Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Facebook Reportedly Discussed 'Revenue-Sharing' Ideas in Past
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a hard time finding the slightest link between the article and what you said. Apple discussed to collect the 15% to 30% cut on an eventual ad free Facebook app. Where is the virtue signaling here?
Sure, three easy ones...
1. Google default search
2. CSAM (I realize this one is controversial just how much privacy is breached)
3. Anything China wants
If this had come to fruition, it parallels nicely with #1.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
I think it's more like Apple is money/cash hungry and Facebook is invading personal data/privacy hungry.
So Apple was willing to sell out their users' privacy if Facebook shared some of their revenue with Apple.
Apple has serious chops when it comes to data harvesting. They have what you watch, what you browse, your heart rate, where you go with tracking tags people freely buy and put on them and their property, their phone with siri always listening, etc etc etc. Apple is no different then facebook, just better at making them look like they really care about consumer. If the consumer was not filling their vaults and letting the stock holders swim in it like Scrooge McDuck they would not be singing the same tune and playing self righteous. Data = Cash
Why do people keep spreading this false statement?
There is no such fiduciary duty for companies to maximize profits for shareholders.
Corporations Don't Have to Maximize Profits - NYTimes.com
There's a limit to how far a company can go. And in some cases doing so can have the opposite effect and hurt shareholder value.
Someone from Apple needs to post to r/pettyrevenge. Y'all ain't gonna convince me that Apple didn't created App Tracking Transparency as petty vengence against Facebook.😁
This level of petty vengence reminds me of a wedding I attended once. One of the guest--cousin of the bride and self professed "photographer"--kept interferring with the paid photographer. I felt bad for the guy having to deal with wedding guests who think they're the next Monte Zucker. I was amazed that he kept his cool despite having someone making his job 100x harder. I would have blown up, told the couple to leash that guess or I'd walk.😤 He confided in me that he's dealt with such guest before and they'll experience karma in a few weeks. It turned out every picture that had that guest, the photographer Photoshopped their teeth to banana yellow.🤣🤣🤣
This level of petty vengence reminds me of a wedding I attended once. One of the guest--cousin of the bride and self professed "photographer"--kept interferring with the paid photographer. I felt bad for the guy having to deal with wedding guests who think they're the next Monte Zucker. I was amazed that he kept his cool despite having someone making his job 100x harder. I would have blown up, told the couple to leash that guess or I'd walk.😤 He confided in me that he's dealt with such guest before and they'll experience karma in a few weeks. It turned out every picture that had that guest, the photographer Photoshopped their teeth to banana yellow.🤣🤣🤣
Apple never cared about our privacy as such but it's just their business model and differentiating factor.
They would betray at the drop of a hat if the profit is elsewhere.
For now Apple might still be better than others in terms of privacy but I don't believe it's really their personal ideology.
Privacy and virtue are not things they believe in. These are things that they sell.
Last edited:
They don't have to. But they will try to if they can.Why do people keep spreading this false statement?
There is no such fiduciary duty for companies to maximize profits for shareholders.
Corporations Don't Have to Maximize Profits - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com
There's a limit to how far a company can go. And in some cases doing so can have the opposite effect and hurt shareholder value.
‘Nice little social media business you got there. Shame if anything was to happen to it…’
I admire Apple loads - I wouldn’t be on this forum if not - but there’s an ugly side of Apple re it leveraging its heft re its service App Store business that I just don’t like.
Apple’s ‘true north star’ is making great hardware and software experiences that people are happy to pay for.
I now think that the only people who can help Apple get back to what it’s good at, are regulators.
P.S. I’m not a fan of meta.
I admire Apple loads - I wouldn’t be on this forum if not - but there’s an ugly side of Apple re it leveraging its heft re its service App Store business that I just don’t like.
Apple’s ‘true north star’ is making great hardware and software experiences that people are happy to pay for.
I now think that the only people who can help Apple get back to what it’s good at, are regulators.
P.S. I’m not a fan of meta.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I understood it is that Apple does indeed block apps from accessing the device's Advertising Identifier when an app is blocked. It's just that there are still other ways an app can track you (IP address, cookies, username used within the app, etc). Those are outside the control of Apple.
I mean, I hope this doesn't come as some huge surprise. I believe Apple's privacy efforts in iOS, MacOS, etc. are genuine and grounded in intelligent engineering, but they're never going to let that, or any functional development, interrupt a potential revenue source. Never.
Apple is more ruthless than any 19th century oil barron at hoovering up money anywhere they can. Never think you come first to Apple. Your money comes first.
We clearly didn’t read the same thing, because I don’t see anywhere in the article a proof of this assumption. I don’t know why WSJ and MR decided to settle on such sensationalistic title. Apple only discussed on taking an App Store cut on a paid service from FB, like it does with hundreds of thousands of apps at this very moment. There is no indication that apple was willing to grant special access to user data to FB.So Apple was willing to sell out their users' privacy if Facebook shared some of their revenue with Apple.
This is a non story people.
Last edited:
I'm confused about why some people are getting upset about this. From what I'm understanding, the deal would be:
"You make a subscription service for Facebook, with no ads, and we get 30% of the revenue share."
I think this is... fine? I mean, by having no ads, your data isn't beneficial, because the advertisers will want your data to... send you targeted ads. I understand why Meta would reject the offer because... well, they're probably not allowed to have any of the data anyway.
So it's fine. Why are some people getting upset about this? Because it's Facebook and they would prefer that Apple just boot them off the App Store instead of coming up with a deal where they both make money? Meta gets guaranteed revenue with a user (the most important thing a company wants: profit). But in Meta's case, they want profit and data. So of course, Meta is going to turn it down. Because they want the data.
The MacRumors say to read the article which shows their different "views on privacy," which seems to imply that (to me anyway) Apple's condition was more along the lines of "you can't keep their data."
I'm not claiming they're "perfect" or "moral" (nor am I saying they have to be), but I'm struggling to understand why people are getting upset at this. Am I missing something? Or should I just assume that they were going to allow them to invalid our privacy and Facebook shot the idea down anyway because... ???
"You make a subscription service for Facebook, with no ads, and we get 30% of the revenue share."
I think this is... fine? I mean, by having no ads, your data isn't beneficial, because the advertisers will want your data to... send you targeted ads. I understand why Meta would reject the offer because... well, they're probably not allowed to have any of the data anyway.
So it's fine. Why are some people getting upset about this? Because it's Facebook and they would prefer that Apple just boot them off the App Store instead of coming up with a deal where they both make money? Meta gets guaranteed revenue with a user (the most important thing a company wants: profit). But in Meta's case, they want profit and data. So of course, Meta is going to turn it down. Because they want the data.
The MacRumors say to read the article which shows their different "views on privacy," which seems to imply that (to me anyway) Apple's condition was more along the lines of "you can't keep their data."
I'm not claiming they're "perfect" or "moral" (nor am I saying they have to be), but I'm struggling to understand why people are getting upset at this. Am I missing something? Or should I just assume that they were going to allow them to invalid our privacy and Facebook shot the idea down anyway because... ???
Facebook and Meta are probably the most malignant non criminal entity in existence today. Social media is a scourge. I don’t use it, and my life is better for it.
That’s the problem with the way business schools teach prospective future leaders of business today. If a natural person operated under that ethos, they would simply take whatever they wanted wherever they went for their own benefit, the consequences be damned.
Corporations, like people have an obligation to be good citizens. Natural or corporate. Good governance is an important aspect of business that’s lost on today’s world.
Corporations have an obligation to maximize shareholder value in an ETHICAL and LEGAL way. Ethical to be determined by shareholders and customers. Either by the board of directors or sales. Legal to be determined by the duly elected representatives of the place they do business.
But business isn’t all profit, and it’s not all about forcing ethics on people. I teach my grandson to “do right by others” and when he asks how he knows what that is, I tell him he all ready knows. If you think it might be wrong, you don’t have to ask.
I’m not talking about corporations getting involved in issues of politics or culture. Some say that’s appropriate and I think it’s not.
But doing business with Meta to make more profits is just crappy. Everyone knows it’s wrong. My grandson would…
That’s the problem with the way business schools teach prospective future leaders of business today. If a natural person operated under that ethos, they would simply take whatever they wanted wherever they went for their own benefit, the consequences be damned.
Corporations, like people have an obligation to be good citizens. Natural or corporate. Good governance is an important aspect of business that’s lost on today’s world.
Corporations have an obligation to maximize shareholder value in an ETHICAL and LEGAL way. Ethical to be determined by shareholders and customers. Either by the board of directors or sales. Legal to be determined by the duly elected representatives of the place they do business.
But business isn’t all profit, and it’s not all about forcing ethics on people. I teach my grandson to “do right by others” and when he asks how he knows what that is, I tell him he all ready knows. If you think it might be wrong, you don’t have to ask.
I’m not talking about corporations getting involved in issues of politics or culture. Some say that’s appropriate and I think it’s not.
But doing business with Meta to make more profits is just crappy. Everyone knows it’s wrong. My grandson would…
That would be great, but there is no technical mechanism to prevent apps from tracking you.
"Tell app not to track, or else Apple will ban their company from the App Store" might be a bit too long as well.
"They don't have to" is correct. But that's not what locovaca said which is that it is their job to do so which would mean they do have to.
Jailbreaking or sideloading some sketchy hacked version of instagram that I have to reinstall every week is not a viable way to do that
The fact the proposed agreement wouldn't deliver ads while using the Facebook app under iOS is inconsequential. Facebook still gets to harvest your data while running their app, which they can then use to refine their online profile of you and and use it to target you with ads on all their other apps and OS platforms their users visit. That precise targeting is key, which is why Facebook is losing $10B/year with the change of Apple's app tracking default.
This is not consistent with what Mr. Cook said in 2015:
“I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information,” said Cook. “They’re gobbling up everything they can learn about you and trying to monetize it. We think that’s wrong. And it’s not the kind of company that Apple wants to be.”
To clarify, are you suggesting that Apple wanted to make a deal where Meta can be free to harvest data off of iOS users, but just make a subscription service without ads (while they get 30%)?
Facebook has exactly the same core values as Apple. Maximize shareholder wealth.
The harvesting occurs within Facebook's app, the same as how Google's harvesting occurs when you're on their search engine. Google pays Apple $11B/year to make them the default search engine on iOS. Does that sound consistent with what Mr. Cook said publicly in 2015?
“We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. And we think some day, customers will see this for what it is.”
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/a...ng-speech-on-encryption-privacy/#.d2ru8a:B3Mp