svanstrom

mattinoz said:

Rayz2016 said:

I feel there is a solution to this, and it might lie in a collaboration between Apple and Google. 

They wouldn't need to invent it they could just endorse and provide user storage for one of the open source open standard projects around.

Still once they do they have pretty much dictated the winner of the standard. 

Not really.

Both Google and Apple have already tried in those areas, and at the level that we need for this there's just no traction.

If you start your perspective from inside one of those open systems, you already being a happy user, then it makes sense how everything magically will just work if both Google and Apple put their weight behind a solution; but practically most people will still just stand there and be like "why do I need this?", and then move on with their lives. At most there will be a great deal of dead accounts if both Google and Apple force-include all their users.

Personally I dropped out of FB years ago (if we ignore my ig account), so why the heck would I "replace" it with yet another social network just because it mostly runs on space provided by Google and Apple? And why should the tech-illiterate boomers give up something they know and love? And why would things like community networks etc give up the platform where they've already gotten everyone relevant to be for coordinating events etc (who the hell would help them tech support everyone over to a new solution, that might not even be supported on their old phones where FB works just fine)?

For many it simply isn't as easy as replacing FB, not even if they really wanted to; so the (should be) illegal activities must be stopped to prevent what they're doing to the public, because we can't just sit around and wait for FB to instead be out-competed on an open market.

elijahg said:

It's amusing that comments from the (sort of) general public on articles about FB's rants are 100% behind Apple and 100% anti-Facebook. Everyone hates Facebook, they only use it because it's the only option for some things for some people. Zuck is clueless in that he thinks people like FB. They don't. They also rightly point out that FB does nothing for small businesses and that FB is a hideous data mining monolith that exists only to serve Facebook (and the lizard man).

What? You haven't seen the newly created accounts with messages in the style of: "I (not a fake person) is a small business owner that is making all my money thanks to FB ads; and as such I support FB and is feeling hurt by evil Apple attacking FB."? 

(I'm still trying to figure out how someone could be stupid enough to clear attempts like those. I mean, there must have been a meeting somewhere discussing it?)

dewme said:

mike54 said:

With all that fancy circuitry in there, I guess there is no room for just a simple on/off switch.

I'm hoping for a much cheaper version, that sounds decent, with the same level of ANC, H1 chip, but without the spacial computational audio stuff, no gyro's  and I don't even need a sensor in each ear cup to pause sound.

I was thinking the same thing about the on/off switch, but then I started to look at Apple's other headphones and realized that many or most of them don't have an on/off switch.

Not just headphones…

Unless we're talking a very rare reboot I don't even (manually) put anything into sleep mode; I simply just use my stuff, and put it down when I stop using it. At most I in a public environment lock the screen of my MBP (by moving the cursor to a hot corner) when leaving it.

People for some reason just have this irrational fear that headphones with a 20h battery will stop working midday if they don't fiddle with a switch when putting it down; and it's just silly. It's like fearing not having ended a modern smartphone phone call simply because you didn't physically put down a receiver on a physical rotary phone.

verne arase said:

Perhaps even more scary for Facebook and all the ad sellers selling targeted ads is if the collapse of their entire business model in the iOS arena doesn't cause havoc, and the emperor suddenly appears naked in public.

I've always had serious doubts about the efficacy of targeted ads - I tend to see them primarily after I've bought an item (and am no longer in the market).

I suppose if you're the type who hems and haws and takes days or weeks to make a purchase this could have an effect on you, but once I've decided to pull the trigger I go in, visit a few sites, and simply do it.

It's not like all those targeted ads get you a better deal or something.

I have no doubts about businesses relying primarily on Facebook's (the company, not just the obvious platform) ads will see less return on their money now.

Not trusting FB as far as I can block them I would say that that drop will probably be a bit artificially inflated (as FB are playing victims, and grabbing even more cash while they can); but even ignoring that…

What I said was that businesses relying primarily on FB will suffer; and IMO that just wasn't an efficient platform to build a sustainable business on to begin with. It was a bubble built on a lawless wild west that's now (finally) getting a proper sheriff.

The businesses will move on, and they will leave a crying FB behind; as FB is getting even more irrelevant.

Debelvoir said:

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.