Apple would prefer that everything be conducted in apps on mobile where they can take a 30% cut of initial sale and IAP revenue and not on the open web where most of these ads take place.
Apple has shown, through multiple product releases, that it cares deeply about the privacy of users in a way that other companies have not.
Those releases are a clear counter-point to the notion that Apple is only doing this to drive people towards the App Store.
It's just a thing people say is true and people accept as true because … reasons.
The idea is that Apple's efforts to protect user privacy online are motivated by a selfish business case towards incentivizing people away from the web.
/u/michaelbuckbee wasn't "reminding us why Apple was behaving" this way, as he has absolutely no insight or insider knowledge as to the motivations of the team who developed and deployed this feature.
So I can't fault the strategy here. Clearly, Apple is always on its own side, even when it appears to be doing something great for its customers. Whether it did this or not, it would still be reaping 30% from the Apple App Store, where the "leave me alone" versus "pay me" arms race is markedly less obvious to the median user.
The same rationale Apple uses for patching the Web to be more usable could also be used by a jailbreaker who bypasses in-app purchases or advertisements. It should probably expect advertisers to fight back to protect their business just as fiercely as Apple guards its App Store revenue.
And that's my point.
This is a thing people say, sans evidence, that is then excepted as a gospel truth because it makes some amount of "evil businesses are always evil" sense.
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $45.4 billion and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $1.67. These results compare to revenue of $42.4 billion and earnings per diluted share of $1.42 in the year-ago quarter....
"Apple’s board of directors has declared a cash dividend of $0.63 per share of the Company’s common stock. The dividend is payable on August 17, 2017 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on August 14, 2017...."
Apple is on its own side, and it is winning. It occasionally allies itself with users, and they mutually benefit from the arrangement. The users, of course, do not release quarterly reports on how happy they are, and don't break that down by any particular company, so we can't compare to see who benefits more.
But Apple also--more rarely--does something hostile to users. I would cite as an example the removal of TRRS connectors from newer iPhones. Clearly, in that, Apple was squarely on its own side, and users that didn't like the change could use a dongle or sod off.
That is not evidence of malevolence on Apple's part, nor specifically that the inclusion of anti-tracking technology has malicious business-case intent.
But I’m happy with this as I think Apple’s goals are more in alignment with my own as a user. I don’t expect Apple to support me altruistically, but currently their model of charging a lot for hardware so user data across the web is not necessary for them is one that allows for high levels of user privacy.
Except that Apple having a monopoly on the interactions means they would extract monopolistic rents from the value chain, which will be paid, yep, by you.
Apple wants to kill the open web, and charge everyone 30% or topline to access their "users". The best way to do it is to hit the web on the pocket: ad revenues.
For me, not collecting data warrants trust, not whatever mental gymnastics involving "collecting data, but". If that data is vital for companies or applications beyond a certain scale, then I don't trust companies or applications beyond a certain scale, and would prefer to see them all pruned by consumers using their brains to vote with their wallets. Some behemoths so desperately want a world in which they're vital, to me that's a world doomed to die in important ways. That's not aimed at Apple, but among tech companies, they don't even make my list of considerations for top N thousand I like or trust. Not to mention companies and organizations in general.
But more importantly it's not like I have to chose whom of a bunch of shady fucks I trust most. If I don't trust any of them, that's fine with me, too.
As for business, I like the people at my local bakery. I trust them with bread, I guess, and I know when they smile they mean it. Those people have stature to me, and the bigger a company is, the more pervasive marketing is in it, the more it resembles a lot of tiny people playing big person. I don't trust that, and I laugh when those then put out marketing to make themselves seem 0.1% as cool as random individual people are to me, to whom the thought of being cool doesn't even occur. True, Apple might be less of a POS than its direct siblings, but that's still a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. I'd say we'll outright settle for one or several of them and the precedents they set at our own peril.
Sorry for the rant, please don't take this as some sort of violent disagreement with you, I was really just ranting. But it does sicken me how far we fell.
So your argument makes no sense. The only consistent way I can see this is that Apple genuinely dislikes user tracking, and blocked it on the App Store first because that’s where they had the most control and responsibility, and then did it on the web when they had the tech.
Such a nonsense saying. Apple doesn't want to "kill the open web"—indeed they have large investments in it—they are just unwilling to prioritize it over the better experience of the OS or to forgo privacy.
Enough with this FUD nonsense.
If it benefits me (increased privacy), I support it. I reward good behavior.
Remember, Apple loses out on credit card processing frees from their '30%' and phones are several hundred dollars.
I strongly doubt that. Even in the worst case scenario - all $1 charges and Stripe's "you charge a card every six weeks" 2.9% + $0.30/transaction fee - they'd be just about breaking even... and Apple's certainly big enough to get some volume discounts.
There is zero evidence that this is a priority for them or their long term business model. Their focus is on selling you hardware and making sure you're happy enough with their hardware that you're willing to pay a premium for it. Everything else is gravy or in support of that central goal.
No-Tracking and privacy are two of the major value adds they have over their competitors. If they're going to forego things that their competitors get through privacy invasion, it makes perfect sense to turn that weakness into a strength.
I'm fairly certain they don't consider it "strictly optional bonus income".
Or they just want to sell more phones, which makes Apple way more money than any conversion of web traffic to in-app purchases this privacy stance could bring. Or—shocker—their management wants to make a device they themselves enjoy using?
All these suppositions have the same amount of evidence: practically zero.
This whole "Apple doesn't care about the App Store revenues" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Most companies are going to care about a revenue stream of that size that is also very much a non-negligible percentage of company revenue.
Apple is not necessarily good, but 1000 times more trustworthy when it comes to user privacy.
Google is the cult leader of sucking every little details off its users because it genuinely believes it has the right to do so, nay, it has the moral obligation to do so for the good of all humanity.