If there's any merit to these figures, this is pretty crazy. I'm tempted to side with apple b/c I generally think they're at least less bad than FB and I value any platform taking steps to further privacy.<p>But the fact that a company can do this to another company at the flick of a switch by changing the rules of the game on a whim is still kind of scary, even if I think it's for the better in this instance.
Ignoring the ethics of the adverting for now and looking at the <i>advertisers</i> using Facebook, particularly the many small business that use the platform. This $10B hit in revenue is directly down to a reduction in ad spend, which directly hits revenues.<p>Assuming an estimated ROAS of about 6-10x then this equates to advertisers seeing a <i>$60B to $100B reduction in sales</i> via Facebook. Many of these advertises will not be moving this budget elsewhere, they will just be seeing reduced sales.<p>So, I'm all for criticism of online advertising ethics, particularly targeted at Facebook. But please remember they are an important part of the larger online economy which supports business that employ people. Please remember the people at the bottom of the chain here who have (and will continue to) seen a material impact on their business, income or employment due to these (and the inevitable further) changes.
I'd love to now see Google follow suit for Android. They have air-cover now that Apple has done it.<p>And, if they don't, I hope Apple beats them up on how this is a unique feature of iPhone re: protecting your privacy - the value of which was just quantifiably proven by how much it impacted Facebook to block it.
The end of the article mentions but doesn't elaborate on how the beneficiaries are Google and Apple's surveillance advertising business which are booming.<p>Some commenters are speaking about a false dichotomy of Apple verses Google. Android open source platform does not contain Google. I don't use Google or Apple and do not recall seeing an overt advertisement in years.<p>Facebook makes no mention of the impact of deGoogled Android phones(GrapheneOS, LineageOS, CalyxOS,..) Linux, Ublock Origin, pfBlockerNG, Pi-hole, Adguard, or the other tools that block surveillance advertising probably because even mentioning them will create awareness that people can opt out of almost all surveillance advertising, including from Apple and Google.
I've commented on this earlier as well (and so have a lot of HN users) . The problem isn't ads (at least for me). It's the pervasive <i>surveillance</i> and tracking that FB et al use. Good riddance if another player changes the rules.
Facebook has to wake up. You're not a serious company anymore if you don't build your own phone, running on your own silicon.<p>If you want to control eyeballs, you have to control the device.
I dislike both companies but I hate FB more so this is good.<p>Does anyone know if FB provides a revenue and profit breakdown on a per app basis?<p>Like how much does IG, WhatsApp, FB, Messenger etc individually make?
If such simple changes have that big of an effect on you, you're in the wrong. I'd like Meta to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram, then shut down for good.
Can someone explain why the ad business isn't happy with SKAdNetwork, an anonymized replacement for IDFA tracking?<p>I'm just trying to understand, when marketing people come to me (as a mobile dev) and say "we need to enable ATT popup, we need the IDFA badly" what to tell them in response. The ATT popup is spooky to many users, I just can't quite understand whether e.g. my app really needs it or is it the advertisers trying to trick publishers to enable IDFA even though the latter don't benefit from it?
That's a pretty mind-boggling number.<p>And to rub more salt into the wound I'd bet almost every single Facebook employee is all-in on Apple hardware. So they are literally empowering the very company responsible for tanking their stock