Facebook Warns Advertisers on Apple Privacy Changes (axios.com) 63
Facebook is warning advertisers that they can expect weaker ad performance from iPhone users once iOS 14 comes out next month and is telling them to create second advertiser accounts to contain the disruption. From a report: Many of Facebook's advertising partners rely on Apple's "Identifier for Advertisers" (IDFA) user tracking feature to, for instance, target would-be users by interest and see if they actually clicked on a mobile ad directing them to install a particular app. Changes to IDFA coming with iOS 14 will have a big impact on the marketing strategies for many businesses, and on Facebook's bottom line. In a blog post Wednesday, Facebook says it expects Apple's IDFA changes "will disproportionately affect [Facebook's] Audience Network of advertisers given its heavy dependence on app advertising." Reporter Sam Biddle comments: "What do you think you're saying about your company when things that protect an individual harm your business so drastically that you need to issue a warning?"
Boo hoo advertisers (Score:5, Interesting)
That alone may compel me to go back to an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that you can do that on a rooted Android device too, you can even block ads completely.
There are even free Smartphones OSes that don't have an advertiser ID at all.
Going back to iPhone for that alone is an expensive decision.
Re:Boo hoo advertisers (Score:5, Informative)
Can just use Blokada https://blokada.org/ [blokada.org]
works on android and iphone, and root its not needed
Re: (Score:2)
Now you tell me. I just bought AdGuard last month.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't used Blockada but I use DNS66 https://f-droid.org/en/package... [f-droid.org] which seemingly has a similar funktion. Afaik none of the programs removes the advertiser id but uses the vpn api to block ads with user configurable blocklists at the dns level.
Re: (Score:1)
The average person isn’t going to root their phone, though. Most phones sold in the USA have locked bootloaders, so it’s often not even an option.
So yeah, you don’t have to buy an iPhone to tell advertisers and Google to GTFO, but for most folks, it is the easiest solution.
Re: Boo hoo advertisers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually the crux of the issue - Google doesn't offer a "premium" Android experience even if you're willing to pay for it. You either accept using an OS that was designed to monetize your every interaction with it, hack it, or buy an iPhone. Seems like there should at least be the option to tell Google "Shut up and take my money if you'll leave me alone!"
Re: (Score:3)
You know that you can do that on a rooted Android device too, you can even block ads completely.
That's right folks, if you jailbreak Android, a Google-owned-and-maintained OS you can block ads and you and your privacy will live happily ever after. Heh.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's too many for me to list here. You just have to work around the SafetyNet issues, and Magisk does work if you have the right modules loaded. I'm running Android 10 on a OnePlus 7 Pro which is rooted and has working Google Pay.
Yes, Google fucked over rooters back in March, but a few months have passed since then. See: MagiskHide Props Config
Re: (Score:2)
This may compel me to install the Facebook app over using the web version. I'm sure they're doing some sort of fingerprinting despite Safari's protections, and now I'm wondering if Apple's tighter control over the data flow through the app may actually make it a better experience for me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And implicitly warns Android users... (Score:2, Insightful)
That we have no privacy at all.
Come on Google.... I'd sooner walk accross broken glass than buy into Apple's locked down ecosystem...
But damn... I hate how wide open Android phones are to privacy violations. I know Google already has my data, but I can more or less trust them. But all the other apps on my phone.. and games etc that require huge permissions which are not granular. It's just a bit much.
I think Google needs a new CEO, one that knows how to dream and cares about their users.
Re: (Score:1)
iOS is heaven, where you are safe but can not do anything you want.
Android is hell, where you can do whatever the fuck you want but others can too.
Google abuses, comments to another story. (Score:2)
Some Google abuses [slashdot.org].
Re:And implicitly warns Android users... (Score:4, Insightful)
Android is free. Google spent a bunch of money creating it so they can track users. They're not about to crack down on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is free. Google spent a bunch of money creating it so they can track users. They're not about to crack down on that.
They also built Chrome and are (firmly) planning to retire third party cookies, just like Apple did 3 years ago. So who knows, really ?
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, yeah, Google decided to do it years after everyone else did. Maybe. They haven't actually done anything yet.
Re: (Score:3)
I know Google already has my data, but I can more or less trust them.
Umm... why? Did you consider the possibility that ten years from now they may or may not have different management, but they WILL still have your data?
Re: (Score:2)
I know Google already has my data, but I can more or less trust them.
Oh boy...
Re: And implicitly warns Android users... (Score:3)
"Come on Google.... I'd sooner walk accross broken glass than buy into Apple's locked down ecosystem..."
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with a so-called locked down ecosystem? It's easy to move your data to another ecosystem if you so desire. I like Apple's ecosystem because it works very well and Apple protects my data a lot better than Google or Huawei or MS does.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does care about their users who happen to be advertisers. You are the product.
Facebook warns... (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's IDFA changes will have a big impact on Facebook's bottom line...
Couldn't have picked a better target if they tried...
People still fall for clicking on ads? (Score:3)
Re:People still fall for clicking on ads? (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely. Every time I see an ad for a bikini, I click on it. Now *all* I see are ads for bikinis. If I have to see ads, they might as well be for something I want to look at.
What's that? I don't have that last sentence correct? Oh, I'm pretty sure I do.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
According to your facebook profile, all you click on is dick pics.
Re: (Score:1)
I get nothing but ads for other apps inside apps (Appception? We need to go deeper!), and occasionally ads for shit I’ve already bought on Amazon slip through my Adblock filter.
Oh right, we’re taking about Facebook - I get mostly political and drug ads. Make of that what you will, I think their targeting algorithm on iOS is already broken.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably don't click on ads, right?
I used to get a random bag, mostly based on things I'd searched for. Then I thought I'd experiment and started clicking on particular ads. Suddenly almost all the ads were just that one thing.
Years ago I had a cousin who was taking an intro psych course. They were given a bit of software that simulated training a rat. You could give it a reward when it exhibited the behaviour you wanted. The rat basically just wandered around doing random rat things, but you could pick
Re: (Score:1)
Re:facebook is dying. (Score:4, Informative)
Apple offers a perfectly good phone for $400. That's probably a bit more than an equivalent Android phone, but it's worth it to pay a bit for software that's not ad supported.
Re: (Score:3)
The room at the low end was only ever going to be temporary.
Apple has build up such a big lead it doesn't need to let it's competitors pick up the crumbs any more.
Re: (Score:1)
It’s only $400 if you have no idea which carrier you plan to use it on. Most US carriers have it for a substantial discount with a service plan, and unless you plan to use it as an iPod - you’re going to need service anyway.
Of course, the flipside is that the bargain basement-variety Android phones that are already two major releases behind and will never see an update, are typically FREE with service.
Re: (Score:2)
That ploy still works hey?
Those carriers aren't giving you a phone (or any part thereof). You're paying for it, now or later.
Way back when they first started "giving away" phones I heard an ad on the radio for a free phone. I didn't need a cell phone, but I thought it would be interesting to take one apart. Yeah, turns out they weren't free.
Re: (Score:1)
We're down to 3 major carriers now, so it's wishful thinking to imagine the service plan will be any cheaper if you buy a phone outright. Both Metro and Cricket will happily sell you the service at the same cost regardless of whether you take them up on their offer for a discounted/free phone.
There's still non-carrier-owned MVNOs, but usually those come attached with limitations or gotchas. Mint, for example, has you pay upfront for multiple months of service and doesn't have any unlimited data plans. Ti
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American, so that's all pretty irrelevant to me. I certainly pay less monthly because I own my phone outright.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And I get 3 GB of data and unlimited calling for 10 €. So having a mobile phone is now much cheaper than a fixed one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Perfectly good" in this case to be read to mean "more powerful than even most flagship Android phones".
Yaz
Online advertising might not have value anyway (Score:2)
This article is good food for thought: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-here-its-called-online-advertising
Re: (Score:2)
The article is unsatisfying ... it pretends you can measure if an add campaign doesn't work with an add stop, but that's far too easy an answer. Probably an answer more concocted by the journalist than the scientists.
All the add stops tell you is that the add campaigns don't work in the way the marketers generally sell it to management. They might shovel bullshit, but ... it can't show
if an add stops shows only 1/1000 clicks in an add campaign are from a customer who wouldn't have gone to your store any way
Re: (Score:2)
For the last few years, the only "ads" that have been working with me is YouTubers who receive and test the products of companies. If the products pass the tests I think they should pass, if the price is right and if it is something I need, I'll buy it.
Other than that, don't try to shove your crap in my face, it's only going to make me put your company and products on my shit list of things never to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
It has enough processing power to get you to the moon and back!
Re: (Score:2)
What? I replied to Re: facebook is dying, and my comment ends up here?
What good for Zuck is bad for the gander (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook has to make money somehow. You think people would pay a subscription fee to post pictures of their children/pets/meals, and argue politics with their relatives?
Re: (Score:3)
Why, exactly? Without money, Facebook would disappear and the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not too expensive, yes. I'd also gladly pay for a Whatsapp-like service that is as prevalent as Whatsapp but not owned by FB.
And That's A Good Thing! (Score:3)
Seriously, how many of you have asked for 'targeted ads', let alone for the massive surveillance network that underlies them?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I find funny about this whole spying/targeting crap...
All that money, all that technology, all going to waste because they're trying to fucking guess what might interest everyone of us. It would be much simpler and better targeted if there was a single common website where we could sign up and tell them ourselves what the fuck it is we're interested in.
Every damn week I have to visit Google's ads choice (whatever it's called) to weed out things they added by themselves because I happened to view
Re: (Score:2)
It's bizarre to see the stuff that Facebook comes up with in its ad preferences. In some cases, I can reason who to blame; I'll see something there and know which friend has that interest. Plus, for a long time, FB thought I lived near Fargo ND (no clue how they got that 1500 miles wrong....) But to blindly assert that I have to share All the interests of All my friends presumes I have a very narrow set of friends. I'm fortunate that I have a fair number of friends across the political spectrum, from m
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I find funny about this whole spying/targeting crap...
All that money, all that technology, all going to waste because they're trying to fucking guess what might interest everyone of us. It would be much simpler and better targeted if there was a single common website where we could sign up and tell them ourselves what the fuck it is we're interested in.
There is. It's called Amazon
Re: (Score:2)
And yet even there they get things wrong, based on things I only viewed. Not added to any wish list, not added to my cart and certainly not purchased.
You're saying you're doing your fiduciary duty. (Score:2)
Reporter Sam Biddle comments: "What do you think you're saying about your company when things that protect an individual harm your [customers' !!!] business so drastically that you need to issue a warning?"
You're saying that you've met your fiduciary duty to warn your customers that their revenue may be about to take a hit.
We have long known that (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook members are the 'product' of Facebook and the advertisers are their true customers.
It is difficult to overstate the danger posed by a company as powerful as Facebook which uses a business model, the side effects of which include providing a vehicle for efficient radicalization (e.g. QAnon), and spreading misinformation on a platform which serves as the primary news source for millions.
These 'side effects' flow directly from the notion--central to their economic theory--that increasing controversy leads to increased engagement which leads to increased clicks and increased ad revenue. The folks that are criticizing Mark Zuckerberg need to understand: you really can't just ask a for-profit corporation to sabotage its central profit-driving engine. Zuckerberg, as CEO, quite literally has a fiduciary duty to maintain profits. Even if he had a change of heart, the Board of Directors would have a fiduciary duty to replace Zuckerberg as CEO.
Let's be clear: this is not a failure of Facebook. Facebooks are inevitable in a capitalist system. Just as companies the late 19th century used children for labor, these institutions become beyond the control of any one individual and will inevitably align themselves with maximizing profit. That's how capitalism works. Now, I am a capitalist. I think it's the best economic system humanity has ever invented. But it's not the role of a firm to protect society. That's the purpose of government. It was the government that stepped in and created child labor laws. It is a failure of government now to not reign in Facebook.
Maybe this levels the field for indies? (Score:2)
of course! (Score:1)