Apple’s thumbs down to Facebook
Nobody wants a giant multinational monitoring where everyone shops, who they speak to, or where they get their news from. That’s why Susan Edmunds is on Team Apple.
Apple believes that privacy is a fundamental human right. It proved that when it refused the FBI’s request to provide a crack for the suspect in the 2015 San Bernardino shooting. Taking on the FBI, and wining, was one thing. Now it’s got a new target. Facebook.
Sort of.
Apple isn’t specifically trying to hurt Mark Zuckerberg’s business. But it’s almost certain that Facebook – and lots of other businesses – will be an indirect casualty of Apple’s decision to give its customers more control over their digital privacy.
For those who haven’t been following the news closely, here’s a quick recap. Apple is set to add new privacy features to its upcoming iOS 14 update. Specifically, a new App Tracking Transparency feature that will let iOS users grant or deny apps permission to track their activity across other apps and websites.
Surveys suggest it could be a bloodbath for companies that rely on tracking to sell personalised adverts, with some data suggesting up to 85 per cent of users would select ‘‘Ask App Not to Track’’ in their favourite app, if they were given the choice.
Clearly, this sort of uptake will hinder the effectiveness of targeted advertising – aka the creepy ads that sometimes know what you’re about to buy even before you do.
Facebook hasn’t taken the news well at all, which isn’t really surprising because Facebook is the king of data collection and targeted advertising. It released a statement suggesting the move could see ad revenue drop as much as 40 per cent.
Facebook also posted a new blog post detailing how the changes may significantly limit its users’ marketing efforts.
And it even launched a new section of its Facebook Business website, titled Small businesses deserve to be heard, that shares stories of the small business owners who might be directly affected, should Apple users choose not to let apps and websites sell their personal data to the highest bidder.
It didn’t stop there. Facebook also bought full-page ads in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times announcing: ‘‘We’re standing up to Apple for small businesses everywhere.’’
So who’s right? Facebook, or Apple?
I’m on team Apple. Here’swhy. Facebook’s argument centres on the claim that its data collection allows small businesses to target relevant users to the data it (Facebook) collects via its tracking.
It’s a compelling argument, too. Lots of businesses, big and small, use Facebook’s advanced targeted advertising to create sales. Let’s take one of New Zealand’s own internet success stories, Allbirds, as an example.
Allbirds probablywouldn’t want to pay for an ad that appeared on a vegan Facebook users’ feed (Allbirds shoes are made from wool). Tracking a user’s activity on countless apps and websites allows Facebook, and other companies, to collect enough data to profile users into categories as towhether they’re vegan (or not).
It sounds fair enough, doesn’t it? But here’s the thing. What if users
Some data suggests up to 85 per cent of users would select ‘‘Ask App Not to Track’’ in their favourite app, if they were given the choice.
don’t want their data to be tracked and sold to the highest bidder? This, forme, is the crux of the matter.
I certainly don’t feel comfortable having my digital activity tracked. And nor should you. Remove the word ‘‘digital’’, and it all becomes very Orwellian.
In the real (physical) world, no democratic society would welcome a giant multinational company monitoring where everybody shopped, who they spoke to, or where they get their news from. But, it’s OK in this scenario because it’s only ‘‘digital’’?
Apple is in the hardware business. It makes lots (and lots) of money by selling products that people want to use. Part of what makes Apple so successful is that it built an ecosystem that its customers trust.
And Apple giving its customers the choice ofmore digital privacy is logical and sensible.
The only questions I have are: why has it taken so long and why hasn’t this been done at a governmental level?