
Apple and Facebook - Amorymeltzer
https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/
======
Despegar
>Apple was quite clever in their approach: instead of killing the IDFA, which
could be construed as anti-competitive, particularly given Apple’s expanding
app install ad business (which is expanding beyond App Store search ads),
Apple is simply asking users if they would like to be tracked, and letting
them render the IDFA useless.

The unstated implication of this is that when required to receive consent from
users, the entire ad-tech complex falls apart.

I think Apple is actually smart to do it this way rather than just getting rid
of the IDFA altogether, but only because of the political/regulatory
environment right now. Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being
anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in
their first antitrust case. After that the gloves can come off.

~~~
exhilaration
I'm curious, though, will Apple's own ads require consent? When you open the
App Store for the first time, will there be a popup asking for consent to
track for ad purposes?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
IMO you've given enough consent by using their app store. All they need is to
store the device IDs to which they display ads and install apps so that they
can attribute app installs to specific advertisements. You're logged into
their app store, so you should expect Apple to already know the device ID when
they display ads and install apps.

~~~
cromwellian
But I pay for the App Store indirectly through high margin hardware,
transaction fees, including the 30% tax, so shouldn’t i be able to turn off
Apple’s ad network all together and not let them advertise to me in the App
Store by using my purchase history?

Funny how privacy invasions are bad and everything should be done on device
until Apple starts selling ads and then it’s ok somehow for them to use your
behavior/purchase profile.

~~~
BurritoAlPastor
You can! [https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT202074](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074)

~~~
cromwellian
Cool, I didn't know, but doesn't that imply it's a dark pattern? How many
users know about this setting? Wouldn't it be better as Opt-In, and let the
App Store prompt you when you set up your iPhone "do you want to opt in to
interest based advertisin/etc"? When other companies do opt-out, they're
usually heavily criticized.

~~~
cromwellian
Cool, I didn't know, but doesn't that imply it's a dark pattern? How many
users know about this setting? Wouldn't it be better as Opt-In, and let the
App Store prompt you when you set up your iPhone "do you want to opt in to
interest based advertisin/etc"? When other companies do opt-out, they're
usually heavily criticized.

------
numair
Yikes, where to begin...

Quoting Chamath on the rationale for the Facebook Platform is like quoting the
current management of Boeing on how to build a plane. If you want the real
story on the dynamics behind the Platform, and why it worked so incredibly
well when it did, you’d have to talk to Dave Morin, but I’m not sure he’d like
to revisit that period in his life. Dave’s open, humble approach (something I
think he’d picked up at Apple) attracted the best and brightest companies and
programmers to the platform, and gave them the confidence needed to invest in
building a presence there. Eventually a bunch of people inside of Facebook got
jealous of the attention he was getting and had him demoted.

Chamath takeover and his self-dealing (investing in platform companies while
overseeing it? really?) was a large part of the Platform’s failure, not its
success. People lost confidence, and confidence is the one thing that every
platform — whether it’s a piece of software, or a country’s economy — really
runs on. If you want to talk about platforms, and what they are, and what they
aren’t, that’s really all it is. People who bring up a million other things
and a random Bill Gates quote don’t know what they’re talking about.

Apple is strict and super-weird about some of their rules, but they’re
consistent. And it’s in that consistency that they’ve been able to build a
large, dominant platform. When people start to see cracks in that consistency
— such as the recent Hey drama — both developers AND people within the company
immediately freak out, and some statement is made (whether it’s what the
developers want to hear is another matter). They’re also super consistent with
most of their APIs and their timetables, which further encourages investment.

Facebook is pretty much the exact opposite of this, in every aspect of their
business. Whether you’re a newspaper or an Instagram model or a developer,
you’re never quite sure where you stand. While things built on top of Facebook
might have large-scale near-term value, nobody’s planning their next decade on
there (even if suspicious can’t-let-China-win government meddling and the
Silicon Valley oligarchy keep them on top for that long).

~~~
tossmeout
This is one of those comments that seems interesting and believable because
it's so confidently stated. But is any of this speculation actually accurate?

I agree with the second half of the comment. Facebook has been capricious, and
thus it's hard to trust building on top of them for the long term. But the
first few paragraphs just seem like unsubstantiated gossip.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
TBH that's true for the original article too. I feel that most of these
opinion pieces are 'just so' post-facto explanations. I'd rather have a
prediction market where people put predictions and confidence values along
with detailed explanations, and then we can see in a few years how things play
along.

It's very easy to make confident pronouncements when they are basically
unfalsifiable.

------
TheArcane
Apple's moat has increasingly become incentivised of late by being the
privacy-conscious option to its competitors - thanks primarily to Google's
infringement of the same

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
I think tech people fundamentally misunderstand how the privacy-conscious
features of Apple resonate with the non-technical public.

The _vast_ majority of the public do not care, at all, about the type of data
tracking that gets HNers so up in arms. That may be a bit of hyperbole - they
may care a teeny bit, but the second they have to do something that is even
the slightest bit inconvenient in order to get more privacy ("Why do I have to
log in here again?") they'll bail.

What Apple has done, though, is frame privacy-consciousness in terms of
_exclusivity_ and _luxury_. It's quite similar to how Tesla rebranded electric
cars from dorky and stodgy to cool. Most people's experience with Apple's
privacy-conscious features are Touch ID and Face ID. These felt really
futuristic when they first came out. And the privacy messaging that Apple does
is really great IMO: it's more along the lines of "With Google all your data
is shared with crappy advertisers along with the rest of the unwashed masses.
With Apple everything is safe and secure, and most importantly protected from
their grubby little non-Jony Ive-approved hands."

This has real benefits to consumers (because the privacy advancements with
Apple are _not_ just marketing, they're real), but people should understand
Apple is still based around exclusivity and luxury, and privacy is just a part
of that.

~~~
snowwrestler
This is not supported by polling data. See for example:

[https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-
an...](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-
concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-
information/)

"Some 81% of the public say that the potential risks they face because of data
collection by companies outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about
government data collection."

~~~
Icathian
Asking people whether they care and making them prove it by subjecting
themselves to the slightest inconvenience may result in different conclusions.

~~~
pier25
Exactly.

I only know two persons in real life (other than me) that care about data
privacy and act on that. Of course if you ask most people they will say that
yeah they care about privacy, but their actions tell a different story.

~~~
kohtatsu
Most people simply haven't learned the hygiene yet.

It can be as simple as showing them to open incognito for specific searches or
topics, or to install a trusted tracker blocking extension like ublock origin
and set it up for them.

Managing app location privileges is a big one too, iOS is really good about
nagging for background location permissions and I appreciate that a lot, but a
lot of people don't realize if you give Facebook or another app "while using",
you can bet money it will use it whenever you open the app.

[https://business.financialpost.com/technology/tim-hortons-
ap...](https://business.financialpost.com/technology/tim-hortons-app-tracking-
customers-intimate-data) The Tim Hortons app logged this guy's location 2,700
times in 5 months. He didn't find out until the iOS 13 background location
warning.

[https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/ios...](https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/ios-13-location-data-apps.jpeg)

People care, most of them just aren't as literate as the typical HN user so
they either don't have a clue what's really happening, or simply throw their
hands up in the air.

~~~
jldugger
> Most people simply haven't learned the hygiene yet.

There's an entire class of problems you cannot solve through 'hygiene.'
Equifax, for example, collected data on you without your consent, and got in
trouble for unintentionally giving it away when they're supposed to be getting
money in exchange.

------
DataSciGuy_401
This article misses a lot: 1) Facebook doesn't necessarily need the IDFA for
optimizing advertising -- SKAdNetwork leaves the door open for ads
optimization, just not at the user level. This article reveals how little the
author understands about digital advertising. 2) I don't believe this move by
Apple increases its "moat" in any meaningful way. Apple was almost certainly
motivated to deprecate the IDFA to protect consumer privacy -- the only way
this enforces Apple's moat is by substantively differentiating Apple's privacy
positioning from other hardware vendors. 3) If anything, deprecating the IDFA
harms Facebook moreso than it helps Apple to improve its ability to grow its
ads business. Apple has increased the scope of its Apple Search Ads business
but deprecating the IDFA doesn't help it there except to level the playing
field.

The author of this blog is at his best when he's going a mile wide and an inch
deep on high-concept subjects like self driving cars and Amazon taking over
retail. When he tries to go deep on specific topics, his lack of context often
leads him to specious and, frankly, silly conclusions.

------
silentsea90
Am I the only one who finds stratechery abstruse and hard to follow?

~~~
extra__tofu
He has a concept playbook [1]. His MO is to tie current events back into the
concept playbook. If you haven't been following along for a period of years,
it is easy to get lost.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/concepts/](https://stratechery.com/concepts/)

~~~
silentsea90
Thanks for sharing. Will read this up. Hope that helps lose some of my
disillusionment with Stratechery.

------
ec109685
The part about Facebook becoming WeChat at the end and thus bypassing the
restrictions Apple puts in place doesn’t ring true unless Apple is prevented
from restricting apps from building their own mini app stores for games:
[https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/apple-refuses-facebooks-
gamin...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/apple-refuses-facebooks-gaming-
platform-on-the-ios-app-store/amp/)

------
jonny_eh
It's so hard to read articles like this that are constantly quoting themselves
from 5 years ago.

~~~
riverlong
I don't see why -- he's pretty consistent, and it's interesting to see his
framing/narrative evolve.

~~~
jonny_eh
Consistent and evolving? Seems contradictory.

~~~
chillacy
I think the mental model is consistent, but the explanations and examples
evolve.

Obviously like all models, these approximate reality.

------
catchmeifyoucan
Is the biggest threat to Apple web?

I would think so. Of course, it might not be as we know it. However, a world
where content works across devices. APIs are standardized. Responsive to
multiple sizes. Low barrier to entry and access. It seems to me that Web is
the future. Note I say Web, and not browser. An integrated experience built on
the web - like Firefox OS might be the open and free platform we need to build
our own great experiences. Definitely something worth exploring.

~~~
jamil7
5 - 10 years ago I would have said the same and was sure the web would take
over. I've done a lot of work on both web and native mobile platforms and
these days I'm really less sure what the future looks like. If web apps do
take over they won't be web apps like we know them.

~~~
spideymans
If AR goes mainstream, I feel that way will be the nail in the coffin for any
future where web-based apps rule the world. I just don’t see how the web could
compete with native AR apps that operate “close to the metal”. The web still
can’t even provide a user experience even comparable to that of a standard
mobile app

Edit: Keep in mind that I’m not saying web apps will disappear. Just that they
might not have any more mainstream relevance than they have today

~~~
fossuser
This is also my bet:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y)

I have no idea how much of that video is real, but I think if the AR hardware
is possible it's likely the next computing platform UI after mobile device
displays.

Apple has been laying the platform groundwork for this for a while. If anyone
can pull it off, I suspect it would be them.

I don't think the web will be able to compete with that.

------
ericmay
Apple's strategy here with privacy is just so great. From a regulatory
standpoint, the EU can't be against it, and the US likes "anti-competitive
behavior" when it benefits customers. Facebook, Google, et al will have to
basically just live with Apple's choices here while suffering losses to their
businesses.

------
jmalicki
"make lemons out of lemonade." \- presumably the author meant "make lemons
into lemonade" \- I can't comment on the article to correct so am doing so
here.

------
kentf
Man, I would buy it but I need wheels on mine.

------
12xo
Apple is not in the user data business.

------
alexashka
It's sad to see somewhat bright minds, spending their life analyzing what
companies are doing to maximize profit.

Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these
companies make, is anti-human?

Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government _never_
waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get
hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic,
company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we
want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these
corporations.

That's what got everyone excited about Bitcoin for a hot second. That it
finally escapes the walled gardens all technology is living under. Instead of
fixing the walled gardens, these delusional fools think they can technology
their way out of corporations owning all key infrastructure. Jesus Christ.

Back to Apple.

Apple's entire business strategy is creating a walled garden because it
benefits _them_ , at the expense of everyone else. They give consumers crumbs
and call it 'the biggest release ever'.

Facebook's entire business strategy is being a surveillance network, which is
again, entirely reliant upon the government _never_ waking up to how creepy,
immoral and counter-productive it is on so many levels! There are enough
sociopaths in government who think oh good, a surveillance tool, we can make
use of it! Good luck having Facebook regulated when we live in a
corporatocracy folks!

Everything these big companies do is against the interests of human beings.
People are just too dumb to see it because if you drip-feed them 'new emojis'
and 'you can have a weather widget on your screen in 2020', they don't realize
they are getting fucked!

Sorry, carry on with your 'analysis' of what these sociopaths are up to and
pretending you have valuable insight, when the only sane insight to be had is
'these fuckers are out of control'.

~~~
WoodenChair
> Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move
> these companies make, is anti-human?

Hyperbole if I've ever read it. "every move"? Is investing in clean energy to
power all of their data centers anti-human as Apple has done? Is creating a
$100,000,000 education fund for under-represented app developers anti-human?
Is encrypting devices by default to protect privacy anti-human?

Now, as you can see I'm a bit of an Apple apologist and of course all of these
are good PR moves. But every corporation is by definition just a "group of
humans working together for profit." They will do good things for profit and
they will do bad things for profit. But a group of humans working together for
profit does not make every move they do "anti-human."

~~~
bonestormii_
There are certainly shades of gray, but if I can speak on behalf of the post
you are responding to, it seems their argument would be that it is a net
negative, and that the "Good PR humanity" is relatively shallow in the end.

Consider a $100,000,000 education fund _for app developers_. Certainly, app
development can be a gateway for some people, but once they develop apps,
where do they go if not a market place that Apple tightly controls? They are a
machine funding the creation of new cogs in this scenario.

If your overlords buy you an opulent dinner and provide you with a warm bed,
it doesn't mean you are free.

Freedom can be a vague and high-minded ideal that obviously needs to be
balanced with communal concerns, but I agree with the parent poster's overall
disgust. It feels that a company like Apple is so big that they are beyond any
societal control or regulation, and that is unacceptable. To hear their
minions rush to their defense as if their interests are somehow aligned
(they're not) is too much to handle sometimes. It's tiring.

~~~
WoodenChair
You are free from entities that don't have coercive control over you. If there
were no alternatives to the Apple ecosystem to get your work/social
life/business done, then you would be correct, we are not free. However, iOS
has <20% global marketshare[0].

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the App Store needs reform. Perhaps
there should be some regulation, that's above my pay grade. Your level of
disgust also to me feels like hyperbole.

0: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-
of-i...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/236031/market-share-of-ios-in-
global-smartphone-os-shipments/)

~~~
bonestormii_
Oh yes, the fabled <20% marketshare.

So where should I go from Apple if not into the waiting arms of
Google/Android? Is that better?

This isn't actually a conversation specifically about Apple if you recall. It
is a conversation about all such companies. And yes, your defense of Apple is
a little cringe-y. Why do you need to defend such a behemoth in a conversation
that is decidedly not dedicated to them? Per the parent comment--Why does HN
obsess over the actions of these companies that are categorically not for
anyone's benefit other than their own? That was the original question.

I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to you?

~~~
WoodenChair
> I honestly am asking you to reflect on it. Why do you care? What's it to
> you?

I care because I think there is a lot of misdirected energy and anger. In a
world with racial injustice, starvation, poverty, etc. you choose this topic
to be outraged about?

Well you have a right to your outrage. It’s good some people are outraged
because it keeps them on their toes. But at the same time I have a right to
say I think your dialogue and vitriol is out-of-line with the reality of the
situation, and hyperbolic at best. I am a counter-balance to your outrage and
that’s why I care.

~~~
bonestormii_
That's a well-reasoned response which I can appreciate. But honestly, read my
original post to which you replied. I said I shared the parent's disgust, but
I don't think I'm really reveling in outrage or speaking in such extreme terms
as you characterize.

I'll quote it...

> "There are certainly shades of gray, but if I can speak on behalf of the
> post you are responding to, it seems their argument would be that it is a
> net negative, and that the "Good PR humanity" is relatively shallow in the
> end. Consider a $100,000,000 education fund for app developers. Certainly,
> app development can be a gateway for some people, but once they develop
> apps, where do they go if not a market place that Apple tightly controls?
> They are a machine funding the creation of new cogs in this scenario.If your
> overlords buy you an opulent dinner and provide you with a warm bed, it
> doesn't mean you are free.Freedom can be a vague and high-minded ideal that
> obviously needs to be balanced with communal concerns, but I agree with the
> parent poster's overall disgust. It feels that a company like Apple is so
> big that they are beyond any societal control or regulation, and that is
> unacceptable. To hear their minions rush to their defense as if their
> interests are somehow aligned (they're not) is too much to handle sometimes.
> It's tiring."

Honestly, I use so much language to balance and mitigate my argument that it's
overly verbose.

> "There are shades of gray", "relatively shallow", "Certainly, app
> development can be a gateway for some people...", Freedom can be high-minded
> and needs to be balanced,".

Is it possible to make this point passively enough to satisfy your
requirements?

I'll also admit that the parent comment was a bit more extreme in it's tone.
And I'll admit there are many injustices in the world that go beyond tech. But
I think the underlying issue of acquiring and maintaining freedom of all kinds
is valid.

It's like saying, "With racial inequality being what it is, how can you spend
your time belaboring a point about campaign finance reform?" The answer is
simple: Because one form of freedom (in this case, governmental
representation) facilitates those adjacent freedoms (racial equality). The
importance of one doesn't invalidate the importance of the other.

I'm like, not that outraged. But I am like, casually disgusted by people who
seem to have allowed huge corporations to become so apart of themselves that
they lose the ability to see some obvious flaws.

I love my iPhone. Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very
disturbing trends in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism and yes,
our disgust. That it is treated as normal is part of the problem.

~~~
WoodenChair
> Apple is far from the worst of it. But there are some very disturbing trends
> in tech and the world that warrant our skepticism

Well we can agree on that. I am basically speaking against the reductive
argument “big corporation = bad.“

Apple does good things and Apple does bad things. On balance I think they do
more good than bad. We can have a debate about that. But we can’t debate if
the opposition just thinks big corporation = bad and no freedom. I chose Apple
because that is the company that started this discussion.

~~~
alexashka
> Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never
> waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get
> hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic,
> company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we
> want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these
> corporations.

Did you read this and the only conclusion you came away with, is big
corporation = bad?

Feel free to address what's actually been said, rather presenting a straw man.

\--

Let me clarify why big corporation = bad is a straw man because I suspect some
uneducated people may take your position seriously.

Big corporation = bad is in fact a truism, if the government that's supposed
to regulate corporations, is not doing their job. This is political science
101.

There are people far more educated and likely smarter than you and I who don't
consider USA a functioning democracy. Noam Chomsky considers USA a plutocracy.
Have you studied this matter and have rebuttals to numerous arguments that he
has presented to support his case?

~~~
WoodenChair
> Let me clarify why big corporation = bad is a straw man because I'm suspect
> some uneducated people may take your position seriously.

> There are people far more educated and likely smarter than you and I who
> don't consider USA a functioning democracy.

You may have some good points, but your level of vitriol and overall tone
really detracts from them. From the beginning where I pointed out your
hyperbole, to your most recent comment where you're effectively calling people
dumb and uneducated. If I need political science 101, then you need debate
101.

