41–50 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m confused by this. If Safari users are harder to target, and demand for targeting Safari users hasn’t changed, shouldn’t the price go up?
The demand for highly-targeted users is what drives up prices. Since Safari users all look the same now and can't be highly targeted, they have lost that high-end demand and prices have fallen to generic display rates.
Let us not forget that Apple isn't doing this out of altruism, but 50% because it hurts their competitors and 50% because it makes their users happy. That said, being 50% motivated by making their users happy is more than can be said about Google or Facebook. Edit: To be clear, I am an Apple customer and it's mainly on privacy grounds. I just like to keep realistic expectations about their present and future behavior…
Of course not - who said they were?
It's a matter of months, maybe a couple of years.
When this happens, what is happening with Safari now will look like a minor issue.
Let us not forget that Apple isn't doing this out of altruism, but 50% because it hurts their competitors and 50% because it makes their users happy. That said, being 50% motivated by making their users happy is more than can be said about Google or Facebook. Edit: To be clear, I am an Apple customer and it's mainly on privacy grounds. I just like to keep realistic expectations about their present and future behavior…
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith
Does this cover iOS apps, too? If so, that could mean fewer iOS apps will get written. If not, is that only on technical grounds (it may be easier to hide what data apps send out) or (also) because it is good for Apple if one has to write an iOS apps to better track users?
There are of course other ways to fingerprint the devices, but they will get your app removed from the App Store if you're using them for advertising. (If you're caught of course.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. If the ads are served from the first party domain that should make it a hell of a lot easier to attribute mal-action to that specific first party instead of offloading blame elsewhere.
Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. 1st-party serving won't change anything with regards to chain of custody in ad content but the new regulations should at least make the chain shorter and more restricted in abilities.
Let us not forget that Apple isn't doing this out of altruism, but 50% because it hurts their competitors and 50% because it makes their users happy. That said, being 50% motivated by making their users happy is more than can be said about Google or Facebook. Edit: To be clear, I am an Apple customer and it's mainly on privacy grounds. I just like to keep realistic expectations about their present and future behavior…
Let us not forget that Apple isn't doing this out of altruism, but 50% because it hurts their competitors and 50% because it makes their users happy. That said, being 50% motivated by making their users happy is more than can be said about Google or Facebook. Edit: To be clear, I am an Apple customer and it's mainly on privacy grounds. I just like to keep realistic expectations about their present and future behavior…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they'll either put up a paywall. Personally, I think I'm fine with that, provided the paywalls get cheaper—right now, they're all very clearly more expensive than what you'd make in ad revenue. Of the two options, paying content creators for what they produce seems much more "healthy" for society. > or put 10x more ads on their page. If the site becomes impossible to browse, I will leave. > And those ads will f…
I like targeted ads, but I want them targeted to the content I'm consuming, not me personally. If I'm reading a blog or article on rock climbing, then, yeah, show me ads for all the gear. I'm interested. But don't show me an ad for an Instant Pot because I googled it last week. That's creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m confused by this. If Safari users are harder to target, and demand for targeting Safari users hasn’t changed, shouldn’t the price go up?
Me too. Maybe its because the data that can be collected about safari users isn't worth as much.
Exposure increases this value just by playing a numbers game; therefore, the larger the ad network, the more they can charge.
Targeting increases it more, by allowing companies to choose demographics more likely to be interested in their product, so again, they can charge more.
An interesting aside: While working as a mobile developer, I learned that many apps do not have an in-app-purchase to eliminate ads because it tanks the value of the in-app advertising. Why? Because the people most likely to drop $5 or $10 to not look at ads? They're the ones with the most expendable income, and therefore, users more likely to impulse purchase products advertised.
In other words: By allowing people willing to spend money to support the app, even if there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE they'd be interested in a product, decreases the value of your advertising.