More broadly, but not unconditionally. They can apply reasonable (definition of that can be another point of contention) restrictions via their app review process as long as the restrictions are applied consistently to all applicants.
Meta’s request for interoperability is regarding their hardware, not their flagship apps, if you take it at face value.
They want their glasses and headsets to integrate as tightly as an Apple Watch or Vision Pro to show messages and other notifications, connect to WiFi, and share files with an iPhone, but Apple uses private APIs for their own devices. Meta says that is anticompetitive and the APIs should be public.
As someone who’s personally worked on dozens of M&A driven vertical integrations and “ecosystems” (lol)…interoperability is inherent to being a first party.
3rd parties aren’t going to get the same access or treatment for a number of reasons…many of which Apple has outlined.
There are several reasons for a platform to not want to offer 3p interop, from security to privacy to competition, but the DMA is targeted EU regulation to mandate interop specifically for the big tech cos’ platforms and this is one of the first major tests of the law.
If AI can help an advertiser get the outcome they want in 1000 ad impressions instead of 5000 ad impressions (with more precise targeting or more appealing creative), Meta can 5x the price of those 1000 ad impressions, keep the advertiser happy with the same ROI they had before, and sell 4000 additional impressions to someone else as incremental profit.
Or they could 4.9x the price to show the current advertiser a better ROI and encourage higher spend from them, while still having the 4000 extra impressions to sell.
This is precisely why I’m skeptical. It assumes that that first advertiser can sell more of the same products just with better copy or more targeted placement and that more advertisers can backfill the previously used inventory that the first advertiser no longer needs and enjoy better sales too.
But doesn’t that then mean that many more product sales are taking place as opposed to the same number of sales spread across more impressions? I don’t see how many more sales can take place without users spending more money or the number of users going up and my original point was that meta is surely tapping into that addressable market as it is. There are only so many consumer dollars to go around.
The financial companies got higher performing ads delivered to the right people, as well as the ability to measure the actions taken from the ads. In exchange, they gave away your data for free.
Every company running ads on the internet is making this value exchange, but these financial companies screwed up by pouring protected data into Google's and Meta's dumb pipes.
>The financial companies got higher performing ads delivered to the right people, as well as the ability to measure the actions taken from the ads. In exchange, they gave away your data for free.
It seems like we have a name for such transaction. Where one party gives something to get something else from second party.
> It seems like we have a name for such transaction. Where one party gives something to get something else from second party
We also have words for one party giving something that doesn't belong to them, or which they are not entitled to give. They're somewhere between embezzlement and theft.
Well the definition of a sale is usually the exchange of a commodity for money.
When its information that can be copied it would usually be called sharing (because both parties still have what they started with, but both have 'more' as they have shared with the other).
If you are arguing semantics, sale is probably the wrong term and 'sharing' is probably more accurate.
Well the definition of sharing would be "to have or use something at the same time as someone else", so as you both have access to the data after the action and can both use it at the same time, I think sharing could be considered valid alongside bartered.
The one that isn't accurate though would be sale, which is an exchange for money.
I don't think that's necessarily the case - e.g. "Let's share my car and you can help me clean it at the weekend" is a valid sharing arrangement (i.e. share the asset and share the effort to maintain).
Well, we're deep into worthless pedantry here, but I love worthless pedantry.
I would say that despite the casual use of "share" such as in your example, that isn't really "sharing". It's bartering. The use of the car is predicated on getting something in return, so it's an exchange of value.
“Trade” may be more accurate than “sale” for an exchange for valuable consideration that is neither money nor denominated in currency, and is certainly much better than “sharing” for an exchange (though I think “sale” is, itself, though loose still reasonable and much better than “sharing”.)
They don't. There is no semantic value to this data for them. To Google and Meta, it's an arbitrary data point. To tax companies, it is data that can utilized to either target the delivery or measure the performance of their own ads.
That said, there doesn't need to be semantic value for this to feed into an ML model that ends up associating tax data attributes with other attributes.
The EU issued fines to Google and Meta for billions of dollars a few weeks before they decided this data transfer would be allowed. Wonder if they'll actually be required to pay the full fines now.
"Meta is waiting for more guidance around the Digital Markets Act, new EU competition rules that govern how large online platforms use their market power, a person familiar with the matter said, "
DMA is about large companies and not the tiny mastodon instances.
Businesses choose to send this data to the ad platforms for their own benefits - better targeting, measurement, and ML optimization of their ad campaigns.
The businesses are legally accountable for the data they're sending and complying with privacy laws, but to most platforms it's a dumb pipe for whatever data the business chooses to send.
> Businesses choose to send this data to the ad platforms for their own benefits - better targeting, measurement, and ML optimization of their ad campaigns.
I think the post you're replying to is concerned about the moral rights of the people whose data is sent, not whether sending the data is beneficial or harmful to the business that sends it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tool in the OP sounds like a crowdsourcing effort to collect the data the Facebook tool can tell you across multiple users and multiple sites.
That's not really the same thing as a tool that tells a single person that the site they're on uses meta pixel as it happens.
Correct. The Facebook Pixel Helper is used to test that the pixel has been installed correctly and events, both standard and custom, are firing correctly.
"Decimated" is a bit of an overstatement for a business on track for over $!00b in revenue and $40b of profit this year. The growth rate took a huge hit, but it's not like they're on the verge of collapse.
i agree that meta is not on the verge of collapse (although i'm not bullish on their long term prospects); but i'm sure we can both see that apple bloodied their nose pretty badly with this.
