Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses Technology

Facebook Attacks Apple's iOS Changes in Full-Page Newspaper Ads (bloomberg.com) 114

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Facebook attacked Apple in a series of full-page newspaper ads Wednesday, claiming the iPhone maker's anticipated mobile software changes around data gathering and targeted advertising are bad for small businesses. From a report: The ads, slated to run in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, carry the headline "We're standing up to Apple for small businesses everywhere." They home in on upcoming changes to Apple's iOS 14 operating system that will curb the ability of companies like Facebook to gather data about mobile users and ply them with advertising. Facebook previously told investors that Apple's changes, scheduled to go live early next year, will lead to significant headwinds because most of its advertisers are small businesses. Apple has pushed back, accusing Facebook in November of showing a "disregard for user privacy." "While limiting how personalized ads can be used does impact larger companies like us, these changes will be devastating to small businesses," Facebook claims. The social giant, citing its own data, says ads that disregard personalized targeting generate 60% fewer sales than ads that do target consumers. The newspaper ads are the latest in what has become a vicious and public battle between two of the world's most valuable companies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Attacks Apple's iOS Changes in Full-Page Newspaper Ads More

Facebook Attacks Apple's iOS Changes in Full-Page Newspaper Ads

Comments Filter:

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dog-Cow ( 21281 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:32AM (#60837434)

    Apple's job is to keep its own customers happy, not FB, nor FB's customers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      Commenting to undo incorrect moderation - sorry. Was going for +1 Insightful, Clarus...

      • And the moderation system fails again. I'm taking your [mccalli's] comment to mean you moderated it as "Interesting" or something, but changed your mind. And why shouldn't Slashdot allow for changing your mind? You earned that moderation point, didn't you? (And no, I obviously have no idea of how mod points are earned. I still get lots of them (all over the moderation space), but it's been many years since I had one to give.)

        Anyway, my instant reaction to this story was "Time to get some popcorn." I love to

        • I don't think the Zuck would have permitted this attack if he wasn't convinced his cancer is going to win

          Maybe. But also possible that he sees this as a big enough threat to Facebook's revenue model that he has to push back against it, hoping to gain some ground even if it doesn't result in an overall victory. Unlikely the company can turn enough quickly enough to maintain its revenue without leveraging all that personally identifying data.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shanen ( 462549 )

            I'm not seeing the threat to Facebook here. Seems to me to be a simple case of greed over the split of revenue related to the iPhone versions of Facebook's apps.

            But maybe I should be more worried about this massive update of Android apps? What is going on with that particular phone? My other Android seems to be in an near-normal state, with only two pending updates, while this one wants LOTS of 'em? Did a bunch of them before hanging to wait for the network? Is there a separate fight going on between the go

    • Apple's job is to keep its own customers happy, not FB, nor FB's customers.

      Yeah well it's gonna be funny as hell watching Too Big To Fail try and tell Too Big To Fail what to do...

      • I thought you wrote "Too Big To Try" and I was wondering what Google had to do with it.

        • I thought your wrote "Too Big To Fry" and I wondered just how big of a fish we were talking about.

          But yeah, Facebook can just fuck off. This "campaign" will make them an industry laughing stock.

    • I thought Apple's job was to make a massive amount of money by selling overpriced electronics and services. I don't think customer happiness means anything to them.
      • They aren't overpriced anymore. Their 1000 dollar M1 laptop outperforms 3000 dollar intel PC laptops in every possible metric. Their phones are cheaper than samsung and googles flagships. etc.

        • Their 1000 dollar M1 laptop outperforms 3000 dollar intel PC laptops in every possible metric.

          Except graphics. Even $500 Intel laptops can beat it on graphics.

        • Yeah, I saw that. Didn't see anything about gaming thou. That is what I use my computer the most for. Also the new M1 laptops are too small. I bet I could increase the battery life in my laptop by another hour or two if I had a smaller screen as well.
          The phones still cost too much. I got a new phone for $250 that I am happy with. (As much as I can be)
          • Your phone wonâ(TM)t game like a new iPhone will, and your laptop might get an hour in, but apples new laptops will happily do 2x a similarly priced Intel one with comparable performance would.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I thought Apple's job was to make a massive amount of money by selling overpriced electronics and services. I don't think customer happiness means anything to them.

        Obviously by someone who never made anything.

        If customer happiness wasn't a thing, it's incredibly hard to sell overpriced crap.

        If you're trying to polish a turd, you can sell only a few before people call it for what it is, a turd.

        Today, it's incredibly easy to find out what is crap, and what isn't. A crap movie even if it's well reviewed is kno

        • They need to do enough to not piss people off. They don't have to care about happiness.
          The ultimate goal is profit. Not customer happiness.

      • I thought Apple's job was to make a massive amount of money by selling overpriced electronics and services. I don't think customer happiness means anything to them

        You do realize how stupid you sound, right?

        Oh, I guess not...

    • Facebook is use to being the big boy on the playground, where all the other kids, play according to his set of rules.
      Apple is a bigger kid, who entered their playground who is making the rules. Where Facebook will need to play by them. Because Apple is just bigger, and doesn't need Facebook, nearly as much as Facebook needs Apple.

      I often see this type of behaviors after a company buyouts or merges with an other company. The guys at the smaller company, who were use to being the Big guys to get their way,

      • Facebook at one time considered making a phone. Itâ(TM)s too late for that, the ship has sailed. This is precisely the reason I will always use Apple. I donâ(TM)t trust Microsoft with ads and I sure as hell donâ(TM)t trust Google or anyone whoâ(TM)s modifying android. Amazon isnâ(TM)t privacy focused like Google, so the fire is out.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        “While limiting how personalized ads can be used does impact larger companies like us, these changes will be devastating to small businesses,” Facebook said.

        Ads that disregard personalized targeting generate 60% fewer sales than ads that do target consumers, Facebook added, citing its own data. Apple’s new feature at the heart of the issue -- App Tracking Transparency -- won’t forbid companies like Facebook from collecting targeting data, but will ask them to disclose it and seek user opt-in.

        So Facebook is the big defender of the little guy, eh? How about this... If nobody can target consumers, then the little guy doesn't have to worry about their 60% fewer sales. 60% fewer than what? Facebook ads that do microtarget? Great, eliminate that too and you go back to a level playing field. Advertising reverts to it's traditional sleazy modes of mass hypnosis, but loses the ability to stalk you. A plus in my book.

        • No Facebook is just mad because it wants to take the kids lunch money. But Apple is beating them to it. And Apple is big enough to takes Facebooks money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      The FTC, thats who.

      Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on 50% of the mobile market. Publishers basically are forced to play ball with Apple.

    • I can tell you that the majority of Apple costumers are Facebook customers as well... (it's a win-win game! #AppleSux #DeleteFacebook)

  • Then how did small business survive before FB? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:32AM (#60837438)
    The argument doesn't make sense. Small businesses were operating for decades before FB etc introduced super targeted data gathering and tracking.

    • Re:Then how did small business survive before FB? (Score:5, Funny)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:45AM (#60837510)

      Small businesses were operating for decades before FB etc introduced super targeted data gathering and tracking.

      No they weren't and there's nothing you can say to make me believe you. Everything started with the internet. Social media, is everything in business today. Even profit is unnecessary if you're popular. And you're a fucking zombie corporation if you manage to score one of those coveted Too Big To Fail monopoly cards. You never have to die or even declare bankruptcy.

      This is the new "religion" of business today, as decreed by those who control the future and wish to eradicate the past. And yeah, it does make the dot-bomb look fucking sane by comparison.

    • It makes less sense when Apple’s change still lets you collect all the data you want, but you just have to ask the user for permission. Users have been blissfully ignorant on how much data is being gathered - especially all the continuous paste buffer harvesting.

    • Before the internet, small business advertised in hyper-local mediums such as newspapers and radio. If I advertise in a local newspaper or radio station, I can be relatively assured that my dollars are at least reaching a local audience.

      Those mediums have both been severely disrupted by the internet and are no longer a very effective way to reach entire swaths of the populace.

      You need to understand that location targeting **is part of** personalization. If I only want to advertise on Facebook to people in m

      • That may be true (and to an extent is due to the disruption of local media). But how personal does your targeting need to be? Individual phones, addresses, zip codes? Targeting mail by zip codes has been a thing for a hundred years (if you count the predecessor zone numbers within cities). It sometimes produces amusing results in places with diverse populations, but it's nothing new. If all you need is to know somebody is in a particular city or region, you can get close with IP addresses (unless somebody's

        • Targeting by zip code is still personalization, and falls under all of these regimes including Apple as well as GDPR and CCPA.

          • Targeting by zip code has been a thing for as long as zip codes (and their precedessor postal zones) have existed. Before that, I'm sure, some advertisers targeted by town or post office. That's not personalizing, really, because it's based on such coarse demographics - and can be amusing when you get catalogs with really expensive stuff when you live in a poor neighborhood, or dollar store ads in the high-zoot neighborhood, because zip code.

            Personalizing by phone numbers, and real-time location, is a diffe

    • Nobody knows how to use email or SMS anymore these days...

  • I'm no fan of Apple, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:35AM (#60837444)

    I am fully agree with their privacy policies. They are apparently the ONLY company left on earth that doesn't want to be a data-mining company. And they seem to find the entire idea of advertisers collecting data about people to be evil, which it is.

    • Criticism (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @12:00PM (#60837578)

      I've noticed a bit of cognitive dissonance when people compare iOS and Android:

      "iPhones are overpriced garbage! Why would I pay so much for a phone!"

      "Android phones are awesome for the price, but why does Google need to hoover up all of my data?"

      It's because, with Android, your private data is subsidizing your phone.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        privacy is a luxury, if you cant afford it, feed the beast.

        apple products have the highest profit margins of every category they live in, by a substantial amount.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Altus ( 1034 )

          yes, and google has lower margins because it makes that money up on your data. Android is provided for free to phone manufacturers because google will make money off of your data otherwise those phone manufacturers would have to pay for an OS or write their own, driving up the cost of those phones.

          Things cost a certain amount and companies are going to make their profit somewhere. You decide where. If we made googles data collection illegal then the cost of phones would certainly rise across the board.

          • Actually, I love watching the giant corporate cancers punch each other in the face, but I don't think they really mean it. Apple has its monopoly positions, Facebook has different monopolies and so does the google. Mostly they are willing to accept that and the curious point of this story is that Facebook isn't right now. Still not clear to me why not. (Maybe it has something to do with the still unsettled battle over speech recognition? No established monopolist there, though I would say that the google is

            • I was sort of joking about taxing them to death. I just want to tax them to small. Too big to fail needs to be illegal and I think the tax system currently incentivizes cancerous growth. But "too big to fail" is what the most corrupt campaign donors want, and they can always find cheap politicians to bribe, leaving the government in the position of having to protect the biggest corporate cancers from bankruptcy no matter how much they've earned it. (Remember 2008? If so, you would appear to be the only one.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by shanen ( 462549 )

                I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but I don't think you understand how politics works these days. Or maybe I should ask you to clarify how much "inconvenience" is too much?

                Let me try to word it differently. By treating these companies as "too big to fail", the government is making a self-fulfilling prophesy. It makes them bigger and bigger and makes itself bigger and bigger. Then at some point it's going to fail anyway, and the entire house of fake cards will collapse.

                You should study the financial fias

      • Most the Android phone advertised are over priced garbage as well. You actually have to look for one that isn't.

        • Agreeing with this. Have a Galaxy S10+, still lose connectivity when transferring data from computer to phone (yes, I've tried different cables). Been a problem for years.

          And then there's a lack of a decent music app...I thought I'd skate by with Amazon Music, but lately that app is a turd (why yes, Bezos, I know that I've said no to Amazon Unlimited like a thousand times, but keep bugging me, I'm just about to come over to your side...also your search sucks (because I really want to search online music I d

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dbialac ( 320955 )

        It's because, with Android, your private data is subsidizing your phone.

        Based on the settlement that Google reached with the EU, it's up to $40 per phone. That's not a lot. Apple charges what they do because people are paying willing to pay the monthly cost.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by JBMcB ( 73720 )

          Based on the settlement that Google reached with the EU, it's up to $40 per phone. That's not a lot. Apple charges what they do because people are paying willing to pay the monthly cost.

          That's how much Google is subsidizing the phones, I'm assuming, based on some guesstimate on how much the free operating system is worth. That number doesn't include how the manufacturers are monetizing data harvesting, as they can do it, too.

      • It's because, with Android, your private data is subsidizing your phone.

        Not really, phones don't get sold without profit. Apple just makes more profit, because people are willing to pay more. Mind you, Samsung makes as much profit on their equally highly/overpriced flagship phones. The private data of unwitting Android users is paying for a bit of Android development. The bulk is paid for by advertising money of badly targeted ads, alongside paid apps play store margins.

    • Re:I'm no fan of Apple, but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @12:01PM (#60837580)

      Apple still collects some data that it uses for advertising [apple.com]. It also collects (anonymously) location data related to maps which it uses for improving those maps but could probably still be traced back to you. I found an article that gives you the proper comparison [zdnet.com].

      We shouldn't totally fetishise Apple. They are much much better than most, but still not as good as they could be. Law enforcement still regularly breaks into their phones. Google is much worse, however they started off lots better than they are now. They used to separate the data from each of their services. To a large degree it's the pressure from Facebook, which has always had a much more lax policy, that has forced Google into the situation of actually being evil here.

      In the end, there are smaller companies that are doing much better than any of the above. If you buy your hardware from system76 [system76.com] or purism [puri.sm] then, with a little effort, easy for most on Slashdot, you end up with a system which actually does properly respect your privacy, much more than even Apple.

    • Apple moves makes sense for a hardware and walled garden company

    • I am fully agree with their privacy policies. They are apparently the ONLY company left on earth that doesn't want to be a data-mining company. And they seem to find the entire idea of advertisers collecting data about people to be evil, which it is.

      So then why does Apple's operating systems not respect users privacy?

    • This is the same Apple where their operating system recently couldn't launch applications because Apple's tracking and telemetry servers went down and Mac OS couldn't phone home.

      This is more about Apple locking Facebook (and everyone else) out. If Apple is good at one thing, it's monetizing their user base.

  • Meet Kettle. Have y'all met before?

  • Anytime a large corporation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:36AM (#60837458)
    tells you something is "Bad for small business" run, don't walk, away from them.

    As for online advertising, it's useless for small businesses. It brings in really, really crappy leads. You get customers, but they're the worst sort. Cheap, don't want to pay for service or product, use lots of coupons and never show up without them, etc, etc.

    Online ads work for big companies pushing a brand into people minds. Small businesses just get shafted. Except for Jones Barbeque and Foot Massage. That guy knocked it out the park.

    • Re:Anytime a large corporation (Score:5, Informative)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:56AM (#60837554) Journal
      Small businesses doesn't necessarily mean local brick & mortar stores. For them, targeted ads usually means local ads, and we can do those just fine without extensive tracking. But small businesses also include small outfits selling a niche product nationwide. For them, targeted ads are the only affordable option. And from experience, these ads bring in good leads.

      With that said, advertisers and ad companies like Google and FB pretty much shat the bed they're sleeping in. It's all gone way too far, and I am glad that Apple are drawing the line.

    • Your analysis, sir, is spot on.

    • There are three thought stopping cliches that have been the standbys of the establishment for decades now (whether they are right wing or left wing is immaterial):

      1) terrorists
      2) child abusers/pornographers
      3) small businesses/Main Street USA

      So whenever they want to public to just automatically buy into any nonsense, they bring up one or more of those and boom, critical thought terminated.

  • Rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmitch33 ( 6254132 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:40AM (#60837484)
    Absolutely RUBBISH. FBook is upset that their spying and data collections are being limited. How many "small business" will be impacted by this? None. FBook and company only want to be able to load you up with products that make them more money than if you were to do some research and not click on their FAD ( Fake Ad) for a "great deal".

  • Fuck Facebook (Score:3)

    by ThurstonMoore ( 605470 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:43AM (#60837500)

    Thank you Apple.

  • Ironic they are advertising in a newspaper (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @11:50AM (#60837532)
    Dead medium for a dying social network.

    • Their audience with full page ads in the NYT, WSJ, and WaPo isn’t you and me, it’s 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 50% drop in mobile earnings that they’ve disclosed they expect from this change.

      They know that their audience for

  • Facebook: Don't make us send a telegram via Morse code to you about this matter! Apple: Seriously, who even looks at a paper newspaper anymore to see a full-page ad?

  • For the record ... (Score:3)

    by cpurdy ( 4838085 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @12:21PM (#60837672)
    For the record, fuck Facebook.

  • Streisand effect? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyrannosaur ( 2485772 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @12:24PM (#60837688)

    Facebook is bringing attention to the fact that Apple is implementing new, stronger user privacy protections? Somehow I don't think the net result will be what Facebook seems to expect it to be.

    • Facebook is bringing attention to the fact that Apple is implementing new, stronger user privacy protections? Somehow I don't think the net result will be what Facebook seems to expect it to be.

      Facebook is loudly bitching about a potential impact to revenue. The end result will probably be a few less iOS customers and a few more Android customers. That's about it.

      Facebook, is not Barbara Streisand. Not even close. And you assume way too much about privacy demand when it comes to a world driven by social media attention whores. Let's stop pretending people actually give a shit about privacy. If they did, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing the absolute clusterfuck online "privacy" has bec

    • Hope that Android implement this security changes soon too...

  • Think of the children.

  • It's hilarious (Score:3)

    by dan325 ( 1221648 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @01:17PM (#60837896)

    that Facebook thinks it has any standing to criticize another company right now. They are literally undermining our ability to continue as a democracy *and* compromising people's privacy.

    My head is spinning with incredulity.

  • Facebook wants a free lunch everywhere it can get it between Apple and net neutrality while controlling what it's users are allowed to see (contradicting the foundation of net neutrality, btw). 'Scuse me while I fire up my 3D printer to spit out very tiny violins.

  • If Facebook hates this ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @01:29PM (#60837978)
    then it's good for society.

  • If your small business depends on this data (Score:3)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @01:31PM (#60837988)

    we WANT it to die.

  • Really, Zuckerdroid? Is that really the best you can do?

    Pathetic.

    If only governments would regulate these tech giants well enough to make them scared enough to take out advertisements against said regulation, maybe us ordinary pleb users would actually win.

  • Lawsuits from all directions (Score:3)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @02:06PM (#60838128)
    Apple is getting pounded with lawsuits from all directions. I seriously hope Apple writes a few massive checks, hires the best lawyers in the world, and fights these like their business model depends on it.

    Facebook wants Apple to allow unrestricted user data harvesting.

    The news outlets and app developers don't like the 30% cut that Apple takes and would prefer that Apple slather their devices in ads in order to make money.

    In essence, the rest of the tech world is angry that Apple has a business model that's different than Android, which is fueled by ad-sales and data-selling. Too bad, I hope that Apple wins these lawsuits. I'm inside the Apple ecosystem, consciously and by choice. I understand the trade-offs. A big part of this choice is that I know Apple doesn't make their money off constantly flooding me with ads, and selling information about my brain, fingers, movement, and prostate status.

    If the forces of conformity manage to destroy what makes Apple different that Android, I'll probably just go back to Windows and a 250 dollar Android phone. Meh, life will go on. But some variety would have been lost.

    • ...If the forces of conformity manage to destroy what makes Apple different that Android, I'll probably just go back to Windows and a 250 dollar Android phone. Meh, life will go on. But some variety would have been lost.

      While I can certainly see your point here regarding Apple respecting privacy perhaps a little better than the rest, those "forces of conformity" you speak of also happen to include law enforcement.

      The real problem Apple faces when you sell actual privacy these days? Forget the citizens. Every government on the planet, fucking hates that.

      • From what I understand, governmental agencies of many countries can crack open most idevices pretty easily, if they set their minds to it. I get the feeling that most of this is being driven by the fight over $$$$. The rest of the ecosystem is starting to salivate over that sweet, sweet 30% cut that Apple gets, and they are hoping to use the courts to get some of it.

        Apple isn't a monopoly. Android is quite a bit larger. This is about data-sellers and ad-men hoping to grab a cut of Apples profits. Screw

  • Gotta ask granndpa what that is...

    • It's that thing used to collect dog shit here...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      I guess when push comes to shove, they know where the actual movers and shakers hang out. No sense posting this on Facebook. Those people have demonstrated their gullibility and are not opinion leaders.

  • Burn! #AppleSux #DeleteFacebook

  • Force Apple to open iOS to sideloading and break up Facebook.

  • Beware Facebook, even when bearing gifts...

  • What really demolishes the argument (Score:3)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2020 @05:44PM (#60838968) Journal

    What really demolishes FaceBook's argument? The fact that small businesses were doing just find before FaceBook even existed.

    Big companies always had the ability to saturate the whole country with huge campaigns. Small companies didn't. Things like Budweiser ads became part of the popular culture, but guess what? Craft brewers rose during this time, before FaceBook.

    Go away Zuck. Nobody really needs you.

  • ... bad for small businesses.

    Translation: We 'care' about you because admitting we're selfish and greedy creates zero sympathy.

    Normally I would say this is border-line narcissism but I've learnt a new word: Aristocratic. This is typical aristocratic behaviour.

    The USA calls itself a republic: No, they've just hidden the elitism/conservatism elsewhere.

  • Apple saving on advertising (Score:3)

    by fox171171 ( 1425329 ) on Thursday December 17, 2020 @12:53AM (#60839974)
    Apple should be saving money on advertising, since apparently Facebook is doing their advertising for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close