track IP addresses.
Siri conversations was documented in the user agreement. However, I do believe Apple should have made it a separate section & called it out. Now they do.
Apple is not the data police - the user is their own data police. if you don't see that, you're either being obtuse or not looking in the right direction.
Privacy is a fundamental human right - it's not about politics.
Nope, but I do remember Apple complying with local laws to they are allowed to do business in those countries.
The values Apple is selling is very real - privacy matters, and I should have 100% control over my privacy on any device/app.