Inside the Apple vs. Facebook Privacy Fight (wsj.com) 19
An ongoing dispute over privacy between Apple and Facebook is roiling the digital economy, leading companies to shift billions in ad spending as users continue to limit the data available to advertisers. The feud took off last year, when Apple rolled out iOS 14.5, a version of its mobile operating system that made it easier than ever for iPhone and iPad users to opt out of letting apps like Facebook track their activity on their devices. The two companies weren't always at odds. In fact, they were almost business partners. From a report: In the years before the change, Apple suggested a series of possible arrangements that would earn the iPhone maker a slice of Facebook's revenue, according to people who either participated in the meetings or were briefed about them. As one person recalled: Apple officials said they wanted to "build businesses together." One idea that was discussed: creating a subscription-based version of Facebook that would be free of ads, according to people familiar with the discussions. Because Apple collects a cut of subscription revenue for apps in its App Store, that product could have generated significant revenue for the Cupertino, Calif., giant.
The companies also haggled over whether Apple was entitled to a piece of Facebook's sales from so-called boosted posts, said people familiar with the matter. A boost allows a user to pay to increase the number of people that see a post on Facebook or Instagram. Facebook, which considers boosts ads, has always contended that boosts are a form of advertising, in part because they are often used by small businesses to reach a bigger audience, said one of the people. Apple, which doesn't take a cut of advertising from developers, argued that Facebook boosts should be considered in-app purchases, according to a person familiar with the matter. Apple's standard terms would entitle it to take a 30% share of those sales.
The companies also haggled over whether Apple was entitled to a piece of Facebook's sales from so-called boosted posts, said people familiar with the matter. A boost allows a user to pay to increase the number of people that see a post on Facebook or Instagram. Facebook, which considers boosts ads, has always contended that boosts are a form of advertising, in part because they are often used by small businesses to reach a bigger audience, said one of the people. Apple, which doesn't take a cut of advertising from developers, argued that Facebook boosts should be considered in-app purchases, according to a person familiar with the matter. Apple's standard terms would entitle it to take a 30% share of those sales.
Summary seems biased (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Apple was negotiating with Facebook to find common ground between these two model. User privacy is maximized, and the both walk away with a ton of cash. Of course libertarians hate earning money honestly, so I see why this may be offensive to some on /.
What we have seen is that even if with subscriptions, ads are still what pays the bills. A paid only model,does not work. Look at slate. Always wanting more cash from subscribers, but always loading more ads.
Re:Summary seems biased (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course libertarians hate earning money honestly, so I see why this may be offensive to some on /.
I have questions. First, why do you think libertarian ideology, which is base don capitalism, makes one hate earning money honestly. Second, why do you think Facebook, that tracking people online without consent, to be a honest way to earn money?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Best guess is he meant "liberals". But I have to say I am further confused as to how any "common ground" would "maximize user privacy", when it would obviously be somewhere in the middle with maximum user privacy being one of the two ends. Maybe this is all just typos due to speed at making a first post.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was due more to the drivel that Slate tries to pass off as news and information?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's whole privacy thing is almost entirely marketing
Of course you whole post was a troll, but just in case anyone doesn't have time to go through all the ways you are outright lying about Apple, basically just realize that Apple has spent a ton of engineering time into requiring third party apps to respect user privacy, an expensive effort Apple would not go through if the privacy was all about marketing.
Sad that people like you still try to take down Apple, the only company anymore it seems actually trying to help maintain user privacy. You probably are not even paid by Facebook, which makes your post, nay your whole existence all the more pathetic.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
realize that Apple has spent a ton of engineering time into requiring third party apps to respect user privacy, an expensive effort Apple would not go through if the privacy was all about marketing.
You give it away yourself: requiring third party apps to respect user privacy. Their own apps can ignore the restrictions.
They're not interested in protecting your privacy. They're interested in protecting their ability to monetize your private data. And they do that by making sure that companies have to go through them (and pay them) to get access to that data.
Sad that people like you still try to take down Apple, the only company anymore it seems actually trying to help maintain user privacy.
The sooner you realize that there is no major tech company out there that cares about user privacy, the sooner you can start working on solutions. A
Meh (Score:1)
Meh. (Score:2)
Apple vs Facebook
Feels a little like 2022s version of Hitler vs Stalin.
You don't really care who wins, because the winner is just going to do us all what the other one planned anyway.
Apple says ... (Score:3)
As the saying goes (Score:1)