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.
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.
This whole brouhaha is about Apple allowing the user to decide whether or not they want to be tracked across sites and apps.
Period.
If that's too complicated for you, then - sorry - I don't know how to put it in smaller words.
If you really find it offensive having the option of opting out of abandoning your privacy, you can always try another ecosystem: Android comes to mind.
Tim's steadfastness on privacy is the best marketing that Apple could have ever hoped for. (I don't mean that in a negative way at all: it is both ethical and it is smart business, the best of both worlds).
Facebook is making an ass of itself. I honestly thought that the company was smarter than that.
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.
Oh, c'mon, cut the BS. These were genuine mistakes, quickly fixed. End of story.
I've never understood Facebook ads. I've never been on a site to look for ads; the only thing they do is interrupt and hinder using the site I'm on.
Is it a Safari problem? Safari on both iPads and Mac get really bolloxed up responding to changing ads being replaced on the screen -- the contents get shifted around to accommodate the new ads. For the life of me, why would any site want their readers to be inconvenienced by such practices?
Why? Because they want income. Advertising-supported content is not new, and it's not necessarily evil, either. Sadly, in the old days of print, and the new days of interwebs, reputable publishers sell ads to support the content, and the rest create content to sell ads. The latter will always push the limits of the readers' patience sprinkling hidden content around the ads.
Also, just about nobody goes on a site to look for ads. This is why they're motivated to make the ads look for you.
Here's the thing that irks me about Facebook. Sure, collect data about my spending. That's fine. I don't have an issue with this per se. What I do have an issue with is tying it back to me. Is there really a reason why you need my name, financial details, address, and phone number? No. There is no legitimate reason for this.
When I get, what we collectively call junk mail here in NZ, it's unbiased. If I want a deal that's in that pamphlet then I'll do it but mostly it just goes in the rubbish bin.
Now, we have targeted ads. To many this is evil but the act of targeted ads isn't evil in itself. If a cookie says, "Oh, you bought a motorcycle comms system" then assuming that I have a motorcycle and I might be interested in motorcycle stuff is not a bad thing. It means I'm not seeing a bunch of ads selling me erection medication. After all, if I'm riding a motorcycle then I must be a manly man right. 😂
Where targeted ads are bad is when they tie it to a specific person. "Oh, Loweded Wookie bought a motorcycle intercom system. He's into motorcycle stuff".
On one hand it's a cookie about some random guy, on the other hand it's tracking the movements of a person. This is where I draw the line. My bank has all this information. I trust my bank more than Facebook. It's the reason I store my money at my bank rather than give Facebook my credit card details. The heinous thing is that even though I did not give Facebook my credit card details, they still have it because of locations that I have used my card who sell that data to Facebook who then onsells it to others.
If Apple is not only saying that it is asking the user if they want to supply this data, but it's also anonymising that data so that I stay me. If anyone says that Apple is hurting people then maybe you need to look at the people doing the complaining. Are small businesses really going to be harmed if they don't have advertising tracking? NO!!! Anonymised data is just as effective as data that contains someone's name, more so in fact because there becomes no bias.
Tim Cook should use the massive hack attack on the DOE and US military as the example of why everyone needs strong encryption and system security. Many of the same agencies that are against strong security were among the biggest targets of the hackers. At this point, anyone in the government who is against strong security for all systems is just plain incompetent. @Tim this is your chance. Use it.
Tim Cook should use the massive hack attack on the DOE and US military as the example of why everyone needs strong encryption and system security. Many of the same agencies that are against strong security were among the biggest targets of the hackers. At this point, anyone in the government who is against strong security for all systems is just plain incompetent. @Tim this is your chance. Use it.
I agree. But I don't see Apple or Tim Cook pushing Apple's point of view very hard.
There is a bit of a difference though between "security" and "privacy of information." For example, as web users, our communications with web servers usually use SSL which is fairly "secure" but what happens with our information that's decrypted at the server's end has more to do with "privacy" than "security." These two things are second cousins, but not identical twins.
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.
Your point is true about how sites cover their costs. Not sharing my browser history does not prevent them from posting advertisements and getting paid. It does prevent them from targeting me. That is a small but very significant difference.
I as the user should have the ability to grant access to my data. That is what Apple is implementing, me as a user the right to decide what I do with my data. I applaud Apple for doing that. Outside of Apple’s endeavor i and people use ad blockers, privacy filters, and VPNs. This is just another great tool in the user’s arsenal to combat evil companies like Facebook from stealing my data without my permission.
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?
The difference being, when you pay Apple by buying, for example, an iPhone with iOS, you get a world class smartphone and OS that beats everything else in stability and performance. Privacy seems to come along for the ride, no charge.
Apple may have its own reasons for doing this. But the main reason it is doing it now is getting overwhelming support for it is that Facebook has been eating the lunch of very small businesses it claims to be advocating for. From the days of purchasing direct advertisements on websites to today's 'programmatic' ad industry, ever increasing share of the ad money has been going to players like Facebook and other dependents in eco system. That leaves pittance to the small business with them unable to run their business purely on ad money. So now if Apple disrupts this industry, many small businesses may feel like they are not missing out on much even if its going to bite them.
I wonder how much the small business position is even valid. Brick and mortar stores don’t get access to this sort of information, so I suppose making it harder for online stores helps level the playing feel to an extent.
Note, that in certain cases loyalty cards do help physical stores work out customer buying patterns.
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?
Interesting comment. But I would rather have ads than lose my rights to privacy about my life's details. Perhaps I would be willing to pay Facebook money if they could guarantee that they would never create a file on me. In fact, they may have a file about me even though I've never used Facebook (because other people may have written about me on the Internet, including things like governmental lists of driver's licenses which can be found on the Internet.) I'd pay FaceBook to get rid of my file even though I'm not using FaceBook. But I shouldn't HAVE to pay them to delete information about me. Rather, I should have to opt-in before FaceBook can record details about me.
Curiously, there is an organization in the US, which I won't name, that collects information about everyone on earth for reasons that are important to them, but not to me. They mask their efforts by trying to convince you that they are helping you determine your ancestry. But really, they are helping themselves. I guess to be consistent I should also say that they shouldn't be allowed to record details about me unless I opt-in first. But the more I think about it, the more I realize how hard it is to implement an opt-in procedure.
You really should think for a moment about what you wrote. While you might be willing to pay Facebook to delete its file on you, having to pay someone not to do something that you dislike has a name; it’s called extortion, and it is illegal.
But that also asks the question. Are they saying that iOS is 60% of their user base??
I like your question. I think it's fair to infer that when FaceBook was saying there would be a "60% drop in revenue" they were referring only to revenue from iOS devices, not from PCs or Macs or Android devices combined with iOS devices. This shows how easy it is to lie with statistics.
So if iOS represents only 10% of the platforms which receive Facebook's advertisements, (which is a wild guess) then that "60%" would drop to a "6%" overall revenue drop for Facebook for all its ads combined.
A lot of knockoff iPhones are at the bottom of a drawer or tossed at young children as a cheap babysitter.
Remember the iPad vs. knockoff iPad web usage statistics?
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.
Proof that Facebook is a monopoly is that they know that they can play fast and loose with our privacy/security, because there really aren't any better social media platform options out there. Especially if we want exposure for our businesses, or if we want to stay in touch with friends and family around the globe. Unless a new social media platform comes about that provides the same (or better) features as Facebook while also protecting users' privacy, Facebook has no incentive to change. And the chances of a new platform competing with Facebook is slim to none because of their hegemony.
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.
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.
Not sure about the 2nd one but the first one was fine. The data was anonymized. Typical clickbait BS you fell for.
Comments
"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.
Period.
If that's too complicated for you, then - sorry - I don't know how to put it in smaller words.
If you really find it offensive having the option of opting out of abandoning your privacy, you can always try another ecosystem: Android comes to mind.
Facebook is making an ass of itself. I honestly thought that the company was smarter than that.
Oh, c'mon, cut the BS. These were genuine mistakes, quickly fixed. End of story.
Also, just about nobody goes on a site to look for ads. This is why they're motivated to make the ads look for you.
There is a bit of a difference though between "security" and "privacy of information." For example, as web users, our communications with web servers usually use SSL which is fairly "secure" but what happens with our information that's decrypted at the server's end has more to do with "privacy" than "security." These two things are second cousins, but not identical twins.
I as the user should have the ability to grant access to my data. That is what Apple is implementing, me as a user the right to decide what I do with my data. I applaud Apple for doing that. Outside of Apple’s endeavor i and people use ad blockers, privacy filters, and VPNs. This is just another great tool in the user’s arsenal to combat evil companies like Facebook from stealing my data without my permission.
A lot of knockoff iPhones are at the bottom of a drawer or tossed at young children as a cheap babysitter.
Remember the iPad vs. knockoff iPad web usage statistics?
Not sure about the 2nd one but the first one was fine. The data was anonymized. Typical clickbait BS you fell for.