Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by michaericalribo 1229 days ago
Seems like anti-tracking by Apple had a tangible impact on their business -- revenue down from last year.
6 comments

Yeah it’s huge. Lots of small niche businesses in our area lost their route for finding new customers (General advertising too expensive for their market demo.).
Yikes. Good lesson learned for them there I hope.
Yeah, great lesson that unless you are a billionaire who is ready to spend millions on superbowl ads, you have no business starting a new brand.
I’m not sure where that tangent came from but that certainly wouldn’t be the lesson learned.

The lesson learned is that these small “brands” that can only exist due to adware (fake demand) will eventually be culled by increases in prices or de-amplification of their products.

If your “brand” is one of these then you should be learning that you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace. Otherwise you are always at risk of being squeezed and potentially shut down.

Many (certainly not all) of these companies are parasites in that the rely on Meta to utilize algorithms to get you addicted and alter your purchasing habits. They don’t actually offer a good product at a good price, they offer copies of other products with different labels, or in some cases outright, disposable junk.

> you need to actually make a good product at a good price that doesn’t rely on advertising to succeed in your marketplace.

How do you create a product that doesn’t need advertising? People need to find out about it somehow.

Get creative I guess
Millions of small businesses started just fine before Facebook existed.
Niche and local Business didn't exists before facebook?
They did, but the explosion of very specific businesses is almost entirely down to Google and Facebook changing the cost structure for these businesses by providing global advertising reach for companies that are small but have products that can be purchased anywhere.
How about, unless you can pay someone to spy on prospective customers, you have no business starting a new brand?
What do you think the lesson is?
That they should go directly to Apple for targeted advertising when iAd 2.0 launches.
Except that Apple has no plans to compete with Facebook or Google.

It is just first-party advertising for App Store, News+ etc.

The sort of channels small businesses were never going to use anyway.

> just first-party advertising for App Store, News+

And stocks and weather. They also have a video platform they could expand into, and music oh don't forget books. Don't they also make a web browser?

Hmmm.... Yeah, i guess it's no big deal that it's only apple's first party apps.

The lesson: "Always pay tribute to the bigger company"
The lesson is you want to own the platform. Because then you get to brand the META/GOOG ad opt-in "tracking" and yours "enhanced digital experience".
The philosophical lesson is that certain businesses just can’t exist without targeted advertisements, and that society might decide that is a price they are willing to pay.
This feels like a cheap take. Consider any number of small businesses just starting out (a local juice bar, a fitness service, a mobile app, a game...). They have a good product that makes their customers happy. The problem is they only have 5 customers and that won't pay the bills. They could hope that they just get lucky and people just discover them (it happens but its rare), or they can go out and promote their product. So they invest in marketing and sometimes this means buying ads. Can this business exist without targeted ads? Of course it can, but the odds are stacked against them. Saying they can't exist is an exaggeration.
If it’s not targeted but only 1/10000 people would be interested, general advertising could be too expensive.
I'm sorry but personal privacy trumps someone's business.

People may hate apple but we're continuing down an advertising hellscape. I feel bad for the small business owners. But that's life.

I really don't understand this. Like, Facebook and Google don't have teams sitting down examining each user to assess what ads they like.

They just shove vast amounts of data into towers of ML models and a prediction comes out. They use that prediction to rank ads.

In this scenario, how was your privacy violated?

This isn't a troll, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

For local businesses, direct mail, signage, and door to door is still totally an option.
Not if you cnc manufacture obscure custom bike mods or the like.
Let's see if Apple's own ad program will step into that void it created.
* Meta runs an ad platform for their channels e.g. Instagram, Facebook.

* Apple runs an ad platform for their channels e.g. News+, App Store.

Each platform is tuned for the requirements, datasets etc unique to their own channels and you can't just drop one platform in another company.

Funny how that works. How is Apple's ad platform doing these days? Does anyone know?
Weird, isn't it. Apparently it's growing significantly (it'll be interesting to see what they say on their earnings calls).
Revenue increased (very slightly) on a constant currency basis
This is why I don’t understand people who are criticizing the pivot. Why focus on revenue that won’t be there if you don’t have your own dedicated hardware platform?

Yes, XR as a whole has a long way to go still, but it’s obvious that it’s the future

Cost per ad down 22% this quarter. Hard to say how much is the apple change versus other headwinds, but it definitely seems significant.
Sounds like it works then! Glad I always press "Ask App Not to Track"
objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt ones, no? It's not like the button says "Don't show me ads."
The main effect of that button is blocking the measurement of whether your ad click turned into a purchase, which is important because pricing ads based on conversions is more efficient than charging for impressions or clicks.

“Relevant” ads are sort of a red herring. Ad personalization matters, but commercially it’s less important than conversion measurement. Notably, Apple asks for permission before showing personalized ads, but never asks for permission to track conversions (while blocking competitors from tracking conversions by default).

Less targeted ads are less likely to psychologically manipulate me in to spending money. I'd like an option to only show me ads I have no chance of spending money for.
Less relevant are better if you do not like ads. It is bit easier to filter them out of the mind.
I hate ads. Used AdBlocker since ~2005 when I was in middle school and first got internet. If I'm going to see ads, they better be relevant.
Exactly - they are way easier to ignore!

It speaks to how good targeted adtech is. When I don't give them unlimited access to my metadata, the ad quality plummets. They really can give you "good" ads if you let them. But now they have to waste money on untargeted ads for me lmao.

> objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt ones, no?

business might choose to not show ads at all vs showing irrlevent ads. Surely there is a downside and risk to showing ads, a risk that cannot be taken willy nilly.