Author Topic: FB - Facebook  (Read 310257 times)

longinvestor

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
  • Never interrupt compounding unnecessarily -Munger
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1070 on: August 29, 2020, 06:38:52 AM »
Is then the next step for AAPL to prevent targeting by FB, Instagram et al?


johnny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1071 on: August 29, 2020, 04:09:09 PM »
No. There’s no way to do/enforce that with anything that could be remotely described/defended as a “general rule” or principle—it would be such a direct assault on how Facebook operates the business that it’s not worth seriously considering.

Apple already gives Facebook a much wider-than-normal berth to do what Facebook wants, even when the rules of the App Store are essentially not being followed. This is because, as I mentioned before, Facebook is the sort of product that, if they were to announce they were moving off the platform in two years, could absolutely decimate Apple’s financials and stock price. The asymmetry there is significant—Apple can’t really do the same to Facebook, and in any case, Facebook’s CEO is a lot more entrenched and secure in his position than Apple’s. Everybody is singing Tim’s praises now, but that’s solely because of the stock price performance. If he loses that, he is naked.

longinvestor

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
  • Never interrupt compounding unnecessarily -Munger
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1072 on: August 29, 2020, 06:15:11 PM »
I’ll be singing Apple’s praises the day this iOS 14 with the opt-in option is released! Won’t shed a tear for the publishing network.

What’ll be interesting to see is just how many choose to opt out. If it’s “virtually all”, that’ll be a widely watched movie trailer.

This is not about Apple versus FB. It’s about consumers privacy and a reset. FB surely hates the sunshine right now!

Jurgis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5602
    • Porfolio
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1073 on: August 29, 2020, 07:38:17 PM »
OT

I don't buy Apple devices, but I saw a friend with iPad with screen full of ads in Safari.
So I'm gonna be quite skeptical about Apple's fight for privacy.
"Human civilization? It might be a good idea." - Not Gandhi
"Before you can be rich, you must be poor." - Nef Anyo
"Money is an illusion" - Not Karl Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"American History X", "Milk", "The Insider", "Dirty Money", "LBJ"

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1074 on: August 29, 2020, 07:45:35 PM »
OT

I don't buy Apple devices, but I saw a friend with iPad with screen full of ads in Safari.
So I'm gonna be quite skeptical about Apple's fight for privacy.

Exactly, it seems more like Apple is just trying to gatekeeper data at the OS level. What’s stopping them from adding some clause into the user agreement allowing them to sell this data or advertising channel out to other companies like FB?
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | | VZ | INTC | RTX | MSGS | TPL | USB | PNC | BAC | PCYO | GRBK | PLNT | ESPO | HACK

manuelbean

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1075 on: August 30, 2020, 11:40:12 AM »
Actually, killing these sort of networks, and this larger "anti-cookie" movement just make it that much harder for independent publishers/developers/advertisers to cope. Both Google and Facebook have done studies on the effects of this sort of crippling, and it basically means something like 50-60% revenue losses for "out of network" publishers.

So what does that mean in the long-term? Well, it means the monetization potential for content will be much higher in a distribution context where those identity revenue boosts can be obtained. In other words, content delivered within the Facebook app itself.

It's an immediate hit, of course, to Facebook's revenue. But it's one of those types of things that does survivable harm to the Big Players and is possibly an extinction level event for all the losers who have been trying to make a somewhat arm's length model work.

Hi Johnny, culd you please rephrase your post? I'm finding it hard to understand. Maybe because I'm not a nativ speaker. what do you mean by "t means the monetization potential for content will be much higher in a distribution context where those identity revenue boosts can be obtained. In other words, content delivered within the Facebook app itself." and "it's one of those types of things that does survivable harm to the Big Players and is possibly an extinction level event for all the losers who have been trying to make a somewhat arm's length model work.". thank you

henrysalt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1076 on: September 17, 2020, 09:47:18 AM »
FB looking more interesting at these prices. With the focus being more towards privacy wouldn't legislation actually help FB? Who's going to be able to start another social media company? Their MOAT is looking more and more insurmountable.

plato1976

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1077 on: September 17, 2020, 10:45:41 AM »
Isn't TikTok a great threat if it will continue to be operational in the U.S. and most other regions?

FB looking more interesting at these prices. With the focus being more towards privacy wouldn't legislation actually help FB? Who's going to be able to start another social media company? Their MOAT is looking more and more insurmountable.

johnny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1078 on: September 17, 2020, 03:35:23 PM »
Actually, killing these sort of networks, and this larger "anti-cookie" movement just make it that much harder for independent publishers/developers/advertisers to cope. Both Google and Facebook have done studies on the effects of this sort of crippling, and it basically means something like 50-60% revenue losses for "out of network" publishers.

So what does that mean in the long-term? Well, it means the monetization potential for content will be much higher in a distribution context where those identity revenue boosts can be obtained. In other words, content delivered within the Facebook app itself.

It's an immediate hit, of course, to Facebook's revenue. But it's one of those types of things that does survivable harm to the Big Players and is possibly an extinction level event for all the losers who have been trying to make a somewhat arm's length model work.

Hi Johnny, culd you please rephrase your post? I'm finding it hard to understand. Maybe because I'm not a nativ speaker. what do you mean by "t means the monetization potential for content will be much higher in a distribution context where those identity revenue boosts can be obtained. In other words, content delivered within the Facebook app itself." and "it's one of those types of things that does survivable harm to the Big Players and is possibly an extinction level event for all the losers who have been trying to make a somewhat arm's length model work.". thank you

The basic finding in both Facebook and Google's research on this topic is this: if the ad vendor "knows" who you are, they can generate over twice the amount of ad revenue with the same number of impressions/clicks/whatever.

It's this basic reality that makes the "tracking" technology worth pursuing--not just for Facebook, but for anybody who owns content that they're attempting to monetize through ads. Being able to add some code to your own website that makes it so that your visitors can be served the Identity Enhanced© ads makes your business much more valuable.

If platform vendors (or governments) make this sort of thing impossible/illegal/impractical, it just means that the only way for your content to get the highest-revenue advertising would be for that content to be served in a context where the Facebook Identity of your users is ascertained through some other means.

This would mean either integrating an explicit "Log in with Facebook" type function to your own app/website, or Facebook actually making itself available as the primary channel for your content within their own app (since both of these situations mean the Facebook Account of the user is known, and therefore the ads can be more sharply tailored.

That's the long-run outcome here--this sort of policy optimization doesn't change the fact that Facebook has the ability to serve vastly more profitable ads, it just limits the avenues content-creators have available to try to get a share of those marginal profits--Facebook (and Google) are still in the driver's seat here, still have the secret sauce that generates the cash, and it'll just require even more deep integration into their operations to access some of it. Not a problem for the durability Zuck's empire, I imagine.

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: FB - Facebook
« Reply #1079 on: September 17, 2020, 04:04:22 PM »
Isn't TikTok a great threat if it will continue to be operational in the U.S. and most other regions?

FB looking more interesting at these prices. With the focus being more towards privacy wouldn't legislation actually help FB? Who's going to be able to start another social media company? Their MOAT is looking more and more insurmountable.

Furthermore, it demonstrates that a competitor can come out of nowhere and take serious mindshare and perhaps market share. Unlike in the past, Facebook can’t buy these competitors any more.

It remains to be seen how much of a competitors TikTok remains without having the secret sauce of the AI algo developed in China. Perhaps, they can come up with a good replacement algo, perhaps not.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.