Even though there are many developers, publishers, and advertisers who raise unsatisfied voices when Apple announces the transparency policy of tracking new applications for iOS, Facebook is the hardest shouting. It uses rhetoric and other strategies for Apple’s Besmirch privacy efforts, even as far as ironically saying it will truly benefit the giant social network in the long run. Now take these efforts to a new level by warning users that Facebook and Instagram may be paid services if iOS users do not activate application tracking.
Apple clarifies many times that it is not opposed to advertising per se, it’s just who wants users to control it completely. The application can even be shed to use the Apple ID for advertisers (IDFFA) which causes permission first to appear but they cannot use it to track users in other applications and similar actions. The main beef Facebook is that most users may be default to “not” and cause advertisers and advertising platforms to lose a lot of money.
Users may not care too much about advertisers, even if they no longer get personalized targeted ads, but Facebook now pretty much makes them care. Verge sees notifications on the IOS Facebook and Instagram application, calls the attention of how companies use application tracking information not only for advertising but also to support businesses that rely on advertising. It’s not new to the ears of people now but the new is a scare tactic that Facebook uses to make users turn it on.
Both applications say directly that this user tracking business makes Facebook and Instagram free. It shows that this situation must survive, it may be forced to make applications or services it is not free, which can mean a paid subscription system.
Facebook might be sure that they hold on to the user so strong that even the iPhone owner will feel disturbed by any changes in the free social networking service. That said, the company has considered having an ad-free subscription option for Facebook so this might not be really news, it’s just now going to try using the monopoly itself to force Apple to read new policies.
