I like Apple’s initiatives, as long as they apply the same rules for themselves.
However, this is an interesting situation. Forget Facebook an how evil many people think that company is for a moment.
Facebook has a business model. Which is around advertising.
If Apple dictates to other companies how they should run their business, this can be perceived as blocking competition, or at least abusing platform power, blocking free market principles.
I would propose a system where this can be turned on/off by the end-user (off by default) on an app to app basis, and the ability for app developers to deny access to users who turned it off.
Apple has given the user the choice to opt in or out of Facebook (and other apps) advertising so it’s them who Facebook should be addressing in their ads.
Facebook are pushing for the user not having the option to opt in to targeted advertising and having other information extracted.
Facebook could actually use this as an opportunity to change their relationship with consumers - tell them honestly how they are able to use their personal information, interests and likes, to create a tailored list of local businesses and one-man-bands offering services they understand you may want to trade with.
Yes, heaven forbid Z would actually spend his PR and Ad money showing users the positive side for THE USER of FB targeted ads, FB information gathering, and why users should always opt in...and show them how to do so. ...but I guess that would not require the requisite Z-whining
Doesn’t everyone know that Facebook is entitled to harvest user data that doesn’t belong to them? It’s for the users’ benefit of course. Just like censoring content is for the users’ benefit. Facebook is like a god and should be worshipped and obeyed. Gods like Facebook are entitled to dictate what millions and millions of people should be doing and hearing, and they are entitled to know everything about their users (and anyone connected to them) in order to continue their pursuit of power.
From the article: “Apple wants to stop this level of sophisticated tracking. This kind of invasive business practice is exactly what Apple's privacy campaigns and iOS features are meant to protect users agains.”
Apple doesn’t want to “stop” the tracking. They just want the user to be fully aware of what is happening to their online behavior data and require them to acknowledge it by having to opt-in for it to continue. Facebook knows their sneaky invisible tracking rubs most people the wrong way and that’s what will cost them. If they had been transparent from the beginning, the big hit as they call it wouldn’t happen.
Facebook has been deleted from my iPhone 10, and never installed on my 12 PRO MAX.
I've said this before, and I hope I'm correct: Apple views your privacy as part of who you are, and selling that is abhorrent to them.
Facebook/Google/name it views your privacy as something to market, sell, and get rich from, and you are an idiot for not giving them free access to it.
This is exactly why the first place I go after getting a new iPhone is to settings, where I switch to DuckDuckGo.
I like Apple’s initiatives, as long as they apply the same rules for themselves.
However, this is an interesting situation. Forget Facebook an how evil many people think that company is for a moment.
Facebook has a business model. Which is around advertising.
If Apple dictates to other companies how they should run their business, this can be perceived as blocking competition, or at least abusing platform power, blocking free market principles.
I would propose a system where this can be turned on/off by the end-user (off by default) on an app to app basis, and the ability for app developers to deny access to users who turned it off.
Excuse me but have you been stranded on a desert island or do you just not bother to read? Point one - Apple is not dictating a business model to anybody. Facebook and the like can advertise all they wish, without invading users privacy - which they seem to think they have an inalienable right to.. second of all Apple fully intends to allow them to continue in the same vain, as long as a user explicitly tells them that they allow this on an app by app basis. It will be off by default, and upon opening, the user will be presented with a splash screen asking if they give their permission to be tracked. It isn’t even really about advertising per se, it’s about creating detailed profiles of individuals and harvesting a worrying amount of data from them. And look, whether or not people allow access to the IDFA, users are still being monetised so it’s a moot point. Apple aren’t simply banning advertising, they’re helping to protect users privacy. I for one am grateful. Facebook has very slowly but surely over the years become more and more invasive, deceitful and bold with its tactics as they have slowly eradicated competition. I think Facebook and it’s employees are morally corrupt. They are a menace and a threat to society. I personally hope they go bankrupt. The sooner, the better for everyone.
Doesn’t everyone know that Facebook is entitled to harvest user data that doesn’t belong to them? It’s for the users’ benefit of course. Just like censoring content is for the users’ benefit. Facebook is like a god and should be worshipped and obeyed. Gods like Facebook are entitled to dictate what millions and millions of people should be doing and hearing, and they are entitled to know everything about their users (and anyone connected to them) in order to continue their pursuit of power.
Exactly. The proletariat should be honoured to service the needs and whims of the Elite.
Yet iKnockoff fans like the sheep they are will use this as an excuse to say "Apple is greedy" or that Apple is anti-competitive or some other crap. They eat media crap up!!
The consensus is so strongly against FaceBook that I'm almost tempted to try to put up a cogent argument in their defense. Just for the challenge.
You could mimic Ben Thompson's, assuming you know who he is.
"Apple…, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants…
Apple’s means are, I should note, anticompetitive in spirit, if not in law; the company’s policies are predicated on control of the App Store, and a demonstrated willingness to use its power to get its way. That is how the company can not only disable access to the IDFA programmatically, but also demand that apps disclose what information they send to their own servers using open Internet protocols.
Leaving aside legality, though, it is notable that Apple is quite obviously swimming against the prevailing current. That current, I would argue, is not greedy companies pushing the limits just because they can, but rather the fundamental nature of computers and the Internet. Computers emit data as a matter of course, and the Internet makes the transfer of that data free. To strive for a world without the generation or capture of data is to fight against the very nature of technology."
The consensus is so strongly against FaceBook that I'm almost tempted to try to put up a cogent argument in their defense. Just for the challenge.
You could mimic Ben Thompson's, assuming you know who he is.
"Apple…, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants…
Apple’s means are, I should note, anticompetitive in spirit, if not in law; the company’s policies are predicated on control of the App Store, and a demonstrated willingness to use its power to get its way. That is how the company can not only disable access to the IDFA programmatically, but also demand that apps disclose what information they send to their own servers using open Internet protocols.
Leaving aside legality, though, it is notable that Apple is quite obviously swimming against the prevailing current. That current, I would argue, is not greedy companies pushing the limits just because they can, but rather the fundamental nature of computers and the Internet. Computers emit data as a matter of course, and the Internet makes the transfer of that data free. To strive for a world without the generation or capture of data is to fight against the very nature of technology."
That is good food for thought, thanks. I don't know who B.T. is. But he's taking the approach that Apple isn't breaking the law, just going against the current of good behavior. That's not exactly going to help Epic or Facebook win their cases. Epic seems to be fighting Apple in a court of law, while Facebook seems to be fighting in the court of public opinion.
My only worry is that to win a case for Epic or Facebook I may have to be as good a lawyer as Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate.
I like Apple’s initiatives, as long as they apply the same rules for themselves.
However, this is an interesting situation. Forget Facebook an how evil many people think that company is for a moment.
Facebook has a business model. Which is around advertising.
If Apple dictates to other companies how they should run their business, this can be perceived as blocking competition, or at least abusing platform power, blocking free market principles.
I would propose a system where this can be turned on/off by the end-user (off by default) on an app to app basis, and the ability for app developers to deny access to users who turned it off.
Your proposal is what Apple is doing. Launch the app after this is enabled by Apple, and you must either allow the app to track you, or deny the app from tracking you. Wether the app allows you to use it or access a service if you deny tracking, is up to the app company. I'm sure you can remove/re-install (or maybe change in Settings -> App Preference) change your mind about being tracked.
Comments
I would propose a system where this can be turned on/off by the end-user (off by default) on an app to app basis, and the ability for app developers to deny access to users who turned it off.
Facebook could actually use this as an opportunity to change their relationship with consumers - tell them honestly how they are able to use their personal information, interests and likes, to create a tailored list of local businesses and one-man-bands offering services they understand you may want to trade with.
...but I guess that would not require the requisite Z-whining
“Apple wants to stop this level of sophisticated tracking. This kind of invasive business practice is exactly what Apple's privacy campaigns and iOS features are meant to protect users agains.”
I've said this before, and I hope I'm correct:
Apple views your privacy as part of who you are, and selling that is abhorrent to them.
Facebook/Google/name it views your privacy as something to market, sell, and get rich from, and you are an idiot for not giving them free access to it.
This is exactly why the first place I go after getting a new iPhone is to settings, where I switch to DuckDuckGo.
second of all Apple fully intends to allow them to continue in the same vain, as long as a user explicitly tells them that they allow this on an app by app basis. It will be off by default, and upon opening, the user will be presented with a splash screen asking if they give their permission to be tracked. It isn’t even really about advertising per se, it’s about creating detailed profiles of individuals and harvesting a worrying amount of data from them. And look, whether or not people allow access to the IDFA, users are still being monetised so it’s a moot point. Apple aren’t simply banning advertising, they’re helping to protect users privacy. I for one am grateful. Facebook has very slowly but surely over the years become more and more invasive, deceitful and bold with its tactics as they have slowly eradicated competition. I think Facebook and it’s employees are morally corrupt. They are a menace and a threat to society. I personally hope they go bankrupt. The sooner, the better for everyone.
there are plenty on android users who are more than happy to bend over
they can leech off them via Google
"Apple…, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants…
Apple’s means are, I should note, anticompetitive in spirit, if not in law; the company’s policies are predicated on control of the App Store, and a demonstrated willingness to use its power to get its way. That is how the company can not only disable access to the IDFA programmatically, but also demand that apps disclose what information they send to their own servers using open Internet protocols.
Leaving aside legality, though, it is notable that Apple is quite obviously swimming against the prevailing current. That current, I would argue, is not greedy companies pushing the limits just because they can, but rather the fundamental nature of computers and the Internet. Computers emit data as a matter of course, and the Internet makes the transfer of that data free. To strive for a world without the generation or capture of data is to fight against the very nature of technology."
My only worry is that to win a case for Epic or Facebook I may have to be as good a lawyer as Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate.