Christ almighty I don't think I can take more pop-ups.
They're just cancer. Cookies, newsletters, forced logins, individual folder permissions... how many bullshit popups do I have to deal with per day? It's just popup fatigue.
Pretty much the only popups I ever want to deal with are when apps need access to my private hardware (webcam etc.) or info (location, photos, contacts, etc.). You know, the actually important ones.
Things like cookies, tracking, etc. should be a browser- or OS-wide setting. Asking me individually for every site, for every app, is the absolute worst user experience ever. Sorry but this pattern just has to DIE.
My only hope is that the more that popups proliferate, the likelier there will be legislation against them, requiring system-wide settings instead. Kind of like legislation against unsolicited robocalls.
We already have that, the Do Not Track header. Advertising companies ignore it because they're not legally obliged to honor it. Reminder that these companies do not care about you or your user experience and will do anything they can to skirt the law to make an extra buck off you. And we can't rely on the competence of legislators because their answer is always more popups.
Ironically enough, they don't ignore it. They instead just use it as another bit of entropy to differentiate you from everyone else who doesn't include the DNT header.
The European ePrivacy regulation was meant to make DNT legally binding and enabled by default but it has been stuck in the European Council for about 3 (?) years now due to massive pressure from publishers. It's a real shame because it would improve the situation a lot.
The problem is that instead of stopping their abusive behaviour, tracking companies will make whole ranges of services as hard to use as possible and point towards lawmakers when people complain about them. Their flawed business model has collapsed because privacy has finally gotten attention and they're fighting tooth and nail to keep their awful businesses afloat.
There's a perfect setting in most browsers that the popups can already use, called "do-not-track". However, they don't want to use that because it's too easy to turn it on. So instead of listening to your preference, they will show the popup regardless and follow the rules to the most annoying extent of the law.
Really, people should just stop clicking through these goddamn popups and leave the website when they encounter them. The only way to stop this madness is to take away traffic from websites with shitty practices. This includes those damn notification scripts and those auto-playing videos.
You can choose not to be asked by any app in the settings.
In theory, what could possibly be wrong with explicitly warning users that they're being tracked with a hidden piece of data stored on their machines? However, in practice this has just led to a proliferation of popups on every website on earth. I'd bet that pretty much everyone just annoyingly clicks through whatever button gets them to the content. I wonder how many could even describe what a cookie is, let alone how it affects their privacy. And at the end of a day, people are perfectly willing to give up a little bit of their privacy in exchange for all the services available for free to the general consumer on the web.
I wish that the powers that be could see that the law has not had its intended effect and has instead just led to a degraded web experience for everyone.
Wether it was the intended effect or not, it has made it very clear just how scummy advertising companies are.
we need a law enforcing the standard to have teeth. otherwise it's just yet another standard not doing anything.
There's no objective measures of success, just a bunch of people patting each other on the back because they all see the world the same way.
In a rational company, ad attribution, or aggregate-level analysis using techniques like Vector Autoregression (VAR) should be owned by the CFO to avoid that conflict of interest, as shown in this article:
Think how much money there was (and is) in liasing ad agencies with Media buying/planning (this is the department's name)
Think how well the companies will treat you if you, let's say, want to place an ad in the Superbowl, or at a TV prime-time slot
The ad agencies are the true customers of the TV companies. Who do you think gets all the pampering (and possibly kickbacks)?
I guess you could call it creative. But it's also even more insidious and dishonest.
On niche porn subreddits, the feeds are now invaded by profiles with links to onlyfans pages. They are sneaky because they verify their accounts with photoshopped pictures.
Good. Sounds like the warning will work.
I was taken aback when I read that sixteen(!) agencies had banded together, including collusion from Google and Facebook.
This starkly reminded me of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (book I chapter X):
> People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible, indeed, to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.
> A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. It connects individuals who might never otherwise be known to one another, and gives every man of the trade a direction where to find every other man of it.
> A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves, in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.
In other words, legal rules meant to restrain corporations' behavior instead often facilitate their collusion, which almost always results in a "conspiracy against the public."
Apple is a bit unique in this regard, as their current brand positioning entirely removes their incentive for collusion. But only as long as the benefits to employing a pro-privacy-and-security brand posture are greater than the benefits it might enjoy from hoovering up as much data as it's rivals in Mountain View and Menlo Park.
If we ever find ourselves in a situation where humanity collectively is frightened to tell some industry that it can't do something for fear that that industry would retaliate by conspiring to do something even worse to us behind our backs, that's not an argument against regulation, that's an argument against the whole industry.
You make an excellent point about Smith's treatment of firms as local artisans rather than large corporations. Incidentally, he uses the word corporation a paragraph below what I pasted, but it most likely refers to guilds or firms with monopolies, and not our modern idea of corporate bodies.
That said, I tend to think of Coase as the sort of successor to Adam Smith's thinking. I find it not coincidental that Coase formulated the modern theory of the firm that economics still subscribes to, as well as extrapolating transaction costs into the realms of legal disputes and the administrative state. Coase himself was also skeptical of government regulation, not as a matter of ideology or principle (in fact, he said that in principle, many regulations could be effective, though he did also argue reductio ad absurdum that the state should regulate speech as vigorously as products ), but as a matter of empirical investigation .
Is there a good reason to believe that Google or Facebook are involved? Seems like it may be a tenuous connection given the article's vagueness: "some" of 16 unnamed "associations" are "backed" by Google/Facebook, according to a source we know nothing about.
Morality and integrity are acceptable in large companies so long as they can bring some benefit. Otherwise they somehow always seem to find a way to justify doing even the most immorally-seeming stuff (like exploiting workers in third-world-country mines, selling weapons to dictators and so on).
What's more important: why wouldn't it be like this? Why would a top-level exec leave money on the table for moral reasons? How would they sell that to their stakeholders?
I'd suggest Safari could even make cookies require getting user permission, the same way location access needs to be granted. "Allow, allow for 24 hours, deny." It could default deny except for sites to which it has a saved password which could default allow.
Previously, you had to flip a switch in the settings.
Ode to browsers of the 90s
It's trivial on desktop using an extension , but not yet on iOS.
(I switched from 1Blocker to Adguard because 1Blocker wasn't working very well for me.)
You can whinge and whine, but progress stops for nobody.
It's also great to see Apple building this into iOS, definitely a highlight of WWDC, for me.
I often see the location indicator come on and wonder what else I'm not seeing.
1) Companies are learning that non-online advertising is not very worthwhile and so are reducing the resources allocated to, say, network TV ads. This has already happened to a large extent to print and radio advertising. This suggests that the future of online advertising is bright.
2) Companies are learning that online advertising is not very worthwhile. They are learning that clicks are a bad metric, that online ads target people poorly, and that customers dislike online ads. This suggests that the future of online advertising is dim.
I'm curious as to what people make of these two positions. Are companies just going to spend less on ads in general?
This comment was sponsored by Skillshare
Remove that and smaller ad companies can sell ads based on the content they're displayed next to. A reasonable "targeting" method which doesn't require tracking users at all. Sites could partner directly with advertisers for similar effectiveness at a drastically lower price.
That's unlikely. Spending on advertising doesn't appear to change much as a share of GDP:
Fed up for the last 5 years hearing about scandal after scandal, outrage after outrage...
Fragmented for about the last 5-10 years, ever since we figured out the "long tail" and how to cater to everybody's unique interests. There is no longer anything approximating a place where everybody goes/is; hence there's not even a consensus anymore about what reality is, which is a related & tangential issue.
Has no money, well that's more of a continuum... either you do or you don't, but every year a larger number of people don't, and are too broke to be in the market for whatever product.
Jaded with advertising in general ever since probably the Boomers were in their 20s, and moreso when Gen X were teenagers.
Jaded with online advertising ever since the 90s when it became clear ads were going to follow us into what everybody thought was going to be a new online world.
Fickle since the dawn of time.
the old chestnut goes, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half”.
If you’re okay with cheap, unpolished products where you are constantly being tracked and getting advertised to, buy a Google product. If you want products where you give the company money and they give you stuff - buy Apple.
The story used to be "they are making money on hardware", then when that peaked it became "they are making money on services", once they peak in that market it's going to be "they are monitizing the content delivered through the ecosystem to provide a curated and safe experience" - it's all about showing growth an keeping stock prices.
But that still doesn’t change the equation.
I give Apple money == they give me stuff.
The story is still that they're making money on hardware; over 80% of their revenue (and potentially more of their profits; profit margin on the music stuff in particular can't be great).
This is a bit of an old meme, it reminds me of the PC vs Mac wars back in the pre-Jobs-return era. Or Ford vs Chevy. It's really impressive how strongly companies have convinces us to associate our identities with their brands.
I had the displeasure of using Google Search without an ad block for the first time in awhile. God it’s awful. Not to mention AMP pages being the default for many popular new sites when linking from Google on mobile.
GoogleTV/Android TV/Chromecast are all worse than Apple TV and Roku
Give me Office 365 over GSuite any day on either mobile or desktop.
No one had to convince me about Google’d brands. Google’s entire reason for existing is an advertising operation. 90% of their profit comes from advertising.
The "stuff" tends to come with artificial limitations so that in order to use it effectively I have to give Apple even more money.
Yes, you can come up with arguments why these things are actually good for users. But coincidentally the workarounds always end up with more revenue for Apple: AirPods, 30% commission on apps, inflated BTO upgrade prices...
Google wants browsers to be like OSes, because they can't directly compete with desktop OSes. This concept is incompatible with security and privacy, so Google's interests are more harmful (they fund Mozilla).
Granular permissions don't solve the privacy issue, because denying them contributes to fingerprinting. Also, JIT compilers violate W^X.
- most modern high end cell phones aren’t coming with headphone jacks anymore. All iPhones come with a headphones
- most high end laptops also don’t have internal expandability anymore.
-you also don’t have to buy AirPods. You can buy any Bluetooth headphones
- Google also charges the same 30% for apps.
- the default is allow signed apps. Not apps from the store.
- . High end android phones with headphone do exist, so you definitely have the choice to support those vendors.
- f-droid, saving the day yet again.
- the default. You can just enable that without having to do anything shady at all.
I don't know the details but I am guess it is still accesses the same numeric id and "trusting" that Apple is doing the right thing behind the scenes, i.e., only storing aggregate information is still required.
I wouldn't be surprised if they still break down information by age, sex, and location as long as there are enough anonymous people in each group.
I would argue that this is only "perfectly reasonable" if you think anonymous aggregate logging solutions is a reasonable way to track user behavior, or if you have such trust in Apple to do the right thing, that you are willing to grant them an exception.
There it is. Unless there’s a process that other companies can follow to certify that their solutions don’t track users and get same treatment, then in the end it’s about Apple trying to force themselves as player in the ads business.
It’s well known playbook as they’re similarly forcing themselves into identity business, with new logging requirements.
I guess it’s the same as trying to get in the ads business by making ads less valuable?
We are well passed the second internet bubble where Instagram et al can get billion dollar valuations on market share alone. There needs to be a business plan to generate revenues and profits.
So what us Apples business plan for identity? If it’s to add value to iOS and MacOS by providing convenient privacy secure logins to customers, I hardly see that as forcing themselves into the business.
There's nothing wrong with Apple trying to increase the stickiness of their platforms, if there's a legit argument to be made that it also improves user experience. The part I find distasteful is the requirement for iOS apps to give preferential treatment to Apple. And honestly, if they were only doing doing this to improve UX, I don't think they would be this heavy handed. Somebody with decision making power wants to make sure that iOS users are selecting that option no matter what.
If that damage your competitors more than it damages you, might that be of some value? Not saying that’s Apple is doing, just pointing that could be a thing.
Apple is shown repeatedly they don’t care about the advertising market and would gladly burn their offerings to the ground if they impeded their privacy efforts one iota.
. Why else would Apple set Google as the default search engine on iOS? They get paid (a lot!) by Google to be the default.
. They sold out to Chinese citizens by allowing their data centers to be read by their authoritarian government.
. Apple dropped plans to let iPhone users fully encrypt backups of their devices in the company’s iCloud service after the FBI complained that the move would harm investigations.
Still think Apple loves privacy more than anything else?
The price has nothing to do with the "forcing" part, unsure why you are guessing that's what is being referred to. The word "forcing" is clear enough on its own.
I wouldn't be surprised if it requires macOS to work and a yearly paid license to use that free tool.
The playbook is much more broad and is basically "we are privileged on our platform _and_ we unavoidably restrict the lesser privileged". Many don't like this (myself included) and many do. Simply put, where you reasonably can, choose the platform that has the restrictions you can accept or work around.
In essence, if you’re not tracking user-level behavior, then you should not be caring about any statistical attribution methodology at all, just use something different entirely, based on simple aggregates or top line metrics like revenue without modeling return on ad spend at all.
Anything that tries to do attribution on different cohorts, like demographic slices, etc., without controlling for individual level confounders, is complete misleading hot garbage.
So these customers of Apple’s sexy new ad attribution are probably paying a big premium to get ripped off with useless data. Such a system categorically can’t exist (and shouldn’t be desired) in cases where you don’t want to permit individual level tracking.
It’s more similar to investment management business. You could likewise say it’ll be easy for competitors to prove a firm is having bad quarters of portfolio underperformance, yet firms with bad track records consistently keep getting new business. Why is that?
The underlying business proposition is more like consulting and blame protection. You can always fire your ad attribution partner and claim their “number crunching” was bogus to save your own ass. You don’t pay them to give you actionable ad strategy or performance measurement, just like eg the investment board of a pension fund doesn’t hire an investment manager to actually get higher returns.
You pay them to make it look like you, the board member or the ad account manager, did all you could and any failings are down to uncontrollable poor performance of your vendor, which you then look like the good guy for firing, or look like the visionary for jumping ship to sexy AI solutions then jumping ship back to “classic” solutions when the AI solutions predictably don’t work. You do this for a while collecting bonuses and protecting your job, at the massive expense of the pension fund or advertising campaigns you are supposed to oversee, then you quit or get fired and play musical chairs to fail up into the same role at the next place.
In many companies that run advertising, the ultimate choice of what ad spend to pursue is an unbelievably political shitstorm. There are arguments for spending on generic brand awareness (which has no goals related to attribution at all) vs ambitious “creative” ads & extravagance like Super Bowl ads, vs scientific ad experiments on defined cohorts of users.
Nobody knows about (or gives a shit about) actually tracking the performance of all this beyond doing a bunch of headless chicken scrambling around to make some spreadsheets and slide decks to keep a job or argue for a bonus.
To the executives a layer up it’s either a big cocktail party of all the different styles of pursuing ads and business is good and they don’t really care, or else it’s a needless cost center when business is bad and they give grain offerings to the advertising gods to decide what to cut.
But nobody is seriously pursuing quant advertising. That is all just fluff branding. And this play by Apple is more of the same, just branding for professional services through using their anti-competitive moats around iOS.
I’ll give an example from a real experience I worked on before. A client was a large haircut chain and they gave us a data set of individuals that had received a specific ad campaign from them via a loyalty program (so it had a variety of demographic and customer history data).
When we used the transactions data on this cohort to measure specific lift in the ad campaign, it was hugely negative - we thought there must be some kind of bug in the code, stressed out late nights coding and sanity checking everything and finding no issues that could explain it.
Our internal managers said we cannot go back to the client and ask for details or anything until we fix the negative lift because “negative lift isn’t actually possible in real advertising.” (Literal quote from an experienced manager in a well-known advertising analytics firm - I even showed him plenty of research out of Facebook, Google and academia disproving it, but it was totally taboo to mention negative lift).
Finally after some agonizing weeks we had no choice but to go back to the client and ask them to explain the full mechanics of their ad delivery, how people were targeted, to see if there was some bias or something we had no way to account for.
And of course - they told us all these individuals had been given a physical coupon as they were leaving from a haircut. OMG! The physical mechanics of a haircut means you are obviously not coming back for another one for say 3-4 weeks on average, and you also won’t have perfect customer retention, so basically there is no way this kind of campaign can produce positive lift unless you build a statistical model that successfully controls for the built in customer churn and the mechanical delay period before the ad treatment could possibly causally effect people’s next haircut choice.
This is just a drop in the bucket of strange things advertisers do. Often they won’t tell you targeting details like this, because they believe their method of targeting (even as simple as a coupon for loyalty rewards members) is some type of proprietary technique. This gets really really bad with firms that run their own digital advertising. If they are targeting “upper income people who just bought a BMW” via The Trade Desk, that’ll hugely skew any attribution modeling if they refuse to tell you they did that. A ton of the quant work of ad attribution is trying to automatically control for as many of these glaring omissions from the client as you can, since they often lie, refuse to tell you, or are actually wrong about the targeting they believed they used.
In short, measuring whether it was the ad’s effect that led to that macro increase or decrease in revenue is no easier than the general problem of causal inference from non-random trial data lacking clean splits, and often is much harder.
This is about the simplest type of confounding example you’ll see - real world ad attribution is far messier, with 10 or 15 of these issues all intermixing, some of which you have measured data to possibly use as a control, some of which you don’t.
Your client might not even have done any control group at all. They might just say, “we sent this ad to absolutely everyone, how did it perform compared to a hypothetical where we didn’t send it at all?”
Was it obvious that AirPods would become a $4Bn revenue stream, or that Watch would take the lion’s share of the watch market despite having battery life of <1 day, or that Apple computer would move into regulator approved consumer heart monitoring?
Rumours of Apple TV and Apple Car and an Apple AR gadget have been around a long time.
Lets revisit this comment in a year or two when they release their AR and VR products.
How did this turn into "Google-backed groups"?! Where's Facebook in the title? Is there no attempt at unbiased reporting anymore?
There’s also ad agencies not backed by Facebook or Google, but they’re not in the title either.
Yes, and this is why the reporting is dishonest - it's feels like it's there to smear one company in the title instead of actually disclosing to us who the people are.
Nearly two times the size so we can make up a story of selected truths?
And why is it done? Because it has been proven to work. They make more money with clickbait titles.
Personally, it's simply a windmill I'm no longer willing to tilt against.
And it appears that nothing was purposefully omitted from the article itself, so I'm definitely not willing to tilt against this.
Gets down to giving the consumer a fair and informed choice, so however they frame this - I'm sure it will only serve Apple well. Indeed, any EU investigations into Apple would probably see this move in good light and with the competition contrasting it in a different light, I don't think Apple could of asked for anything better to stash into any legal war chest with the EU when it comes to showing they are good guys and looking after consumers better than others - least that is how they can frame it.
If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough.
And hopefully one not reliant on so many dark patterns.
The OneTrust opt-outs are the worst (and don't even work! which must be against the california consumer privacy act).
On my iphone in safari: say I'm cooking dinner and go to epicurious.com. Greeted with the now-standard opt-out banner at the bottom.
1. Click the "Do not sell my advertising"
2. Greeted with a giant Conde Nast wall-of-text full screen modal
3. Scroll through it (wait, we're now reading long legalise terms-of-service just to opt-out now?)
4. In the middle of the wall of text, there's a toggle button for "Sell my Personal Information". Okay, lets forget about the 2012-era debate around UI ambiguity of toggle buttons and accept this UI dark pattern. Try to tap it.
5. I tap it, and it doesn't do anything.
You read that right -- the Conde Nast OneTrust-powered opt-out, if you go through all the steps to find it -- doesn't even work on mobile. They're shipping a broken UI. Maybe you need to do something obscure like tap-and-hold-then-drag-in-a-tiny-hitbox-that-doesn't-trigger-horizontal-page-scrolling or something. I haven't figured it out.
I assume it's companies like OneTrust or Conde Nast that are complaining Apple's presumably-more-straightforward opt-out carries a "high risk of user refusal." Looking at how user-hostile what they're shipping now shows you what they're really fighting is giving consumers an effective choice.
Since I pressed “do not sell my information” and then got the Condé Nast opt outs page, does that mean the state of the toggle is already “don’t share”? It’s deliberately impossible to tell.
So I just click allow on those popups and let the user agent do its job.
I highly recommend it to everybody. You can still keep a chrome tab open for those sites you need to login to.
GDPR's requirements are pretty clear in this regard and personalisation for advertising can't be a legitimate interest. Every business in the advertising community has seeked legal counseling regarding GDPR, make no mistake about it. They simply hope that they'll be ignored for long enough.
> if only enforcement would actually happen
It does happen. Maybe not as fast as people would like, investigations and lawsuits take a while, data protection authorities are probably understaffed. Google was fined multiple times already — and they might take this as the cost of doing business, but sooner or later they will be hit with that maximum 4% of global profits if they don't adapt and they are adapting.
Have there been any fines against either the web sites or the ad/tracking services they use? (IIRC the Google fines were for Android, not ads/web site tracking).
I think the statement would be more meaningful with "if they have the choice" removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing in favor of only those with the power to remove choice.
The other side of the coin is that you can bring features to more people. People that do not have the money to buy the expensive iPhones, etc.
This isn't a recent thing.
This is lifting the stone that’s been lying in the grass for the last decade or so, and watching all the creepy-crawlers scurry away out of the light, desperate to find somewhere to hide themselves again.
If you're concerned about extreme materialism and the effect it has on the environment and mental health, then it seems life would not get worse, it would get better.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered" -MLK
The agency has just shifted closer to Apple.
Which happens to align better with your interests, at least in this-five-minute-period.
It’s interesting because, as an Apple iOS and MacOS user, I experience their locked-down / progressively more restricted / more secure / more private walled garden
And I too am happy and content to be in that environment.
The thing is, people actually don’t want fraternity, okay maybe they do, but only a little of it.
What people really want is strong leadership.
We actually want a benevolent director.
Just don’t come running to me, don’t be surprised, when we all wake up in gulag.
And yet privacy isn't a strong selling point for most people. It sounds like they have spoken and they don't give a damn about it.
Finally, if the apologists are right and most people really don’t care, this wouldn’t be an issue because people wouldn’t opt out when given the chance.
Solution: I should be able to slip drugs in their drink without their knowing to keep being able to have sex with girls against their will.
I really don't understand how someone with 2 neutrons can ever utter a phrase like this and think they are doing themselves a service?!
If I buy a physical book I can lend it to someone, or sell it if I want. If I buy a digital copy (which for some reason often costs more), not only can I not lend it but I can't sell it to anyone either. I also need to ask permission from the platform to read the book I rightfully purchased.
The Google/Apple app store duopoly is another example of this. Apple for example only allows you to use Safari, and makes it very hard for you to have any choice about what software you run on your own device.
It feels like there's a slow slide into a world where we no longer have any choice about what content we consume or how we consume it. Instead, we're spoonfed what the platform decides is good for us, and in most cases good means most profitable for the platform.
Translation: we used to be able to use dark patterns to get users to consent, now we can’t.
Ease of use is another, albeit less clear cut. If Ticketmaster knows I like heavy metal, they don't need to send me newsletters (that I opt in to manually of course) telling me about the upcoming country music gigs.
To be clear, I don't think that the current players are being useful to me as a consumer, they are abusing my data, but that's not to say that there is no use for tracking or personalisation,
Being logged into Facebook messenger because I'm logged into the Facebook app, gmail having access to info from gcal, Ticketmaster having access to livenation preferences are all examples of sharing within the same organisarion that benefit a user.
I can definitely see how it could be more useful, but I don’t agree that the actual factor of this increase in productivity is infinite. Maybe a factor of 3 to 5.
That said, you're arguing semantics about the relative worth of the results, even if it is a factor of 5, that is more useful, and the answer to OPs question of is tracking useful is "yes".
Google keeps giving me french ads even when I speak dutch, live in the dutch half of Belgium, and have a http request header saying i speak dutch or english. I get ads for all kinds of stuff I don't care about. In fact, I get ads for things I can't even buy in my country or continent if I wanted it. If google would tune their ads to the language i ask them, based on the query I entered, the results would be a lot better.
I presume the real value of all this tracking is they can companies to buy ads with them, even if the actual ad delivery mostly fails.
Now I bought a rubber mat on ali express, for opening all kinds of electronics. For weeks they tried to sell me rubber ... stuff ... and latex ... stuff ... and other related ... stuff .... until my wife started mocking me enough to stay of their site for a few months. That's another cost of relevant advertising ;-)
Then he introduced ads - mostly podcast ads. Marco created his own ad platform just for his app and he doesn’t use any third party ad SDK. I both found the ads useful and I didn’t feel guilty because he was generating revenue.
For example single sign on, or a chat with a company representive when the company has several domains.
This "tracking" just needs to be clearly visible and controllable by the user.
DuckerZ in the chat boys. Zero sympathy for ad networks, they're one of the largest channels for malware. We push adblock to all our devices as corporate policy.
The ad space needs more competitors. Currently it's Facebook for boomers, Google for everyone else, and also-rans. I'm fine with Apple forcing their way into this space since I trust them more than the other players.
Are you sure?
You can't buy them anymore, but you can still buy computer monitors with about the same size so that is probably what I will be doing when it goes.
Convincing the public that they are correct is how Google normalized the idea of sharing private information without oversight.
Then with journalists they use a time-honored tradition Apple has been known for: Managing exclusive access based on positive press. Blogs which promote Google's political positions get exclusive interviews with Sundar Pichai, which when factoring in the ad clicks it brings in, is a multi-million dollar payday.
TechDirt is a special bridge between the two concepts: The same guy who writes the "news" runs a lobbying organization, Copia, which is on Google's public policy team payroll.