Gosh, I remember when cell phones had Facebook as a default app on the Home Screen.
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
Pretty much all the information Facebook has on me is stuff I already post online that anyone in the world can see so I don’t particularly worry about them spilling the beans. Apple has access to far much more personal information about me and I don’t worry about that and it isn’t because I rely on Tim Cook‘s claims on how much Apple cherishes privacy.
So they talked to explore business opportunities, 5 or so years ago - BFD.
We are in the present and we can influence the future…
Apple has taken the right steps to protect privacy, not perfect but the right steps.
Facebook on the other hand, nuff said… I truly wish that the whole metaverse crap will fall so bad on its knees that that company will go away…
We are in the present and we can influence the future…
Apple has taken the right steps to protect privacy, not perfect but the right steps.
Facebook on the other hand, nuff said… I truly wish that the whole metaverse crap will fall so bad on its knees that that company will go away…
Did you (can you even) request a report from them that shows all the data they have on you??
No amount of money is with being in bed with Facebook. Facebook is the escort that handcuffs you to the bed and robs you. Money, identity, data and all.
I think if anything Apple will stay away from FB due to their image alone. A constant revenue from FB is not worth that kind of tarnishing.
I think if anything Apple will stay away from FB due to their image alone. A constant revenue from FB is not worth that kind of tarnishing.
Facebook has vastly more information about you than what you choose to post online. They have the ability to buy offline data about you and tie it to your online identity. Their revenue last year was $100 Billion dollars - advertisers aren't paying that kind of money unless Facebook delivers laser-focused targeted ads, the kind which can only be achieved via highly-detailed dossiers about your online and offline profile.
I understand they can harvest the data within the app itself. I also understand Apple is making $11 Billion/year from Google to be the default search engine on Apple's platforms. What I'm asking is for your to clarify if what you're suggesting is Apple wanted to make a deal where Facebook is free to harvest the data but to just make a subscription service with no ads (and Apple takes a 30% cut). And since you've now brought up Google, are you also suggesting that Apple is simply giving our data away to Google in exchange for Google to be the default search engine?
I'm asking not because I want to accuse you, but it's because I just want to understand what you're saying. I hope that's not a bad thing.
That comment right there is what is wrong with society as a whole. You read one article off a rumor website and it is now considered fact. No context. No investigative journalism.
Pray for humanity!
Apple wanted to make a deal with FB so that they could get a cut of the revenue from a proposed FB subscription service. In the course of running such a service FB would be able to harvest and monetize your privacy, the same as how Google monetizes your privacy when you use their search engine. Apple is aware your privacy would be harvested in those scenarios. Apple's stated public position is they are against companies harvesting your privacy for profit, and that's straight from the CEO.
Apple isn't giving your data away - it's facilitating the means by which companies take your data, in exchange for billions of dollars from those companies, in direct contradiction to their stated position on privacy. To put that into an analogy, in case I'm not explaining myself well, Apple isn't slaughtering its users - it's leading its users to the slaughter and being paid to do so.
Ok, so, to me, it sounds like what you're suggesting is:
- Yes, they are willing to let Meta harvest data off of iOS users, but Apple suggested that Meta can make a subscription service on top of that (and Apple gets a 30% cut).
- No, Apple isn't giving away the data of iOS users to Google in exchange for Google to be the default search engine.
Was I correct in understanding this, or did I miss the mark?
I just want a "yes" or "no" for this.
Yes. And one thing I forgot to add - I believe Apple's decision to change the app tracking default in iOS may not have occurred had FB agreed to Apple's proposal.
“Apple allegedly also argued that the Facebook app's boosted post function, which allows Facebook pages to promote a post to a larger audience for a fee, should have been considered in-app purchases and thereby subjected to Apple's 30% commission.”
I‘m so out of the loop with Facebook but is the “boosted post function” a way to increase the spread of fake news? If so super icky that Apple was looking to profit off this. 🤢🤮
I‘m so out of the loop with Facebook but is the “boosted post function” a way to increase the spread of fake news? If so super icky that Apple was looking to profit off this. 🤢🤮
Ok. So, are there any links I can look at in order to prove that:
- Apple's proposed deal with Meta will still allow Meta to harvest the data (this article isn't enough because there was no mention that I can find that states that or implies it),
- Google can harvest data from Safari,
- Safari has never prevented trackers from (according to Safari Privacy Report) "... profiling you and hidden IP addresses from known hackers", and
- Apple's decision to change the app tracking default in iOS may not have occurred had Meta agreed to Apple's proposal?
Again, I'm not tracking to accuse you or anything. I just want to see evidence or undeniable assumptions with all of this. I don't want to assume that you're correct and then find out that all of these were either false or completely blown out of proportion. And if there isn't, why should I assume you're correct in all of this? If you think I'm accusing you, then I apologize, but that's not my intention.
Facebook: We’re going to not add target our subscription customers since they won’t see adds.
Apple: Mark, if you run the subscription service on the App Store we will take a 30% cut.
New York Times & Tin foil hatters: Apple is bed with Facebook!!!
Lol, clicks, clicks, clicks!
Apple: Mark, if you run the subscription service on the App Store we will take a 30% cut.
New York Times & Tin foil hatters: Apple is bed with Facebook!!!
Lol, clicks, clicks, clicks!
The data from the FB negotiations is limited since that just broke today in the WSJ. I saw nothing in that article that would've required FB to stop their data harvesting from within the app as part of the deal.
As for Google, that harvesting occurs with every search you perform, plus any site you visit which imports one of Google's API's / Javascript libraries, which is more pervasive than what you can track across apps on the phone since it involves a large number of sites.
I stated Apple not implementing tracking if the FB deal was done was my own opinion, so asking me to prove an opinion doesn't make much sense. I support my opinion by Apple going against their own stated position on sites harvesting privacy when Google handed them billions of dollars.
Business is about making money. If the money is worth the PR, they'll take it. Period.
I asked if there are any links proving these things or making undeniable assumptions, not simply creating assumptions in general. If there are none, then you could have just said so and I would have understood.
Since there's no evidence either way that Apple did or did not allow Meta to harvest data based on the WSJ, then it's an unknown answer. The only assumption I can make is that the chances are not likely that they would have allowed it since they mention the differing "views on privacy" towards Apple and Meta (MacRumors' wording, not mine). But I'm not stating it as fact.
If there's evidence that, every time I make a search in Spotlight Search (since it has Google search built into it), Google somehow harvests my data (where is it getting it from and what examples? My name? If so, where is it getting my name from?) without my knowledge, I would like to see it. As of right now, I don't see anything in Apple's Privacy Policy that says as much, such as here (https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/spotlight-search/) and here: (https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/safari-search/). And if they're lying about it, then I would like to join whatever class-action lawsuit that's related to this.
And as for the sites that you visit that contain Google's APIs and JavaScript libraries, I'm trying to understand how it's related to the $11 Billion deal and how Safari doesn't prevent trackers from profiling you. And how is this any different from Firefox (or most other web browsers), which also gets revenue from Google (in exchange for it to be the default browser, but then it could mean that Google is harvesting user's data)?
I don't know: it just doesn't seem like this is a smoking gun to prove much of anything.
I'll judge Apple based on their actions, not on a rumor about what they may have thought about doing.
You're welcome to your opinion but Apple disagrees with you, at least they did before Google starting giving them billions of dollars.
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.”'
“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/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/
My comment was meant to be more about the attitude than the technical implementation.
If new techniques are devised, I hope that Apple do whatever they can to block tracking. But, of course, there are limits to what they can do.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
It's too bad Facebook doesn't follow their own core values as Apple does.
You keep bringing this quote, but I fail to understand how it addresses any points I've made. What exactly is Apple disagreeing with me on?
According to the policies, Apple sends anonymous data to the search engine in question (emphasis mine):
That's what it says, right there, on their "Safari Search & Privacy" page and their "Spotlight Search & Privacy" page, which you can look at right now. They explicitly say they don't send results that show files or content on your device (of which email and family photos data would be considered as "files and content"). There are search queries, but not search histories. And even the queries are essentially common. This is why I said:
There's nothing I can find that states this is related to the $11 Billion deal, but I'd love to see it.
If you're arguing that the deal shouldn't have been done in the first place and that they should, instead, make their own search engine (or go somewhere else), then that's fine and that's fair, but (unless there's evidence to prove this) I simply can't accept that, because they made the deal, they all of the sudden want to get your data harvested by the highest bidder.
The only evidence I can agree on is for Google to just have preferential treatment across Apple's devices and to prevent Apple from creating a search engine of their own, as stated in this article: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/05/google-pays-apple-stay-out-of-search/
So again, I see no smoking gun. Where is it? The quote doesn't tell me anything except that they themselves won't "[gobble up] everything they can learn about you and [try] to monetize it" and that they hope customers will eventually get these companies who do to stop doing that. With that said, you're welcome to show me evidence proving the contrary. I'm not saying you're wrong or incorrect: I just want to see where it's been said about what you're saying with evidence. Because, ultimately, that's what I want.
It's quite straight forward. Apple stated they are against search engines selling user data to advertisers that is mined from those users' search queries. Apple said that is not the kind of company it wants to be. Apple then accepted billions of dollars from Google to make it the default search engine on iOS, which gives Google the preferred position to accept search queries from Apple users and mine and sell the data from their search engine queries. It's right there in black and white, direct from the CEO:
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.”'
“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.”