New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads(medium.com)
medium.com
New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads
https://medium.com/macoclock/apple-is-killing-a-billion-dollar-ad-industry-with-one-popup-2f83d182837f
286 comments
I definitely see some questionable privacy practices by Apple...
- While "10x less", iPhone still sends your private information (such as location) to Apple on a regular basis[1].
- Apple encrypts iCloud backups with a key they control, not end-to-end[2]. This means that Apple can decrypt and inspect your phone and computer backups.
- According to the article, iOS developers can use their "new privacy-focused ad framework" to "allow anonymously retrieving data without getting a hold of the user or specific information". I don't fully understand that sentence but it sounds a lot like Apple trying to compete directly with Goog + FB in the advertising industry.
- Hardware made in China[3].
1. https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...
2. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
- While "10x less", iPhone still sends your private information (such as location) to Apple on a regular basis[1].
- Apple encrypts iCloud backups with a key they control, not end-to-end[2]. This means that Apple can decrypt and inspect your phone and computer backups.
- According to the article, iOS developers can use their "new privacy-focused ad framework" to "allow anonymously retrieving data without getting a hold of the user or specific information". I don't fully understand that sentence but it sounds a lot like Apple trying to compete directly with Goog + FB in the advertising industry.
- Hardware made in China[3].
1. https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...
2. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
In case you weren't aware, the accuracy of "The Big Hack" (3rd citation) has been widely called into question. There has been no corroboration of their claims, despite a lot of interest in locating one of these compromised servers. While it raises an important point about the plausibility of supply chain compromises (see NSA and Cisco), the case in the article has not been shown to be a matter of fact.
The story earned two sarcastic Pwnie Awards from the security industry last year, "Most Epic Fail" and "Most Overhyped Bug".
https://pwnies.com/previous/2019/most-epic-fail
https://pwnies.com/previous/2019/most-over-hyped-bug/
> - While "10x less", iPhone still sends your private information (such as location) to Apple on a regular basis[1].
Apple documents cases where private information is used, even if it is never sent off device. macOS and iOS users would be familiar with the interstitial privacy screens that show up the first time you use a feature.
iOS has always shown an icon in the status bar when the location information is accessed and provides a log of recent accesses. Recent versions have been more aggressive of reminding you when location data is being shared.
The most common reason location data is sent to Apple is for navigation purposes; if you opt into Location Services, Apple uses your device location for traffic aggregation. You can turn this off at any time.
> new privacy-focused ad framework
App developers incorporate ad frameworks to monetize their apps. An advertiser pays for an ad, and the ad framework displays it in the app. If the user taps on an ad, the framework communicates this back to its servers to make sure the app developer gets credit.
Most ad frameworks try to slurp up as much information as possible about the user in order to tailor more ads to them. Apple's new SKAdNetwork API does not send user information back to the network, only the app identifier that is needed for paying the app developer.
The story earned two sarcastic Pwnie Awards from the security industry last year, "Most Epic Fail" and "Most Overhyped Bug".
https://pwnies.com/previous/2019/most-epic-fail
https://pwnies.com/previous/2019/most-over-hyped-bug/
> - While "10x less", iPhone still sends your private information (such as location) to Apple on a regular basis[1].
Apple documents cases where private information is used, even if it is never sent off device. macOS and iOS users would be familiar with the interstitial privacy screens that show up the first time you use a feature.
iOS has always shown an icon in the status bar when the location information is accessed and provides a log of recent accesses. Recent versions have been more aggressive of reminding you when location data is being shared.
The most common reason location data is sent to Apple is for navigation purposes; if you opt into Location Services, Apple uses your device location for traffic aggregation. You can turn this off at any time.
> new privacy-focused ad framework
App developers incorporate ad frameworks to monetize their apps. An advertiser pays for an ad, and the ad framework displays it in the app. If the user taps on an ad, the framework communicates this back to its servers to make sure the app developer gets credit.
Most ad frameworks try to slurp up as much information as possible about the user in order to tailor more ads to them. Apple's new SKAdNetwork API does not send user information back to the network, only the app identifier that is needed for paying the app developer.
> ...the accuracy of "The Big Hack" (3rd citation) has been widely called into question.
Certainly, but we don't need that one story, as we have plenty others...
https://www.cnet.com/news/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoor-acces...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-pentagon-analyst-china-...
Certainly, but we don't need that one story, as we have plenty others...
https://www.cnet.com/news/us-finds-huawei-has-backdoor-acces...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-pentagon-analyst-china-...
actually you could go further and say:
- Apple doesn't let you secure your OWN device. Apple does not give you permission to run a firewall or any other app to do your own security.
- Apple doesn't allow you to see what your phone is doing. You cannot see what apps are running, when they are running or what data is being sent where.
- Apple encumbers your data. It doesn't provide an alternative to icloud. Why not a personal icloud, self-hosted on macos. Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone? Apple could make it easy, but instead they try to upsell you on more icloud storage.
- Apple doesn't let you secure your OWN device. Apple does not give you permission to run a firewall or any other app to do your own security.
- Apple doesn't allow you to see what your phone is doing. You cannot see what apps are running, when they are running or what data is being sent where.
- Apple encumbers your data. It doesn't provide an alternative to icloud. Why not a personal icloud, self-hosted on macos. Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone? Apple could make it easy, but instead they try to upsell you on more icloud storage.
> Apple does not give you permission to run a firewall or any other app to do your own security.
Apple does allow security products on the Mac, and I have analyzed popular ones such as SecureMac's MacScan 2, and others that were on the Mac App Store's bestseller list, and there are tons of scams.
Users hear that it's good advice to install antivirus but don't know how to evaluate them. It is to Apple's discredit (and publishers like MacWorld that gave glowing reviews to MacScan) that these flourish on the Mac, but thankfully iOS users have not been duped to the same extent.
I don't know if it's really true that you're not allowed to run firewalls and such on iOS. They provide content blocking and VPN APIs. See the ability for Wireguard to introduce a completely new VPN protocol simply by installing an app. There is a lot of engineering effort that goes into supporting that.
> You cannot see what apps are running.
The model for when apps are executing is more complicated on iOS. I don't think it's as useful to think about an app's lifecycle as you do on a traditional desktop OS. Security that relies on you "catching" an app executing (if such monitoring is not always-on) is not good security.
> Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone?
You can easily back up an iPhone (encrypted, even) to a Mac or PC. This has existed longer than iCloud Backup. Apple does not release tools for inspecting an opaque backup blob, though there are some reverse engineered ones.
Apple does allow security products on the Mac, and I have analyzed popular ones such as SecureMac's MacScan 2, and others that were on the Mac App Store's bestseller list, and there are tons of scams.
Users hear that it's good advice to install antivirus but don't know how to evaluate them. It is to Apple's discredit (and publishers like MacWorld that gave glowing reviews to MacScan) that these flourish on the Mac, but thankfully iOS users have not been duped to the same extent.
I don't know if it's really true that you're not allowed to run firewalls and such on iOS. They provide content blocking and VPN APIs. See the ability for Wireguard to introduce a completely new VPN protocol simply by installing an app. There is a lot of engineering effort that goes into supporting that.
> You cannot see what apps are running.
The model for when apps are executing is more complicated on iOS. I don't think it's as useful to think about an app's lifecycle as you do on a traditional desktop OS. Security that relies on you "catching" an app executing (if such monitoring is not always-on) is not good security.
> Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone?
You can easily back up an iPhone (encrypted, even) to a Mac or PC. This has existed longer than iCloud Backup. Apple does not release tools for inspecting an opaque backup blob, though there are some reverse engineered ones.
> They provide content blocking
the flaw there is that it is opt-out not opt-in, and you can only block web activity, not apps.
> You cannot see what apps are running.
Yes, the model is more complicated, but it abstracts away important ways apps can run even if you don't realize it, such as notifcations, "voip".
> > Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone? > You can easily back up an iPhone (encrypted, even) to a Mac or PC.
Kind of. You don't back up apps or app private data. In other words, restoring your phone is at the mercy of apple and the app folks. Will you get the same app? Will you get your audiobooks? no, you will have to download them again.
the flaw there is that it is opt-out not opt-in, and you can only block web activity, not apps.
> You cannot see what apps are running.
Yes, the model is more complicated, but it abstracts away important ways apps can run even if you don't realize it, such as notifcations, "voip".
> > Why not even a time-machine backup of your phone? > You can easily back up an iPhone (encrypted, even) to a Mac or PC.
Kind of. You don't back up apps or app private data. In other words, restoring your phone is at the mercy of apple and the app folks. Will you get the same app? Will you get your audiobooks? no, you will have to download them again.
1) The article never clarifies why Apple is sending location data. It could just be for the Find my Phone feature in which case users should just switch that off.
2) Apple doesn't have computer backups. But agreed that it isn't great that backups are not encrypted with my key.
3) It means Apple will provide information to advertisers about users but not in way that identifies them. Look into Differential Privacy. And I don't think you understand advertising if you think Apple can ever compete with the micro-targeting capabilities of Facebook/Google's advertising platforms.
2) Apple doesn't have computer backups. But agreed that it isn't great that backups are not encrypted with my key.
3) It means Apple will provide information to advertisers about users but not in way that identifies them. Look into Differential Privacy. And I don't think you understand advertising if you think Apple can ever compete with the micro-targeting capabilities of Facebook/Google's advertising platforms.
> Apple doesn't have computer backups.
You've been able to back up iOS devices to a Mac or PC since the first iPhone came out, longer than iCloud has been around. Those backups are encrypted with your own key that Apple does not have access to.
You've been able to back up iOS devices to a Mac or PC since the first iPhone came out, longer than iCloud has been around. Those backups are encrypted with your own key that Apple does not have access to.
Indeed. While we're at it, let's not forget the PRISM [1] program, or the fact that "privacy from advert companies" does not imply "privacy from all surveillance".
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
Isn’t point 2 a consequence of the law that they have to follow? Don’t know about rest of the world but I think in EU they are forced to disclose your personal information to the government if asked to do so. This is also in their privacy policy.
I think this is definitely the case.
And as iCloud is a global service they really have to cater for the lowest common denominator.
And as iCloud is a global service they really have to cater for the lowest common denominator.
Then they could offer that feature just in those jurisdictions.
Aren't there ways of verifying the integrity of the hardware via software on boot?
iCloud backups are end to end encrypted if 2 factor authentication is turned on according to your link.
100% true for me and my family too. The vertically integrated software where most things just work and work well together is nice too
But they build very good privacy and security into their products. And they structure their UI and defaults in such a way that the average user benefits with no effort or specialized knowledge.
Sometimes they do, and I agree that they're much better than a lot of big tech companies.
Still, their insistence on tying almost everything to iCloud and then not encrypting iCloud properly is a major black mark against them, which severely reduces the usefulness of their devices and associated services if you value privacy and security.
Sometimes they do, and I agree that they're much better than a lot of big tech companies.
Still, their insistence on tying almost everything to iCloud and then not encrypting iCloud properly is a major black mark against them, which severely reduces the usefulness of their devices and associated services if you value privacy and security.
On the other hand, tying everything to iCloud and then losing all your data because you replaced your sole device and forgot your password would be disastrous. This is the scenario that requires Apple to retain the keys to your iCloud, and as long as they have those keys, they can be compelled to decrypt it under lawful government order.
The thing is, once data is in iCloud, there are other ways you can retrieve it and back it up yourself as long as you do have working authentication, and I can see no good argument for not offering E2E encryption across the board that is tied to such identification.
Worst case, you generate a suitably robust key that is used for authentication and encryption, and you provide a means to export it and back it up however you want without sending it to any third party. You can still use all the snazzy secure enclaves and facial recognition and so on to protect a copy of that key that is held on each of your personal devices to enable easy but reasonably secure access, but the underlying technology is tried and tested, it does not have the lock-in problem, and it does not require data in iCloud to be accessible to anyone but the keyholder.
Also note that this needn't necessarily be mandatory. If users are OK with trusting Apple, they could still use the current approach. But if you're going to claim to be a strong supporter of privacy and security, you should really have at least the option for proper encryption of everything for those people and businesses that want it.
Worst case, you generate a suitably robust key that is used for authentication and encryption, and you provide a means to export it and back it up however you want without sending it to any third party. You can still use all the snazzy secure enclaves and facial recognition and so on to protect a copy of that key that is held on each of your personal devices to enable easy but reasonably secure access, but the underlying technology is tried and tested, it does not have the lock-in problem, and it does not require data in iCloud to be accessible to anyone but the keyholder.
Also note that this needn't necessarily be mandatory. If users are OK with trusting Apple, they could still use the current approach. But if you're going to claim to be a strong supporter of privacy and security, you should really have at least the option for proper encryption of everything for those people and businesses that want it.
These days I have enough other apple devices tied in (family settings etc) that i could lose one device and still be authenticated via another
I think the secure enclave is the winning technology - whilst not everyone has to have a smartphone in the brave new digital world,everyone will have to have at least one secure enclave (HSM probably tied to biometrics)
I think the secure enclave is the winning technology - whilst not everyone has to have a smartphone in the brave new digital world,everyone will have to have at least one secure enclave (HSM probably tied to biometrics)
Yes, although this is hardly unique to Apple. Play mad-libs with this statement and it applies to the vast majority of cloud solutions.
___ have your ____, and as long as they have those ____, they can be compelled to ____ it under lawful government order.
___ have your ____, and as long as they have those ____, they can be compelled to ____ it under lawful government order.
That's true, and most cloud solutions also do the same thing as Apple and retain the keys necessary to regain access to the account.
How do you prove that it is your account then?
This is frustrating, but it doesn't bother me too much on the iPhone -- I can just not use iCloud and periodically back up my phone locally. I don't really need to sync anything but photos because I don't create or edit documents on my phone.
On the other hand, the iPad is a very capable device for content creation, but I couldn't find a reliable way to sync files that doesn't leave them readable to Apple or another party. That'd probably be OK if I could use an iPad as my only computer, but I can't (or won't) today.
On the other hand, the iPad is a very capable device for content creation, but I couldn't find a reliable way to sync files that doesn't leave them readable to Apple or another party. That'd probably be OK if I could use an iPad as my only computer, but I can't (or won't) today.
I don't really need to sync anything but photos because I don't create or edit documents on my phone.
This is one of the key points. You can plug an iPhone into almost any modern PC, Apple or otherwise, and download the photos and videos. But you can't do the same for other types of data without using one or more of an Apple computer, specialist software or iCloud. The middle option, which is the only one not entirely controlled by Apple itself, has a long history of attempts that proved not to work entirely reliably or last for long. And as you say, for an iPad, where perhaps more users want to do substantial creative work, the same issues apply.
I understand that Apple's current business model is heavily tied to locking customers into its ecosystem, but that does become a significant problem for people who just want a nice phone but also respect for their privacy, and I do think Apple should be called out for this just as I think it's fair to praise them for being much better on broader privacy issues than most of their competitors.
This is one of the key points. You can plug an iPhone into almost any modern PC, Apple or otherwise, and download the photos and videos. But you can't do the same for other types of data without using one or more of an Apple computer, specialist software or iCloud. The middle option, which is the only one not entirely controlled by Apple itself, has a long history of attempts that proved not to work entirely reliably or last for long. And as you say, for an iPad, where perhaps more users want to do substantial creative work, the same issues apply.
I understand that Apple's current business model is heavily tied to locking customers into its ecosystem, but that does become a significant problem for people who just want a nice phone but also respect for their privacy, and I do think Apple should be called out for this just as I think it's fair to praise them for being much better on broader privacy issues than most of their competitors.
What do you mean other types of data?
Almost anything else. iOS devices use the same protocols as things like DSLR cameras to allow plug-and-play access to download photos and videos (unless, ironically, you have iTunes software installed and it gets in the way). However, there is no equivalent to let you browse and locally download messages, notes, creative work, or any other type of data you might have on your phone with using one of the channels I mentioned before.
> I can just not use iCloud
Many third party apps that have a sync feature only work with iCloud, so a lot of people are forced to use it.
Many third party apps that have a sync feature only work with iCloud, so a lot of people are forced to use it.
> a reliable way to sync files that doesn't leave them readable to Apple or another party
It's worth noting that nothing in iOS or iCloud prevents apps from encrypting data using a separate user key and then storing in iCloud. (Essentially, using iCloud only as a reliable substrate for syncing files it cannot read.)
That popular apps do not do this is likely due to lack of demand as much as anything. I am sure there are some content creation apps that do provide this functionality, if one is willing to search hard enough.
It's worth noting that nothing in iOS or iCloud prevents apps from encrypting data using a separate user key and then storing in iCloud. (Essentially, using iCloud only as a reliable substrate for syncing files it cannot read.)
That popular apps do not do this is likely due to lack of demand as much as anything. I am sure there are some content creation apps that do provide this functionality, if one is willing to search hard enough.
You can set your own password on documents created with the iWorks apps, on PDFs, etc., not perfect, but at least that is something.
Most app backups in icloud are end to end encrypted. If you choose to backup your entire device in icloud (rather than automatically on your local mac) that backup is not end to end encrypted.
I agree it should be but that doesn’t seem like a huge deal especially considering the alternative platform (android) doesn’t even have a comprehensive backup solution (only individual apps via gdrive etc).
I agree it should be but that doesn’t seem like a huge deal especially considering the alternative platform (android) doesn’t even have a comprehensive backup solution (only individual apps via gdrive etc).
I agree it should be but that doesn’t seem like a huge deal
I respectfully disagree. Encouraging people to upload data that will probably be very personal in some cases, such as photos, videos or messages they store on their phone, without proper safeguards is at best negligent and/or abusive depending on your point of view. The fact that the other major mobile platform is even worse doesn't make the former situation any better.
I respectfully disagree. Encouraging people to upload data that will probably be very personal in some cases, such as photos, videos or messages they store on their phone, without proper safeguards is at best negligent and/or abusive depending on your point of view. The fact that the other major mobile platform is even worse doesn't make the former situation any better.
What I love about this move is that it's a double edged sword against google. ether google have to
1. cannibalize their main source of revenue and implement similar feature on Android and thus becoming a weaker competitor.
2. don't follow apple and let apple eat more of the smartphone market of people who worry about their privacy.
Apple doesn't make money from Ads, so it's strange that they waited this long to do this.
1. cannibalize their main source of revenue and implement similar feature on Android and thus becoming a weaker competitor.
2. don't follow apple and let apple eat more of the smartphone market of people who worry about their privacy.
Apple doesn't make money from Ads, so it's strange that they waited this long to do this.
> The company had the potential to raise revenue by a third every year, from an estimated $2 billion currently to $11 billion in 2025.
Source: https://in.reuters.com/article/apple-advertising/apple-could...
Source: https://in.reuters.com/article/apple-advertising/apple-could...
Most importantly, their interests directly align with users actually buying their products, not viewing ads on their products. Thus, they have a sort of vested interest in ensuring privacy (which is a product feature). The same cannot be said of Google's Android.
“Apple isn’t perfect.“
That’s the understatement of the year! Today I just found out that iOS will not show you the size of the videos for example. And there is no easy way to get it.
That’s the understatement of the year! Today I just found out that iOS will not show you the size of the videos for example. And there is no easy way to get it.
I have a serious question. Obviously if one were to choose between an ad-free experience and an ad-full experience, one would choose ad-free. But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized?
Personally, I would go with personalized because a non-personalized experienced usually has no relevancy and frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world.
From there, it really comes down to companies invading your privacy, usually they make the wrong assumptions from it. Why can't there be a way for me to tell the ad-world what I'm in the market for and have them stop trying to snoop around and guess what I want?
Most may say that making a Google search is enough to tell ads what I want but I think there are a ton of assumptions made there.
The problem for me is that I honestly can't think of more than a half dozen instances in the last 20+ years where ads made me aware of something new that I actually wanted, and zero of those were web-based. I can't think of a single time ads swayed my opinion to purchase something I didn't want or caused me to buy something earlier than I would have otherwise. At BEST there have been a few ads that have led me explore options within that market, but the company posting the ad had zero impact on my decision (it almost deters me, since that ad money could have been spent making the product better or cheaper, so the competition is probably a better buy).
Why would I want even 1% of the content I'm consuming to be polluted with irrelevant garbage? That's a huge amount of time and mental effort filtering out stuff like toothpaste ads because I googled directions to my dentist's office.
Nope. Ad blockers on EVERYTHING and custom CSS for sites that whine about ad blockers or display a sea of whitespace to inflate page view times.
Why would I want even 1% of the content I'm consuming to be polluted with irrelevant garbage? That's a huge amount of time and mental effort filtering out stuff like toothpaste ads because I googled directions to my dentist's office.
Nope. Ad blockers on EVERYTHING and custom CSS for sites that whine about ad blockers or display a sea of whitespace to inflate page view times.
As others have pointed out, if you're being subjected to consumeristic propaganda, might as well make it non-targeted so there's less chance of you buying in. It's like being dipped in a tub full of insects. You could choose your favorite type of insect to be crawling all over you... but would that really make the situation that much better?
Personally, the only time I had mildly relevant ads was back when I had an account on Instagram. It served ads for local businesses that actually kinda matched my interests. The rest is just "oh, you searched for info on a long-dead general? Must be interested in WW2 replica medals, buy fifty!"
Personally, the only time I had mildly relevant ads was back when I had an account on Instagram. It served ads for local businesses that actually kinda matched my interests. The rest is just "oh, you searched for info on a long-dead general? Must be interested in WW2 replica medals, buy fifty!"
> But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized?
No. I simply do not ever look at ads. I've never, in 30 years of browsing the web, intentionally clicked on an ad.
Furthermore, I don't want a company keeping a dossier on me. The exchange of seeing ads for something I might want isn't worth the assault on my privacy, if it worked. And it doesn't work, so no thank you.
No. I simply do not ever look at ads. I've never, in 30 years of browsing the web, intentionally clicked on an ad.
Furthermore, I don't want a company keeping a dossier on me. The exchange of seeing ads for something I might want isn't worth the assault on my privacy, if it worked. And it doesn't work, so no thank you.
Personalized means I’m buying more relevant ads and paying with my integrity. It’s better to see relevant than irrelevant ads but the amount of personal information I’m willing to give up is tiny and includes zero of my history online.
This was the bold new idea of Google, back in the day. At that time, the internet was plastered with banner ads for cars and shoes and other lowest common denominator crap. Personalized ads were a good thing!
oh gosh what was that article claiming that pre-internet, ads functioned as a monetary sacrifice that companies could make as a demonstration of their solvency. if you saw an ad frequently, that meant it was a big, stable company, that was preferable to have an ongoing relationship with. Personalized ads don't have that property. I think the author compared personalized ads to direct-mailers - those junk grocery store flyers that show up in your snailmail. They don't signal anything other than "this product exists"
How would you imagine "tell them what you're in the market for" would work? I don't think it would work at scale; almost no user would take time to make a manually personalized ad profile instead of ... not doing that.
If I'm in the market for something, I'm likely to indicate that by doing a search for relevant terms. So the search engine could sell associated ad space to appropriate categories of advertizers.
If I'm reading reviews about a certain product category, it's a fair bet I might be in the market for such a product. So the site could show me relevant ads.
If I'm reading a site devoted to a particular topic or activity, the publisher might reasonably guess that I could be in the market for related products, and offer relevant ads.
None of this requires any privacy-invasive tracking.
If I'm reading a general news site, the site shouldn't have any more idea what I'm "in the market for" than the publisher of a print newspaper I might buy.
If I'm browsing used-car listings, the site shouldn't have any idea what genre of novels I like to read, what my grocery cart usually contains, where I go to work out, or how many pets I have. Why does anyone think it's OK for a company to surreptitiously gather that sort of personal information about everyone?
If I'm reading reviews about a certain product category, it's a fair bet I might be in the market for such a product. So the site could show me relevant ads.
If I'm reading a site devoted to a particular topic or activity, the publisher might reasonably guess that I could be in the market for related products, and offer relevant ads.
None of this requires any privacy-invasive tracking.
If I'm reading a general news site, the site shouldn't have any more idea what I'm "in the market for" than the publisher of a print newspaper I might buy.
If I'm browsing used-car listings, the site shouldn't have any idea what genre of novels I like to read, what my grocery cart usually contains, where I go to work out, or how many pets I have. Why does anyone think it's OK for a company to surreptitiously gather that sort of personal information about everyone?
Why would it be any different from the way advertising worked before Facebook and Google?
Vogue subscribers are probably in the market for new designer clothes. People who watch Cesar Milan are probably in the market for pet supplies. Someone driving down a highway is probably in the market for gas and a snack. Someone who searches for “affordable laptop” is probably in the market to buy a new computer.
You don’t need to track someone’s every move to serve them relevant ads.
Vogue subscribers are probably in the market for new designer clothes. People who watch Cesar Milan are probably in the market for pet supplies. Someone driving down a highway is probably in the market for gas and a snack. Someone who searches for “affordable laptop” is probably in the market to buy a new computer.
You don’t need to track someone’s every move to serve them relevant ads.
I was calling out "user manually provide targeting information to ads companies" as unrealistic, the alternative of "don't have persistent user profiles for ads" is obviously possible.
I would choose personalized ads if ad companies would personally allow me the choice to select some predetermined categories of ads.
Personalized ads created by siphoning data off everything I do not so much.
Put it this way, to use an example, what kind of relationship would you prefer, someone who knows all the things about you because they asked or someone that comes up to you and is like 'yeah, I know you like this that and the other because i've been following you everywhere you go, listening to your phone calls and installed a RAT on your computer?
Personalized ads created by siphoning data off everything I do not so much.
Put it this way, to use an example, what kind of relationship would you prefer, someone who knows all the things about you because they asked or someone that comes up to you and is like 'yeah, I know you like this that and the other because i've been following you everywhere you go, listening to your phone calls and installed a RAT on your computer?
This could be great to include on device, the ad profile that's editable there so you're in control and when an affiliated ad network is encountered on a site/platform and with user granted access. A manipulated/curated queue of interests may be shared so recent purchases can be listed to better show relevant ads. Like what if you shared you're looking for phones, or you just bought something so do or don't show more of that?
Non-personalized all the way, and for many, many reasons. Two off the top of my head: 1) You already bought the product, and now you see ads for it for the next x weeks; 2) You may not want other people (like maybe a spouse) to know you were browsing for something (like a gift, or perhaps even something untoward).
On the second point, my spouse and I, each of us on our own devices, one of us can search for something, browse a website, and then the other one will start to see the ads for such in their Instagram feed (and for the record, it is usually me seeing the things my spouse is looking for). It is completely insidious and it needs to stop!
On the second point, my spouse and I, each of us on our own devices, one of us can search for something, browse a website, and then the other one will start to see the ads for such in their Instagram feed (and for the record, it is usually me seeing the things my spouse is looking for). It is completely insidious and it needs to stop!
The general consensus within the AdTech industry is that everything is going to be going back to the basic 'context-level' targeting. This will be very akin to the web 1.0 based targeting philosophies.
Still will be relevant to what you're doing and where you're spending your digital time but will lack the cross-site personalization and hyper-detailed targeting layers currently available to advertisers.
Still will be relevant to what you're doing and where you're spending your digital time but will lack the cross-site personalization and hyper-detailed targeting layers currently available to advertisers.
[deleted]
Serious answer: non-personalized until they figure out a real, safe way of me to post my interests that doesn't involve tracking, and I think that's highly improbable to happen, so non-personalized. I don't see a way of me personalizing ads without sacrificing things I'd prefer to have - my privacy around the Internet.
> it is inefficient use of money in this world
That's the advertiser's problem, not mine, and their choice to spend money just as it's mine to buy what they're selling. Advertising is already largely a guessing game of how to appeal to people and where to do it, and the only way to make it easier /today/ is by violating our privacy. They could spend the money however they want and choose to advertise.
> it is inefficient use of money in this world
That's the advertiser's problem, not mine, and their choice to spend money just as it's mine to buy what they're selling. Advertising is already largely a guessing game of how to appeal to people and where to do it, and the only way to make it easier /today/ is by violating our privacy. They could spend the money however they want and choose to advertise.
In theory personalized would be better. In practice I have seen several ads targeted just based on "living in large geographical area" and is "any gender aged 15 to 50".
The ones that were personalized where insulting. Like Facebook showing me ads for healing stones when I have my religion marked as atheists.
Facebook needs a lot less data and to force their adbuyers to actually target their ads. Probably though they don't because then the ad buyers will find out how little they actually gain from the ads.
The ones that were personalized where insulting. Like Facebook showing me ads for healing stones when I have my religion marked as atheists.
Facebook needs a lot less data and to force their adbuyers to actually target their ads. Probably though they don't because then the ad buyers will find out how little they actually gain from the ads.
I think contextual targeting is more than sufficient, and in fact is the only kind of advertisement that I would gauge is effective for my personal use. If I'm searching for a waffle iron, a restaurant to visit or a new car I expect to see relevant ads because that's exactly what I'm searching for. There's no need to violate my privacy by extrapolating my interests based on my site history. In fact this is what leads me to see ads for something well after I've already made my purchase.
This is the key.
Major firms that switched from outsourced “personalized” ads (ad networks w/ retargeting) to selling ads against content, found their ad revenue go up, and their advertisers found conversions go up.
Turns out that 50 years of advertising industry had gotten pretty good at tailoring ad messaging and placement to content for moving product — much stronger than endlessly showing people ads for a product they just searched and already purchased.
Major firms that switched from outsourced “personalized” ads (ad networks w/ retargeting) to selling ads against content, found their ad revenue go up, and their advertisers found conversions go up.
Turns out that 50 years of advertising industry had gotten pretty good at tailoring ad messaging and placement to content for moving product — much stronger than endlessly showing people ads for a product they just searched and already purchased.
If you are searching for a restaurant, what makes up the context? Is it just the query or are you okay with Google using what it knows about you to show you restaurants in your area?
I think the argument being made is that, even when they know everything about you, they still can't target you properly.
An example, I visit Amazon and my recommendations for the "buy it again" section are all very expensive networking equipment that I literally just ordered from Amazon to build out a new home network. There aren't any recommendations for consumables, like the box of exam gloves, hair gel, or the windshield wiper fluid tablets that I purchased in the last 6 months.
An example, I visit Amazon and my recommendations for the "buy it again" section are all very expensive networking equipment that I literally just ordered from Amazon to build out a new home network. There aren't any recommendations for consumables, like the box of exam gloves, hair gel, or the windshield wiper fluid tablets that I purchased in the last 6 months.
Personalized ads is a way to trick you into buying something which you had not necessarily planned to buy, i.e. psychological manipulation. The more they know about you, the better they can manipulate you into buying their product (whether you actually need it or not). I don't understand how anyone would agree on that.
I'm not fond of the current display of ads on websites and I block them mercilessly. If I'm looking for shoes, I'm shown more shoes in ads (this is my reality right now.) How is that trickery? Unless you're considering any advertisement manipulation. The part where the current model falls down is it doesn't stop (since there's no means to really show that one isn't interested) and a big ticket item like a toilet becomes your inaugural purchase in your new toilet buying hobby. The tech works by identifying users into audiences and marketers use this to allocate campaigns and budget to. Typically this doesn't include a lot of personal demographic information (FB & Google). Filling out a card with interests and opting in would be the best way to do this, something like rough location, age bracket (18-25, 26-34 etc.), income bracket, types of product interests maybe including a few categories of items (designer pants, tech backpack, industrial hardcore music, pizza delivery) recently purchased in a rotating queue.
> Unless you're considering any advertisement manipulation.
Any advertisement is manipulation. Think about it: the purpose of an ad is to influence your decisions primarily for the benefit the self-interest of the party that paid for the ad (otherwise they wouldn't have paid for it). Any benefit you derive from your decision is secondary, and doesn't typically factor into the decision to take out the ad. That's pretty clearly manipulation.
However, there are definitely differences in how manipulative an ad can be. An ad for a plumber in the yellow pages is not very manipulative, but a targeted political ad meant to make you angry that's been interjected into your Facebook feed is very manipulative.
Any advertisement is manipulation. Think about it: the purpose of an ad is to influence your decisions primarily for the benefit the self-interest of the party that paid for the ad (otherwise they wouldn't have paid for it). Any benefit you derive from your decision is secondary, and doesn't typically factor into the decision to take out the ad. That's pretty clearly manipulation.
However, there are definitely differences in how manipulative an ad can be. An ad for a plumber in the yellow pages is not very manipulative, but a targeted political ad meant to make you angry that's been interjected into your Facebook feed is very manipulative.
I'm looking at this more from a product standpoint. When someone shows an ad for a vehicle that's priced lower than before and I'm in the market for a car, I'd like to know about it. What do you consider an advertisement? Is a business sign an advertisement? I consider a lunch special saving me the time of thumbing through a menu, I don't consider it manipulation which has negative connotations as well and seems pretty binary, any interaction you have with someone would seem to fall under manipulation. I appreciate the food for thought though.
> When someone shows an ad for a vehicle that's priced lower than before and I'm in the market for a car, I'd like to know about it.
But that's not what modern advertising is. Let's look at a real car ad. Here's the first ad for a discrete vehicle that wasn't a Lambo that I found on youtube searching for "car ad": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk5QL_kKN_g.
It's message is roughly "if you drive a Land Rover you'll kinda be like this rugged, skillful, and cool adventurer guy who's driving a Land Rover." It doesn't mention price once and barely touches on any features. That's pretty par for the course for modern car ads: they aren't selling the product, but an emotional connection to a lifestyle.
Here's another one, it's the first one I found searching for "car ad" limited to this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkLjcQP26M. It doesn't mention price or and features. It's just pure association of positive emotions with the product.
The Land Rover looks rugged, but "a sleek fusion of zen...and spacecraft" is more my style. The Nissan Ariya is also a force, which is a big plus. Nissan it is, then!
> What do you consider an advertisement? Is a business sign an advertisement?
Product catalogs, menus, and business signs aren't advertisements (though sometimes they contain some marketing or are manipulative, but that's less common with them than with ads). They can be simple informational documents, and are cheap compared to an ad campaign. Ads are typically paid placements in some kind of media, meant to influence a consumer to benefit the advertiser (usually by making a purchase, eventually).
> I consider a lunch special saving me the time of thumbing through a menu...
It would also save time if they just ordered for you. You'd save the time, they'd get to sell you their item with the highest profit margin. Win-win?
But that's not what modern advertising is. Let's look at a real car ad. Here's the first ad for a discrete vehicle that wasn't a Lambo that I found on youtube searching for "car ad": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk5QL_kKN_g.
It's message is roughly "if you drive a Land Rover you'll kinda be like this rugged, skillful, and cool adventurer guy who's driving a Land Rover." It doesn't mention price once and barely touches on any features. That's pretty par for the course for modern car ads: they aren't selling the product, but an emotional connection to a lifestyle.
Here's another one, it's the first one I found searching for "car ad" limited to this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkLjcQP26M. It doesn't mention price or and features. It's just pure association of positive emotions with the product.
The Land Rover looks rugged, but "a sleek fusion of zen...and spacecraft" is more my style. The Nissan Ariya is also a force, which is a big plus. Nissan it is, then!
> What do you consider an advertisement? Is a business sign an advertisement?
Product catalogs, menus, and business signs aren't advertisements (though sometimes they contain some marketing or are manipulative, but that's less common with them than with ads). They can be simple informational documents, and are cheap compared to an ad campaign. Ads are typically paid placements in some kind of media, meant to influence a consumer to benefit the advertiser (usually by making a purchase, eventually).
> I consider a lunch special saving me the time of thumbing through a menu...
It would also save time if they just ordered for you. You'd save the time, they'd get to sell you their item with the highest profit margin. Win-win?
> But that's not what modern advertising is. Let's look at a real car ad.
Here's an example of a current automotive special, these are what dominate Google and FB ads (at least with the 150 automotive clients we work with) and there's typically some copy with it soliciting the price and some incentives. If someone's seen an ad there's dynamic ads which can be tailored to that audience. https://pictures.dealer.com/h/huntingtonbeachchryslerjeepcll...
> It would also save time if they just ordered for you. You'd save the time, they'd get to sell you their item with the highest profit margin. Win-win?
For example, the local gourmet Taco shop (cafe to the restaurant) normally has tacos for about $3.99 and on Tuesday they're $1.99, advertised on special with a drink, I know the tacos are good and that's a great deal. Their highest margin item is the auga fresca (which they sweeten with agave), they charge about $4.50 for that. Thanks for taking the time to let me see things from another perspective.
Here's an example of a current automotive special, these are what dominate Google and FB ads (at least with the 150 automotive clients we work with) and there's typically some copy with it soliciting the price and some incentives. If someone's seen an ad there's dynamic ads which can be tailored to that audience. https://pictures.dealer.com/h/huntingtonbeachchryslerjeepcll...
> It would also save time if they just ordered for you. You'd save the time, they'd get to sell you their item with the highest profit margin. Win-win?
For example, the local gourmet Taco shop (cafe to the restaurant) normally has tacos for about $3.99 and on Tuesday they're $1.99, advertised on special with a drink, I know the tacos are good and that's a great deal. Their highest margin item is the auga fresca (which they sweeten with agave), they charge about $4.50 for that. Thanks for taking the time to let me see things from another perspective.
To me, it feels like saying computers will never beat humans at _______ game to claim that computers will never be able to manipulate human decision making.
Marketers have already done this without targeted advertising for decades and gotten extremely good at it. Now they have the equivalent of nuclear weapons (individual profiles and data) and you still think it's going to turn out ok for the people?
Marketers have already done this without targeted advertising for decades and gotten extremely good at it. Now they have the equivalent of nuclear weapons (individual profiles and data) and you still think it's going to turn out ok for the people?
I would probably always pick non-personalized, as my assumption is that the less relevant they are, the easiest it would become for me to ignore them (assuming they are not more intrusive than the personalized ones).
This isn't a scalable solution.
If the value per ad decreases, services will need to display more til the user generates enough value to support the costs they incur.
If TV was able to cater ads to individual viewers then ad breaks would be a lot shorter.
If the value per ad decreases, services will need to display more til the user generates enough value to support the costs they incur.
If TV was able to cater ads to individual viewers then ad breaks would be a lot shorter.
> If TV was able to cater ads to individual viewers then ad breaks would be a lot shorter.
Or they could sell the same amount of ads as they do now for higher prices. Which one do you think the company would pick?
The length of ad breaks is determined by what 'price' the customer is willing to pay in terms of their time.
Or they could sell the same amount of ads as they do now for higher prices. Which one do you think the company would pick?
The length of ad breaks is determined by what 'price' the customer is willing to pay in terms of their time.
> This isn't a scalable solution.
I am not sure what your point is.
> If the value per ad decreases, services will need to display more til the user generates enough value to support the costs they incur.
What they need to do is to find a way to pay their bills. If ads allow them to do that then it's great (maybe non-personalized work well enough? Or contextual targeting, as others have suggested in this thread). If users cannot stand the increasing amount of ads then they will stop using their service. Or maybe these companies can adopt a mixed model where people can pay to not see the super intrusive ads, and everyone else gets the ads?
I am not sure what your point is.
> If the value per ad decreases, services will need to display more til the user generates enough value to support the costs they incur.
What they need to do is to find a way to pay their bills. If ads allow them to do that then it's great (maybe non-personalized work well enough? Or contextual targeting, as others have suggested in this thread). If users cannot stand the increasing amount of ads then they will stop using their service. Or maybe these companies can adopt a mixed model where people can pay to not see the super intrusive ads, and everyone else gets the ads?
> If TV was able to cater ads to individual viewers then ad breaks would be a lot shorter.
Personalized ads is one of the 'features' of ATSC 3.0 whenever that finally rolls out: https://www.techhive.com/article/3268635/next-gen-tv-to-ushe...
Personalized ads is one of the 'features' of ATSC 3.0 whenever that finally rolls out: https://www.techhive.com/article/3268635/next-gen-tv-to-ushe...
If personalized ads meant ads that were actually good recommendations for products I could be interested in and would be grateful to be informed about the existence of - maybe. The reality of it is that personalized ads are mostly just ads from those with the money and demographics info to stalk me around the internet - e.g. webshops running after me, believing that I abandoned my shopping cart simply because I got distracted, not because I was trying to figure out what the shipping cost would be and their site didn't leave me any other options. Or sites trying to sell me another vacuum cleaner weeks after I already bought one. The point I'm trying to make is that personalized ads are very poor at actually recommending me anything I care about. They're like semi-incompetent sales clerks in a physical store - I'd really prefer to do my shopping without them breathing down my neck. So long story short, personalized ads are just as useless to me as un-personalized ads, only creepier, and I'd prefer not to be stalked.
The products that I care about actually do offer personalized ads without tracking: think podcasts (not from major networks, but podcasts like ATP or Relay FM), blogs (like Daring fireball), and YouTubers in an area of interest I have (MKBHD, Linus Tech Tips). I don't even mind sponsored content from these people because more often than not, the products are sensible, tailored to my interests, and actually appealing. Yet zero optimization or learning went into it outside of understanding what the source material is and marketing against that.
Obviously you have a bigger problem when it comes to larger sites like NY Times, but why not just let me say "hey, show me tech products because I like tech" to personalize, rather than trying to infer what I want and get it wrong? I'd be more than happy to tell every ad network ever what I actually care about, but right now all of the optimization is focused on guessing what I care about instead.
Obviously you have a bigger problem when it comes to larger sites like NY Times, but why not just let me say "hey, show me tech products because I like tech" to personalize, rather than trying to infer what I want and get it wrong? I'd be more than happy to tell every ad network ever what I actually care about, but right now all of the optimization is focused on guessing what I care about instead.
Podcasts should be the gold standard for online advertising. They're perfect for everyone involved: there's no creepy tracking involved, and the ads are appealing because podcast producers tend to know and respect their audience. I never skip podcast ads because they're often entertaining in and of themselves (e.g., Reply All).
I like this sort of "personalization" podcasts do in their ads: with human judgment where the content creators exercise editorial control, not some black box chum box any rando can dump ads into.
I like this sort of "personalization" podcasts do in their ads: with human judgment where the content creators exercise editorial control, not some black box chum box any rando can dump ads into.
They're not perfect for everyone. It's usually a huge blackbox for advertisers who don't know what they are getting until they've dipped 50-100k into it and tracked the resulting conversions later in the funnel.
I'm 100% with this thought. Most "targeted" ads are garbage. I think this is also a chicken and egg problem. I don't want to give up more personal information so the the data set is limited on what i "like".
Instagram has an interesting model. Maybe because of the visual medium that it works well for me. I'll purposely do searches for a thing I'm interested in and click on related posts. After a couple days I'll start getting ads for companies selling things I'm looking for. Recently, new bedding & sheets. I'd imagine it's the same model Facebook uses but i rarely login there.
Instagram has an interesting model. Maybe because of the visual medium that it works well for me. I'll purposely do searches for a thing I'm interested in and click on related posts. After a couple days I'll start getting ads for companies selling things I'm looking for. Recently, new bedding & sheets. I'd imagine it's the same model Facebook uses but i rarely login there.
So in a world where targeted ads are actually useful you would probably opt-in? Would you ever try something like this?
You'd take a survey about your interests and/or things you're in the market for then you would get a monthly email with a variety of targeted ads. Over a year ago I wrote down in my "ideas" notebook "privacy respecting opt-in email advertisements" but then when I looked at it again later on I thought "I don't think anyone would sign up for this" haha.
You'd take a survey about your interests and/or things you're in the market for then you would get a monthly email with a variety of targeted ads. Over a year ago I wrote down in my "ideas" notebook "privacy respecting opt-in email advertisements" but then when I looked at it again later on I thought "I don't think anyone would sign up for this" haha.
One of the problems with ads is that they try to jump in front of me while I'm going about my business trying to do something else - it's the wrong time for a product recommendation in any case. I'm happy to go on sites like thewirecutter or cleverhiker when I want specific product recommendations for something. But that only works for products and product types that I already know about. If I could have an inbox of products that were likely to interest me, which I could check or ignore at my leisure (sorta like Spotify's Discover Weekly) - yes, I might just check that out, and even keep coming back if it kept giving good recommendations.
. This idea goes in the right direction, in my views. I already sign ip to newsletters for things I want repeated reminders for, or updates about. If your service replaced newsletters, and could guarantee to work for things like ticket sales as well as commodity items, it might work.
Criticism like this essentially boil down to the adverts not being targeted enough. Lumping you in the wrong group, not knowing enough about your intentions, etc.
Perhaps you didn't read the last part of that comment:
> So long story short, personalized ads are just as useless to me as un-personalized ads, only creepier, and I'd prefer not to be stalked.
> So long story short, personalized ads are just as useless to me as un-personalized ads, only creepier, and I'd prefer not to be stalked.
An alternative interpretation is that the level of stalking, intrusion, & privacy you would have to give up to be targeted enough to make it useful isn't an acceptable trade off (& isn't even technically possible in the near future).
No, I'd say it boils down to ads being a bad way to discover products you are interested in. I love sites like thewirecutter or similar for getting actual recommendations, when I want to seek something out. Randomly getting products recommended in a drive-by fashion as I surf around the internet doesn't work, but even if it did work, it's neither the format nor timing in which I'd ever want to receive these recommendations anyway.
If targeted ads are no better, and maybe even worse, than untargeted ads, that doesn't imply you need more targeting. Maybe it implies targeting doesn't work (at least for the purpose of providing ads the user wants to see).
I prefer contextual ads, ie. related to what I'm currently looking at, not what my ad profile thinks my personality is based on something unrelated I did on another device last week.
I prefer contextual ads, ie. related to what I'm currently looking at, not what my ad profile thinks my personality is based on something unrelated I did on another device last week.
> I prefer contextual ads, ie. related to what I'm currently looking at, not what my ad profile thinks my personality is based on something unrelated I did on another device last week.
That would be my preference for browsing the web, or looking at results of a search. But what about the ads that rely on doom-scrolling? The ones that are inserted every two posts on a Facebook feed would be hard to make contextual, for example.
That would be my preference for browsing the web, or looking at results of a search. But what about the ads that rely on doom-scrolling? The ones that are inserted every two posts on a Facebook feed would be hard to make contextual, for example.
I don't mind some Instagram ads which are directly related to accounts I follow. For example, follow some musicians on Instagram and get an advert for some other artist's new album. I don't use Facebook but I guess it could work similarly if you follow certain interest-related groups. However, I wouldn't like if it was using my interactions with friends to target me.
Both of these are better that tracking your activity all over the web and using that to target you.
Both of these are better that tracking your activity all over the web and using that to target you.
Reading that, I’m SO glad I left facebook.
It is a fair criticism, is it not? My go-to for this issue is my Kindle Paperwhite for which I did not spend the extra $20 to turn off the ads. Amazon has over ten years of my reading habits, which mainly consist of sci-fi, philosophical/religious non-fiction, and miscellaneous dregs. You know what I have never, ever read in my life? Some along the lines of the "Witches of Paragrene Point" series of books. Or the "Defending $POPULAR_90S_GIRL_NAME" series (which I take to be "manly hunk is bodyguard for a female has to rescue her at some point"). But those show up on my Kindle, at which point I assume Amazon just isn't even trying.
After about ten years or so of Kindle ownership, I recall clicking the ad and buying the book exactly once. Yup, a sci-fi book, and it was pretty damned good as I recall. The title, you ask? Hell if I know, Amazon never showed me another book from that author ever again. And I wish they would, because I can't remember which one in my "stacks" of sci-fi is the one I want.
After about ten years or so of Kindle ownership, I recall clicking the ad and buying the book exactly once. Yup, a sci-fi book, and it was pretty damned good as I recall. The title, you ask? Hell if I know, Amazon never showed me another book from that author ever again. And I wish they would, because I can't remember which one in my "stacks" of sci-fi is the one I want.
The ad platforms have very clear incentives to deliver the ads that perform best for marketers so that the marketers spend more with the ad platform.
As much as you think the ads are doing a poor job, they're likely doing a better job in aggregate than alternatives.
Retargeting ads deliver higher value than prospecting ads so that's likely why you get so many more of those.
As much as you think the ads are doing a poor job, they're likely doing a better job in aggregate than alternatives.
Retargeting ads deliver higher value than prospecting ads so that's likely why you get so many more of those.
Honest question: Do retargeting ads just appear to perform better because I already had purchase intent and I was already going to go back there to buy it later anyway?
It's hard to tell, since that data isn't publicly available. But I read this article, which makes the case that this is often the case, and that marketing departments are willfully ignoring this, because it's in their interest to appear useful to the rest of their organization, and it's easy to hide using bad statistics: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...
This is a completely fair question and is something anyone working in performance optimization (marketing, product, etc.) should be asking themselves all the time when looking at data and finding ways to suss it out.
In the case of retargeting ads, you can run tests to figure it out. When I was doing more on the marketing side, I used to find a non-profit and then show ads for the non-profit to my retargeting audiences. That way we could test to see what kind of value our retargeting ads had vs. a completely irrelevant retargeted ad.
For the most part, the relevant retargeted ad outperformed irrelevant by enough magnitude to make the retargeting campaign profitable.
In the case of retargeting ads, you can run tests to figure it out. When I was doing more on the marketing side, I used to find a non-profit and then show ads for the non-profit to my retargeting audiences. That way we could test to see what kind of value our retargeting ads had vs. a completely irrelevant retargeted ad.
For the most part, the relevant retargeted ad outperformed irrelevant by enough magnitude to make the retargeting campaign profitable.
I think the illusion of "cheap" confuses most marketers. Marketers are left with an unbalanced sense that they are getting higher bang for their buck, ignoring centuries of marketing best practices about expanding reach and exploring non-traditional targets for secondary/tertiary effects. But I think it works well for the ad platforms themselves in the way that it encourages whales just like microtransactions in games. A marketer has an easier time considering opportunity cost for one big ad spend, versus not even paying attention to opportunity cost as they buy a lot of individual micro-targets. (And relatedly not paying attention to how much they are over-spending on people that already have their message versus missing opportunities on greater reach.)
The other aspect of it is these ads are supposedly targeted yet they look like they were produced for a general audience like you'd get on TV. They target the lowest common denominator. They are so safe and inoffensive they end up being simply boring to watch.
You nailed it. I've had personalized ads disabled for years, and a few years back I switched it back on to see if it's any better.
At the time I was shopping for a Pebble smartwatch and kept checking the site if it's on sale, because Pebble had a tendency to do short-time discounts without actually announcing them. After a few times, almost every Google ad was for "Pebble Smartwatch". It not only wasn't useful, it was annoying.
At the time I was shopping for a Pebble smartwatch and kept checking the site if it's on sale, because Pebble had a tendency to do short-time discounts without actually announcing them. After a few times, almost every Google ad was for "Pebble Smartwatch". It not only wasn't useful, it was annoying.
No. Ads should be related to the content, not personalized to the person viewing the content.
While I agree in principle, I don't think this is manageable given how diverse the content is on the Internet. What sort of thing are you going to sell me when I'm reading a news article about wars in the Middle East?
A subscription to Foreign Affairs Magazine
A device on which to read articles about wars in the middle east
An donation to Red Cross/Doctors without Borders/relevant charity
A device on which to read articles about wars in the middle east
An donation to Red Cross/Doctors without Borders/relevant charity
To continue adding:
Books on the history of the Middle East...
A Netflix documentary about the Middle East, offering a free Netflix trial if you want to watch it...
Books on the history of the Middle East...
A Netflix documentary about the Middle East, offering a free Netflix trial if you want to watch it...
If we had a truly diverse internet that wasn't driven by social media, non-personalized would work fine. Want to reach an audience interested in computers? Buy ads on sites that talk about computers. Instead, we have centralized distribution of content that requires personal knowledge to cater ads to individuals in order for them to be remotely effective.
I would say non-personalized. Like many siblings say, I often see ads for products after I've already bought them (or something similar). That's just useless.
I also remember a funny experience with Google Maps 2 years ago. I had my home and work addresses on profile. They're both in the same city and close enough that it's possible to walk between the two. I was looking at the closest way to go from the office to another place not far away, on foot. The top suggestions google thought I would have a use for while looking around my destinations were hotels. When I live maybe an hour away.
So I figure if Google's recommendations are so useless even though I gave them precise information, how exactly is some random adtech company going to figure something useful for me when all they supposedly have is infered information?
I also remember a funny experience with Google Maps 2 years ago. I had my home and work addresses on profile. They're both in the same city and close enough that it's possible to walk between the two. I was looking at the closest way to go from the office to another place not far away, on foot. The top suggestions google thought I would have a use for while looking around my destinations were hotels. When I live maybe an hour away.
So I figure if Google's recommendations are so useless even though I gave them precise information, how exactly is some random adtech company going to figure something useful for me when all they supposedly have is infered information?
Non-personalized -- I want to give up as little personal data as possible. Even if they claim that it's anonymous, with enough browsing data and other signals (IP, browser fingerprinting, etc), it eventually becomes possible to identify you.
Apart from the privacy aspect already mentioned, I'd choose non-personalized to minimize their effectiveness.
Inherently ads are made to manipulate your behavior. I'd choose being manipulated the least possible.
Inherently ads are made to manipulate your behavior. I'd choose being manipulated the least possible.
I would prefer "non-personalised" - simply because "personalised" means that people and companies I know nothing about know lots about me.
I'd rather not have personalized ads because I'd rather there not be an incentive to harvest my data to leverage for personalization.
I may be an outlier since I generally try and turn this stuff off everywhere. I also pay for a lot of ad-free content that I like (Stratechery, Stay Tuned with Preet, Persuasion, etc.).
I think the incentives from ads are a corrupting influence in building stuff that users want. I think the 'personalization is good for users' argument is often just a rationalization.
I may be an outlier since I generally try and turn this stuff off everywhere. I also pay for a lot of ad-free content that I like (Stratechery, Stay Tuned with Preet, Persuasion, etc.).
I think the incentives from ads are a corrupting influence in building stuff that users want. I think the 'personalization is good for users' argument is often just a rationalization.
The answer for me is no. As I have become increasingly aggressive about blocking ads, trackers, social media, using web containers, and setting up pihole, the ads I do see are hilariously untargeted.
It's been fascinating to get a glimpse of the bigger universe of ad content for women, doctors, lawyers, the infirmed... instead of just the $150 hoodies and baldness pills I used to see constantly.
It's been fascinating to get a glimpse of the bigger universe of ad content for women, doctors, lawyers, the infirmed... instead of just the $150 hoodies and baldness pills I used to see constantly.
> But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized?
Ads aren't needed for monetization of anything I care about.
Ads are only needed for businesses to scale quickly without having to actually provide a service worth paying for, and that's something we would be better off without.
Ads aren't needed for monetization of anything I care about.
Ads are only needed for businesses to scale quickly without having to actually provide a service worth paying for, and that's something we would be better off without.
Why would I prefer to buy from the salesperson who stalks me first?
Given a choice and assuming that ads stick around, I'd prefer to pull relevant personalized advertising when I want to see it.
In other words, allow advertisers to put all their personalized / targeted ads into a common ecosystem, but allow me to dip into that when I'm looking for some specific purchase.
That would mean that advertisers wouldn't have tracking on almost every website and inside almost every smartphone app, gathering information, taking up screen real estate, and consuming valuable bandwidth and user attention.
In other words, allow advertisers to put all their personalized / targeted ads into a common ecosystem, but allow me to dip into that when I'm looking for some specific purchase.
That would mean that advertisers wouldn't have tracking on almost every website and inside almost every smartphone app, gathering information, taking up screen real estate, and consuming valuable bandwidth and user attention.
> Why can't there be a way for me to tell the ad-world what I'm in the market for
Because there's no money in that. What's the value in selling you something that you've already decided you want to buy? Advertisers are trying to get into your head and manipulate your perception to make you open your wallet where you otherwise wouldn't have. And when you do decide to purchase a product, that it's the advertiser's brand which you think of first.
Because there's no money in that. What's the value in selling you something that you've already decided you want to buy? Advertisers are trying to get into your head and manipulate your perception to make you open your wallet where you otherwise wouldn't have. And when you do decide to purchase a product, that it's the advertiser's brand which you think of first.
I think the OP meant general "market", not the "concrete product X". Hence the decision has not yet been made.
Why on Earth should the Pareto optimality of the advertising business matter to anyone not in the advertising business? That is an extremely alien concern to me.
Most ads are related to previous searches or visits on the web. I once searched for a new car mirror - now I get car parts ads everywhere. Wouldn‘t it be smarter to have context-dependent ads? If I‘m reading a blog on hexagonal architecture, wouldn‘t I be interested in books on that and related topics? Those kinds of ads would not necessitate tracking.
non-personalized experienced usually has no relevancy
In my experience, it's the opposite. Non-personalized ads show me a broad range of items that I might possibly be interested in. The same way that newspaper, television, and magazine ads do. While personalized ads show me the same ads for the same products that I've either already purchased, or no am no longer interested in for weeks or months after I've moved on to other things.
frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world
I find this argument... odd. Why, as a consumer, which is how you've framed the overall argument, would I care even a little about the efficiency use of money in this world? I think to refine your point: Why would I give fark one about whether an advertiser's money is spent efficiently, and why is that even my concern at all?
Why can't there be a way for me to tell the ad-world what I'm in the market for
There is. For example, if you're into gardening, you read gardening magazines and garden-related advertisers advertise in those magazines. Easy peasy.
This is old tech that the dead tree folks figured out centuries ago. What's changed is that digital advertising isn't about actual advertising. It's about getting rich quick and easy without doing any heavy lifting that the legacy ad companies did.
In my experience, it's the opposite. Non-personalized ads show me a broad range of items that I might possibly be interested in. The same way that newspaper, television, and magazine ads do. While personalized ads show me the same ads for the same products that I've either already purchased, or no am no longer interested in for weeks or months after I've moved on to other things.
frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world
I find this argument... odd. Why, as a consumer, which is how you've framed the overall argument, would I care even a little about the efficiency use of money in this world? I think to refine your point: Why would I give fark one about whether an advertiser's money is spent efficiently, and why is that even my concern at all?
Why can't there be a way for me to tell the ad-world what I'm in the market for
There is. For example, if you're into gardening, you read gardening magazines and garden-related advertisers advertise in those magazines. Easy peasy.
This is old tech that the dead tree folks figured out centuries ago. What's changed is that digital advertising isn't about actual advertising. It's about getting rich quick and easy without doing any heavy lifting that the legacy ad companies did.
" if ads were needed for monetization,"
It is a solution to monetization. It is not the only solution. Lack of economic development has been because of the addictive nature of fascist behavior.
Non-personalized vs personalized is not the question for me; companies might still collect the same data from my "experience" habits.
If they are going to do that I want more profit from it than a custom news page.
Like I want money from the company leveraging my identity for the company's bottom line. I want some of that money if you are going to get a simulacra of me in a fucking database.
And until we get there we are stuck with a few rich lawless men keeping me for themselves.
It is a solution to monetization. It is not the only solution. Lack of economic development has been because of the addictive nature of fascist behavior.
Non-personalized vs personalized is not the question for me; companies might still collect the same data from my "experience" habits.
If they are going to do that I want more profit from it than a custom news page.
Like I want money from the company leveraging my identity for the company's bottom line. I want some of that money if you are going to get a simulacra of me in a fucking database.
And until we get there we are stuck with a few rich lawless men keeping me for themselves.
Wouldn't it make the least sense for advertisers to spend money showing ads to people who are already in the market for their product. Those people will probably be looking it up directly, which is what their website and SEO are there for. If anything contextual ads are probably better for people in the market, so when you search for their product they always appear in the first page of results.
I would think ads are meant to drive you into the market for a product and service, and other marketing tools are made to get you to pick a specific offering.
I would think ads are meant to drive you into the market for a product and service, and other marketing tools are made to get you to pick a specific offering.
> Wouldn't it make the least sense for advertisers to spend money showing ads to people who are already in the market for their product
For manufacturers? Sure. But what about storefronts? Having the best price won't matter if no one knows about it.
For manufacturers? Sure. But what about storefronts? Having the best price won't matter if no one knows about it.
I was forgetting storefronts, they might benefit from knowing a user is in the market for a good or service.
My thinking (probably wrong) is, if I am in the market for (to use the example someone else mentioned) a pebble smartwatch then I am probably going to look for the best price myself. No reason for storefronts to spend money putting their ads with their price up on unrelated sites and apps, if I'm going to search for a good price for free. It would probably be better just to buy and ad on the search term "pebble smartwatch" and advertise the price.
My thinking (probably wrong) is, if I am in the market for (to use the example someone else mentioned) a pebble smartwatch then I am probably going to look for the best price myself. No reason for storefronts to spend money putting their ads with their price up on unrelated sites and apps, if I'm going to search for a good price for free. It would probably be better just to buy and ad on the search term "pebble smartwatch" and advertise the price.
If I control the variables for personalization, yes. If I don't control them, then no.
For example websites could have variables like mental state (like knowing of you're depressed) and show you ads that could "work better" on you. I think this is unacceptable.
For example websites could have variables like mental state (like knowing of you're depressed) and show you ads that could "work better" on you. I think this is unacceptable.
Non-personalized, because it's less likely to work on me. I don't want to be manipulated.
If I decide on my own to buy something, it won't be hard to find. I don't need to tell advertisers what I'm in the market for. I can just tell Google or Amazon what I want and I'll find it immediately, even though I'm blocking the ads.
If I decide on my own to buy something, it won't be hard to find. I don't need to tell advertisers what I'm in the market for. I can just tell Google or Amazon what I want and I'll find it immediately, even though I'm blocking the ads.
To me it's more about trust regarding the data being gathered and what it is being used for. I care a lot more about how a company can misuse that personalized data to say sway an election.
If the data being gathered is purely to give me better recommendations for better targeted products then sure. If that level of personalization is restricted to just me as a user where I and only I can select the ad selection and that personalization remains on my machine.
The Facebook CA scandal demonstrates to me how frankly these companies are straight untrustworthy. I do not want political/security/insurance/job agencies getting anywhere near any of this data.
If the data being gathered is purely to give me better recommendations for better targeted products then sure. If that level of personalization is restricted to just me as a user where I and only I can select the ad selection and that personalization remains on my machine.
The Facebook CA scandal demonstrates to me how frankly these companies are straight untrustworthy. I do not want political/security/insurance/job agencies getting anywhere near any of this data.
You never felt creeped out by personalized ads? I.e. you search for X on website number 1, then visit totally unrelated website number 2 and get an ad for X?
I’ll take non-personalized, thanks. I don’t want advertisers sitting there making profiles about me that include everything they can guess.
Exactly. If I leave on personalization , I always fell like they will collect extra data, just for the sake of it.
I want content-linked advertising. If I’m reading a music blog I want to see ads for bands and synths, not razors and wrenches. If I’m reading stackoverflow I’d be content to gloss over ads for text editors and web hosting. Not the same f*ing razor ad.
Call me old school (I’m a 70s baby, 80s child). I enjoyed the content-linked advertising in magazines. I actually read them and used them to learn the market around my interest.
Robot selected ads which follow me around claiming to know what I like based on interactions I had do all the following:
- creep me out because I know I’m being followed
- annoy Me by removing any semblance of my own agency in the event: at least with content-linked ads I have chosen to consume that content and I feel like I want to in that zone
- annoy me by getting me wrong
- annoy me by assuming I’m just like everyone else that ticked the same boxes/set the same flags
- annoy me by presenting mostly mainstream stuff rather than small-scale/artisan/bespoke/local stuff that would be much more interesting. I appreciate that this one ought to work better if the advertising host/network knew where I was browsing from (which is a step towards tracking)
The tracking and bidding has completely destroyed what was actually good about advertising for the consumer.
Call me old school (I’m a 70s baby, 80s child). I enjoyed the content-linked advertising in magazines. I actually read them and used them to learn the market around my interest.
Robot selected ads which follow me around claiming to know what I like based on interactions I had do all the following:
- creep me out because I know I’m being followed
- annoy Me by removing any semblance of my own agency in the event: at least with content-linked ads I have chosen to consume that content and I feel like I want to in that zone
- annoy me by getting me wrong
- annoy me by assuming I’m just like everyone else that ticked the same boxes/set the same flags
- annoy me by presenting mostly mainstream stuff rather than small-scale/artisan/bespoke/local stuff that would be much more interesting. I appreciate that this one ought to work better if the advertising host/network knew where I was browsing from (which is a step towards tracking)
The tracking and bidding has completely destroyed what was actually good about advertising for the consumer.
> I have a serious question. Obviously if one were to choose between an ad-free experience and an ad-full experience, one would choose ad-free. But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized?
No. If I have to be surrounded by messages trying to manipulate me (which is what ads are, by the way), then I don't want them to be personalized for extra effectiveness (at manipulating me).
I don't really understand how some people seem to treat ads as some kind of neutral, helpful information source. It's almost like saying "I don't mind propaganda, since it's such an efficient way to find out what to think."
No. If I have to be surrounded by messages trying to manipulate me (which is what ads are, by the way), then I don't want them to be personalized for extra effectiveness (at manipulating me).
I don't really understand how some people seem to treat ads as some kind of neutral, helpful information source. It's almost like saying "I don't mind propaganda, since it's such an efficient way to find out what to think."
Exactly! I feel like most people already don't realize how much they are being manipulated. Each day is a struggle against malicous influences.
Even though I'm aware of it, I still fall for YouTube recommendations. My brain still lights up when I see an ad for a product I recognize. I'm still impressed by the sponsored Amazon search results.
Personalization only makes this worse. Now, that product that I made the difficult decision to pass on will taunt and distract me even in situations when I should be focusing on different things.
Even though I'm aware of it, I still fall for YouTube recommendations. My brain still lights up when I see an ad for a product I recognize. I'm still impressed by the sponsored Amazon search results.
Personalization only makes this worse. Now, that product that I made the difficult decision to pass on will taunt and distract me even in situations when I should be focusing on different things.
Definitely personalized. I stopped using FB a couple of years ago, but when I did, its ads were amazingly good (I almost miss them sometimes).
FB would show me an ad for the perfect obscure Kickstarter project that I was happy to back. Win-win.
FB would show me an ad for the perfect obscure Kickstarter project that I was happy to back. Win-win.
> But, if ads were needed for monetization
That's a big if.
That's a big if.
Why do I care about the advertisers efficiency?
If you were talking about some sort of imagined strong AI personalization I might prefer that assuming ad free wasn’t an option, but this absurd, deep from within the uncanny valley personalization is worse than generic advertising.
The only place I am exposed to generic ads are when watching sporting events at a bar or at someone’s house. Everywhere else I get ads blocked or get “targeted” ads that mildly (at best) offend me that that is what the algorithm thinks I’d be interested in buying. I prefer the generic ads.
If you were talking about some sort of imagined strong AI personalization I might prefer that assuming ad free wasn’t an option, but this absurd, deep from within the uncanny valley personalization is worse than generic advertising.
The only place I am exposed to generic ads are when watching sporting events at a bar or at someone’s house. Everywhere else I get ads blocked or get “targeted” ads that mildly (at best) offend me that that is what the algorithm thinks I’d be interested in buying. I prefer the generic ads.
I would vote for customized ads, but customized based on the content I'm viewing, not customized based on what they think I want or like.
If I'm reading an article about astronomy, give me a link to telescopes to buy. Don't show me the washer/dryer that I've been looking for in another context in my life.
I would even take content-customized ads with slight tweaks based on my personal profile, but still relevant to the content at hand. For example, if I'm in eastern Nebraska, give me the telescope ad from the example above. But if I'm in Philadelphia, maybe show me a link to the observatory at the Franklin Institute.
If I'm reading an article about astronomy, give me a link to telescopes to buy. Don't show me the washer/dryer that I've been looking for in another context in my life.
I would even take content-customized ads with slight tweaks based on my personal profile, but still relevant to the content at hand. For example, if I'm in eastern Nebraska, give me the telescope ad from the example above. But if I'm in Philadelphia, maybe show me a link to the observatory at the Franklin Institute.
I’d prefer ads that are not relevant to me because the chance of them manipulating me psychologically into doing something I wouldn’t rationally do is lower.
Advertising is the new smoking. We do not fully understand the damage it does to society and our planet, but it is huge.
Advertising is the new smoking. We do not fully understand the damage it does to society and our planet, but it is huge.
No take the Overcast podcast player for instance. Marco, the author, didn’t want any third party mystery meat SDK in his application and he wanted to control advertising. He created his own ad platform. Ads are based on the category of the podcast you are listening to. Nothing creepy about it and I’ve found quite a few relevant podcasts.
The entire podcast until recently has been supported by no more targeting than guessing about the demographics.
The entire podcast until recently has been supported by no more targeting than guessing about the demographics.
In a previous life I worked in ad-tech, and I don't think it's as black and white as the OP makes it out to be. I think that's actually a Bad Thing™️ as this industry needs to profoundly change or die.
This isn't a new, unexpected thing for sell or demand side ad-tech platforms, they've seen the death of IDFA coming for a few years. The reality is that this will likely stop more 'above board' players (a good thing) but the gray area and outright malicious, scummy ad and data companies will still attempt to generate unique identifiers through things like native fingerprinting. I think Apple will also stop them incerementally, but this sadly isn't an outright victory.
I don't understand it myself, but people DO opt-in to personalised ads in pretty decent numbers, it's anecdata, but I've seen data from very large control trials (testing for exactly this scenario) where ~50% of users opt-in. The devil is in the detail with these things: what will the copy be? will alternatives be presented? how will users be able to link 'value' to what they're being asked for?
This isn't a new, unexpected thing for sell or demand side ad-tech platforms, they've seen the death of IDFA coming for a few years. The reality is that this will likely stop more 'above board' players (a good thing) but the gray area and outright malicious, scummy ad and data companies will still attempt to generate unique identifiers through things like native fingerprinting. I think Apple will also stop them incerementally, but this sadly isn't an outright victory.
I don't understand it myself, but people DO opt-in to personalised ads in pretty decent numbers, it's anecdata, but I've seen data from very large control trials (testing for exactly this scenario) where ~50% of users opt-in. The devil is in the detail with these things: what will the copy be? will alternatives be presented? how will users be able to link 'value' to what they're being asked for?
Tracking based advertising hasn't delivered on its promises. As a user, we're seeing more advertising than ever, and it turns out that seeing advertising for a thing which you shopped for and bought last week just isn't any better than seeing advertising that relates to the article I'm reading at the time. I'm also very skeptical that tracking based advertising actually works better for publishes either. Since the number of companies with good tracking data is so limited, the tracking companies (primarily Facebook & Google) have a near monopoly on user data and use that to extract more money out of advertisers, but the publishers see a decreasing fraction of that amount.
>it turns out that seeing advertising for a thing which you shopped for and bought last week just isn't any better than seeing advertising that relates to the article I'm reading at the time.
This is due to (1) not having enough data to build good algorithms and (2) advertising campaigns being set up poorly (its not only technically challenging but also expensive). This issue can actually be fixed and likely will in the future.
>I'm also very skeptical that tracking based advertising actually works better for publishes either.
The majority of publishers make more money from personalized ads. NYT and premium publishers don't necessarily since ads on NYT are valuable by itself, but ads on my blog are worthless by themselves. Add some user data, and ads on my blog are worth much more.
This is due to (1) not having enough data to build good algorithms and (2) advertising campaigns being set up poorly (its not only technically challenging but also expensive). This issue can actually be fixed and likely will in the future.
>I'm also very skeptical that tracking based advertising actually works better for publishes either.
The majority of publishers make more money from personalized ads. NYT and premium publishers don't necessarily since ads on NYT are valuable by itself, but ads on my blog are worthless by themselves. Add some user data, and ads on my blog are worth much more.
> This is due to (1) not having enough data to build good algorithms
Fundamentally advertising serves the needs of advertisers and not the needs of the viewer. No amount of additional data will make advertising less frustrating because ultimately neither the publisher, nor the advertiser cares if my experience is more or less frustrating.
More data won't result in less frustrating advertising, it will result in more effective advertising for the advertiser and more revenue flowing to the big ad companies as a result.
> The majority of publishers make more money from personalized ads. NYT and premium publishers don't necessarily since ads on NYT are valuable by itself, but ads on my blog are worthless by themselves. Add some user data, and ads on my blog are worth much more.
This is neither proven, nor entirely true. Advertising existed and was profitable before targeted advertising was created. Publishers made more money before Google/ Facebook took over and dominated the industry.
I've seen very few blogs which are worth a damn which have big advertising from Google/ Facebook on them. Mostly because good bloggers don't want to debase their otherwise good content.
Fundamentally advertising serves the needs of advertisers and not the needs of the viewer. No amount of additional data will make advertising less frustrating because ultimately neither the publisher, nor the advertiser cares if my experience is more or less frustrating.
More data won't result in less frustrating advertising, it will result in more effective advertising for the advertiser and more revenue flowing to the big ad companies as a result.
> The majority of publishers make more money from personalized ads. NYT and premium publishers don't necessarily since ads on NYT are valuable by itself, but ads on my blog are worthless by themselves. Add some user data, and ads on my blog are worth much more.
This is neither proven, nor entirely true. Advertising existed and was profitable before targeted advertising was created. Publishers made more money before Google/ Facebook took over and dominated the industry.
I've seen very few blogs which are worth a damn which have big advertising from Google/ Facebook on them. Mostly because good bloggers don't want to debase their otherwise good content.
Promises to whom? Advertisers use it because it has shown improvements in results.
I also don’t believe in Ad-tech doom and gloom. Yes, ad companies won’t be hoarding as much data, but advertisement worked fine before it started to do it.
Back to basics it is, treat me well as a customer, deliver as promised and use ads responsibly (aka no more hyper targetting)
Back to basics it is, treat me well as a customer, deliver as promised and use ads responsibly (aka no more hyper targetting)
For me, the term ad-tech has become synonymous with the modern-day scummy data hoarders and surveillance corporations, maybe that's the same for others? It could make for a lot of misunderstandings.
I guess most people would agree that advertisement in general can fulfill an important function, if done responsibly – but not like that. These tracking excesses really must die.
I guess most people would agree that advertisement in general can fulfill an important function, if done responsibly – but not like that. These tracking excesses really must die.
Not only that, but we are (were?) in a race to the bottom, ever declining return on ads, so more ads must be delivered, more tracking must be done, creating more friction (ad-overload)
I too believe ads can function responsibly, ads have run in newspapers for a century, so a equilibrium can exist.
This won't be the end of it. It's just one of the many battles.
And iOS isn't for everyone. Yes it's great for protecting privacy but it's also extremely restrictive for the users. The fact that they don't even allow real third-party browsers is baffling in this day and age. I also can't use my Yubikey in OpenPGP mode which I really need for my password manager and SSH access. I know it supports U2F now but that's not enough (and was way too late as well).
But I agree the advertising industry has to die. I don't believe in the 'working together' approach of the EFF with their plugins that stop blocking cookies when they see the privacy policy file. I mean, if you're not tracking me, then why need third party cookies in the first place?
It'll never happen though. They'll always find a way to track us.
And iOS isn't for everyone. Yes it's great for protecting privacy but it's also extremely restrictive for the users. The fact that they don't even allow real third-party browsers is baffling in this day and age. I also can't use my Yubikey in OpenPGP mode which I really need for my password manager and SSH access. I know it supports U2F now but that's not enough (and was way too late as well).
But I agree the advertising industry has to die. I don't believe in the 'working together' approach of the EFF with their plugins that stop blocking cookies when they see the privacy policy file. I mean, if you're not tracking me, then why need third party cookies in the first place?
It'll never happen though. They'll always find a way to track us.
The vast majority of users don't care about the issues you mention. They don't know what a browser engine is. They don't know what PGP is. They haven't heard of SSH and U2F. And the only opinion they have on cookies is that they want those "We use cookies, is that OK?" banners to go away forever.
These are issues that only developers and the superest of superusers care about. So it's not surprising that HN commenters think they are a big deal.
These are issues that only developers and the superest of superusers care about. So it's not surprising that HN commenters think they are a big deal.
Yeah they're a big deal for me... I don't care about other users ;)
That's what I mean with "iOS is not for everyone". They try to cater only to the average user. Or at least the more affluent subset of those. I'm not everyone but I'm certainly part of 'everyone' :)
In fact this is really what's pushing me away from Mac too as they're heading in the same direction. When I moved to Mac in 2004 they were a great POSIX capable system with a great UI (unlike the mess Linux was at that time) and custom software. Now more and more power features are replaced by on/off sliders that don't do what I need.
Windows and Android are heading in the opposite direction, adding more power features. I really like the power that things like DeX and Termux provide (though the latter isn't necessarily a feature, it's definitely something that wouldn't work on iOS). I can work a whole day on my phone, multitasking and everything. You can't do that with an iPhone.
Still, both with Windows and Android you give up considerable privacy. And that's not necessarily needed. Things like scoped storage should have happened years ago.
That's what I mean with "iOS is not for everyone". They try to cater only to the average user. Or at least the more affluent subset of those. I'm not everyone but I'm certainly part of 'everyone' :)
In fact this is really what's pushing me away from Mac too as they're heading in the same direction. When I moved to Mac in 2004 they were a great POSIX capable system with a great UI (unlike the mess Linux was at that time) and custom software. Now more and more power features are replaced by on/off sliders that don't do what I need.
Windows and Android are heading in the opposite direction, adding more power features. I really like the power that things like DeX and Termux provide (though the latter isn't necessarily a feature, it's definitely something that wouldn't work on iOS). I can work a whole day on my phone, multitasking and everything. You can't do that with an iPhone.
Still, both with Windows and Android you give up considerable privacy. And that's not necessarily needed. Things like scoped storage should have happened years ago.
Much like Flash, not allowing third-party browsers could be explained as a cynical control mechanism on Apple’s part... or as their not wanting to see tech support volume shoot up as Chrome and Firefox users complain their battery life is terrible. Or some combination of the two.
I understand their have their reasons.. But I don't like them taking that choice away from me.
The problem is, right now we have only 2 choices. Living in the open world but getting all our information sucked dry by advertisers. Or live in Apple's protected little garden but not be allowed to leave it. And pay much more for hardware specs.
Neither are very appealing.
The problem is, right now we have only 2 choices. Living in the open world but getting all our information sucked dry by advertisers. Or live in Apple's protected little garden but not be allowed to leave it. And pay much more for hardware specs.
Neither are very appealing.
A new iPhone SE has flagship specs for $400-500, and Androids cheaper than that (and even much costlier ones) struggle to last 2-3 years - an iPhone easily lasts 4+.
I don't want to turn this into an Android vs iOS debate, but want to highlight that one of the main complaints against getting an iPhone (cost) no longer really applies - it could even be considered a strongsuit. I agree that the walled garden can be annoying, but I've rarely found myself longing for Android customisation, and have very much noticed how some apps work much better on my iPhone. This is completely down to preference though.
I also care deeply about privacy, but even with 0 consideration for it, I think I still would've switched - I am super happy seeing Apple pushing it this hard.
(I recently went back to iOS after 2 phones and 5 years on Android)
I don't want to turn this into an Android vs iOS debate, but want to highlight that one of the main complaints against getting an iPhone (cost) no longer really applies - it could even be considered a strongsuit. I agree that the walled garden can be annoying, but I've rarely found myself longing for Android customisation, and have very much noticed how some apps work much better on my iPhone. This is completely down to preference though.
I also care deeply about privacy, but even with 0 consideration for it, I think I still would've switched - I am super happy seeing Apple pushing it this hard.
(I recently went back to iOS after 2 phones and 5 years on Android)
Well, the iPhone SE has really poor specs compared to an Android of the same price IMO. The SoC is up to date, but the screen is only LCD, the bezels are huge (the screen to body ratio is very low) and the camera is only adequate.
Basically you're buying a 4-year-old phone with a modern SoC in it :) I don't think that is worth the price they are asking. I paid the same (440 euro) for my S8 3 years ago (it was out a bit over a year), and it already had a beautiful AMOLED screen, high screen to body ratio, and in particular DeX which I can't really do without anymore. And it's still fast enough now. I upgraded to that from my iPhone 6 which was becoming way too slow at that point (note: iOS 12 did fix this somewhat but by that time I had already had enough of it). Overall, the S8 aged better for me than the iPhone 6 did.
Compared to what you can get from Apple now vs the Android vendors, Apple is only ahead in terms of SoC when you're looking in the same price bracket. But that's not the only spec that matters.
Basically you're buying a 4-year-old phone with a modern SoC in it :) I don't think that is worth the price they are asking. I paid the same (440 euro) for my S8 3 years ago (it was out a bit over a year), and it already had a beautiful AMOLED screen, high screen to body ratio, and in particular DeX which I can't really do without anymore. And it's still fast enough now. I upgraded to that from my iPhone 6 which was becoming way too slow at that point (note: iOS 12 did fix this somewhat but by that time I had already had enough of it). Overall, the S8 aged better for me than the iPhone 6 did.
Compared to what you can get from Apple now vs the Android vendors, Apple is only ahead in terms of SoC when you're looking in the same price bracket. But that's not the only spec that matters.
I've said it before and I'll say it every time.
> But I don't like them taking that choice away from me. ... Or live in Apple's protected little garden but not be allowed to leave it. And pay much more for hardware specs.
I pay Apple a premium to make these decisions for me. They make my life easy to live.
In this particular case, I'm aligned with their simplification, until their browser is the majority player. That's when it would be worth my effort to make an educated choice.
> But I don't like them taking that choice away from me. ... Or live in Apple's protected little garden but not be allowed to leave it. And pay much more for hardware specs.
I pay Apple a premium to make these decisions for me. They make my life easy to live.
In this particular case, I'm aligned with their simplification, until their browser is the majority player. That's when it would be worth my effort to make an educated choice.
In the open world, you have less information sucked from you because you can block ads across apps, and you don't have to tell big brother Apple which apps you've installed or where you've used GPS.
>or as their not wanting to see tech support volume shoot up as Chrome and Firefox users complain their battery life is terrible.
When/if Apple opens iOS up to third party browser engines, I fully expect them to also add highly visible warnings of which apps are guzzling power. It's unfortunate that it takes something like that to get Google/Mozilla to take power efficiency seriously, though.
When/if Apple opens iOS up to third party browser engines, I fully expect them to also add highly visible warnings of which apps are guzzling power. It's unfortunate that it takes something like that to get Google/Mozilla to take power efficiency seriously, though.
In the case of Flash, there is no world where Adobe could get Flash working well on an iPhone in 2007 with 128MB RAM/400Mhz CPU when it could barely run on a 1GB RAM/1Ghz CPU Android in 2010.
This is the number one feature on iOS 14 that I cannot wait for. I am getting very tired of finding out that unrelated services know that I have used a specific app (like Facebook knows way too much).
Somewhat related (even though this is focused on Apps). I have noticed an uptick in websites that don't support safari, likely due to how they handle cookies. I hope this does not become super common (but I can't imagine many sites wanting to loose out on the iOS market)
Somewhat related (even though this is focused on Apps). I have noticed an uptick in websites that don't support safari, likely due to how they handle cookies. I hope this does not become super common (but I can't imagine many sites wanting to loose out on the iOS market)
You can already get some of these benefit by going to Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising and turn on "Limit Ad Tracking".
This sends an all-zeros IDFA to all APIs that request it^1.
iOS 14 begins the new prompts, lets you toggle this on a per-app basis, and, by being in front of users is just about guaranteed to dramatically increase the number of users who are opted-in.
[^1] https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003734626...
This sends an all-zeros IDFA to all APIs that request it^1.
iOS 14 begins the new prompts, lets you toggle this on a per-app basis, and, by being in front of users is just about guaranteed to dramatically increase the number of users who are opted-in.
[^1] https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003734626...
I'm on the dev beta, and it's pretty stable. There's a public beta available now. If you're itching to try it out, I'd recommend it!
I have heard that, my biggest concern is if there was a nasty iCloud bug introduced.
I would run the risk of loosing a lot of important documents in my iCloud Drive.
Maybe I will install it on my work iPhone but that is barely used right now.
I would run the risk of loosing a lot of important documents in my iCloud Drive.
Maybe I will install it on my work iPhone but that is barely used right now.
Beta 3 is less stable than beta 2 for some. I normally wait till beta 5 or 6 before installing on real device.
I've been using the full desktop version of the ublock origin plugin on firefox mobile for quite some time, and it's dramatically improved my mobile experience.
Yes it's great... I also use other adblocking methods (DNS based) but uBlock Origin remains king.
Only thing I really really miss from FF Mobile is the pull to refresh. I so wish they'd add that, because every time I open a tab with a news site that was already opened it shows stale information, and I have to open the hamburger menu to do a refresh. 2 actions instead of one.
An option to have sites auto refresh when switching to the tab after xx minutes would be great too. Right now it's just too inconvenient.
Only thing I really really miss from FF Mobile is the pull to refresh. I so wish they'd add that, because every time I open a tab with a news site that was already opened it shows stale information, and I have to open the hamburger menu to do a refresh. 2 actions instead of one.
An option to have sites auto refresh when switching to the tab after xx minutes would be great too. Right now it's just too inconvenient.
I'm using AdGuard (free) on Safari mobile and it wokrs great so far.
Same, I downloaded Firefox for mobile specifically to get the ublock origin plugin. Then I discovered that I like their tab display with the two columns of thumbnails a lot more than other mobile browsers as well.
This plugin works only in android, right? Tried to install it on my iPhone but it said it’s not compatible with my browser although i have Firefox installed.
Yup, Firefox on iOS isn't the full Firefox, its just a Webview (fake Safari) due to Apple's restrictions.
So no addons anytime soon.
So no addons anytime soon.
If you are interested in improve privacity on iPhone and user Firefox you can user Firefox focus but i will seed ads
Try BlockBear for Safari on iOS.
Some industries need to die. This one is akin to making horse carriages nowadays, except more evil.
Pretty much. It's incredible the mental gymnastics the adtech industry has gone through to believe it's important, or even fundamentally important to the world.
Still a thing: http://www.glinkowski.pl/en/sports-carriage-driving
To be fair, I think the long tail may cover any currently legal manufactures, now matter how technologically outdated, extending even to the paleolithic: https://www.goknapping.com/Products-Flint_Knapping_Tools.htm...
(It's reassuring to see even knapping is split between mods and trads. Do they get into long flint vs obsidian flamewars, I wonder?)
To be fair, I think the long tail may cover any currently legal manufactures, now matter how technologically outdated, extending even to the paleolithic: https://www.goknapping.com/Products-Flint_Knapping_Tools.htm...
(It's reassuring to see even knapping is split between mods and trads. Do they get into long flint vs obsidian flamewars, I wonder?)
If an entire industry dies because users were given an explicit upfront choice, because of one popup like the article says, then it wasn’t a productive industry.
We’ll see what really happens.
We’ll see what really happens.
What will really happen is ads get more sinister and hidden. Product placements in movies will seem childish in comparison. Astro-turfing is already huge on Reddit, it will spread to all parts of media now, blurring the lines between genuine opinions and forced narrative.
Ads, marketing and branding are integral part of capitalism, it's never going to go away from consumption focused societies.
Ads, marketing and branding are integral part of capitalism, it's never going to go away from consumption focused societies.
This is already happening, man.
Like you said, it's already huge on reddit, and is almost certainty happening on HN, too.
HN is a niche demographic, but one that has an inordinate amount of wealth and technical sway. And since it's part of a startup incubator, there is no pretense of neutrality -- part of HN is openly flogging your brand.
Like you said, it's already huge on reddit, and is almost certainty happening on HN, too.
HN is a niche demographic, but one that has an inordinate amount of wealth and technical sway. And since it's part of a startup incubator, there is no pretense of neutrality -- part of HN is openly flogging your brand.
I don't think that there is currently any evidence that adding consent to ad tracking will have a significant impact on "sinister and hidden" advertisement. ..and it does not seem intuitive to me either, as it's a completely new set of companies launching those dubious ad formats and strategies. It's not likely that Google will start crafting a hard to scale astro turfing API or something, just because their ad network got less profitable.
> Ads, marketing and branding are integral part of capitalism, it's never going to go away from consumption focused societies.
Just to highlight: "Capitalism" and "consumption focused societies" aren't equivalent. ..or at least not in any common definition of the term capitalism. Historic examples of self-determined non-capitalistic societal models were highly "consumption focused" as well.
I think that maybe post- or de-growth ideas are the only contemporary family of ideas I know that makes it a point not to be "consumption focused". But their ideas are, while interesting, still pretty loose on their edges.
> Ads, marketing and branding are integral part of capitalism, it's never going to go away from consumption focused societies.
Just to highlight: "Capitalism" and "consumption focused societies" aren't equivalent. ..or at least not in any common definition of the term capitalism. Historic examples of self-determined non-capitalistic societal models were highly "consumption focused" as well.
I think that maybe post- or de-growth ideas are the only contemporary family of ideas I know that makes it a point not to be "consumption focused". But their ideas are, while interesting, still pretty loose on their edges.
> and it does not seem intuitive to me either, as it's a completely new set of companies launching those dubious ad formats and strategies
No it's really not. You can see it happening all the time on celebrity and "influencer" Twitter/Instagram/Tiktok. Most are pretty obvious, some are honest and use disclaimers that it's a paid ad but majority are just ads inside regular content without any disclaimers and such.
No it's really not. You can see it happening all the time on celebrity and "influencer" Twitter/Instagram/Tiktok. Most are pretty obvious, some are honest and use disclaimers that it's a paid ad but majority are just ads inside regular content without any disclaimers and such.
While I agree that the ad industry has taken it too far, I also disagree with your statement. Because users pay for free apps with their data, Apple isn't asking them "do you want to pay $ 0.99 or accept ad tracking?" Apple asks "Do you want to use this app without ad tracking" of course the user will choose to disable ad tracking because there is no downside to them. But if all users do that it will be the end of a lot of free apps. Data and ads are just a form of indirect payment.
Apple isn’t banning apps from the App Store for serving ads or collecting data; they’re telling users upfront about an identifier that Apple included in the operating system, giving them the option to allow apps to collect that identifier or not allow, with OS-level support if they choose to allow. This might make data collection and retargeting less effective on iOS, but it doesn’t stop collection or ads outright.
I stand by my statement, if one pop-up is enough to kill an industry, then it isn’t a productive industry.
I stand by my statement, if one pop-up is enough to kill an industry, then it isn’t a productive industry.
The downside is not having personalized ads. They will still see ads.
I'm vehemently against invasive tracking for personalized ads, but more than happy to see clearly marked, clean context-based ads.
I'm vehemently against invasive tracking for personalized ads, but more than happy to see clearly marked, clean context-based ads.
I will gladly take random, or geo-located ads over a system that listens to me and then makes creepy, preternatural recommendations based on something I just said.
Hell, most of the context based ads were terrible. "Oh you just ordered a $THING? How about we spam you with recommendations for things you don't need since you already ordered $THING." Or how youtube now thinks I'm an arch-conservative because I listed to 5 minutes of a Jordan Peterson video.
Hell, most of the context based ads were terrible. "Oh you just ordered a $THING? How about we spam you with recommendations for things you don't need since you already ordered $THING." Or how youtube now thinks I'm an arch-conservative because I listed to 5 minutes of a Jordan Peterson video.
I meant context-based as in based on where the ad is displayed, not based on the user. Maybe "content-based" is a better term.
True, but the price paid for personalized ads is about 4-5x higher than for non-personalized. So to keep their revenue free apps would either have to add a lot more ads or become less free.
Most people don’t really care for the stupid ‘I bought a bike so next month I will be bombarded with bike ads’ context based ads because that is both annoyingly useless and a constant reminder an invisible spy is watching over their shoulder.
It seems like most of the personalized ad systems haven't figured out that if I just bought an item the last thing I need ads for is more of that item (or different brand/models of the same thing). If it kept track that you'd bought a bike and a headlight & rack but hadn't bought saddlebags, and then showed ads for saddlebags until you bought a set they'd be somewhat useful. Instead you just get ads for more bikes and headlights & racks like you're some sort of deranged bike collector.
Retargeting is the worst.
> Apple isn't asking them "do you want to pay $ 0.99 or accept ad tracking?"
It was Apple who popularised the "pay $0.99 to get content on your mobile" business model, and thousands of websites have a banner that appears at the top inviting you to do just that.
It was Apple who popularised the "pay $0.99 to get content on your mobile" business model, and thousands of websites have a banner that appears at the top inviting you to do just that.
Jup, and I suspect part of Apple's policy isn't written by an altruistic "let's make privacy better" motive but more by the fact that they move some of the mobile app revenue from ads to app store and they get 30% of that app store revenue.
At long last! And now I'll know why I pay more for an iPhone.
You could have had this years ago on Android with Firefox for Android, or run AdGuard or the other thousands of adblocking apps.
No, this is for in-apps tracking, not the web.
You can still run a system wide ad and tracking blocker on android.
You can on iOS too. They're implemented as a VPN running at localhost.
Can you elaborate on your practice how you do it?
If you wanted to, although it is more effort, and more niche, you can install a pi-hole on your network blocking all sorts tracking, ads etc across all devices.
Although, for Android, there do exist apps that will do system-level ad/tracker blocking.
Although, for Android, there do exist apps that will do system-level ad/tracker blocking.
How do you install pi-hole for the cellular modem on a smartphone?
You do not unfortunately.
However, what you can do is utilize a VPN into your home network where you already have a pi-hole set up. Doing so will route all your phone's traffic through your home network (and pi-hole) first. You'll have the same "ad protection" on the go as you would at home. I recommend checking out WireGuard.
However, what you can do is utilize a VPN into your home network where you already have a pi-hole set up. Doing so will route all your phone's traffic through your home network (and pi-hole) first. You'll have the same "ad protection" on the go as you would at home. I recommend checking out WireGuard.
You can always opt out ad tracking in iPhone, even today, by using Limit Ad Tracking option in Settings.
Yes you can do that in iOS 13 but very few people are tech savvy to know that. With iOS 14, the dialog would be in front of you as you the app. High chance everyone would opt out
Do you watch youtube? thanks for supporting the creators with ads?
Please iPhone may be private but if you use Google search you lost already.
It is a double-whammy. You pay lot to apple and then lost privacy to google/netflix/cnn/<app> here or whomever.
Please iPhone may be private but if you use Google search you lost already.
It is a double-whammy. You pay lot to apple and then lost privacy to google/netflix/cnn/<app> here or whomever.
That's not a reason to pay more for an iPhone. Android allows you to install any browser you want (as opposed to Apple still not allowing real third party browsers), including Firefox with uBlock, which is much much better at privacy than Safari on Apple and as a bonus makes the internet 3x faster by blocking ads.
Yes, we should all flock to an operating system developed by an advertising company in an effort to escape advertisements.
If that operating system does a better job of escaping ads, why not?
I mean you 1000% shouldn't go to any store, buy an Android phone and just use it if you want to avoid Google. But Android in isolation is fine as long as you consider it a hobbyist smartphone platform.
Eh, I use Wipr. Exact same thing. PiHole if you want system-wide.
An ad blocker that intercepts all of your traffic is better for privacy than one that doesn’t?
If it's open source and people can check that it doesn't anything hidden, yes
Are you compiling it and putting it on your phone yourself or are you trusting that the same version that they posted on GitHub is the same version on Google Play.
I wish Apple would kill Medium
Before that, AMP
They're doing something. Safari has automatically converted AMP links back to their original pages since iOS 11. It could stand to be a system-wide behavior for my own usage, but it'd be a little intrusive if you actually did want to share an AMP link for a specific reason if it automatically altered your clipboard or text messages.
Chrome does it too, and the AMP project is supportive: https://9to5mac.com/2017/08/24/ios-11-safari-amp-links/
The idea is, when a foo has <link rel=canonical href=bar>, if you go to share foo your browser will actually share the canonical url, bar.
The idea is, when a foo has <link rel=canonical href=bar>, if you go to share foo your browser will actually share the canonical url, bar.
AMP doesn't need help dying; I wouldn't be surprised if Google killed it soon because it never took off.
Oh, it took off big time. For Google.
>But being the most popular mobile ecosystem
I keep seeing quote similar to this about Apple's iOS being so popular, yet the numbers clearly show that Android devices/users out number iOS. Are they saying that even with those numbers, Android is unpopular and people would rather be an iOS user? Is the price point whats preventing them?
I keep seeing quote similar to this about Apple's iOS being so popular, yet the numbers clearly show that Android devices/users out number iOS. Are they saying that even with those numbers, Android is unpopular and people would rather be an iOS user? Is the price point whats preventing them?
Yeah, calling it the most popular requires defining popular in a rather unconventional manner... That said, as a data point, a handful of years ago I saw a report that the average iOS user generally had a quite a bit more purchasing power than the average Android user, so despite making up quite a bit less than 50% of the mobile market, iOS users actually come closer to making up 50% of the market that most advertisers care about reaching. I don't know if this is outdated these days, with more high-end Android phones than in the early days, but it still fits my anecdotal experience of Android phones being given to children as their first phone, and cheap Android phones being very popular in developing countries.
There is a reason that Google pays Apple 8 Billion+ a year to be the default search engine....
I believe so. In my country, having an iPhone was a sign of higher income. An average Android phone with a known brand is about 1K local currency, iPhone SE is around 5K and iPhone 11 Pro is around 11K. Average junior developer earns around 5K monthly. Nowadays, even people that can't afford proper food buy them second hand or with installments.
I, as an Android user, keep reading stories about how iPhone respects privacy and how it is more stable etc. Even though there is no add-on support for Firefox on iOS (for uBlock origin) and I know I won't be able to develop any app for my own iPhone (MacBooks are even more expensive around 20K) I still want to buy an iPhone to get rid of Google and its compulsory apps. I know if I care enough about my privacy I can get LineageOS or something, I just want something that works and not owned by Google.
I, as an Android user, keep reading stories about how iPhone respects privacy and how it is more stable etc. Even though there is no add-on support for Firefox on iOS (for uBlock origin) and I know I won't be able to develop any app for my own iPhone (MacBooks are even more expensive around 20K) I still want to buy an iPhone to get rid of Google and its compulsory apps. I know if I care enough about my privacy I can get LineageOS or something, I just want something that works and not owned by Google.
If you get an iPhone, you will get Apple's compulsory apps. The difference is that on Android, you can replace Google's apps with other apps.
I guarantee you're better off not spending 20K on a MacBook. These lastest generations are total crap. I've been a MacBook owner/user since 1997 (before they were called MacBook). I never thought I would say that, but the buttefly keyboard debacle has lowered my opinion of Apple hardware to the point I'd consider a non-Apple device for the next one.
Since there is already an incentive for apps to grow as big as possible to show ads to earn more money, I wonder if there is a legitimate way to slow-pivot all the app stores to an automatic developer payout; no IAP or monthly subscription per user per app or ads shown in app, simply a payout to devs based on app install size.
Where does the money come to make those payouts and how do the app store owners still make money per download too?
I wonder if, with increased care about privacy in consumer minds, Apple or Google would try an Apple-Arcade-style subscription for apps. Users could pay $5/month (or tired,lower/higher rates) and get access to a selection of 'paid' apps without having to pay per app.
Devs would still be incentivized pretty much the same and users would have higher-quality apps with fewer ads.
Just thinking out loud.
Where does the money come to make those payouts and how do the app store owners still make money per download too?
I wonder if, with increased care about privacy in consumer minds, Apple or Google would try an Apple-Arcade-style subscription for apps. Users could pay $5/month (or tired,lower/higher rates) and get access to a selection of 'paid' apps without having to pay per app.
Devs would still be incentivized pretty much the same and users would have higher-quality apps with fewer ads.
Just thinking out loud.
Worth noting that you can already get some of these benefits today by going to Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising and turning on "Limit Ad Tracking".
This sends an all-zeros IDFA to all APIs that request it^1.
iOS 14 begins the new prompts, lets you toggle this on a per-app basis, and, by being in front of users is just about guaranteed to dramatically increase the number of users who are opted-in.
[^1] https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003734626...
This sends an all-zeros IDFA to all APIs that request it^1.
iOS 14 begins the new prompts, lets you toggle this on a per-app basis, and, by being in front of users is just about guaranteed to dramatically increase the number of users who are opted-in.
[^1] https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003734626...
> Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising and turning on "Limit Ad Tracking".
This sends an all-zeros IDFA to all APIs that request it.
Could you please clarify, even when “Limit Ad Tracking” is on, why the “Reset Advertising Identifier“ option below it is still there and asks if the identifier needs to be reset (on tapping it)?
What does “Reset Advertising Identifier” do when “Limit Ad Tracking” is already on?
Side note: The link you provided throws an error for me saying “could not connect to server”. Not sure if it’s a temporary issue.
Could you please clarify, even when “Limit Ad Tracking” is on, why the “Reset Advertising Identifier“ option below it is still there and asks if the identifier needs to be reset (on tapping it)?
What does “Reset Advertising Identifier” do when “Limit Ad Tracking” is already on?
Side note: The link you provided throws an error for me saying “could not connect to server”. Not sure if it’s a temporary issue.
Unless all traffic is routed through Apple servers advertisers will still be able to track the ip address.
(A visit to some url, say google.com, with login cookie, and the link between ip and user is made again.)
(A visit to some url, say google.com, with login cookie, and the link between ip and user is made again.)
Seriously I hope IPv6-only never arrives.
Let's just be hippies and share NAT'd IPv4's. Unironically.
Edit: I've gone rogue and blocked IPv6 in DNSCloak. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/id1...
Let's just be hippies and share NAT'd IPv4's. Unironically.
Edit: I've gone rogue and blocked IPv6 in DNSCloak. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/dnscloak-secure-dns-client/id1...
I mean we could be real real hippies and NAT IPv6. I really see so case for not doing this since people would still want to use private address space for internal networks bigger than their assigned public block.
While I applaud the feature and hope it gets used by everyone, the idea that it's going to harm FB/Google/Etc. is unlikely.
There's a good argument to be made here that it will actually _entrench_ them.
Facebook's power comes not just from being creepy, but by having built an internet-wide advertising platform that anyone can run ads on. You run ads in one place and billions of people can see them.
While IDFA blocking is nice, it does basically nothing to change FB's incentives. Until using the personal data they've collected to run ads is illegal, they'll continue to collect it (and probably after, let's be honest).
All the while, the complexities of running an effective ad network get higher and higher, making it harder for 3rd parties to compete against FB.
At the end of the day, we have to make ads targeted with previously collected personal data illegal. End of story.
There's a good argument to be made here that it will actually _entrench_ them.
Facebook's power comes not just from being creepy, but by having built an internet-wide advertising platform that anyone can run ads on. You run ads in one place and billions of people can see them.
While IDFA blocking is nice, it does basically nothing to change FB's incentives. Until using the personal data they've collected to run ads is illegal, they'll continue to collect it (and probably after, let's be honest).
All the while, the complexities of running an effective ad network get higher and higher, making it harder for 3rd parties to compete against FB.
At the end of the day, we have to make ads targeted with previously collected personal data illegal. End of story.
[deleted]
Can I say “Good”.
Will this also remove (part of) the power of shady companies like Emerdata Ltd, formerly known as Cambridge Analytica?
But doesn't this privacy setting get nullified anyway by companies tracking your device at the cellular network level? I'm not too familiar with it, but regardless of whether you accept cookies, etc., they are able to ID you through your carrier anyway?
> tracking your device at the cellular network level
I'm not aware of this happening at a large scale outside of the networks themselves, do you have any references for this?
I'm not aware of this happening at a large scale outside of the networks themselves, do you have any references for this?
I believe Verizon was caught inserting super-cookies with an ad tracking identifier. But that method was much easier back when the majority of the web was just http.
It's been happening at a large scale for a long time as part of the broader fingerprinting initiative by advertising companies. A lot of people think their phones are listening to them, but it's more like they're using heuristics about who you regularly interact with and what they've been searching for. It's disturbing. For example, I recently started getting very frequent and consistent ads across many websites from Warby Parker for the pair of glasses my gf was currently wearing. I asked her, and of course she had been looking to replace them on the same WiFi network.
Yeah, I think you are right. Apps don't need access to GPS, internet or bluetooth to know your location. They can just log what cell tower you are connected to, and use that information to "estimate" your location every time you switch cell towers.
I think that method even works in flight mode, as your phone is still listening for cell towers, but just not responding. But I think this info is limited to the OS, and can't be used by apps.
I think that method even works in flight mode, as your phone is still listening for cell towers, but just not responding. But I think this info is limited to the OS, and can't be used by apps.
Apps can’t ‘just log what cell tower you’re connected to’ because they have no access to that information.
There’s no valid reason an app would need that kind of information so it’s just completely unavailable on iPhones and requires special privileges on Android.
There’s no valid reason an app would need that kind of information so it’s just completely unavailable on iPhones and requires special privileges on Android.
While I believe Apple making the right choice, perhaps they could also find a way to help app developers make money, without ads.
Perhaps one of the reasons developer include ads and tracking is that recurring revenue is a problem for small developments shops.
Perhaps one of the reasons developer include ads and tracking is that recurring revenue is a problem for small developments shops.
Once this feature is released and verified live, this is a big reason for me to potentially move back to iPhone.
I just hope Apple follows through on their promises and not backout of it like they did with some of the end to end encryption stuff with iCloud.
I just hope Apple follows through on their promises and not backout of it like they did with some of the end to end encryption stuff with iCloud.
Neither Internet or TV advertising ever worked for me in the US. As a matter of fact I always tended to avoid whatever was advertised to me or whoever targeted me since I know I will end up paying for that myself when I buy their product and I'd rather not.
So as a customer I think they should offer me free ads blocking since seeing the ads would make me avoid those products. If we want to see this industry change we should all make clear it rarely works and it's an absolute waste of money.
What worked were ads that were creative back in the day before they all became canned into the same thing, same voices, etc. Back in Europe the advertising USED TO BE a lot more fun, I'd genuinely enjoy watch some commercials on TV, to the point of watching an hour compilation of said best ads.
So as a customer I think they should offer me free ads blocking since seeing the ads would make me avoid those products. If we want to see this industry change we should all make clear it rarely works and it's an absolute waste of money.
What worked were ads that were creative back in the day before they all became canned into the same thing, same voices, etc. Back in Europe the advertising USED TO BE a lot more fun, I'd genuinely enjoy watch some commercials on TV, to the point of watching an hour compilation of said best ads.
> Neither Internet or TV advertising ever worked for me in the US.
This is a common idea that people hold, but I am pretty suspicious of it. First, at the macro scale, we know that ads are effective. If they weren't, it wouldn't be such a huge industry. Second, I think many people misunderstand what ads are doing. They aren't changing your mind usually, instead they are reminding and reinforcing something you already know. For example, my next phone will most certainly be an iPhone, but can an ad make me excited enough about it to mention that to a friend? Or buy a new phone sooner? Probably.
This is a common idea that people hold, but I am pretty suspicious of it. First, at the macro scale, we know that ads are effective. If they weren't, it wouldn't be such a huge industry. Second, I think many people misunderstand what ads are doing. They aren't changing your mind usually, instead they are reminding and reinforcing something you already know. For example, my next phone will most certainly be an iPhone, but can an ad make me excited enough about it to mention that to a friend? Or buy a new phone sooner? Probably.
It's also fairly well understood that familiarity plays a role in brand choice. So, you may not care very much about what brand of toothpaste you buy (as an example), but if you're bombarded with advertisements for Crest, you're more likely to pick Crest. The advertisement isn't really meant to get you to go out and buy Crest RIGHT NOW, or even to get you excited about the next time you buy Crest. It's just there to make sure that next time you need toothpaste and are staring at a wall of functionally identical brands, Crest is the first one that jumps into your mind.
Personalized ads are profoundly creepy. Glad to hopefully see them disappear.
If you're working in ads and this comes as a surprise to you, then you haven't been doing your homework. Steve Jobs himself, RIP, announced this over 10 years ago.
With this feature, is the information not tracked at all or only tracked by Apple and then made anonymous when given to apps?
Apple news also use targeted ads and they are as shitty as any ad platform in recommending ads and no way to not see them.
Personalized ads and all the awful tracking and profiling that goes with them are a plague and must be destroyed.
Better targeting of ads based on content rather than visitors seems like a great idea... who is doing this?
To anyone that took GDPR seriously and not as a reason to shove another popup in everybody's face this doesn't come as a surprise
It will be even better when advertisers (that is, the ones that pay for ads, not the ad networks) realize that "over tracking" and retargeting are just ways of parting them with their money but doesn't increase conversions.
You have basic info about your user, you don't need to track them to 11
It will be even better when advertisers (that is, the ones that pay for ads, not the ad networks) realize that "over tracking" and retargeting are just ways of parting them with their money but doesn't increase conversions.
You have basic info about your user, you don't need to track them to 11
These conversations are always so one-sided on HN.
Not only is 're-targeting' immensely useful, it absolutely increases conversions.
Targeting in general helps quite a lot.
Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.
Without tracking - the big winners will be the mega-brands that can run wide ad runs to most of the nation. It'll be cheaper to just tell everyone about McDonald's and impossible for the new snowboarding company to tell you about their new gear.
Not only is 're-targeting' immensely useful, it absolutely increases conversions.
Targeting in general helps quite a lot.
Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.
Without tracking - the big winners will be the mega-brands that can run wide ad runs to most of the nation. It'll be cheaper to just tell everyone about McDonald's and impossible for the new snowboarding company to tell you about their new gear.
it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.
Hogwash. Do you know what the "long tail" refers to? It refers to the whole network of independent retailers that extend the reach of a manufacturer. That connection is organic, if your products are any good.
The only reason companies are struggling with their long tail is because they want to have it all: they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market, and finding that that's a hard thing to do.
AKA, "Companies that subvert the market are struggling to connect to their customers". News at 11.
Hogwash. Do you know what the "long tail" refers to? It refers to the whole network of independent retailers that extend the reach of a manufacturer. That connection is organic, if your products are any good.
The only reason companies are struggling with their long tail is because they want to have it all: they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market, and finding that that's a hard thing to do.
AKA, "Companies that subvert the market are struggling to connect to their customers". News at 11.
This is false, bordering on anti-rationality.
Small and mid-sized companies 'make stuff or services' and want to get the message out to those who may be interested.
"The connection is organic" this is fantasy. It would take a decade for a small maker to make inroads in a long tail market to get national reach.
"they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market,"
This statement is nonsensical.
Being able to advertise is part of 'the market system'. They want to get the word out.
Ironically - the 'market system' reaches considerably more efficiency with better, more targeted ads.
I'm tired of lack of understanding of how the 'selling side' works in any business here on HN, and doubly tired of the antagonism towards it.
People take an interest in very complicated algorithms which may not see the light of day, but then can't wrap their heads around these really obviously, daily common problems.
Small and mid-sized companies 'make stuff or services' and want to get the message out to those who may be interested.
"The connection is organic" this is fantasy. It would take a decade for a small maker to make inroads in a long tail market to get national reach.
"they want ultimate control over their long tail instead of delegating it to the market,"
This statement is nonsensical.
Being able to advertise is part of 'the market system'. They want to get the word out.
Ironically - the 'market system' reaches considerably more efficiency with better, more targeted ads.
I'm tired of lack of understanding of how the 'selling side' works in any business here on HN, and doubly tired of the antagonism towards it.
People take an interest in very complicated algorithms which may not see the light of day, but then can't wrap their heads around these really obviously, daily common problems.
> Ad targeting is the opposite of evil, it actually increases relevance by a significant degree, and increases market efficiency, wherein surpluses go to both sides. There's a huge market for products and services out there and it's getting harder to connect individuals and products on the long tail.
This is an optimistic viewpoint. It absolutely can happen like this, but it's not always the case.
Ad targeting can decrease relevance as you get chased around the web by ads for something you looked at once, market efficiencies go directly to the seller, so it's their choice to pass on to the customer or not. Customers don't inherently need to buy things with a few notable exceptions, so advertising is getting them to pay for things they may not need or may not want. And lastly, with the complex market for advertising, it's only large and/or technically savvy companies that can navigate the complexity, so they raise ad prices and mean that your average small provider neither understands the market nor can afford it.
This is the pessimistic case. Obviously it's also not all like this either, but I think there's truth to both and we need to find ways to get the best of both sides.
This is an optimistic viewpoint. It absolutely can happen like this, but it's not always the case.
Ad targeting can decrease relevance as you get chased around the web by ads for something you looked at once, market efficiencies go directly to the seller, so it's their choice to pass on to the customer or not. Customers don't inherently need to buy things with a few notable exceptions, so advertising is getting them to pay for things they may not need or may not want. And lastly, with the complex market for advertising, it's only large and/or technically savvy companies that can navigate the complexity, so they raise ad prices and mean that your average small provider neither understands the market nor can afford it.
This is the pessimistic case. Obviously it's also not all like this either, but I think there's truth to both and we need to find ways to get the best of both sides.
'Ads following you around' is actually necessarily a form of inefficiency, just the opposite. There may be a very good reason for you to see that specific ad, instead of and ad for some random for a pickup truck.
Consumer wariness does not translate to lack of surplus on their side. Products that truly provide no value tend to not find the light of day for long. It's actually the very last phase of 'demo/trial' or even 'trial post purchase' where customers really find out if they're going to like it, and most cases, the surplus goes to the consumer.
We live in a very different world than 100 years ago.
The value people get out of stuff they buy is immense - we live in a 'total surplus economy'. We get clean, cold/hot, drinkable water, in any volume - literally coming out of the wall. This is basically a 'magical product' to anyone in history. How much would people may monthly for potable water if we really wanted to increase the price? A lot. Possibly 10x more than they are paying now. That means all of the surplus of water has been socialised. For many other products, it's the same thing, the question for consumers boils down to 'where do we want to spend it'?
Consumer wariness does not translate to lack of surplus on their side. Products that truly provide no value tend to not find the light of day for long. It's actually the very last phase of 'demo/trial' or even 'trial post purchase' where customers really find out if they're going to like it, and most cases, the surplus goes to the consumer.
We live in a very different world than 100 years ago.
The value people get out of stuff they buy is immense - we live in a 'total surplus economy'. We get clean, cold/hot, drinkable water, in any volume - literally coming out of the wall. This is basically a 'magical product' to anyone in history. How much would people may monthly for potable water if we really wanted to increase the price? A lot. Possibly 10x more than they are paying now. That means all of the surplus of water has been socialised. For many other products, it's the same thing, the question for consumers boils down to 'where do we want to spend it'?
Unless, you know, by buying ads on snowboarding gear focused sites, as the industry has done for decades in the print industry.
Or on apps about snowboarding, or on fora related to snowboarding, or by paying snowboarding content creators, there's a wealth of opportunities out there. I don't give a damn about snowboarding when I'm browsing, say, twitter. (Which, incidentally, for some reason has borked itself into thinking I like rowing.)
Exactly
Instead of that they want to shove their new snowboard ads on every blog not connected to snowboarding you see because you searched "snow" once on Google
Instead of that they want to shove their new snowboard ads on every blog not connected to snowboarding you see because you searched "snow" once on Google
Or because you just bought a new snowboard on-line (and won't need another for years), so now you've got snowboard ads everywhere, despite being in the group of people least likely to need a new snowboard anytime soon.
My shopping habits must be somewhat unique on a local amazon-esque site that 80% of the time when I view something I have already bought (i.e. to check some detail before it arrives, or sometimes if I want to order more - I buy a decent amount of hardware and fittings for DIY projects on there) it has a little carousel at the bottom saying "Others who looked at this item also looked at:" and it's a list of 8 things, 7 of which I know I've looked at recently, or even bought.
This is the thing that “ad tech” people never want to acknowledge (because it makes their “secret sauce” a lot less valuable).
Not only would there be zero tracking required to show content-relevant ads, there’s zero creep factor. No one questions seeing an ad for a new blender or an online grocer when looking at a recipe site, there’s no question why you’re seeing those ads.
Seeing ads about something very specific that you looked for a few days ago, on completely unrelated sites is the epitome of creepy.
Not only would there be zero tracking required to show content-relevant ads, there’s zero creep factor. No one questions seeing an ad for a new blender or an online grocer when looking at a recipe site, there’s no question why you’re seeing those ads.
Seeing ads about something very specific that you looked for a few days ago, on completely unrelated sites is the epitome of creepy.
"You mean, we can actually buy ads on Snowboarding Websites, or in Print Magazines? We never thought of that, thanks for the deep insight HN commenter! Now the 'secret sauce' of digital advertisers is out of the bag! Right here on HN!"
I've been skiing all of my life and I've never bought a 'skiing magazine' and never visited a skiing website as far as I can mention.
(It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.)
There are very, very few venues for smaller companies to get the word out - the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.
There is a massive 'mismatching' problem in modern economies, wherein consumer interests are not met by makers, because the 'matching', if you will is poor. If we could permanently line up people's interests with the right services and products at the right prices, unemployment would cater to zero.
I've been skiing all of my life and I've never bought a 'skiing magazine' and never visited a skiing website as far as I can mention.
(It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.)
There are very, very few venues for smaller companies to get the word out - the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.
There is a massive 'mismatching' problem in modern economies, wherein consumer interests are not met by makers, because the 'matching', if you will is poor. If we could permanently line up people's interests with the right services and products at the right prices, unemployment would cater to zero.
> I've been skiing all of my life and I've never bought a 'skiing magazine' and never visited a skiing website as far as I can mention.
If you never visit skiing websites (and thus presumably also never search for skiing websites), and the likes of Google showed you an ad for ski gear, that would be the epitome of creepy.
> It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.
If you follow/view a bunch of skiing related accounts, its not unrealistic. If you don't follow/view any ski related accounts, then again, that is very creepy.
But twitter is essentially the model we're talking about: show the visitor ads based on what they choose to view (mostly, afaik), not based on what they searched for last week on a different site.
> the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.
Well while we're using anecdotal evidence, I've never seen an ad and thought "yeah that's actually just what I want, <click>". If I want something, I got search for it specifically.
If you never visit skiing websites (and thus presumably also never search for skiing websites), and the likes of Google showed you an ad for ski gear, that would be the epitome of creepy.
> It's not 'creepy' to get ads for Snowboarding when you're on Twitter, than it is for anything else.
If you follow/view a bunch of skiing related accounts, its not unrealistic. If you don't follow/view any ski related accounts, then again, that is very creepy.
But twitter is essentially the model we're talking about: show the visitor ads based on what they choose to view (mostly, afaik), not based on what they searched for last week on a different site.
> the more efficient those communications channels, the better the products and services we would receive.
Well while we're using anecdotal evidence, I've never seen an ad and thought "yeah that's actually just what I want, <click>". If I want something, I got search for it specifically.
The pro-targeting argument always seems to forget the middle-ground of context-based ads.
This new snowboard company can advertise on snowboard-related websites, on snowboard-related google search
The magic "IA assisted silver bullet retargeting" that this snowboard company will be sold by yet another VC-founded adtech company almost always amount to "Oh this guy just bought a new snowboard, he probably needs another one right now, let's pay a mountain of cash to push him to buy another one on every website he visit for a week"
This new snowboard company can advertise on snowboard-related websites, on snowboard-related google search
The magic "IA assisted silver bullet retargeting" that this snowboard company will be sold by yet another VC-founded adtech company almost always amount to "Oh this guy just bought a new snowboard, he probably needs another one right now, let's pay a mountain of cash to push him to buy another one on every website he visit for a week"
I wonder if those ads are counted as leading to a sale because they are shown right after someone buys one.
Someone goes to the online store of an outdoor shop:
* buys a snowboard (perhaps they were recommended it by someone, or the reviews look good),
* tracking leads to them being shown ads for snowboards in period X,
* tracking also adds the fact that they bought a snowboard in period X (albeit before the ads came),
* ad brokers algorithms, naively or maliciously, conclude that their ads led to the sale,
* companies buying ads conclude that targetted advertising is the most effective way to advertise.
Someone goes to the online store of an outdoor shop:
* buys a snowboard (perhaps they were recommended it by someone, or the reviews look good),
* tracking leads to them being shown ads for snowboards in period X,
* tracking also adds the fact that they bought a snowboard in period X (albeit before the ads came),
* ad brokers algorithms, naively or maliciously, conclude that their ads led to the sale,
* companies buying ads conclude that targetted advertising is the most effective way to advertise.
> increases market efficiency
This is manifestly false. An efficient market based on rational consumers doesn't require advertising. Advertising serves to skew consumer opinion away from rational behavior (in the economic sense of maximizing utility divided by price), so in fact it can be argued that it will always make the market LESS efficient.
An ideal consumer would browse the market and read non-paid reviews, and choose the product they need. No use for advertising.
An ad-converted consumer will see advertising, and think that the advertised product is necessary even if it isn't, or think it's better than the competition even if isn't.
This is manifestly false. An efficient market based on rational consumers doesn't require advertising. Advertising serves to skew consumer opinion away from rational behavior (in the economic sense of maximizing utility divided by price), so in fact it can be argued that it will always make the market LESS efficient.
An ideal consumer would browse the market and read non-paid reviews, and choose the product they need. No use for advertising.
An ad-converted consumer will see advertising, and think that the advertised product is necessary even if it isn't, or think it's better than the competition even if isn't.
This is completely false and implies lack of understanding of market dynamics.
It's also insulting to the reality of any person or group who's actually created a business, and wants to get the word out about their product - as if the word magically just 'finds out' about it.
I'm shocked at the level of anti-knowledge and anti- rationalism on a forum of such intelligent people.
Of course advertising can 'skew' people's emotions, nobody doubts inefficiencies. If there were no ads, it would be tantamount to the banking disaster - it would go down like dominos.
Targeted ads are the only hope for a lot of small companies playing into long niches, as I say, without them, you get Nike, Apple and Ford for everything.
It's also insulting to the reality of any person or group who's actually created a business, and wants to get the word out about their product - as if the word magically just 'finds out' about it.
I'm shocked at the level of anti-knowledge and anti- rationalism on a forum of such intelligent people.
Of course advertising can 'skew' people's emotions, nobody doubts inefficiencies. If there were no ads, it would be tantamount to the banking disaster - it would go down like dominos.
Targeted ads are the only hope for a lot of small companies playing into long niches, as I say, without them, you get Nike, Apple and Ford for everything.
I'm not doubting the effectiveness of advertising, quite the opposite. Of course that if some players are advertising, anyone who isn't is at a major disadvantage.
But cigarettes were a very good study in what happens if you remove advertising from an industry - nothing much. They get to save a lot of advertising money, and the industry itself may shrink if there is no real need for it (for cigarettes, it reduces the rate at which people start smoking, even if it doesn't significantly reduce the rate at which smokers buy cigarettes).
Of course, people would still buy clothes and consumer electronics and cars if there were no advertising - these are all useful products. But most likely, the contrary of what you are claiming would actually happen: all these huge players would find themselves competing much more on price with small "no-name" producers if they couldn't sell an image of exclusivity, particularly in the case of Nike and Apple. Especially in fashion, most non-luxury brands are built entirely on advertising, as there is no real quality or style difference between them and by-the-pound clothing you get at thrift stores.
So yes, prices may fall like dominoes, but only because the market would become more efficient, bringing prices more in-line with costs, quality, and utility, rather than "prestige".
But cigarettes were a very good study in what happens if you remove advertising from an industry - nothing much. They get to save a lot of advertising money, and the industry itself may shrink if there is no real need for it (for cigarettes, it reduces the rate at which people start smoking, even if it doesn't significantly reduce the rate at which smokers buy cigarettes).
Of course, people would still buy clothes and consumer electronics and cars if there were no advertising - these are all useful products. But most likely, the contrary of what you are claiming would actually happen: all these huge players would find themselves competing much more on price with small "no-name" producers if they couldn't sell an image of exclusivity, particularly in the case of Nike and Apple. Especially in fashion, most non-luxury brands are built entirely on advertising, as there is no real quality or style difference between them and by-the-pound clothing you get at thrift stores.
So yes, prices may fall like dominoes, but only because the market would become more efficient, bringing prices more in-line with costs, quality, and utility, rather than "prestige".
A few weeks ago my TV set died, so I bought a new one. At the same time I looked for a new motorcycle helmet.
Since then I get tons of adds for TV's and motorcycle helmets that are not available to buy in my country. Useless like a nail in the foot. I never buy something suggested by an ad even if I need such a product, so the ad industry is a huge waste of time, money and neurons.
Oh, and for some stupid reason Google is spamming me with dating ads for seniors. Lol, I'm not in that age group and I'm not having any fetish for old women. Google, you sick bastard.
Since then I get tons of adds for TV's and motorcycle helmets that are not available to buy in my country. Useless like a nail in the foot. I never buy something suggested by an ad even if I need such a product, so the ad industry is a huge waste of time, money and neurons.
Oh, and for some stupid reason Google is spamming me with dating ads for seniors. Lol, I'm not in that age group and I'm not having any fetish for old women. Google, you sick bastard.
Apple is giving users the choice. Do they want to trade their privacy for your listed benefits? It's up to them. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
If nobody decides to make that trade when given the choice... then I guess it will be a surprise to no one (including advertisers).
If nobody decides to make that trade when given the choice... then I guess it will be a surprise to no one (including advertisers).
realize that over tracking and retargeting are just ways of parting them with their money but doesn't increase conversions.
This is naive. There are plenty of real world examples of generic advertising "stock," without targeting... it's sold at a huge discount. It is targeting that gives FB ads value.
Without targetting or a working CPA system, FB ads would be as useless as the many available content advertising networks.
Thinking of online advertisers as dumb is a dangerous error. There are enough sophisticated advertisers in the market to make the online ad market very rational. Thinking of it as dumb advertisers that will eventually come around is a fallacy... a dangerous one.
This problem is real. Very large parts of the online economy are reliant on targeting. That's the real problem we're facing.
This is naive. There are plenty of real world examples of generic advertising "stock," without targeting... it's sold at a huge discount. It is targeting that gives FB ads value.
Without targetting or a working CPA system, FB ads would be as useless as the many available content advertising networks.
Thinking of online advertisers as dumb is a dangerous error. There are enough sophisticated advertisers in the market to make the online ad market very rational. Thinking of it as dumb advertisers that will eventually come around is a fallacy... a dangerous one.
This problem is real. Very large parts of the online economy are reliant on targeting. That's the real problem we're facing.
You’re absolutely wrong in regards of targeting. Non-targeted advertisement may yield you a lot of new users but the truth is a lot of those will not spend a single cent on your app. You need to target users, if you want revenue outside of people watching ads.
Even a lot of targeted advertisement will not bring a cent on your app, advertisers really have to do better.
Apple is a bit naive. How will they block adtech companies fingerprinting TF out of users?
There's too much money on the plate. Companies such as Adjust have fingerprinting tech and announced this as one option against Apple's move. All GDPR compliant because they don't need to get user's approval but their customers need to. And do their customers ask for approval before fingerprinting? Isn't the approval not often mandatory for using the app? Or somewhere buried deep in the Privacy Statement and given afterwards? And if customers just fingerprinted without approval how would Apple ever find out that Appsflyer or Adjust just were used to fingerprint and to track you until you get your next iPhone?
If Apple was serious about privacy they would have detected and banned anyone using fingerprint SDKs. As sad this sounds for most users: Adtech won't die, Apple will rather make fingerprinting tech even stronger.
There's too much money on the plate. Companies such as Adjust have fingerprinting tech and announced this as one option against Apple's move. All GDPR compliant because they don't need to get user's approval but their customers need to. And do their customers ask for approval before fingerprinting? Isn't the approval not often mandatory for using the app? Or somewhere buried deep in the Privacy Statement and given afterwards? And if customers just fingerprinted without approval how would Apple ever find out that Appsflyer or Adjust just were used to fingerprint and to track you until you get your next iPhone?
If Apple was serious about privacy they would have detected and banned anyone using fingerprint SDKs. As sad this sounds for most users: Adtech won't die, Apple will rather make fingerprinting tech even stronger.
"Cry me a river"
Says no one ever.
Says no one ever.
Always interesting to see the "advertising industry needs to die" comments here. 40% of FAANG is built purely on advertising (7% of the S&P500). Some non-zero percent of commenters are employed by adtech funded companies.
”My employer should switch to a different business model or go under” isn’t a weird opinion.
"The industry I work in should die for ethical reasons."
- Skilled knowledge worker who could move to another industry, but the money bought out their ethics.
- Skilled knowledge worker who could move to another industry, but the money bought out their ethics.
I said “change or”. That’s an important distinction.
Lots of people work in industries that have questionable practices.
It’s a pretty far jump from working at, say, a newspaper that shows ad-network ads (which I find questionable and I think falls into the category “find a new business model or die”), and working for something actually unethical.
Also what I meant wasn’t that a whole industry such as online news should die, only change business model.
Lots of people work in industries that have questionable practices.
It’s a pretty far jump from working at, say, a newspaper that shows ad-network ads (which I find questionable and I think falls into the category “find a new business model or die”), and working for something actually unethical.
Also what I meant wasn’t that a whole industry such as online news should die, only change business model.
without paywall: https://outline.com/pVuLZg
Here’s the medium friend link without paywall from the author himself: https://medium.com/p/apple-is-killing-a-billion-dollar-ad-in...
you mean the ads for bicycles after i just bought one?
Good
When did Medium get a “sign up” paywall?
It feels like more and more content linked on HN is paywalled, adblockwalled, or otherwise obscured these days.
It feels like more and more content linked on HN is paywalled, adblockwalled, or otherwise obscured these days.
Off topic, I have been enjoying the iOS and iPadOS version 14 betas.
This privacy feature is pro-consumer and I am all for it! I pay money to Google (GCP, Play entertainment stuff) and FaceBook (Oculus VR addict, here!), but I don't want them using any of my data to enrich themselves or other companies.
Everyone should read "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power." It was printed about 15 months ago, but is still highly relevant to both convince people that there is a serious problem and also advice on fighting back.
This privacy feature is pro-consumer and I am all for it! I pay money to Google (GCP, Play entertainment stuff) and FaceBook (Oculus VR addict, here!), but I don't want them using any of my data to enrich themselves or other companies.
Everyone should read "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power." It was printed about 15 months ago, but is still highly relevant to both convince people that there is a serious problem and also advice on fighting back.
<!-- You are not allowed to visit this page on a Safari browser/iOS -->
Apple didn't solve that the ad industry is an alternative for paying to see a website's content.
So what will happen is that:
- Safari/iOS users will be required to pay for a ad-supported website
- Safari/iOS users will be denied access to the website
Apple didn't solve that the ad industry is an alternative for paying to see a website's content.
So what will happen is that:
- Safari/iOS users will be required to pay for a ad-supported website
- Safari/iOS users will be denied access to the website
Or those users will still see ads, they just won't be tracked and the ads will be less personalized.
Or ad networks will just use fingerprinting to generate a unique ID and continue business as normal.
>Safari/iOS users will be required to pay for a ad-supported website
That's fine, just give me a convenient way to pay (and cancel) and subscription and I'll decide if the content justifies the price. If I'm not willing to pay for it, I'm probably not going to miss it. Sometimes I wonder how much copy is written as filler to wrap ads around.
>Safari/iOS users will be denied access to the website
And they'll move on to somewhere else (or fire up some temporary workaround if they really want access).
That's fine, just give me a convenient way to pay (and cancel) and subscription and I'll decide if the content justifies the price. If I'm not willing to pay for it, I'm probably not going to miss it. Sometimes I wonder how much copy is written as filler to wrap ads around.
>Safari/iOS users will be denied access to the website
And they'll move on to somewhere else (or fire up some temporary workaround if they really want access).
They seem to be one of the few large tech companies that aligns themselves with users rights to privacy.
Apple isn’t perfect. But they build very good privacy and security into their products. And they structure their UI and defaults in such a way that the average user benefits with no effort or specialized knowledge.