[HN Gopher] Google's new popup will further weaken Facebook's ad...
___________________________________________________________________
Google's new popup will further weaken Facebook's advertisement
business
Author : devnerd239
Score : 147 points
Date : 2021-05-31 14:50 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thebigtech.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thebigtech.substack.com)
| cardosof wrote:
| While I'm sure personalization increases ad efficiency metrics to
| some degree, I'm curious to see how all this will actually "hurt"
| FB, either by making their ads worse in terms of CPA/CPC/etc or
| in advertisers pouring less money into FB and more money into
| other DSPs/inventories. As anything marketing, it's not that
| straightforward, really, and advertisers may very well keep
| running ads on FB despite all those changes.
| [deleted]
| ape4 wrote:
| Facebook still knows lots of stuff about your location. You have
| recently liked a business nearby. You're in a Facebook group
| about your area, etc
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or your contancts have done something that included you and you
| knew nothing of it. At least you liking something to action on
| your part. All of the other methods that Facebook uses to
| continue gathering data about you without your direct knowledge
| is the worst. It's this behavior that should be the nail in the
| coffin for Facebook.
| arcanus wrote:
| Corporate warfare in the internet age. Interesting to see how
| Apple and Google can materially impact FB.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I'm not sure this is effecting Facebook as much as they are
| making out.
|
| People are still using Facebook, posting pictures, tagging
| people they know, checking into locations, posting what they
| buy and so on.
|
| Still pently of information to track and sell to advertisers.
| HappySweeney wrote:
| Ultimately we will see the effect by how much adverstising
| costs on FB relative to Google.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| Whats iconic is Google themselves have been using bluetooth for
| years to track your location. This still doesnt limit Google
| themselves using it, just third party apps. hence why it wont
| affect their ad business.
|
| This is a win win for Google, slow down competition and give
| the illusion of privacy to users.
| Sunspark wrote:
| You can turn off wifi and bluetooth scanning beacons in your
| device's settings. It helps.
| grishka wrote:
| Google certainly won't copy Apple here because being able to
| track the hell out of you is very important for their own
| business model. Apple can afford that because they sell
| hardware and services but not data.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| The value of the location based tracking is overrated.
|
| Anyway, if you post an image to Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp,
| the EXIF data has your location, or it can be solved from the
| content of the image.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| What if iOS or Android start to scrub that data for you?
|
| Which I wish they did...
| thekyle wrote:
| On Samsung's version of Android there is an option to remove
| the location data before you share to an app.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/PVAaA2d.jpg
| KineticLensman wrote:
| On iOS 14 I have set the camera's access to Location Services
| as 'never'. If I inspect the EXIF on iPhone photos that I've
| moved to my PC the GPS fields are blank.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| Facebook can solve a location from the content of the image.
| Listen to yourself. Even _you_ can identify a geographic
| location from many images, easily.
|
| I don't know, it's kind of a stupid idea, give Facebook an
| image and yet the expectation is, they're not supposed to
| know or understand anything about it?
| yosito wrote:
| I've turned off location tagging on my Android camera. That
| setting exists.
| mrweasel wrote:
| With the exception of people who travel a lot, I really don't
| see why location, beyond what users enter into Facebook
| themself, would be particular useful.
|
| That seems to be the theme with Facebook, they collect a ton of
| information that isn't obviously useful. So what do Facebook
| know that the rest of us don't? Because the engineers at
| Facebook aren't stupid, they must have a reason for collecting
| all this stuff. Perhaps it's just in case they might find a use
| case some day?
| esrauch wrote:
| Id assume that people who are currently traveling are much
| more valuable targets: things like tour packages are
| something high margin and highly contextual.
|
| Like, even if you only leave your home town once every two
| years, it might be worth more to facebook on that special
| occasion than the rest of the time.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| > Facebook aren't stupid, they must have a reason for
| collecting all this stuff. Perhaps it's just in case they
| might find a use case some day?
|
| The most obvious use, I would think, is to train machine
| learning model. Not necessarily neural networks, it could be
| much simpler models. Even if you don't need the data now, it
| can be useful to store it for later use. Maybe at some point
| in the future a new model will be able to see patterns that
| are useful. I think they operate based on the principle that
| data is a valuable resource, even if not immediately useful.
| How much data they have about their users is one of their key
| advantages over smaller players.
|
| In general though, more data about you, such as locations you
| visit, people you're friends with, activities you do, gives
| them more understanding of what kind of person you are, which
| is undoubtedly useful when it comes to try and sell you
| stuff. For example, think about friends you know really well.
| Presumably, you have some idea of what kinds of things they
| would like to buy for themselves. That's because you have a
| good mental model of what kind of person they are and what
| they like, what they might be interested in.
|
| Facebook maybe has one big advantage over Google, which is
| that they are a social network. They can try to influence
| your tastes based on the idea that you are likely to want to
| try things that your friends are into. They can subtly or not
| so subtly show you things your friends are doing with the
| hope that you will want to try or buy those things too.
| rolph wrote:
| why recommend a location to buy a product on the other side
| of the city when you can recommend a location across the
| street or next door
| HappySweeney wrote:
| I'm just guessing, but they should be able to infer several
| things by where you go during the day, such as your
| socioeconomic status based on the specific stores you
| frequent, for instance.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I guess the guys who know the most what it's worth are Facebook
| and they seem to care about it
| cameronh90 wrote:
| I heard that Android strips the exif location data from images
| when opening them in other apps, but looking at the
| documentation, it might just be in the case that you use the
| camera intent.
|
| I am assuming the file browsing permission bypasses any exif
| stripping - which maybe is why so many apps ask for it it...
| motoboi wrote:
| So we basically are seeing that google was "right" from their
| point of view in securing a mobile OS.
|
| Facebook maybe thought this day would never arrive and could have
| avoided that by doing their own mobile OS too.
|
| Well, maybe they declared this battle as lost and focused on the
| next one: VR. Problem is that VR took too long to arrive and
| death on mobile can kill Facebook?
| bushbaba wrote:
| Question is does google still collect the location data. And
| are they acting monopolistic here.
|
| My understanding is that even the latest version of android
| phones home your location in real-time. Which google uses
| itself for ads.
| harikb wrote:
| > Which google uses itself for ads
|
| Do you have a source? Google providing a location-based
| service for Android OS functionality is different from using
| it for ads.
| motoboi wrote:
| Take a look at recently unsealed documents from court about
| google location.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I am extremely skeptical in anything Google states that
| they aren't using for ads and / or user tracking. There's
| plentiful of examples proving the opposites and it is
| littered with "whoopsies". Remember the time they
| "accidentally" equipped their google street view cars with
| Wi-Fi scanners? It's old but still is true. That happens to
| me too every now and then. Or how they see themselves above
| the law with their Google Analytics opt-out plugin that is
| the complete opposite of what the GDPR states.
| dazc wrote:
| '...and death on mobile can kill Facebook?'
|
| Seriously wondering what impact this would have on the world
| other than a positive one?
| motoboi wrote:
| Probably not positive for Facebook stock owner's world.
|
| But I personally agree with you. My world will be better
| without it.
| kaybe wrote:
| I'm not sure, going to a more monopolistic world still seems
| bad to me, even if I like and trust this particular player a
| little bit less than the others.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Facebook is a monopoly, in most parts of the world. I know
| some would claim that Twitter is a competitor, but I don't
| really see the two having much in common, other than being
| social networks.
| baby wrote:
| I remember that there was a facebook phone, don't know what
| happened to it
| cardosof wrote:
| I guess that's what happens when you start late. Everyone else
| has their moats in place and you either 1) start from scratch
| at hardware level and develop a new phone from the ground up -
| electronics, OS, utility apps, dev tools or 2) focus on
| creating the next platform.
|
| Both are really high cost, complex, multi-year bets with lots
| of moving parts and no real hint of consumer adoption/market
| size until way after the ship's sailed.
|
| In my opinion, as a consumer, they're really on the path to
| make VR happen and their wrist-based tech and Oculus is very
| promising. What VR still needs, after all those years since
| it's been accessible to the general public, is a killer app,
| and one can only guess why no one has developed it yet.
| Duralias wrote:
| What would the "killer app" even be, you make it sound like
| it should be very obvious what it would be, but even knowing
| exactly what it should be, a killer app is still just luck
| and the right timing.
|
| The only app that I could imagine bringing mainstream appeal
| would be a Ready Player One Oasis kind of thing (I've only
| seen movie, not read the book), but seeing and testing all
| the social vr apps we have now, the Oasis is the most fantasy
| thing about that universe.
| cardosof wrote:
| I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, my point is exactly the
| opposite: since we know commercial VR for quite some time
| and there's no killer app yet, maybe there won't be a
| killer app at all unless technology improves so much it'll
| look like magic (like Ready Player One).
| indymike wrote:
| I can live without VR. I'm at a disadvantage without my mobile.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Facebook realized that no amount of money was going to will a
| third mobile OS into existence. cf. Microsoft.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| They didn't even find enough users for their Android
| "launcher" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Home
|
| A Facebook phone probably would give even more critical
| reception ...
| Sunspark wrote:
| Years ago a Facebook phone was planned. Its differentiating
| feature as I recall it was the "like" button.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Nowadays it would be "share on insta"
|
| But it's still interesting how they initially were late
| on mobile, with all the FBML embedded things (Zynga
| games) not working on mobile and things moving from their
| "platform" to mobile apps, but I assume for now with
| WhatsApp, Insta and messenger they "own" a notable amount
| of mobile screen time. Missing the underlying platform of
| course gives them "neutrality" that they can be on all
| OSes (till the privacy enforcements make it harder for
| them) instead of having to differentiate the Facebook
| phone from iPhone.
| toast0 wrote:
| Microsoft actually had a winning formula. Make cheap phones
| that work alright. And they were getting market share with
| later wp7 and throughout wp8.
|
| Between wp8 and WM10, they merged the phone team with the
| regular OS team, and eliminated (or at least gutted) their QA
| teams, and they decided to target the high end market _only_.
| There were no low spec WM10 phones, and there hadn 't been
| many high end buyers anyway, so who was going to buy WM10?
| And upgrading to WM10, when available, was often a bad
| experience.
|
| Also, mobile Edge had a nicer renderer than mobile IE, but it
| was sooooo much worse UX (laggy, slow, navigation buttons
| went into some sort of button press queue to be resolved
| seconds later). When you've driven away app developers,
| ruining the browser isn't a good choice.
|
| So, it's not that you needed more money (although I'm sure it
| would help), you also need to not abandon the market niche
| you found in search of an unobtainable, but potentially more
| lucrative one, and you need to make releases be consistently
| better each time. (It would also help if one of the big
| players stumbled, but you can't count on that).
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| IIRC Microsoft didn't eliminate their QA teams until after
| Windows Phone 10 was mostly dead.
|
| Regarding apps, bear in mind that Google went out of their
| way to prevent Youtube and their other services from
| working on Windows Phone, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/
| technology/appsblog/2013/aug/15/... . There's nothing that
| Microsoft could've done to overcome that much of a
| disadvantage and anti-competitive scrutiny of Google hadn't
| gotten underway yet.
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Yeah, Microsoft had an exceptional OS that was competitive
| to iOS (and much better than Android) on its foundations
| and APIs. It had everything needed to succeed and get a big
| chunk of the market, except for a clear leadership.
|
| Now, here we are, with extremely powerful Android phones
| that do little because they don't have a solid software
| foundation with which to build good software, an iOS has
| all the high-quality software.
| nirvdrum wrote:
| We just retired a Lumia 950 XL in my household. It's an
| all around better experience than Android in my
| experience, but there wasn't much point in continuing to
| push the boulder up the hill. And I liked the ability to
| pop in a micro SD card, which Apple doesn't support.
|
| From my vantage point, Google did everything it could to
| kill off Windows phone. There was the big spat over
| YouTube, where Google wouldn't write a native YouTube
| client and banned Microsoft's. Google bought SoftCard (I
| think?) and subsequently killed off NFC payments for
| Windows phones. When they bought Waze, they ceased all
| development for Windows mobile, allowing that application
| to atrophy.
|
| There were certainly a lot of other reasons Windows
| mobile had difficulty. Not the least of which is
| developers didn't want to have to manage apps for yet
| another platform. It looked to me like Microsoft was
| making good strides there, nonetheless, with some nice
| tooling. I don't use more than ten apps with any
| regularity and there were solutions for each of them on
| Windows mobile, at least.
|
| But, rather than make its apps available everywhere its
| users were, Google used its market position to starve a
| competitor. And it wasn't merely a case of deciding not
| to build apps for it. They took active actions to try to
| kill off Windows mobile before it had a chance to grow. I
| see no reason to believe they wouldn't do it with any
| other new entry. We're just stuck with a duopoly now.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Let's hope Google will also get banned from collecting data.
| It's time This advertising predatory business ends.
| akmarinov wrote:
| VR's probably not going to be bigger or even equivalent to
| mobile, so they should've tried harder.
| ska wrote:
| VR has been 'the next big thing' for a lot of decades now.
| 8note wrote:
| Be is gonna be more like 3d tvs.
|
| Ar might be big, but vr is just silly
| motoboi wrote:
| I personally believe VR and mainly AR are the next and
| natural step in personal computing.
|
| Ubiquitous computing may be the next step from there.
| Something like "the world is the computer and you just
| interact with it".
| rightbyte wrote:
| Hopefully VR will end up with a more permanent footprint
| than 3d cinema.
|
| It is hard to evaluate VR with just the perception of what
| we have today and fantasies about how good the tech will
| be.
| hakfoo wrote:
| It feels like VR is 5 years away forever.
|
| Realistically, I feel like there are two near-intractible
| problems for widescale consumer adoption.
|
| 1. The space problem. For some experiences, yeah, you can
| sit in a chair and wear a helmet, but I'd expect many of
| the more compelling immersive experiences would involve
| flailing your arms and moving around. That's a recipe for
| disaster inside a small apartment without dedicated space--
| you're gonna trip on something or break something. I seem
| to recall some designs for an "omnidirectional treadmill"
| to keep someone contained while giving them more room to
| roam, but that's a whole different thing to design and
| perfect.
|
| 2. The motion-sickness problem. I'm not sure if tracking
| will improve to the point where this isn't the factor it is
| now, but I'd expect some people are going to always have
| issues because of an conflicting sensory experiences-- the
| helmet says you're being blasted into hyperspace, but your
| stomach and legs say you're standing still.
| fooey wrote:
| VR also requires 100% task dedication
|
| You can't alt-tab over to HN to browse during loading
| screens
|
| Even assuming everyone had the hardware, the barrier to
| use is magnitudes larger than using a mobile device
|
| Personally, I think VR has already plateaued
| rmsaksida wrote:
| > Problem is that VR took too long to arrive and death on
| mobile can kill Facebook?
|
| Facebook owns the most popular messaging app in the world
| (WhatsApp) and two of the most popular social networks in the
| world (Facebook, Instagram). Are they _really_ in trouble
| because of the Android /iOS changes?
| motoboi wrote:
| People need a phone to use Instagram. Instagram makes money
| out of ads, not out of its users. So anything that threatens
| this revenue source can kill Facebook.
|
| They can still do ads without tracking, but would that still
| be a trillion dollar business?
| heymijo wrote:
| Welcome to Milton Friedman's capitalism. Beat earnings
| expectations every quarter into perpetuity or watch your
| share price drop.
| skohan wrote:
| "Kill facebook" might be a tad hyperbolic for a company which
| basically prints money. "Facebook might be forced to get a
| haircut on mobile revenue" might be more accurate
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| I don't see why it would kill Facebook. They still have the
| user profiles and photos with location and all kinds of other
| valuable signal.
| donut2d wrote:
| Facebook uses location data to learn where you live and where you
| go. For some, this location-based targeting might be fine since
| it serves them relevant ads.
|
| Thanks, I hate it.
| speeder wrote:
| Whenever I read articles like this, I get more and more
| horrified.
|
| I mean, I know that adtech spy on us a lot, but I didn't knew for
| example that using Bluetooth while the app is shut down was
| possible.
|
| Makes me very wary even of dumbphones, for example I bought a
| dumbphone recently, and yet it came with Facebook and Google
| Assistant both pre-installed.
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| > I mean, I know that adtech spy on us a lot, but I didn't knew
| for example that using Bluetooth while the app is shut down was
| possible.
|
| And now that so many of us leave BT on all the time for our BT
| earbuds and airpods, I'd assume it's become better at tracking,
| not worse
| fsflover wrote:
| > Whenever I read articles like this, I get more and more
| horrified.
|
| > Makes me very wary even of dumbphones
|
| If you care about it, consider GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and
| Pinephone, which run FLOSS and have hardware kill switches for
| microphone and other things.
| speeder wrote:
| Last time I checked, these phones are not allowed in my
| country.
|
| In my country all phones must have permission from the
| government to operate, and the phone manufacturer that need
| to ask this permission in first place, any phone detected by
| cell towers that aren't one of them, can be legally banned
| from the network (not just YOUR phone, but all identical
| model phones!)
| dillondoyle wrote:
| On the other side though Google uses this stuff, also wifi
| hotspots, to track you as well.
|
| Whatever the opinion on tracking, Google definitely carves out
| their own moats and are hypocritical in a lot of respects.
| Arguably pushing changes to hurt their small competition given
| they have better/more pervasive personalized tracking without
| the low hanging fruit.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I thought it is precisely because it wasn't possible that
| contact tracing required a special API
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I didn't knew for example that using Bluetooth while the app
| is shut down was possible
|
| How did you think for example notifications were pushed to
| Bluetooth smart watches?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| You are assuming they were aware of that capability.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Not OP: I have a fit band but it only gets notifications if
| Bluetooth is on. I'd be (ie, I am) surprised to find you
| couldn't turn Bluetooth off and that they purposefully
| provide a switch that doesn't work so they can fool you to
| thinking you can turn it off.
|
| Presumably only Android works like this?
| esrauch wrote:
| I would have assumed there is an os notifications api, and
| the apps have no idea what surface the notification will be
| shown on.
| realusername wrote:
| There's a reason everybody wants you to install their app
| instead of just using their website, there's much more
| opportunity of tracking.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1174/
| esrauch wrote:
| There's several reasons why everyone wants you to install the
| app, some of which aren't sketchy.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| What are some of the none sketchy reasons for "everyone"
| wanting us to use their apps. Like for major companies,
| where the service is deliverable through a website, what
| benefits does the user get from an app?
|
| I can see why GPS based apps, or camera apps with filters,
| or networking apps 'need' to be installed apps (I don't
| know if an easy way to do GPS through a browser; speed and
| fast access to storage) ... but Amazon, Reddit, newspapers,
| ... what am I gaining?
|
| Genuine question as a one time web dev I've always
| considered web sites written as an app, shipped with a
| browser, to be a negative. What am I missing out on?
| MatmaRex wrote:
| Most of the non-sketchy reasons are related to iOS Safari
| being crippled.
|
| For example, I worked on a rich text editor, and we
| wanted to put a bar with text formatting tools above the
| touch keyboard. This is not possible in the browser: your
| webapp cannot measure the keyboard or the remaining
| available viewport (and the keyboard's size depends on
| the input method and the iPhone model).
|
| Another example I experienced is when we wanted to have
| full-screen dialogs with buttons at the bottom. If you do
| that, then the users have to tap your buttons twice,
| because the first tap only expands Safari's browser UI,
| and your buttons near the bottom of the screen only work
| while that UI is expanded.
| oauea wrote:
| Easy access to push notifications (which can be sketchy,
| but doesn't have to be) and believe it or not: Letting
| users put a shortcut on their homescreen. Sure, you can
| place a shortcut to a PWA in the Chrome browser but most
| users won't be configuring that, even if you guide them
| through it.
| ecshafer wrote:
| These seem like reason that help the business, not the
| user. Are there any legitimate reason that help improve
| the user's experience for having an app? I can see this
| for some games and things that native access is usable.
| but a shortcut to the homescreen and push notifications
| are mostly an annoyance for users.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| In Brave/FF mobile you open then menu and click "add to
| home screen", do other browsers not have that? Push
| notifications are pretty common on the web now, aren't
| they? (I don't use them).
| Leherenn wrote:
| Both Chrome and Safari have the "add to home screen", but
| Safari doesn't have push notifications, not even for
| "installed" webapp.
| greeklish wrote:
| I remember the time when news were flooding the internet
| evangelizing iphones as _the_ platform of the web, a
| platform that would allow websites do anything a native
| application could.
|
| What a letdown...
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > I remember the time when news were flooding the
| internet evangelizing iphones as the platform of the web,
| a platform that would allow websites do anything a native
| application could.
|
| > What a letdown...
|
| The original iPhone demo showed the actual desktop
| version of the NYT website loading in Safari. Websites
| were the ones that later optimized for mobile.
|
| And I don't remember iPhones being promoted as giving
| websites anything approaching native app capabilities
| except when Apple tried to sell that line to developers
| before they had a public SDK. Nobody bought it, even
| then.
| burnished wrote:
| I have an app for most sites, its called my browser. If the
| app isn't taking advantage of a feature on my phone then it
| doesn't make sense to package it as an app.. unless they
| are getting something out of it. Going to make a broad and
| sweeping generalization here: they are getting money from
| tracking.
| drusepth wrote:
| Counterthought: I've been running a popular web-only site
| for about 5 years now and I get a little under a hundred
| requests per month for it to be made "into an app". A lot
| of users just want to be able "to install it" or to "get
| to it from my home screen" or "to get to it faster" (even
| after pointing out they can add bookmarks to home
| screens). It's also tempting from my POV to make an app
| just for discoverability reasons (e.g. users browsing the
| app store discovering my site).
|
| I haven't made an app (don't know how!) and I definitely
| wouldn't add a "download our app or else!" banner/wall,
| but I've been extremely surprised from the other side of
| the table to see just how many users seemingly just want
| an app for an app's sake, even if it's functionally no
| different from a responsive mobile view.
| prepend wrote:
| I get pop ups from sites all the time asking me to try
| their site, every darn time I visit. Mai it stuff like
| Reddit, Imgur, most news sites. I've tried the apps and
| they're worse.
|
| I'm not sure there's any explanation other than more
| ad/data revenue.
|
| Are there apps that give superior experience than web sites
| nowadays? Even not accounting for privacy, the apps are
| generally just shittier with less functionality.
|
| I used to give the Google apps as examples of apps being
| better, but the gmail app is more buggy than just using
| gmail in a mobile browser, not to mention the integrated
| phone mail app.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > Are there apps that give superior experience than web
| sites nowadays?
|
| The IMDB app is far better (to me) than the dumpster-fire
| that has become their website. Other than that, I agree
| with the sentiment that most apps for websites are not
| worthwhile to install.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| It is not necessarily a dumpster fire if one uses
| something else besides a popular graphical web browser to
| make the HTTP request and view the text. The "modern" web
| browser is complicit in creating the dumpster fire. Web
| developers can provide the inflammable materials, but a
| "modern" browser that auto-loads resources and runs
| Javascript is required to ignite it. There is no fire
| unless the right (=wrong) HTTP client is used.
|
| I use a text-only browser and write simple command line
| "apps" (scripts) to retrieve text from sites like IMDB.
| It works very well. Opening pages on these sites in a
| "modern" web browser is an entirely different experience.
| We cannot ignore the complicity of the "modern" web
| browser in degrading the "user experience".
| joe_guy wrote:
| Our experiences overwhelming align but one counter
| example is Discord. The chess.com native client is also
| reasonable.
| prepend wrote:
| There are some apps that provide some functionality that
| genuinely works best and I use the Discord mobile app. Of
| course, I didn't instal it based on the pop ups.
|
| Similar, there's quite a few chat/video apps and games
| where apps make sense. And none of them prompted me to
| download the app or show lies like "better in our app"
| crap.
| jfengel wrote:
| Seriously, what are they? Every time I get pointed at an
| app, I can only think of https://xkcd.com/1174/
| toast0 wrote:
| Many (most?) apps don't do it, but the useful feature for
| me that's not possible with a web page is reliable,
| unobtrusive, background updates.
|
| Things like weather (with or without current coarse
| location), sports scores, headline news benefit from up
| to the minute data fetches, but older data is still
| useful.
|
| For communication apps, often people would like
| notifications on inbound messages, so that can fit with
| web push apis to get data; but if you don't want
| notifications, you can't consistently make messages
| available to read offline.
| mrtksn wrote:
| A few out of my head:
|
| 1) Shortcut on the homescreen by simply tapping 1
| button(install) instead of hoping that the user will
| somehow remember you. WebApp shortcuts are quite
| involved.
|
| 2) Sign in once with a forever session. I hate apps where
| I need to sign in again because having an App is a great
| opportunity to have one time sign in that runs through
| generations of phone upgrades. Even better, the sign in
| doesn't have to involve the user, the data will be there
| and not accidentally deleted which means that the
| presence of the app is as good as username and password.
|
| 3) Immersive experience means better user experience. The
| UI becomes part of the Phone's UI instead of another
| App's UI's sub UI. A well designed app is very effective.
| I haven't seen a well designed mobile Web App, Web is
| great for websites and "possible to do" Mobile Web Apps.
|
| 4) Smaller download sizes, faster launches. A website
| would usually download a few MB of scripts and images, an
| App without bloated frameworks would be easily around
| that size and will download it only once. It will be
| ready to use in less than 0.5s every time.
|
| 5) Any advanced stuff is done much better natively even
| if it is possible to do through the browser. This is
| because the browser put extra boundaries around the
| boundaries that has due to the OS boundaries.
| prox wrote:
| Only 5 is really a legitimate reason, all the other
| things can be done on par with a website.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think we need "Demand explanation" button for comments
| like this . It's a useless statement as is. It's
| essentially trolling and trolling shouldn't be happening
| on HN.
|
| I know the reasoning of that statement but it's not
| providing an argument to refute. What am I supposed to
| say? "No. You can't, that's why it's not happening".
| prox wrote:
| I do not see how you could read it as such. Because the
| reason / explanation is already given, as all the options
| that were mentioned (1-4) can be easily matched by any
| website, I think it is rather self evident.
|
| 1) You can add websites as app icons to iOS and Android.
| 2) Websites can hold persistent identities, and devices
| can otherwise remember the login details. 3) Websites UI
| can be anything and have nearly all options that apps can
| have, depending on the quality of the UX, which depends
| on the designer in any case. 4) A professional website
| will not be any slower if properly designed.
|
| Now on 5, that depends on the specifics of the app. Some
| types do benefit greatly from being boarded on a device.
| An example would be Procreate for instance, which can not
| be mimicked on par in webform.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 1) As I said, it's too involved. Only a fraction of your
| users would know how to do it, you will need to teach
| them.
|
| 2) Websites do that through Cookies and Local Storage.
| These have limits and users would be purging them en
| mass. The data of the app doesn't disappear for no
| reason.
|
| 3) As I said, the problem is that it runs within a
| browser if not added to the homescreen. It is a window
| within a window.
|
| 4) Professional or amateur design, websites data is
| managed by the browser and not you. Caches get
| invalidated, you download everything again. It happens
| all the time.
|
| Just being able to do something is not enough, Apps are
| much smoother experience.
| beagle3 wrote:
| 6) notifications.
|
| Though, (1) is wrong on iPhone; there's an "add to home
| screen" action in the share menu.
| Vrondi wrote:
| This exists on Android browsers as well (and has for
| years).
| mrtksn wrote:
| >Though, (1) is wrong on iPhone; there's an "add to home
| screen" action in the share menu.
|
| As I said:
|
| >WebApp shortcuts are quite involved.
|
| Most people don't know about that functionality, you need
| to teach them. It would have been cool if Apple supported
| that, then I guess everyone would have been trying trick
| you into it like the good old days where every website
| was trying to trick you into making it you start page.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| > some of which aren't sketchy
|
| I am as cynical about forcing apps down user's throats as
| anyone (Reddit, I'm looking at you), but the downvotes are
| a bit too much when this is a perfectly reasonable point,
| no?
|
| _Some_ cases for apps are perfectly legitimate, maybe the
| access to the phone APIs and the native experience is much
| better for a given product or service. I 'm a firm believer
| in PWAs but as it stands I really prefer Uber or delivery
| apps to be native.
|
| I really hope the people downvoting the parent comment are
| not the same people who are staunchly against web apps,
| though I suspect there will be some intersection. We can't
| have web apps, but we can't have native apps either... What
| can we have then, Geocities and MySpace?
| rolph wrote:
| we can have privacy, security, autonomy
|
| and it is possible to do it with apps if we shift to apps
| being a service for the user, rather than a service for
| the developers sponsors
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Without examples I think the downvotes are justified,
| note they said there are reasons and suggested that those
| reasons are widely applied. Which is different to 'there
| could be reasons' and 'it would be good if everyone moved
| to using those aspects that give justified benefits'.
|
| The expectation is 'everyone wants you to use their app
| so they can track and advertise better' and the parent
| basically said 'nuh-uh'. We need more to be able to
| consider it substantive and benefiting the conversation,
| IMO.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| To hurt you. The reason is to hurt you and it's unfortunate
| that we're in denial about it.
| jraph wrote:
| if it has facebook and google assistant, isn't it really an
| (Android) smartphone which looks like a dumb phone?
| rjsw wrote:
| Newer Nokia/HMD dumb phones come with a Facebook app, they
| are not running Android.
| speeder wrote:
| It was KaiOS actually, that is based on FirefoxOS.
|
| Unfortunately they went so hard on dumbphone specs that it
| ran poorly, kept crashing all the time because it kept
| running out of ram. (it had 256mb of RAM I believe, or 128,
| don't remember, one of the two).
| thekyle wrote:
| It could be running KaiOS which is the 3rd most popular
| mobile phone OS, but not quite as functional as Android or
| iOS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KaiOS
| grishka wrote:
| > I didn't knew for example that using Bluetooth while the app
| is shut down was possible.
|
| On modern Android versions, there's some serious limitations on
| apps running in the background _at all_. In most cases, if you
| want your app to run in the background, you gotta put up a
| notification that is displayed the whole time that background
| service is running.
|
| Oh and also. Scanning for bluetooth devices is a fairly
| battery-consuming activity as far as I can tell.
| canadianfella wrote:
| *know
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Some years ago, I questioned those sort of pre-installations on
| smartphones of Facebook and G-whatever on HN. I got some reply
| that this is what users wanted. Total nonsense. At that time,
| most people who bought these computers had zero familiarity
| with these things. Anyway, users were never asked. There is no
| opt-out. There is a long history of pre-installed crapware on
| computers. It predates "smartphones" and "apps". Resistance
| from computer purchasers today is nearly non-existant. Not too
| long ago, we used to remove this stuff after purchasing a new
| computer, e.g., a laptop.
| danaris wrote:
| Get an iPhone. Whatever else you may think of them, Apple is
| deliberately working to prevent this sort of crap from
| happening without your knowledge and consent.
| myko wrote:
| The beacon technology that uses bluetooth when apps are off
| originated with Apple: https://developer.apple.com/ibeacon/
| nahkoots wrote:
| They've also taken a hardline stance against right to repair,
| which is a deal breaker for a lot of HN. Unfortunately, there
| aren't many modern options for people who care about both
| owning their devices and not being spied on by them.
| danaris wrote:
| Which is why I buy Apple: I may, on rare occasions, want
| the ability to mess with my device, but I _always_ want
| privacy.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > for a lot of HN
|
| I wonder what fraction
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >They've also taken a hardline stance against right to
| repair
|
| By which you mean Google, Microsoft and Apple?
|
| >Apple, Google & Microsoft Have Teamed up to Block the
| Right-to-Repair Law
|
| https://wccftech.com/apple-google-microsoft-team-up-to-
| stop-...
| canadianfella wrote:
| "They" isn't a synonym for "they and only they".
| laurent92 wrote:
| The right to repair is also the right to steal, refurbish
| the stolen good and resell. Maybe that is how Apple
| squashed the theft market for Apple products, but no-one is
| afraid on the street anymore of holding their iPhone
| carelessly.
| realjohng wrote:
| Facebook is just a flower in someone else's garden.
| AbuAssar wrote:
| What is that supposed to mean?
| romanhn wrote:
| The app stores are the gardens, and Facebook is ultimately at
| the whim of the gardener.
|
| Also, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| On the contrary: Facebook is a garden full of people. If
| all the app stores banned Facebook, many people would work
| to get Facebook back - _even those who don 't like
| Facebook_.
| [deleted]
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Why can't governments make tracking illegal?
|
| These companies that manipulate population into buying products
| they don't want or need are the mythical "broken window".
|
| Nobody mention how all this online business contributes to global
| warming. Factories produce useless products, that need to be
| stored, delivered, disposed of...
| yosito wrote:
| > Why can't governments make tracking illegal?
|
| Because they're not really in charge anymore.
| PeterisP wrote:
| It's difficult to make regulation for a specific line that
| actually does disallow tracking without leaving loopholes and
| does not put weird restrictions on everyone else.
|
| However, governments (at least some) are trying; GDPR is a step
| in that direction, but it has ovious associated difficulties
| have been discussed here in HN for years; California is moving
| in with similar laws, so there is a trend, but it will take
| years for it to get anywhere. I'd guess that EU will make "GDPR
| v2" (however that will be called) with severe restrictions on
| tracking by 2025 or so.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This could be combined with banning ad targeting. So even if
| companies collected data, they wouldn't be legally allowed to
| use it.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Well, GDPR went large steps in making it somewhat illegal,
| while users may still "consent" to being tracked ... which lead
| to big cookie banners nobody understands. Steps are being done,
| but lobbies are strong in their fight against.
| mschuetz wrote:
| > while users may still "consent" to being tracked
|
| That's the problem, in my opinion. Users should not be able
| to consent to third party tracking because if they can,
| companies will use any dark pattern at their disposal to make
| them consent. Third party tracking in general should be
| banned.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Noyb, the NGO founded by Max Schrems, the guy who
| successfully sued Facebook, is preparing to build large
| cases against different users of cookie banners to get rid
| of all the dark patterns:
| https://twitter.com/NOYBeu/status/1399230262953787395
|
| That's good progress.
|
| However I agree to you that this isn't enough. Even without
| dark patterns too many people will click "yes" without
| understanding and this will live on in some way or another,
| till we make laws stricter.
| livre wrote:
| >Why can't governments make tracking illegal?
|
| Why would they? These companies are collecting the data the
| government wants, it's a free service for the government and
| they only have to ask for the data when they need it.
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| Because some company with a successful app can build a real
| time population census for a foreign government.
| marcodiego wrote:
| > Why can't governments make tracking illegal?
|
| Because then they won't receive a few million $$ in donation
| for the next campaign.
| cm2012 wrote:
| Because web traffic for the purposes of advertising doesn't
| actually hurt anyone, and it pays for services the electorate
| likes.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| What is the point of "broad" location? Cant this be deducted from
| your cellular network? Wouldnt that save the trouble of keeping
| your GPS completly off ?
|
| I saw on some new android phones something called "privacy
| features" which would mean not giving access to contacts for
| example. The problem is all apps know you are using this feature
| and they nag you to turn it off. Whats the point then? How I want
| the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is given but
| nothing here. Oh well. ". Same for location and SMS and other
| stuff.
|
| I remember old ios, circa ios 5-6 had app permissions behind a
| password. I would take family phones and lock down location and
| contacts behind a password (it couldand inapp purchases prevent
| access to store and iTunes and browser if I remember) so for
| giving kids this this would be great.
|
| That has never come to android.
| yosito wrote:
| > How I want the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is
| given but nothing here. Oh well.
|
| That's actually a good idea. I wonder if any Android distros do
| this. In theory, it should be possible, but I don't know how
| tricky it would be to implement.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Broad location narrows you down to a neighborhood where your
| economic value can be inferred so the optimal ads can be
| directed at your way. No sense in showing Bentley ads to the
| poors.
| lodovic wrote:
| But Google still gets that info, just not Facebook. How is this
| not abuse of its market position?
| throayobviousl wrote:
| Google absolutely needs to be sued for monopolistic practices.
| You literally _cannot_ share location data without Google
| getting it as well. This is beyond ridiculous.
| dannyr wrote:
| For me, it's a lesser evil thing I guess.
|
| If I have to choose only between Facebook and Google, I'd
| choose Google to have my data.
| Craighead wrote:
| You get a choice there, unlike your isp and credit cards :)
| nvr219 wrote:
| Why is that? Does Cambridge Analytica-type stuff not happen
| with Google?
|
| I feel the same way as you but not because I think one is
| less evil. Rather, it's because Google brings me much more
| value in its search engine and productivity suite.
| lima wrote:
| Google has a reputation for good internal controls (that
| Facebook was lacking at the time).
| tpmx wrote:
| Going _slightly_ tangential:
|
| It seems like there are _a lot_ more political activists
| working at Google. It also seems likely that this will
| backfire in a spectacular way at some point.
|
| The risk here is politically strategic data leaks of
| individual user data - not Cambridge Analytica-like
| situations. Could be blackmail material on a few key
| people, or perhaps a giant data leak on millions of
| people from the "enemy side".
|
| The point is that sharing data with Google is just as
| dangerous.
| neatze wrote:
| What is not dangerous ?
| tpmx wrote:
| Wrong question.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Nothing. Therefore I'll go skydiving without a parachute;
| hopefully that water I can see down there is deep enough.
|
| After all, _not_ skydiving is also dangerous.
| Graffur wrote:
| In 10 years google could have 50% different work force and
| different leadership. Does that make you reconsider your
| choice?
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| This is the Cauldron clamping down on the Kettle.
| animanoir wrote:
| I hope both companies burn in hell.
| bozzcl wrote:
| Just for Facebook though. Bet you they're doing very little to
| encumber themselves in that respect.
| GordonS wrote:
| > the user can breathe a sigh of relief as their location cannot
| be shared with nearby devices unless the app explicitly states it
| -- which most users will unanimously deny.
|
| If Facebook simply have their app say it won't work without
| accepting this, then I very, very much doubt that anything but a
| miniscule number of people would be uninstalling the app.
| skohan wrote:
| Under GDPR they cannot do this in Europe. You're only allowed
| to deny the user the experience of the app if the basic service
| cannot be met without collecting the user's data (i.e. location
| data for a turn-by-turn direction app)
| jliptzin wrote:
| Google should be in favor of privacy, their advertising model
| serves ads only when you want them about the subject you're
| searching for. Facebook relies on knowing everything about you to
| show you ads when you don't want them, hoping they'll give you
| something you're interested in clicking on.
| jollybean wrote:
| So, Google can make sure they are the only one's tracking you? I
| see. No conflict of interest there!
| koalaman wrote:
| "Facebook _could_ still fingerprint users using BlueTooth"
|
| This article's title and narrative makes it sound like Facebook
| is using bluetooth fingerprinting to geolocate users against
| their wishes, and that Android's new permission will end that.
| However reading the text carefully it never actually claims
| Facebook is currently doing that. Are they or not? Is this
| article a hypothetical? That seems very disingenuous but also
| very typical of the kind of stories on privacy and advertising I
| see online.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-31 23:01 UTC)