Hacker News Reader

Comment by elefanten | Hacker News Reader

Google’s inability to protect its core revenue stream is squarely in the “not my problem” category. In fact, making internet advertising less desirable for businesses sounds like a benefit to me.

So, Apple’s decision is looking even better to me now.

View on HN

Google's core revenue stream doesn't rely on IDFA. Many 3rd party advertising companies and apps do rely on IDFA. Apple's move helps Google.

This is not true, any ad network benefits from IDFA, bigger the better.

Removing of IDFA should close the gap between big players like Google, Facebook etc vs others.

I don't do mobile advertising but this is just incorrect... Most of Google's revenue comes from Search and that has nothing to do with IDFA.

Then how would third parties with no access to first party data compete when there's no more third party data would be something I'm curious for you to explain.

Ok first of all I am not saying that third parties without access to first party data will compete with google's search ad business.

I think after removal of IDFA, smaller ad networks will steal some of big players mobile market share. And mobile advertising will not move to search based advertisement as much as you think. Maybe some revenue will shift there, but I think lose on mobile side will be bigger.

Google's search revenue accounts for around 95% of it's top line revenue.

Google’s ability to protect its core revenue stream is squarely in the “not impacted” category when it comes to Apple's IDFA move.

Banking fraud is a much bigger deal, and fraud detection works similarly there.

For Google yes, I agree. But for services you pay for directly it is your problem because it raises the cost of that service for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com