Facebook Hits Back at Apple With Second Critical Newspaper Ad (theverge.com) 109
Facebook is stepping up its campaign against Apple's privacy changes with a second full-page newspaper ad today. This new ad claims Apple's iOS 14 privacy changes "will change the internet as we know it," and force websites and blogs "to start charging you subscription fees" or add in-app purchases due to a lack of personalized ads. From a report: It follows a similar full-page newspaper ad in the The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post yesterday. Apple is planning to make changes to iOS 14 early next year that will require developers to ask for permission to gather data and track users across mobile apps and websites on an iPhone or iPad. Apple revealed how iOS 14 users will be prompted to opt into tracking in apps this week, noting that developers like Facebook can explain to users why they should allow tracking within the prompt. These changes will impact Facebook's lucrative ad business, but the social networking giant is framing them as something far larger that could impact small businesses. Unsurprisingly, Apple doesn't agree. "We believe that this is a simple matter of standing up for our users," said an Apple spokesperson in response to Facebook's first full-page newspaper ad yesterday. "Users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites -- and they should have the choice to allow that or not."
Newspaper? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Newspaper? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Old people like me.
And I use them for in the rabbit cage too.
Re: Newspaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Replying due to accidental downmod (to erase). Sorry, meant to mod up!
Re: (Score:2)
Wrapping fish.
Campfire / fireplace starter.
Biodegradable packaging filler / buffer.
It should be noted that none of these are the intended use from the publisher.
Re: (Score:3)
Lawmakers... But the main reason for it is that a full page newspaper ad is the next step up from a press release. It says that Facebook is willing to spend some significant cash to get this message out, and sure enough all the news sites pick it up and distribute it for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're serious, they should buy an ad on Facebook. I know that's what newspapers spend their ad budgets on. ("Run a deadhead house ad in our own product? Naaah, we're short on space. Let's just give money to our direct competitor.")
Re: (Score:2)
Great news, thank you Facebook, now I know for sure that Apple cares about my privacy and puts it above selling my data, great ad, going to look into Apple's products.
Re: (Score:2)
Great news, thank you Facebook, now I know for sure that Apple cares about my privacy and puts it above selling my data, great ad, going to look into Apple's products.
Well, the message is the Facebook is pro small business, because small business relies on targeted advertising. They even had a small business owner testifying how they couldn't survive without targeted advertising.
What I don't understand... there's a fixed set of people willing to buy a product (yours or someone else's). Whatever mechanisms exist to discover a product, the demand is the same and it's a level playing field w/ regard to competition.
Re: Newspaper? (Score:2)
Somebody could be willing to buy, but they're not going to if they don't know your product even exists, or if they don't know that it fulfills a particular need that they have.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately with the way targeted advertising works in most cases, by the time whatever relevant targeting occurs most customers already have the product. If I order a pair of shoes online, I'm then subjected to shoe ads for a week or two following.
Then there is the question on the consumer side if that is a good trade. In a lot of cases, the consumer doesn't have a choice so the calculation is moot. But when given the choice, it allows the consumer to decide for themselves if giving up personal details i
Re: (Score:2)
"Who reads those?"
People who are not on FB and have no Apple products.
Re:Newspaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you don't care for Apple, couldn't they do this to any perceived opponent?
The further along we go the worse it looks to keep Facebook in its current form.
Re: Newspaper? (Score:2)
Did you say antitrust?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their audience for this message: old politicians and established business moguls.
They’re trying to give a politician with a taste for blood and glory some ammunition with which to go after Apple, or else a mogul who senses blood in the water the push they need to join the fray, because the alternative for Facebook is the massive drop in mobile earnings that they’ve disclosed they expect from this change.
They know that their audience for this message isn’t on their platform, so they’r
Re: (Score:2)
Old people who also use Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Companies take out full-page ads in newspapers of record, in order to get the attention of politicians and other companies that pay attention to newspapers of record.
This isn't an advertisement targeting you or me. This is targeting Congress, and probably paired with some campaign / superpac donations and lobbying efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an advertisement targeting you or me. This is targeting Congress, and probably paired with some campaign / superpac donations and lobbying efforts.
If nothing else it's going to fun watching which politicians come out against letting users opt-out of data collection. Turning a blind eye is one thing. Forcing a company, by law, to collect and share user data is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, people who aren't ignorant and stupid, like you are.
Re: (Score:2)
People who uses Facebook.
Why do ads need to be personalized? (Score:5, Insightful)
These scare tactics coming from the chief privacy invaders on the net are incredibly stupid. The majority of advertising history is filled with perfectly effective ad campaigns that weren't directly targeted to specific needs. And let's be honest, the targeted ads are complete and utter failures. No, really, I do not need to see two weeks of targeted ads about the product I just purchased. What good are those ads doing?
Re: Why do ads need to be personalized? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Why do ads need to be personalized? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they? How? I'm not paying any monthly/yearly fee to Apple. The only time they get any cash from me, apart from the hardware they sold me, is when I buy music on iTunes or rent a movie on my old Apple TV.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not an app developer, are you.
Apple are at the point where the choice is more or less, pay us an outrageous fee (30%) or go out of business. They have a large enough market share that they can simply set the terms as they choose and see the money roll in.
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't about developers, this is about ads and user tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't about developers, this is about ads and user tracking.
Sorry for the confusion, it's a more general sentiment. Both companies deserve to loose on general principle.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean at the point? This has been the terms since the app store started. These terms were fine for years, but now they are unacceptable?
The walled garden of the app store is a selling point for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of whining about it they should come up with a way to let people pay for these services.
Say I could subscribe to all participating websites for 5 bucks/month, Netflix style. When I visit my browser anonymously sends them a token at some random time later (so it can't be tied to my visit) that they can redeem for a cut of that fee. Ad views are only worth tiny fractions of a cent and I block them anyway so this is a win for them.
It would have to be handled by a neutral company set up just to distribu
Re: (Score:2)
kind of like the way apple news works?
Re: (Score:2)
A little but it wouldn't be tied to Apple and would work on any site that signed up.
Re: (Score:2)
So like the Brave web browser?
I tried it once but it's still just contributing to the Chromium monoculture. They should release it as a Firefox extension.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of whining about it they should come up with a way to let people pay for these services.
You mean like how you can subscribe to Youtube to disable all advertising? Yet if I could have a nickel for every time I hear someone on /. complain how bad are TY ad rolls.
You aren't the first person to think of that. If websites could get more users or happier users, and the same profit they'd do this. The fact that they don't pretty much explains things.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that all want 11.99/month. I want to pay a flat fee for all of it, which is more than they get at present (nothing thanks to uBlock).
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of advertising history is filled with perfectly effective ad campaigns that weren't directly targeted to specific individuals.
There, FTFY.
The other side of this is - during that majority of advertising history, there weren't any ad companies evaluated in the tens-to-hundreds of billions of dollars.
Facebook's net worth right now is almost 800 billion dollars [macrotrends.net]. That's entirely based on their access to people's personal information, combined with their demonstrated, repeated willingness to bend or break laws to use that personal information as a means to maximize their profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really? You said FB is an "ad company". But aren't they really an "ad delivery company" selling access to those eyeballs. Because those do get valued in the tens-of-billions (for instance, WarnerMedia). And it's entirely possible that most of the value is that FB can serve more ads than the cable channels and content WarnerMedia owns.
Re: (Score:2)
Negative Ads, especially about a product or service rarely ever turn out well. These work for political ads much better, because they are encouraging the people who would vote for them to vote for them this time around. However for a product/service. A Negative Ad isn't something that is going to make say an iPhone user to switch to a different system. Because they have already bought the product, they almost automatically have a degree of brand loyalty towards their purchasing decision, as they normally
Their problem is a good problem (Score:3)
Which is money directly to the website, not to FB. I like it.
Advertisers are lazy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Advertisers are lazy (Score:2)
Exactly, as much as I loathe ads, and have pure hatred for pre roll/cut in video ads (thank whoever made youtube vanced), and I hope I never bought any product from those, I don't mind ads integrated in the video by the creator.
First of all, they make the deal with the seller themselves, so as far as I know google and other parasites don't see a cent of the deal, and they are actually relevant to my interest. I'm not ashamed of having bought some of those products.
Re: (Score:2)
[Disclaimer: I work for AdTech]
No, you're completely wrong. Retargetting is at least one order of magnitude more profitable than any other kind of advertisement, this is why so many companies are doing it. Monday Night Football doesn't tell you if the watcher's fridge just broke down or if his wife is pregnant. It is really coarse comparing to what can be - and actually is being - done on the web. You just target one aspect of your audience. Retargetting has the potential of finely crossing several aspects
Re: (Score:2)
But at the end of the day, impressions are a limited resource, and if all companies compete for the same pool of undifferentiated potential customers, that really makes things more difficult on small companies wit
Re: (Score:2)
And let's be honest, the targeted ads are complete and utter failures.
Yet the people running Facebook and Google are billionaires and you aren't.
The effectiveness of targeted on-line ads is easy to measure. Of course they work. Advertisers wouldn't be paying for them if they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they work. Advertisers wouldn't be paying for them if they didn't.
That's not how modern society works. You are supposed to assume you, sitting in your mom's dank basement, are actually smarter than the 50,000 employees and $600 billion net worth of Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the targeted ads are complete and utter failures
That's just false. Companies spend billions on it for a reason. Google, a $600 million company exists because of targeted advertising. Facebook as well.
No, really, I do not need to see two weeks of targeted ads about the product I just purchased. What good are those ads doing?
Do you need a lifetime of ads about products you never intend to purchase?
Re: (Score:2)
$600 million
Typo. $600 billion.
Bullsh*t always comes home to roost (Score:3)
So, basically, Facebook is complaining that they won't be able to sell advertising to suckers who have no way of telling whether or not the gobs of money they're spending on advertising is actually working (it probably isn't). Seriously, does anyone using FB allow advertising to come through their feeds?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is complaining that they won't be able to sell advertising to suckers who have no way of telling whether or not the gobs of money they're spending on advertising is actually working
There are many ways to measure the success of online advertising campaigns.
There are lots of good arguments against targeted advertising, but "it can't be measured" isn't one of them.
charge your users, I dare you (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple can charge for its products and doesn't rely on privacy intrusion and shady marketing to prop up its business. FB looks like a sad loser. FB needs a better business model, not newspaper ads.
Re: charge your users, I dare you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Apple suk?
Re: charge your users, I dare you (Score:2)
https://www.defectivebydesign.... (it's enough to you?)
No.
That site has more lies and omissions of fact than a Trump âoeElection Fraudâ Tweet.
You and Shawn Hannity should get together.
Liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump supporter detected (must be bad to live in a fantasy world...)
Boy is YOUR "Detection System" broken!
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. As the other poster said, that site is garbage.
Try again.
Re: charge your users, I dare you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And some people want free stuff. :P
Something something turnabout (Score:2)
Subscriptions (Score:4, Funny)
Please, please, please start charging subscriptions Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm kinda laughing just with myself (Score:5, Funny)
Targeted news? (Score:2)
Targeted ads are are bad enough, targeted news also, only much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Targeted ads are are bad enough, targeted news also, only much worse.
Are those really different things?
Re: (Score:2)
"Are those really different things?"
You're right, the distinction isn't categorical. They're both selling stuff. Like things, ideas, and truthfulness.
Facebook will prevail at this rate (Score:4, Interesting)
The Zuck has declared war and his PR troopers are doing a good job.
With the amount of money Apple has in its rainy day fund, perhaps its time for it to stop thinking its brand alone is enough defense, and go on a vicious attack against Facebook et al, especially when lawmakers across the world are looking more at Facebook than Apple, and attack them on their egregious violation of privacy. Remind people that they are the product Facebook sells, not Facebook's customer. And they can do this by simply asking "Do you want advertisers to know that one embarrassing moment of yours that your friend put up on Facebook?"
Because embarrassment is definitely more triggering than paying a subscription.
Apple should replace all its ads on the internet and in the real world with attacks against social media. I'm fairly certain that Apple can have the upper hand easily.
Re: (Score:3)
An educated guess on this subject is that there is already a committee deep in Apple HQ considering exactly how to best craft it's response to Facebook's attack ads to most effectively blast Facebook and not end up with a huge backfire. That type of thing is tricky to navigate with how easy it is to accidentally trigger folks these days. I'm sure we'll see something in the next two to three weeks from Apple in response to this.
Re: Facebook will prevail at this rate (Score:3)
Apple doesn't need to respond with a PR push when they are simply adding features users want to their tech platform.
Facebook is trying to get legislation to support it's outdated business model instead of adapting to the changing market. Hey Facebook, you should ask the buggy whip manufacturers how that worked out for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is appealing to elected officials. Apple should counter with appealing to voters. Apple's position will be far more palatable with voters than Facebook's.
Yes well (Score:2)
Facebook knows it can't complain TOO loudly. Apple could simply ding them on some obscure corner of the app store regulations and ban Facebook from the store.
I can hear the squeals from here. (Score:4, Informative)
Good, keep it up Apple.
I get it Facebook doesn't like Apple (Score:3)
But in terms of PR. Apple is much more beloved company than Facebook is. However it comes down to a simple issue. Facebook Needs Apple more than Apple needs Facebook.
Apple while a much older company. 44 Years old vs 16 year old Facebook. Apple was able to keep its products new and reliant and being attractive to a new market. While Facebook had peaked, and now is Social Media for Old People who are not professional enough to use Linked In. Kids avoid it mostly, And it is for boomers and gen-x to pretend that they are still Hip and Trendy.
Granted Apple hit its dark age when it was 17 years old, where the Apple 2 line was dated, and Macs no longer had an edge. So Facebook might be able to turn around. However, Facebook history has already caused a lot of big problems, such as propagating and promoting dangerous lies, and rumors. Giving data to organizations who can do further analysis and find targets to spread more attacks on.
One of the cases back in 2016. Russian Hackers, targeted people who Liberal Activist, and targeted people who were Conservative Activists. And help organize rallies at the same spot, just to create friction. Which will lead back down each partisan echo chambers showing how horrible, violent and unreasonable the other side is. Facebook was the primary mechanism for this, because they were able to get information across and easily identify which echo chamber people belong to, and use that to influence them.
Apple isn't a Saint either, they have been Overly Aggressive with patents, and treat their partners like crap, where a solid partner is dropped at a moment notice. Also being locked down to people who own the equipment where they cannot fix it themselves, or tinker with it more. However Apples Sins are minor compared to Facebook, who in the guise of Free Speech, would allow Civilization to fall if they can make a few bucks to reach their short term profits.
Subscriptions (Score:1)
Letâ(TM)s not kid ourselves. Apple wants to take the profits out of advertising through third-parties. Developers will be forced to turn to subscriptions, IAP, and non-free apps to make any money. Letâ(TM)s not forget that Apple has its own advertising products and I doubt they will be so virtuous about not using your personal data to drive those ads.
The question is: Is forcing users to pay directly for apps rather than monetizing the user data a bad thing? I donâ(TM)t know. I am a developer,
Re:Subscriptions (Score:5, Interesting)
This was a showdown that was coming. Since the public started going on the internet specifically the World Wide Web, the question was always about how to pay for the cost of maintaining an online presence. With more integrations and more security required, it is getting more expensive to show content. While average businesses might be able to write off such expenses with online sales, the problem with media is that their business is the content. Ad revenue has helped delay this showdown. Unfortunately rather than seeing ad revenue as a temporary crutch, more and more businesses relied on it for revenue.
The shift to other revenue has already started to happen in areas like YouTube. At one time, people could make a decent living just making videos on YouTube; the shifting nature of ad revenue on YouTube has forced many of them to look for other sources and get creative. For example commenting in the recent NVidia and Hardware Unboxed debacle, Linus of Linus Tech Tips said that he express himself freely on the situation because he makes enough money on merchandising sales that he does not fear any NVidia reprisals. Other smaller channels may not be so lucky if they need the ad revenue from hardware reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem paying for content I deem worth it. Unfortunately most of the content on the World Wide Web isn't really worth paying for. Small time hobby sites can keep running with very little in the way of costs or maintenance. I feel like we are going back to the old days when people created content out of passion not for profit, the days of making a living as blogger are over and I'm not that broken up about it.
I think it will be a good thing when sites like facebook can't make a living off coll
Fuck Facebook! (Score:2)
We're not all "dumb fucks", asshole (Score:2)
This new ad claims Apple's iOS 14 privacy changes "will change the internet as we know it"...
OK Fuckerberg. Enough of your bullshit drama. A privacy change on a fucking smartphone OS is not going to change the internet as we know it. It will only change YOUR profit model as YOU know it.
And to that I say to a billionaire, deal with it, you dumb fuck.
What's the real issue (Score:2)
FaceBook: Apple advocating to restrict our advertising revenue is dangerous. To us.
This is Kettle (Score:2)
Facebook not Happy... (Score:2)
Obvious answers for 100 please (Score:1)
Subscriptions is the only way forward (Score:2)
Internet advertising is a lame duck - it is now vanishingly easy for even the least technically adept person to block the vast bulk of them.
The market is saturated - the 'rewards' have become ridiculously slim, yet there's an entire industry based around it, just beating that dead horse.
In all my time on the internet - 25 years - I have never once been enticed to buy anything an online advert is selling.
These days, it is rare for me to even see one, as I block them on every site - and the sites I visit ofte
Re: (Score:2)
I pray for the day when selling your users data becomes illegal or at the very least forced opt-in. Loss of ad revenue could lead to facebook going under and that would be a good thing for all of humanity.
Fuck facebook (Score:2)
Really pathetic to depend their spying by pretending that's good for the internet
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, deFend. Fuck em again.
The mere existence of a choice (Score:2)
...puts Facebook off. They object to people even understanding that it doesn't have to be this way. Apple doesn't force you to turn tracking off, they merely ask if you know it's happening and whether you'd like it to continue. Of all the things coming from Apple and the App Store lately, this is the least heavy handed and the most user friendly. For Facebook to so strenuously resist this change doesn't just mean they WANT your data, it means they think they DESERVE your data. That it's THEIRS to have, no m
More of this please, (Score:2)
and pass the popcorn. I could watch Silly Valley eating its own all day long.
We know how this will end up (Score:2)
Battling evil robots (Score:3)
It is tempting to try and pick a "side" in this dispute.
Until you realize it is just a "turf war" by 2 evil forces trying to maintain a monopoly on conning the users.
I think that Disney should jump in too.. Very entertaining stuff.
Facebook tears are sweeter (Score:1)
So, let's see here. On one side, you have Apple, who makes many pricey things but generally cares about user privacy. On the other you have FB, with a creepy way of making money off your behavior and information, hmm, who do I trust? Even more laughable is that Facebook is claiming this privacy change will disenfranchise "small businesses" as if they care or are somehow remotely "the little guy."
In a simple summary, FU-FB is my take. And no, I don't have an iPhone nor use Facebook.
If we can't spy on our users... (Score:2)
Facebook: "If we can't spy on our users and monetize the information we gather it will hurt our business".
Everyone who cares about their privacy: "Good!"
Defaming itself (Score:2)
You mean web-sites such as Facebook. It's not all bad: A revenue stream means Facebook can offer services such as fact-checking. Facebook claims to be a news service, it will be comforting when they act like one.
As greedy as Apple is, it is unlikely to demand such a blatent cash-grab. Those lies might work against politicians but Apple can waste a hundred million dollars dragging Facebook into court.
AWStats (Score:1)
So how is apple going to remotely disable apache's logs on my server? (and all servers around the world?)
They can't. The user has no choice.
VPNs? Just another way to collect your data, and funnel it all conveniently into one log.
This is just so dumb. Google has the power to do it, but Apple does not.
If you do not agree with me, that is no reason to ban this account, but I know you will, because the slashdot circle-jerk has been a closed circle since at least 98.
It's OK though, I can just spoof a new IP, cre
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, but I see you have me automatically shadowbanned. I guess you have this IP address on file.
Shadowbanning is so cowardly and pathetic, even worse than handing off responsibility for your content to your users (which would never hold up in a court of law anyway - slashdot is the publisher.)
Apple is not blocking FB, it gives users a choice (Score:2)
Apple is not blocking FB from tracking users, it simply gives users a choice, or prevents FB from tracking people without their explicit consent. There is no forcing to subscription model, everyone will be able to consent to tracking in exchange for free services as they get them today. Perhaps it will be "agree to tracking and convince 10 friends to agree in exchange for premium service", still fair. Anyone who wants a colonoscopy from FB will still be able to bend over and get one.
Facebook, haha (Score:2)
If Facebook truly cared about users, they would squash the proliferation of scam ads I see running rampant on Facebook every day (e.g. Ad claims "You won't believe how realistic this toy dog is!", shows a video of a real life puppy miniature poodle. Product takes 9 months to ship, another 3 months for customs, and by the time the cheap stuffed dog doll arrives in the mail, all traces of the original footage have been erased. Reporting abuse or scams don't help, because Facebook never truly researchers tho