No Apple is the biggest target because they like to virtue signal. It's hard to virtue signal when your dirty business dealings are public knowledge. I have no problem with Apple or any company contracting who they want to make their products as cheap as possible. But please don't try to act like you're a champion of human rights when you are involved in those shady practices. Apple could be a leader in that field and change the way things are done and work with countries who give their workers rights. But that would mean taking a huge hit to their bottom line, something Apple is absolutely not willing to do.
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.
Facebook Says Apple's Upcoming Anti-Tracking Prompt is 'More About Profit Than Privacy' [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The tracking warning popup on the Facebook app won't stop people from using it. They're all addicted to it and will grudgingly click "Go ahead and track my ass" to allow the app to work.
Because you know if you don't click "go ahead and track my ass" the apps will just quit
Because you know if you don't click "go ahead and track my ass" the apps will just quit
The apps will still work if you click don't track me. Facebook will just make a lot less money off the targeted advertising. This won't affect the user one bit, except they might start seeing ads for products which have nothing to do with their interests. I doubt Apple would allow a company to disable their app if the user clicks do not track me. They would be an instant ban from Apple.
Haha like Apple isn't all about profit. How can a $2T company not be all about profit. Name one decision Apple makes that can't be traced to more profit for them.
Nice to meet you too
. We are at least three without FB in this forum.
Make that four.Nice to meet you too
If Apple prevents this form of tracking, it won't affect businesses at all because it'll affect everyone in the same way. But it will affect Facebook. Which is great!
I don't follow that logic. If it effects negatively, then its not really an effect as long as all companies are effected negatively in the same way? All companies but Apple of course.
My initial reaction is:
Facebook isn't wrong
Facebook sure has balls to complain about "doing it for the money"
Facebook isn't wrong
Facebook sure has balls to complain about "doing it for the money"
You do have a choice to decide whether to have your privacy violated or not - don't use facebook. When you sign up for facebook, you agree to their terms of service which spells out what they do and what they track. Apple is basically allowing users to opt out of this tracking. This by itself is not necessarily a bad though, although again, you agreed to it with facebook TOS. This means that facebook, and many other apps that rely on advertising to generate revenue, will need to generate income in other ways. If they are forced to charge users of their service/app up front, this will lead to two scenarios - either the app will fail along with the business because no one wants to pay, or, Apple will benefit because the subscription for this app has to be processed through them, and giving them a cut.
As a never-facebook person, I am continually finding that the web presences of many small and/or local companies are inaccessible to me. (And many other organisations, charities, etc.)
At the beginning, these small companies were all too likely to see the possibility of setting up a facebook page. Simple and convenient. But few will understand the considerable percentage of us who will never go there.
In an ideal world, they might well have set up their own site and just linked from a very simple. Facebook presence.
As times passes, it gets more difficult for them to move out of facebook.
Perhaps, from where they now are, these small companies could set up non-facebook pages on their own domains without any facebook involvement in the sites? And synchronise the information between facebook and their own pages. Thus taking back at least some control and opening access to the likes of me.
If Zuckerberg really cared about small businesses, he would not have trapped them within the facebook empire. And he would make it straightforward for these small companies to split their web presences.
At the beginning, these small companies were all too likely to see the possibility of setting up a facebook page. Simple and convenient. But few will understand the considerable percentage of us who will never go there.
In an ideal world, they might well have set up their own site and just linked from a very simple. Facebook presence.
As times passes, it gets more difficult for them to move out of facebook.
Perhaps, from where they now are, these small companies could set up non-facebook pages on their own domains without any facebook involvement in the sites? And synchronise the information between facebook and their own pages. Thus taking back at least some control and opening access to the likes of me.
If Zuckerberg really cared about small businesses, he would not have trapped them within the facebook empire. And he would make it straightforward for these small companies to split their web presences.
Facebook has benefited small businesses more than anything else. Think of all the free advertising small businesses get now. To get into the App Store you have to pay Apple a yearly fee plus a third of all revenue made. To advertise on Facebook, you pay absolutely nothing. One of the biggest obstacles facing small businesses is advertising and attracting customers. Facebook basically obliterated that obstacle and made it so any company no matter how small can advertise and try to attract customers. I don't think they get ever get enough credit for that. I don't know of anything Apple ever did for free to help small businesses.
They get nothing from me.
Often, I even know of the companies, but can't access them online due to my never-facebook stance.
And you can bet that as soon as you grow, you will end up paying facebook one way or another. Or accepting the costs of setting up outside facebook.
Not to evoke Trump, let alone Nixon, but maybe we are members of a different sort of silent majority. Glad to meet you all!
Last edited:
People are tracked whether they use FB or not. And while maybe there are dozens (dozens!) who set up their router to block trackers and/or ads, almost everyone doesn’t.
Not only do a huge portion of people not know FB tracks them to in non-FB places, in a recent study something like one THIRD of 65 and older thought their news feed was curated by people based on the quality of the content! They didn’t even know it was driven by an algorithm, which maybe they don’t even know what that means anyway.
With regards to tracking, the matter at hand, no, that is incorrect.
Apple is a publicly-traded company, they are legally obligated to both release exact percentages and publicly discuss them every quarter.
Apple’s details have been posted here and are pretty clear. But I do want them to use the same popups for their apps yes.
For the tracking popups, Facebook’s popup says they not only track your physical location, they also track your medical data, intimate details (the eyeball), and basically every possible piece of data they can. The label has a lot of things listed, and some are not just internet related.
Happy to oblige. Based on a recent report, and just looking at the CA scandal and news usage in general, on multiple occasions FB has swung elections. This has actually been most effective for smaller governments. It got to the point where FB employees have complained that either they’re uncomfortable with attention-optimized algorithms swinging elections, or others complain that they’re unhappy with how a given election is swinging, want to manually intervene, but were prevented from doing so when in the past they were allowed.
In the case of a small government election, FB can target key individual leaders, diplomats, representatives, their spouses, and so on, in addition to a general voting body. They can send them specific posts or news items to influence or distract them. Which thing to change would be based on browsing history, along with other data. The report I read suggested certain employees have manually intervened in an attempt to further democracy or fairness and work against attention-optimized algorithms. It did not go into nitty gritty detail how, but tracking data would obviously be involved.
Yea you pay for them targeting you with ads. If I was a small business struggling especially during a global pandemic, I would much rather have my business put up with being targeted for ads, then submitting to Apple for the 30% mafioso cut of all revenue my business was generating.
I'm pretty sure Apple does not disclose the exact percentage of profit they make off each $1000 iPhone they sell. They provide total revenue and profits for their investors. When have they ever said the exact amount of profit made off each iPhone? Best analysts can do is try to build the exact part list and cost for each component in the iPhone minus R&D to come up with what is an educated guess on the exact profit for each iPhone.
To get attention. Ignoring works best if it's clear responses aren't reasonable.
Yep! totally agree that there are some people that enjoy the targeted advertising since they're going to see ads anyway. Why not see ads for things you're interested in? If you can't beat em, join em (as they say).
I am not saying that Apple is perfect because they are not, but I think all evidence points to them trying harder to live up to their stated ethos than most other tech companies do. And certainly they try harder than Facebook does.
You don’t work for free because both parties were upfront about what was on offer.
I don’t believe most Facebook users ever knew exactly what they were giving up for access to the free service. Apple is now requiring that apps disclose information that should have already been available to every user. What’s wrong with transparency?
If a user is ok with their private information being collected in exchange for them being able to use a free service, then there is no problem. But if enough users push back, any service will have to make concessions or change their business model — simple as that.
While I rarely use FB, there are many others who use it to keep in touch with family, friends, etc. People shouldn't have to trade their social networks with FB for having their privacy violated. The two should be independent.
If FB desires, it can prohibit people from using their service unless they approve the policy of having their privacy violated. But if they did that they might lose a lot of Apple customers who typically have a higher disposable income than Android users.
In summary, keep the Apple service of protecting one's privacy.
If FB chooses to do so, it can stop those people from using their service.
Does that seem like a reasonable compromise. Therefore Apple users can have their privacy protected and if FB doesn't like that, it can discontinue their service to those users.
You’re really coming off as a ignorant moron here. All Apple is doing is showing the user starting the app what types of data Facebook need for you to use them. How is that bad?