Apple will attempt to jam Facebook's web-tracking tools
bbc.com
bbc.com
They can though - they can go back to untargetted advertising based on page content as they were doing 10 years ago. All the personal tracking data is a layer on top of that tech aiming to improve the 'targettedness' of adverts. Nothing in the online ad industry really needs any of that personal data, and arguably it doesn't actually make many ads more effective anyway.
Most recently for me, it was a plumbing part. Now I have targeted ads everywhere for these parts. Sorry org, I finished my project and I won't be doing something similar, hopefully, ever again.
You buy x at y store, y store has an ad buy with ShadyAdCo. If you see product x in an ad within z time afterwards, it counts as an influence towards your purchase. ShadyAdCo just made money, and y store can give record numbers.
EDIT: typo
It also fails to account for awareness being a major reason to buy ads. Ford want to advertise to everybody (probably including Amish) because most people will eventually buy a car, and it is important that you think Ford then. Even if you bought a car yesterday it is important to them that you not forget that you can buy a Ford - they know you won't buy for a few years, but they still want you to think of them.
"This location tracking ability has allowed Google to send reports to retailers telling them, for example, whether people who saw an ad for a lawn mower later visited or passed by a Home Depot. The location-tracking program has grown since it was first launched with only a handful of retailers. Home Depot, Express, Nissan, and Sephora have participated."
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/23...
Ask yourself why Facebook counts "post-view" conversions instead of only post-click like AdWords and most others.
New client had been working off the assumption they were seeing ROAS of around 3 (not terrible). When we showed them how to see just the post-click, ROAS is now at 1. That means even if they are selling a product they received for free or stole, ie COGS = 0, they still only breakeven.
Attribution is the key. All this assumes that ad companies and Facebook are honest in the first place about the number of views and clicks an ad has received. Their behavior does not engender much good will for a benefit of the doubt situation.
It's genuinely bizarre when Amazon does it. They know I just bought a $500 vacuum... surely they've got the machine learning chops to teach their algorithm that means I shouldn't ever see a vacuum as a sponsored product for a couple years?
Like come on, I just sent you a bunch of these!
If you buy something, you might land in one of those buckets. Advertiser can buy impressions to those buckets. The buckets are not refreshed on a daily basis (depending on the audience provider), and therefor can contain stale data.
e.g. you bought a blue striped t-shirt from H&M and it is continually advertised to you by H&M for a few days.
In a completely different context, ads can be used to reenforce status. That was a separate distinct point gp was making. If you want to buy luxury goods, but can't afford them, a well placed gucci ad can act as a brand anchor & keep you yearning.
Your point stands, that the "mega retarget post amazon ads" are a flaw in the system, but as the system gets more data, they will be tweaked to be more effective.
This specific case - "here are some other vacuums you didn't buy" - is one that seems more likely to hurt my brand loyalty and post-purchase feelings than anything else.
Chances being that anything that irks you about your new vacuum are going to be most accutely felt in the initial period.
So reminding you heavily that there are other, greener-grass vacuums out there seems productive in inceptioning "I'll never buy X brand again!" resentment.
They can do that with random data and it'll work just as well. It's called divination and you don't need to track me for it.
I think personal info, what you view, search for etc can be useful to both sides when both sides are seeking each other out.
But when it's one-sided is where things get ugly. When Alex Jones is trying to build a captive herd, the kind of data being misused is not so much your personal info/things you have searched for or viewed, but what I call "counter" type data surrounding the content you produce i.e. likes, retweets, views, upvotes etc.
This type of data is what drives the creation of an Alex Jones or a Kim Kardashian. Cause no sane person is out there searching for these clowns. The clowns come into existence only because these count numbers have an influence on people. 14 year old girls from Ecuador to New Zealand look at these counts for guidance on what is hip and that produces a Kim Kardashian with 110 million followers on Instagram.
These counter numbers need to be removed/hidden/shown less frequently or with delay and automatically the world will be a diff place.
When attacking FB and Google(YouTube), Twitter etc these numbers and their visibility to the uninformed and vulnerable of society is what needs to be attacked.
But what happens is people attack the personal info, search and view histories data collection which is actually useful. And that causes unneeded confusion and defensiveness.
even though the conversion rates maybe low.
The argument is that because the conversion rates are low anyway then the targeting doesn't make a big difference.
The sales/marketing guys are just doing what the hivemind says. Maybe I'm unlucky, but I seldom hear one suggest something against the grain. Usually they just say whatever hubspot says.
Different perspectives, different conclusions.
Hah. You're forgetting that the real customer for these adtech companies are infact the sales and marketing teams.
It’s almost as if their business model’s primary focus is not to connect sellers and buyers. I wonder how Palantir feels about the effectiveness of fb data.
1. doesn't benefit the merchants (by providing better targeting)
2. doesn't benefit the consumers (by providing better targeting)
C. I really don't care if they're running a scam, I'm not on FB nor am I advertising on it.
Then what the hell do they actually need all this tracking data for?!!
All that's left is that it benefits the political influence ecosystem (like you said, Palantir & co).
But! We used to believe it benefits the merchants, too (I don't think we ever honestly believed it benefited the consumer, ever). And for all the same, what if in a few months we'll hear political marketing companies and super-PAC whotsits complain that, also for them, FB ads don't really give a great ROI. That it's so much more effective to cold-call people or go door-to-door and do flabby meatspace stuff.
Then what? Why are they tracking us? Really, why are the big machine learning data centres tracking us? I'm just saying. Anyone who still thinks this century can't get any crazier hasn't been paying attention.
Generally the ad network does not know if you really completed a purchase or dropped off during the funnel. Presumably advertisers could set up a hook to inform the ad network if you did purchase or not, but I guess they don't care enough to do so.
They may have improved.
I just bought a ladder on amazon, what information does that tell them? Since it's the only tool I've bought from them it doesn't tell them much. They now know that I might be willing to buy more tools from them in the future but doesn't help in targeting which kind or how often. Me being a ladder buyer is a very weak signal that I will buy any particular item from them.
If on the other hand, I've bought 15 Aubrey Maturin books from them over the last few months, it doesn't take the most sophisticated model to determine that I probably want to buy number 16 next. Or that I might like to read the Horatio Hornblower books.
The ads drove you to post here and as a result, I'm reminded amazon is an option for white goods.
It's almost as if, because it's rumoured to have powerful, dark & unknowable Machine Learning behind it, people assume it must be doing something reaaaaaally clever, and we're just not clever enough to realise what it's truly masterminding.
But I don't know.
https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/...
This saves money for the advertisers, by transferring wealth away from content creators.
It boggles my mind that publishers still favor this model over display ads (targeted to articles, not readers).
Eyeball time is a commodity. Microtargeting by "smart people" is what enables you to sell $1 worth of eyeballs for $10.
It's going to hurt. But in favor of Google and Facebook is that maybe they have enough last mile and market share that they can just charge the same thing for commodity advertising.
Not really. It actually increases the pool of money available to content creators.
Everybody wins.
> It boggles my mind that publishers still favor this model over display ads (targeted to articles, not readers).
Because they generate more revenue, I'd guess. Mind-boggling, I know.
Well, except for the people being targeted, and the ones being served malware, and the ones having their cross-Internet activities being tracked, logged, and analyzed. It's not such a win for them.
They win too. They get content without having to hand over cash.
Everybody wins because the value of what they are giving is, for them, less than they are receiving. And the value of what they are giving, for others, is more than what others are giving.
Going back to non-targeted ads would significantly reduce monetization, reducing the pile of money available to content creators, and driving many (if not most) of them out of business.
You can always not access any ad-funded content or service, the option is yours. Take it.
MySpace used to have animated DoubleClick style untargeted ads. It sucked. Facebook crushed them partly because it's a much cleaner experience and Facebook ads are so much higher quality.
The problem with all the people claiming this sort of move is great is it doesn't ring true, they sound almost in physical pain over "tracking" (a scary word for very primitive and broad-brush techniques, by and large).
But where are the people who have actually suffered concrete, quantifiable harm? Some real, unarguable case where someone suffered because of ad targeting? If there were a real harm here, given the enormous scale of the internet, there should be millions of such stories but the only one I can think of was years ago, about a supermarket that discovered that women who buy X, Y and Z things together are very likely to be pregnant. They caused a minor family drama by sending a teenager adverts for baby stuff when her parents didn't know. Arguably this is a hole the teenager dug for themselves, but even so, it wasn't even internet based stuff from what I recall.
And as far as harm goes, that's about it. I've never been harmed by ads. I've never met anyone else who has been either.
But I remember a LOT of people complaining back in the bad old days about the barrel-scraping punch the monkey inventory that typified the web experience.
There are other cases where no such inference is possible, for example, if the person writing things down is a tax inspector investigating benefits fraud. In that case objections on privacy grounds would be ignored.
http://gawker.com/5671582/how-facebooks-targeted-ads-reveale...
I only skimmed parts of the paper but I also question the premise. It seems the attack is entirely dependent on you being 100% sure your ad is so carefully targeted it'll only show to a single person. If there's any doubt at all that it might match even two people, the attack doesn't work. Seems rather hard to pull off in anything other than lab conditions.
Then just don't access any ad-sponsored content. You are the one deciding to use it, just make that call.
I hate ads like anyone else, but I know that ads pay for the services and content I access. As much as I'd love for them to go away, I don't want it because I know the impact it would have on the availability of content and services.
I’m trying hard not to. My wallet is always open when there’s an option to not have my privacy violated.
The issue? Most services don’t allow me to pay, and the ones that do still try to track me after I’ve paid.
The result? My adblocker is happily giving them the middle finger and I can’t wait for adtech to die in a fire.
You do realize that with adtech dying those sites and services will go out of business, right? Or you didn't think that through?
Your comment makes it seem like these businesses are invented recently.
I'm tired of these excuses of business dying.The online ad tech industry brought it themselves.
Also I care more about people than a corporation that exploits people; which is opposite of American culture.
When will this happen? Does it happen before or after Hollywood stops making films because piracy, and the entire recording industry falls over and bursts into a fire?
> creating and distributing low-quality clickbait content profitable, pushing more serious content aside.
Sure, you can make that argument, but why should anyone decide what kind of content is worthwhile?
Are you suggesting a "internet content quality board"?
Let users decide what content is worthwhile, voting with their clicks, eyes and wallets.
I don't see any need for any quality control.
You're saying that you don't like the content, so you'd be ok with it going away.
What about people who like it and use the services?
Nobody is forcing you to consume ad-sponsored content.
Apple appear to be giving us, the users, some ways to claim our privacy back. I really don't see a problem here. Want content that relies on tracking for revenue? Use software that supports the tracking. Don't want it? Use software that doesn't support it.
Then don't use those services. The choice is yours. Let other users assess the value for themselves.
This also doesn’t work given the masses have zero idea of the tracking that is happening and blindly trust Zuck’s lies on how Facebook respects their privacy. If people knew the extent of the tracking you’d see a lot more backlash.
And since when should you have a "choice of products"?
Companies offer products, if you like them, use them.
I don't have a choice of free cars.
You may not have the choice or free cars, but you have a choice of plenty of paid cars, including ones that don’t stalk you everywhere you go.
I don’t have a choice between a free Facebook and a paid Facebook that doesn’t stalk me. I have to either take the free Facebook and be stalked.... or not take the free Facebook and still get stalked by their like buttons everywhere.
Remember, you're the one accessing. The choice is yours.
> They win too. They get content without having to hand over cash.
Nonsense. I'm targeted and the content I get for free is markedly better than the clickbait listicle crap is offering where the vast majority of tracking shit is coming from.
The ONLY place I've noticed the "ads for content" story even remotely work (in the 20 years I've been on line) is some YouTube channels. And they broker their OWN ads. The shit monetised by YouTube itself is still the same 99% clickbait poop.
There's a few exceptions that get monetised and make quality, but they are sooooooo not worth putting up with this shit, nobody ever asked me if perhaps I would like them to take their content AND their ads. Because what is left over WILL contain 99% less loud screaming attention whores.
Nobody is a winner when the people making beautiful things for free are being duped by ad network vultures.
If I want to read articles online, I'd love to pay $10/m and have it go to the content creators. Ads for me are unacceptable, but I'll happily pay, and I barely even read tech articles.
The specifics of the implementation would have to be very consumer friendly though. Ie, I can't imagine I make all sites combined more than $1/m from my ad traffic each month.. maybe that's not true, I just don't see it happening. So I don't want to (as a consumer) pay $5/m per site or anything silly like that. That's why as a consumer I like the idea of splitting an amount (say, $10/m) up between all places I go.
I remember a service like that... flutter I think? It never caught on though, because people don't like paying. We've got a tough hill to climb in this ad war, heh.
I think this would be a contentious point, the advertising giants have invested significantly in targeting based entirely on their metrics of it actually working, random anecdotes aside.
Source?
How much infrastructure does Facebook need to serve this city? Facebook will be fine.
Targeting has become a boogieman I think.
It's the individual targeting that has such high costs (in resources and privacy) for an apparently small increment in effectiveness.
Besides, for Google, they don't need Facebook style personal targeting. When you search for womens shoes, they feed you ads for womens shoes, it's a wildly lucrative approach and it doesn't matter if you're 28 or 34 years old, or what your favorite music is (yes, there are gains to be had with more personalized ad targeting even in that case, it doesn't matter, Google's model is still an extreme money machine).
Radio, newspapers and TV were absolute dogshit for targeting for the prior 60 years. It was mostly blast and pray. At least with the Internet, even with less personal targeting, you still gain a lot of tech capabilities to improve ad systems (including intricate content targeting, matched with information on the demographics that like that content, and so on).
I worked at a smaller tech company, and we kept saying "Correlation does not imply causation", and trying to come up with ways to separate them, etc. We spent/wasted a lot of time on this, explaining it to non-mathy people (which leads to even less confidence in data).
Then I went to work at one of the big tech companies, which is probably one of the best in the world at testing/data for product, and there I never heard it. If there was correlation, unless it was clearly spurious or a statistical fluke, they pushed on it hard. "It looks like more X means more DAUs. So let's manufacture more X." And it works pretty well for that company.
My takeaway is, I stopped thinking about this too much. Today, if there's correlation, unless it's clearly spurious/etc, and unless somebody has a better idea, I tell the product/eng team to push hard on it and don't even mention correlation vs causation.
Even in science where the focus is actually on proving things, it is difficult to prove causation. I see this more as a question of whether you act on a correlation that you’ve discovered or whether you simply talk about it. While it’s fine to discuss things, it sounds like at the small company you worked at, that that was more important than taking action (or perhaps the company was too insecure to make a decision about what to do). At the big company, the focus was on making experiments and seeing what the results are, and then iterating on that. In the end, the business doesn’t care whether something causes something else, it is only interested in adjusting things, measuring results and if they increase some important metrics, then the business is happy. That said, it can be taken to an extreme where only the metrics are thought of as important, rather than other qualitative or hard-to-measure things. It is much easier with web companies who can quickly roll out changes and use AB testing to run experiments. Also, those companies with larger user bases will have better sets of data on which to base their decisions. Companies that are well established will also have historical data that will make it easier to interpret results.
It also sounds like at the first company, the tech team was interested in being theoretically correct, while at the second one, the engineers were interested in trying things.
It is an understandable problem in some ways: good programmers are lazy and won’t want to make unnecessary changes, so they tend to argue against changes that haven’t been proven ahead of time to yield results. However, for the business to thrive, knobs must be adjusted and experiments made. And those programmers have to turn the knobs (or make them adjustable by someone else). So there is a strong counter-motive at play there.
However, good programmers who are also engineers with a focus on the product / business will understand the importance of doing this. It’s important for the engineering team to be aligned with the business and it helps to have cross functional teams. Otherwise you may end up with departments protecting their own interests. See also Conway’s law and its derivatives.
Because it's actually a stupid thing to say. Correlation does not conclusively prove causation would be better. It certainly gives a sensible place to look.
It's no broader a statement than the one you prefer.
What do you think the relevant difference between the terms 'imply' and 'conclusively prove' is?
'to involve something or make it necessary'
'to have as a necessary consequence'
'to involve something as a logical consequence'
Thus XKCD's extension of the phrase to `Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.` -- which is essentially what you're getting at.
Alas, I feel the mistake they made was releasing an MVP of a phone OS, instead of hitting feature parity with Android (or at least iOS) of the era. Phones have quite a big switching cost - if you make a mistake and are not super wealthy, you may need to live with it for the next year, or more. By releasing and aggressively pushing a subpar product, Microsoft completely obliterated the trust in their mobile brand.
I think Windows needs to run Android apps like Chrome OS does. Then they will eventually be able to run on phones once again.
I think the "best" option for now would be an Android phone without Google services. And as a developer you don't have to play to put your app in the F-Droid repository (you may want to donate though).
In 2019, the Librem 5 will probably be a good (expensive?) option too.
It is not the best option for a secure device, for which some restrictions are necessary.
Using only apps from F-Droid, I'm reasonably sure no app is doing something shady. Google is probably not spying on you as much as on a regular Android phone. No need for having a Google account to install apps, by the way. Depending on the device, SELinux policies can be enforced (and probably are on a well supported device).
F-Droid requires enabling insecure sources but this is not a problem if you don't download random APKs from the Internet and on Oreo, it seems insecure sources are handled with a permission given per app. Insecure sources can be enabled in any regular Android device anyway.
(edit: and actually, I think enabling insecure sources is not necessary if F-Droid Privileged Extension is flashed on the device (https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged...)
I can't verify what are doing the numerous proprietary blobs all over the place, but this is true on any current Android phone so far (and this is my motivation to put "best" inside quotes actually).
Why would this option not be secure enough compared to a regular Android phone?
Sure you have to deal with an unlocked bootloader, but if someone gets physical access to the phone, they can unlock it anyway. They will not get access to the data since it is encrypted (it should, anyway!).
(p.s. for posterity: I meant "pay", not "play" in my previous message)
So for Europe, each major update should either remember your preferences or have them opted out by default.
What do you mean specifically about the walled garden? Is it just the fact that it's a bit of a hassle to get apps on an iOS device without going through the store, or is it something else?
(I'm absolutely not trying to argue your preference; some people just like Android's take on the mobile OS better, and that's fine. I'm specifically interested in your comment about the walled garden, and what that prevents or gets in the way of for you.)
Android fixes this with side loading, but forces you into a surveillance model that many find unacceptable.
At win phone’s peak many people (including me) incorrectly thought that MS would be able to provide the best of both worlds, since that’s what windows used to be, and they weren’t ad dependent at the time.
With Win 10, it is clear that they’re going the opposite direction: surveillance + walled garden + pay for the OS and services.
This let’s them triple monitize the windows platform, so it is great for the short term stock price, but it is a risky, user-hostile, bet.
Full disclosure: had android, then win phone, typing this on an iPhone.
I think, in the Ballmer years, what hurt them was his ideological obsession with Windows Everywhere -- like, down to the Start button. I'm still pretty convinced that mobile needs a fundamentally different interface than desktop, and not coincidentally that's the way Apple has approached it. MSFT under Nadella is way better in lots of ways, but they still seem to think Windows oughta be the way for every device, and it hurts them.
The walled garden doesn't stop at apps and the app store, but it includes how easy it is to integrate non-Apple products into your Apple device or how easy it is to integrate Apple devices into non-Apple products. Which is often near or completely impossible and Apple doesn't provide any support for it. If it's non-Apple there's no reason to support it.
Just take a look what they did to OpenGL. Open standards implemented by pretty much everyone gets deprecated for their proprietary Metal implementation.
The walled garden isn't only about apps, but it's any interaction with the non-Apple world or from the non-Apple to the Apple world that is being made very complicated if not impossible at times.
Yes, there are.
You can compile your own and sideload, or you can download precompiled apps and allow them to execute explicitly in the security settings. It's just that most people don't care to bother.
I get that "the walled garden isn't only about apps," but I really don't see examples of it being a problem. You broadened the question to "Apple" from "iOS;" are you aware there's absolutely no walled garden AT ALL for apps on the Mac? You can download software from ANYWHERE YOU WANT; my emacs build came from gnu.org.
As a Mac user in a Windows world I've always been able to interoperate pretty well, at least at the user/app level. For example, both OS X and iOS have native Exchange support, which is huge. (And the native tools are more capable than Outlook in lots of interesting ways that aren't germane here.) This is something that Apple explicitly supports. Macs talk to Windows file shares without issue. So I guess I don't really know what you mean here at all.
I can't speak to OpenGL, but given that Apple development has always kind of gone its own way I'm not sure that's a great example of a walled garden where actual user experience is concerned. Can you say more about why that applies?
You seem to be deliberately understating the difficulty. For the overwhelming majority of the people, it's simply not an option.
I'm not who you're replying to, but it's hard to honestly argue that Apple doesn't maintain a walled garden unless you come up with a euphemistic term that means the same thing but sounds more generous. It's entirely possible that such a model doesn't bother you, and it clearly doesn't bother most of their enormous customer base, but that doesn't make it not the case.
Anyway, you're coming at me apparently ready to argue about whether it is or isn't a walled garden. That isn't what I'm asking about. I'm asking what, specifically, Apple won't let you do that you want or need to do that leads you to describe it as a walled garden.
A bit? Maybe you can provide a nuanced answer here. As a user, when browsing a site on my iPhone, what steps do I need to take to download software from a website and run it? Can you provide an example of a website that provides their software for iPhone download without Apple's permission? I can build and publish an APK on my website without Google's approval. That approval is the wall, the only place to get apps is the garden.
Another example is Blink.io, which is currently the best terminal emulator for iOS. (It works GREAT, btw -- I can use emacs and orgmode in it, even.) Blink is in the app store, at $19.99, but you can also download and build from source and get it on your device that way. That's more trouble than most folks will go to, but my assumption is that it's not too high a bar for most folks who are seriously sideloading software on Android.
It's the same thing with Google et al:
> "We're penalizing non-https sites to protect users"
... to push our own ad channels rather than theirs
> "We're disabling insecure MMS on Android phones (Stagefreight bug 2015)
... to eliminate the last remaining open channel for payed content downloads with carrier billing outside of app stores
Apple does it because they have a business model that incentivizes them to make better products for their users. In addition, all their competitors have a business model that is dependent on getting as much data on their users as possible. Attacking and damaging their competitors’ predatory business model not only makes the Apple product better, and therefore more attractive to users, it also undercuts their competitors, making Apple relatively stronger.
Apple’s greatest strength is that by charging a premium on hardware they are heavily incentivized to deliver a high quality product.
Apple is generally showing a superior attitude towards user privacy, even in situations that don't seem directly tied to their own ad channels, as you say. Maintaining a privacy-focused image is good for business in general, hence their reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement to violate individual user privacy.
Only where it benefits them. In China, they have gladly given up encryption keys so that govt. can access user's data.
In the U.S. the law favors their users’ privacy to some degree. Not in China.
Apple is talking the talk about privacy where it's favourable to them. Is it actually walking the walk when it actually hurts them? That's when you know if a company if serious about privacy or it's just another marketing strategy.
Again, leaving China would not help their users, but it would be a huge blow to their finances today and in the future. Is martyrdom a good play for a business and its stockholders?
It absolutely will. Apple users will know for sure that Apple respects privacy and will not budge under pressure, no matter what. Point is, Apple talks about being all about user's privacy till it hurts their finances. Thus, it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Google famously even walked away from China at one point of time.
it’s hugely grey; you can’t just say that apple only has principals when it suits them. china is a VERY complicated place, morally
The fact that there's now popular pushback against the data-gatherers is certainly to their favor, and they'd be foolish not to trade on the fact that "Hey, you know what? We collect very little, and have no interest in monetizing you as a user, because that's never been our business model."
I think Apple does benefit from some solidly ethical leadership here, but it's also probably wise -- I can see lots more data-protection laws coming down the pike in the years ahead, and they'll endanger the big-data approach. If I were Apple, I'd probably stay away from it for those reasons alone.
No? They aren’t doing that, at least not the website tracking stuff - that would be a huge violation of their privacy policy.
This may be true. However it's also difficult to dispute that Apple has a far stronger and far more consistent stance on privacy than their competitors.
It was a big influence for me switching from Android to iOS a while back.
Google, Facebook, and Windows 10 have been getting ever more data greedy, Apple mostly haven't. To me, that's significant.
(Anyone remember the days when if you wanted to set a song as your ring tone you had to buy it again?)
Many Android apps are just Trojans to send home your address and calling lists, or to otherwise track you.
Telcos aren't saints (in fact they're greedy as sin) but at least have to play by the rules for a regulated market with standardized protocols. Deprecating open protocols not only hits SMS spammers but also limits your freedom as both publisher and consumer.
That was annoying, but not as sinister as you expect. With garageband, you could make custom ringtones out of your music files. It was cumbersome, but it was possible.
They have their own ad platform which takes 30 - 50% of the cut on advertisements shown in Apple News.
Microsoft and Oracle are in a different class. They provide tools to handle high value data.
There are remarkably few instances of actual “big data” problems, at least in the commercial sector, that aren’t merely surveillance.
As a machine learning engineer myself, this is somewhat of an existential crisis. It truly makes quant finance look like one of the most ethically positive career choices left.
With the content blocking framework that has been part of iOS for years, not even the ad blocking app can see your browsing history. It just sends a JSON file to Safari and Safari blocks content based on the JSON file.
Apple's content blocking framework can also work in other apps that embed web views depending on which web view they use. For instance, it works in my RSS reader.
The iPhone a loss leader? Apple has 40% margins, 80% of all the profit in the phone market, and the average selling price of an iPhone is $450 higher than the average selling price of Android.
Apple is not one of the most profitable companies in the world based on media sells.
Please don't spread disinformation, uBO tracks nothing. Privacy policy is here: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privacy-policy
I do wonder however how much influence this will have on the average user. Those of us who work in the industry are far more aware of tracking and personal privacy. I'm not sure how much the typical consumer will actually care.
The story was that young people aren't using FB. But they are using FB owned Instagram.
But to automatically say it has anything to do with the latest news is like all of the "stock analyst" who claim after the fact to know "investor sentiment".
https://www.recode.net/2018/1/31/16957122/facebook-daily-act...
https://www.recode.net/2018/2/12/16998750/facebooks-teen-use...
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/new-report-shows-faceb...
I believe the only reason they haven’t done this already is lingering fears of antitrust again.
Apple and MS only have to do ads because that’s the state of the industry. But they could ditch that model entirely and retain all their core revenue streams if the attention economy was no longer a thing.
Google's business is a bit more diversified than Facebook's, though, especially considering their expansion into providing cloud services. And they have long-term ventures that could really pay out in the future, like Waymo.
But it chose to fight a useless battle, when it could've added a tracking or ad blocker by default to the Edge browser instead, because at the time it wasn't sure whether or not to quit the advertising business for good (Bing was losing a lot of money at the time) or double down on it. It seems to have chosen the latter with all the tracking it has put in Windows 10.
That would allow devs to develop apps for both platform very easily.
Would you never pay a cell phone bill again but trade your personal data for it? I feel like there’s enough people out there that would.
Also see the Pinterest/Snapchat/Apple news lately.
Apple blacklisting sites/companies is honestly more scary... that's basically anti-net-neutrality.. if you're naughty (or Apple doesn't like you) you can't have your images loaded?
Take a look at uMatrix[0]. With the two rules
* * * block
* 1st-party * allow
you'll achieve what you want.
> To me what's more alarming is what percentage of websites load js from Google
That's where the Decentraleyes[1] plugin comes in handy. It injects a locally cached version of 3rd party cdn libraries. To use it easily in conjunction with uMatrix, you'll need some more rules that you can find in the FAQ[2].
[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...
[2]: https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes/wiki/Frequently-As...
But I guess my point was that if Apple crammed a first-party-only system down our throats and 20-30% of the population was forced into this new paradigm - then that would make websites change and the internet would change in its nature. If I use uBlock.. well then I just make my life irritating :)
As to your second point, I think there's a huge, gaping chasm between apple blocking Facebook's tracking and the collapse of civilization at the hands of apple's alleged anti net neutrality.
This would be a very bad idea!
First because it will break a lot of legit use-cases: CDNs, distributed architectures, SSO, payment gateways, ...
Second because it won't actually prevent the tracking: it would be easy to make a subdomain and point it to Google Analytics or any ad network to "re-enable".
How many sites would do that though?
Firefox does have that as an option hidden in about:config ("privacy.firstparty.isolate").
I have been using RequestPolicy Firefox extension for that for years. You can manually approve domains (ex. let website X load stuff from domain Y as well), so once you figure out which of the dozen other domains it tries to connect to is serving static content (CSS, images) it works great.
Unfortunately, new Firefox broke this, so you can only use it with Firefox ESR currently.
Net neutrality is about access to internet, not what your browser and/or software supports. An ad blocker certainly isn't anti net neutrality.
asking the people that working in adtech, cross-device usage prediction and the likes: do you actually think it will disrupt your business or there are always workarounds and are relatively chill about it?
They're going after the meat right away, like cookie synchronization ("Tracker collusion") and the first-party tracker hack that Criteo pioneered, effectively disabling almost all the tracking possibilities on iOS. As a user, this is awesome.
And if you want to track, you need to provide both value (i.e. an authenticated service) as well as get explicit consent from the user.
Unfortunately, this will also serve to concentrate the power in the hands of Google and Facebook, who have and/or will create such authenticated embeds.
Note that all this hardtalk specifically excludes the mobile ad IDs. Apple would face much more headwind from GOOG and FB if they went about killing these. This is going to be very interesting, as Apple will need to carefully tread up to a point, after which there could be harsher repercussions.
They also know that an iPhone without access to Google Maps, Search, Mail, Authenticator, Youtube and a whole lot of other essential services won't be worth much to end users anymore.
Source: I'm working in Adtech, but we chose a different approach of giving users an actual benefit and being careful, compliant and frugal with data. All these recent updates about Apple and GDPR mainly hit the really bad players of the industry that just hoard sensitive data through shady channels and arbitrage it to hell — and I consider that a good thing.
I don't know. Apple Maps is almost as good as Google Maps for me. Search I could use DuckDuckGo. Mail I use the native iOS mail client and could easily switch out from my GMail account to anything else. Authenticator I don't use and don't know anyone else who does either. YouTube's an interesting one, but I use it tons less since I got Spotify Premium.
If it was a choice between Apple protecting my privacy and losing all Google services these days, after everything players like Google and Facebook have done? It wouldn't be a difficult decision to keep my iPhone.
Google Authenticator => Authy (it reimplements google auth) Search => Safari Gmail => Native Mail (its not like Google will drop IMAP support)
Killing YouTube on iOS would be pretty bad for Apple, but I’m sure that wouldn’t be profitable for Google (cutting off a third of an already-unprofitable company? no thanks). What’s left bedides that, Google docs? Well Apple has their own suite so does Microsoft. And they both have web editors that rival Google Docs and support multi-user editing. In general I’m pretty skeptical about this assertion that Apple “can’t” step on Google’s toes.
It doesn't reimplement Google Auth. Both are just different implementations of RFC 6238.
Try OTP Auth[0] on iOS that fully respects privacy and security. It was Authy asking for email first that prompted me to search and find this.
(Disclaimer: I am currently employed by Twilio. I am not involved with Authy in any way)
[0] https://support.authy.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001932768-Aut...
But on the other hand, IP+UA is a very good signal when you don't have a lot of devices behind NAT, and if you just have a Facebook ServiceWorker installed, it could track all of the IP addresses you use. And there is nothing preventing first-party tracking, e.g. what if Facebook starts a "Facebook Publishing Platform" which is basically a section of Facebook.com designed to ensure that you get all the user tracking as before. Or what if publications now ask for "Login with Facebook to read this article".
If facebook sets the price at $20/mo for no ads no tracking, most of the people who can afford that actually generate more than $20/mo of ARPU for facebook with ads. So they get this adverse selection where mostly only the wealthy (highly valuable advertising targets) opt out of ads and this eventually decreases FB's revenue.
If they raised the price to offset this, the adverse selection would get even stronger.
The flip side of this is that Netflix could almost certainly make more money if they showed interstitial video ads, because this allows them to effectively make more money off wealthier people (because advertisers pay more to advertise to them).
How so? I’ve never clicked on an ad other than by accident, and I actively despise any brand that tried to push me their garbage via ads.
I’m not sure I ageee with you there. I’d say most people who can afford that are actually making Facebook less money because they’re smart enough to see through the bullshit and ignore the ads.
To be fair it never made any sense digging around a webpage for a like/tweet button to share something anyway.
However what I found recently was so do others. I was with my friend, and we wanted to know the exchange rate, so my friend fired up his phone and googled it.
We got to a web page with tiny white boxes with black text, and a half screen booking.com ad. I asked him what his thoughts were on annoying ads shifting the content down like that, and he said "I haven't seen an ad for years mate".
The glaring device screen was mostly ad and he failed to even make the connection.
It makes me wonder, are ads really so easily ignored, or have ads went down some psychological hole where you think you are clever but a few years later you are foaming at the mouth as a booking.com customer?
A simple example of someone different are those who work around me who work in a corporation and aren't allowed ad-blockers by company policy and look at Ads by force.
I asked Apple for all my data. Here's what was sent back
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-data-collection-stored-r...
So is Apple trying to position itself as the Data Protector Platform You Can Trust? Like how The New York Times has seen a record increase in subscriptions because of fake news.
My assumption would be that they use every tool at their disposal to advertise/sell their products, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised and find out that they are putting their money where their mouth is on the flip side of this (the companies that pay for/fund the collection of this data).
This does not mean 'real' change is only created by consumption. I think spac means that consumption may well affect what political institutions do not. So people with less money can still use their political votes to change many things. I would contest the idea that they do not vote (significantly) as consumers though.
People with less money still have some money, and rich people don't buy ten iPhones, while many poorer people do still buy one as the richest people do too, so any kind of consumption with a very steep decline in marginal benefit probably hands out power to individuals in the market more equitably than you would otherwise expect.
Also, not all currencies require income: when using DuckDuckGo instead of Gooogle, one is redirecting ad money from one company to the other; or think of Keybase teams vs Slack, Gitlab vs. GitHub, etc. Every choice we make can affect whether money is sent the way of companies that share our principles or not.
Yes, Apple carries a premium price, but it's not so high that it prices itself away from all but the absolute dirt poor.
2. Apple is not the one violating privacy at the lower price points. If you’re going to blame a company for making privacy “only for the rich,” blame the company that invades your privacy on the cheap devices, not the one protecting it on the more expensive devices.
aka bribery
A part of that value goes to Facebook, Google, and other social media and advertising firms. A part goes to publishers, who provide free shit such as news to billions of people. A part goes to advertisers who get to sell more stuff. A part goes to consumers who get to see the aforementioned free news, plus occasionally see slightly less shitty ads.
When Apple blocks user data, it destroys a lot of economic value, which costs jobs; a lot of them are in the US since the biggest advertisers, publishers, and ad firms are US based.
Maybe it's worth it because privacy. But it certainly hurts millions of people who depend, directly or indirectly, on the effectiveness of ads.
I get the theory. I get that everyone wants everything for free, and many providers still need a return. But we've let adtech run wild, and they've just got scummier and scummier.
"When in hole, stop digging". adtech really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. They've been at war with users for far too long, and still play victim when the user doesn't appreciate it.
On another note, as you put it, everyone wants everything for free. Is it really your place to tell them they can't have it, by disrupting the flow of money that makes that free stuff possible?
Now they're abusing mass data harvesting and profiling until it too gets to the point where every reasonable browser will integrate functionality to block & whitelist it.
This is an industry that targets users as prey, and cries foul when we play hard to get.
For me, most advertising lives on a scale. At one end we have advertising that seems mutually beneficial to all, like sponsorship of podcasts. At the other end of the scale, we have unsolicited bulk email, which I've never seen anyone try to defend.
It feels like each generation of web advertising starts somewhere in the upper third of this scale, and then digs and digs to sink as low as it can, until some measure is brought in to make this generation ineffective. Then they go off, come back with a new model, and start digging all over again.
Ultimately I do wish they'd come up with a model that isn't abusive of users, publishers and even their own advertisers; but at this point I'm inclined to believe this leopard can't change its spots, and will always sink as low as we allow it to.
Would like to know more about this. Who says this? How was this measured? Would like to see the data that supports this statement and how it was done.
My problem with the internet and advertising is pretty simple.The site can to do whatever they wish to do there, ads, tracking, whatever. BUT - the site itself is the only other party in this relationship.
The current reality is that there are dozens of hidden parties in the mix.
You would easily arrive at the ballpark of several hundred billion.
If you disallow sites from using third party ads and ad tech, they would only get a small fraction of their normal ad revenues. Even without that, many publishers end up giving up on the ad model, either going for paid content / promos (far more misleading IMO), subscriptions, transactions, or just shut down entirely. If you reduce ad income by several times, a lot of free stuff on the web will disappear, and with it the jobs at those publishers and the advertisers who sell more things due to those ads (non personalized ads aren't very effective).
I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying that's something worth knowing before settling on an opinion about this topic.