Facebook sponsored research paper lambasts Apple's iOS 14.5 privacy

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    GabyGaby Posts: 184member
    I've been known for complaining that Tim Cook is fighting Apple's legal battles with weak public statements. 

    Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)
    Tim Cook announced a few days ago that Apple will get its revenue for his Apple App Store "one way or another." That's a valid position, which also applies to FaceBook. If Apple decides to unilaterally revoke one of FaceBook's ways in iOS for making money, through its new App Tracking Transparency software, FaceBook will find another way. Apple has the right to charge users for "free apps" on its app store, and FaceBook has the right to charge users who use FaceBook. That fee could come as money, or personal information, or varying service levels like fewer ads or faster server response times for people who provide us with the data we need to make our money. Apple isn't the only company who can play that game. FaceBook can take a page from Apple's playbook and this is a game Apple can't win because, like Apple, FaceBook has a relationship with the users outside of the FaceBook app on iOS. If, however, Apple decides to play fair and nice with its iOS features, FaceBook won't need to resort to charging users "one way or another."

    By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.

    Frankly I don’t think that would do facebook’s already tenuous public image any favours at all, moreover it would provide further proof of Zuckerberg’s entitled, misanthropic and infantile outlook. it comes across as peevish. Devils advocate is one thing, but to suggest Apple is “unilaterally revoking Facebook’s access to a revenue stream” is simply untrue and reductive. The only thing that Apple is doing is providing its users with more information on what data is collected by each app to allow consumers to make more informed decisions, as they are often ignorant to the realities of cross site tracking, and the extent  to which sensitive data is being vacuumed up by certain organisations, and the potential problems and dangers this poses. whilst also providing an opportunity for said devs to explain the purpose of, and benefits, if any, to allowing unfettered access to their digital lives and personal information. Because after all what is in the best interest of a psychopathic wunderkind is  often diametrically opposed to the best interests of the general population. It probably would be better for them to offer subscriptions and various service levels. And like @StrangeDays ; stated - “ FB can still build your ad profile using internal signals, they don’t need external signals.” which is another option for them; and being far less onerous, might actually earn them some goodwill for once. There are myriad ways for them to remain profitable without going to such invasive extremes. The best thing they can do is to change their practices, shore up their security and employ a new CEO to take the company in a radically different direction because Mark Zuckerberg is pure poison plain and simple.
    edited May 2021 baconstangwilliamlondonomasouwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 29
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    chadbag said:
    I’d be embarrassed to have my name associated with such a study.  The optics of this study look really bad.  I have not read the paper and so cannot say if the points are valid etc but the optics of this look really bad for FB and the study authors.   
    The term 'sponsored research' says it all.
    baconstangwilliamlondonomasouwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 29
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 941member
    At the next "Cleo Awards", maybe this paper will win for 'Best Sponsored Research'.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 29
    applguyapplguy Posts: 230member
    Reminds my of the John Lydgate quote “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.”
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 29
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,198member
    The other pain point for these guys is the fact that the ad tracking is turned off by default, so Users don't even see the pop-up asking for permission. I think that is really great. I am on iOS 14.6 now and have not seen the pop-up even once and I couldn't be bothered to even look at the new setting.

    The next thing iOS should do is prevent apps from scraping text from the clipboard. Currently there is no way to prevent this.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 29
    In other words: Professors from renowned Universities are also quite capable of selling themselves.

    Apple only fault is providing a feature that their most knowledgeable users have been clamoring for some years. Now one of the authors of this piece is supposedly a business professor. Imagine that, a company that delivers what their users wants, and give them control over it to boot! What a weird business practice... it's a wonder Apple has a loyal customer base.

    Less ad money means that money will be spent in something more fruitful for the companies, like R&D. Better engineers, designers, developers, instead of more pubescent social media buffoons. Now, there is something to aim for.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 29
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    Indeed. And smoking is healthy, too. 🤦🏻‍♂️
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 29
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    I've been known for complaining that Tim Cook is fighting Apple's legal battles with weak public statements. 

    Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)
    Tim Cook announced a few days ago that Apple will get its revenue for his Apple App Store "one way or another." That's a valid position, which also applies to FaceBook. If Apple decides to unilaterally revoke one of FaceBook's ways in iOS for making money, through its new App Tracking Transparency software, FaceBook will find another way. Apple has the right to charge users for "free apps" on its app store, and FaceBook has the right to charge users who use FaceBook. That fee could come as money, or personal information, or varying service levels like fewer ads or faster server response times for people who provide us with the data we need to make our money. Apple isn't the only company who can play that game. FaceBook can take a page from Apple's playbook and this is a game Apple can't win because, like Apple, FaceBook has a relationship with the users outside of the FaceBook app on iOS. If, however, Apple decides to play fair and nice with its iOS features, FaceBook won't need to resort to charging users "one way or another."

    By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.

    So what? Nobody cares if Facebook wants to charge for its service, as long as the copyright remains with the content creators (users!) and users privacy remains respected.

    If Facebook turns in effect just into a user data hosting platform, without any advertising, user data analysis, user data sales, etc. of course they have a right to charge a fee, and most people would not have a problem to pay it, and the rest would finally discover how much time they used to waste on the platform…

    In no way, shape or form would that approach bother Apple. It’s a fake argument, that Apple’s privacy initiatives are anti-competitive. They are pro-user, pro-privacy: it’s Apple’s value added to their products, the value people are willing to pay a premium for.

    If that hurts the competition then not because it’s anti-competitive, but because two business models compete, and users prefer Apple’s.

    It’s up to Apple’s competitors to adopt the same business model. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 29
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,219member
    rcfa said:
    I've been known for complaining that Tim Cook is fighting Apple's legal battles with weak public statements. 

    Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)
    Tim Cook announced a few days ago that Apple will get its revenue for his Apple App Store "one way or another." That's a valid position, which also applies to FaceBook. If Apple decides to unilaterally revoke one of FaceBook's ways in iOS for making money, through its new App Tracking Transparency software, FaceBook will find another way. Apple has the right to charge users for "free apps" on its app store, and FaceBook has the right to charge users who use FaceBook. That fee could come as money, or personal information, or varying service levels like fewer ads or faster server response times for people who provide us with the data we need to make our money. Apple isn't the only company who can play that game. FaceBook can take a page from Apple's playbook and this is a game Apple can't win because, like Apple, FaceBook has a relationship with the users outside of the FaceBook app on iOS. If, however, Apple decides to play fair and nice with its iOS features, FaceBook won't need to resort to charging users "one way or another."

    By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.

    So what? Nobody cares if Facebook wants to charge for its service, as long as the copyright remains with the content creators (users!) and users privacy remains respected.

    If Facebook turns in effect just into a user data hosting platform, without any advertising, user data analysis, user data sales, etc. of course they have a right to charge a fee, and most people would not have a problem to pay it, and the rest would finally discover how much time they used to waste on the platform…

    In no way, shape or form would that approach bother Apple. It’s a fake argument, 
    I didn't say it would "bother Apple." Read what I said a second time. I said it "may get Zuckerberg popular support." Now that you've re-read what I wrote, do you understand that my point wasn't what you claimed it was? Or do you still misunderstand?
Sign In or Register to comment.