Apple and Facebook Reportedly Discussed 'Revenue-Sharing' Ideas in Past

[bwillwall]

"Ask App Not to Track" is still wrong. It should be "Tell App Not to Track and Make Very Sure It Can't".

The issue is Apple doesn't have the ability to do that. They have their app store rules but if someone violates them that's on the app, not Apple. If Apple takes full responsibility every violation on the App Store is on them completely and they will get sued for them I'm sure.

 

[mikethemartian]

Apple: these discussions didn’t lead to any collaboration.
This forum: Apple is evil and hates privacy.

They aren’t evil or good. They are just a publicly traded company maximizing shareholder wealth.

 

[mikethemartian]

Nobody should be surprised. Apple/Cook are enormously disingenuous on privacy , there was a great piece by the Atlantic about this a few years ago.

Once you are taking Googles money for access to your user base any talk about protecting those user privacy seems very insincere.

Apple uses privacy as a marketing schtick, sadly it's one that a lot of people lap up unquestioningly.

That dude must pray more often than a nun.

 

[trusso]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either you're for privacy or not - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

Now you're starting to get it.

Tim was never on our side. It just appeared that way to some of you. And the few of us who have been calling out Apple's hypocrisy on such things have been derided as 'haters'. No, folks- it's just that, thanks to our personal histories, we've been more finely attuned to the smell of ********.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Nicely said! 👏

Aw thanks!

 

[kc9hzn]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either you're for privacy or not - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

I mean, I’d gladly pay $10 a year for ad free Facebook, assuming that also means they don’t track my activity and whatnot for ads. I don’t know how much ad free Facebook actually would be worth to me, certainly less than $50 a year, probably closer to $20 than $50. But I’d definitely pay them to not show me ads and, in general, give me a more premium experience (let me decide more the stuff and priority of the stuff that shows up in my news feed, for instance). But, of course, hearing “ad-free” evokes some of the same feelings in Facebook that hearing “arsenic” does in us, so I imagine Apple’s suggestion went over as well as a lead zeppelin at Facebook’s HQ.

 

[Solomani]

In the end, a soulless corporation trying to pass themselves as having a soul, is still a soulless corporation.

I don't like Google either.

 

[polyphenol]

I’d gladly pay $10 a year for ad free Facebook

That is something I wouldn't do. It would need to allow anonymous, untracked access as well - which they will never do.

 

[cecil444]

Pretty sure the Apple / Facebook feud long pre-dates the App Tracking issue… I’m old enough to remember Steve Jobs announcing the launch of iTunes Ping (their short-lived, ill-fated music social network) and promising close integration with Facebook, only to have Zuckerberg renege and pull the plug on launch day.

 

[burgman]

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?

Have you found an easy way to block Facebook cookies in Safari? Safari or Duck Duck go privacy essentials extension doesn’t, Edge plus Ublock Origin works quite well.

 

[btrach144]

The fact that Apple tried getting into bed with Facebook is deeply concerning.

 

[Denzo]

So what, if Apple had received more money it would have played ball with whomever? kind of disappointing tbh.

 

[_Spinn_]

It will be best for the world and humanity if Facebook does not associate with Apple.

When it comes to privacy, I don't think Facebook has the same core values as Apple does.

Agreed. Though I would take it one step further and say it would be better for humanity if Facebook goes away completely.

 

[sdf]

I'm fine with Apple maximizing profit. Just don't pretend to be a beacon of privacy protection at the same time you're making back-room deals with the companies you're publicly railing against for harvesting users' privacy.

Sure, but the proposed deal would have made for a differently behaving Facebook. It likely had no real chance because of that, but if it would have gone through and Facebook would have stuck by the terms the world would be a better place.

 

[DanVM]

Privacy relates to knowledge and by consistently calling out the practices publicly Apple had proven they are committed to privacy. Allowing Google to pay to be the default search engine does not breach their privacy stance at all.

First, the vast majority of their customers prefer Google search because already use it on their other devices. It removes friction from their customers experience. The two items are not in conflict because they are still subject to the same rules and still complains that Apple doesn’t give them access to all the data they want.

There’s a reason why Google had to find an exploit to continue to track customers who blocked tracking and was caught and fined for it. So while Apple haters will claim Apple allows Google to thwart privacy for cash, it’s not true.

Apple allows google to remain the default engine because it’s better at this point and more in demand. That doesn’t mean they should have it as free access. Google is happy to pay a share of revenue, because they don’t want Apple to feel the need to create their own.

IMO, allowing Google to to be the default search engine is not the best for Apple privacy stance. Why would they made business with a company with so many privacy issues? Don't you think would be better to use a privacy-focused search engine, like DuckDuckGo?

And while I agree Google Search being the default engine reduces friction, that doesn't means it's the right choice for it's privacy stance. If that's the case, we should also make Google Maps the default maps app and Gmail the default email client, since they are two of the most popular consumer services used in the iOS devices.

 

[ackmondual]

I don't like Google either.

View attachment 2042711

Fair enough. We can eliminate tech products from both Google and Apple then!

 

[Abazigal]

Feels like a hit piece by Facebook intended as retaliation for loss of revenue due to ATT.

I kinda wonder about the sources.