Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

theinformation.com

111–120 of 343 posts

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another way to think about this. Privacy is a human right. If your business model is built on violating human rights at scale then I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy for you if technology kills your business. The lesson from Apple is build something great, something that people love, and they will pay you for it.

Agreed about privacy. So how is apple helping websites get paid?

See Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution For the Web:

https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#112
post #13

How has this been so effective, when Panopticlick still says my Safari browser has "a nearly-unique fingerprint"? (And based on what I've read from other users's experience, this is normal.)

When you load Panopticlick, you'll notice it takes a minute or so to fingerprint you. That's a pretty long time and a lot of CPU. Re/Targeted ads require the decision to be made in milliseconds, including network transit time. They just don't have the time to fingerprint you on every request. They could do it once, but then they are back to the problem of having to set a cookie to keep track of you after that.

> Re/Targeted ads require the decision to be made in milliseconds, including network transit time

If they're served on page-load when a user first visits a site, but I guess a significant minority are also requested+served in the middle of your newspaper article two minutes after page load, or in the middle of your Youtube video, or a refreshing sticky-footer ad, or just the next page loaded on a site.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At an Apple all-hands around 2005, an employee asked Steve why they made the iPod, and he said "because we love music." And the answer was so simple and so earnest, that you just knew it was true. Apple, for better or for worse, makes products based on what its executives personally want to use. That's not the only consideration, but it's unusually salient compared to other companies. My guess is that Apple works to…

Apple under Steve Jobs 2005 and Apple under Tim Cook now are different beasts. Steve would go crazy at the executives releasing all the buggy/unpolished products Apple released recently. Imagine the Macbook keyboard or the Touchbar being released under Steve. iPod was a great product. But time has changed, and I would be cautious in extrapolating that experience to Apple today. I can't imagine Apple executives saying…

I feel the same way. Imagine how Steve Jobs would feel if he found out you could go to an Apple store, buy a Macbook and an iPhone, and still have to buy an additional cable to connect them together!

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#114
Seeing more relevant ads => good

Getting your data sold to a data broker => bad

free web sites & internet => good

having to pay for quality content => bad (gee, who pays for NYT or WP after they're put behind a paywall?)

Getting the best ads possible without any human involvement => good

discovering the best products & services => good

microtargeting => bad

getting manipulated through political ads => bad

Look, ads ecosystem is the sponsor of free internet. Internet behind a paywall is very low utility. If anything, today's big ad tech are great democratizers & sponsors of the free web. That is, only if they can do the "good" and avoid the "bad".

Disclaimer: I work for an adtech company.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#115
post #37

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…

The closed/open/free/freedom paradox of Apple is something people should be thinking more about:

They are in many ways the most closed of all the big tech companies. Their flagship platform (in revenue terms), iOS, is the most closed general purpose computing platform in history. Overall it's second only to things like game consoles for being locked down to everyone including the owner.

They are also the platform and OS that offers the best privacy and security to the average user, and the only mainstream platform/OS actively pushing back in any way against surveillance capitalism.

Why is this? Three reasons I think, listed in order of importance:

(1) Economics: Apple's closed premium brand gives them pricing power, causing the majority of their revenue to come directly from their users. This makes it at least economically possible for Apple to prioritize their users' privacy and security at the expense of other potential secondhand sources of revenue. If you're playing in the bargain bin or worse are "free" then you must seek revenue elsewhere, and monetizing users via surveillance and other scummy methods is the easiest and most lucrative way to do that.

(2) Security: being unbelievably locked down is a double edged sword: it robs users of choice, but also robs malware and adware of attack vectors. Android is more open and as a result is a spyware disaster and seems to be getting worse. There's so much un-policed attack surface that Android's permissions don't really mean very much.

(3) Corporate DNA: Apple still has some DNA left over from the personal computing era back when PCs were about empowering users rather than monetizing them and the Internet was supposed to be about communication rather than manipulation. Apple still thinks it's making products for people, not productizing people.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#116
post #37

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…

people are too prone to anthropomorphizing companies. capitalism in two words: incentive alignment. people should really never be expecting business decisions to be motivated by morals.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple under Steve Jobs 2005 and Apple under Tim Cook now are different beasts. Steve would go crazy at the executives releasing all the buggy/unpolished products Apple released recently. Imagine the Macbook keyboard or the Touchbar being released under Steve. iPod was a great product. But time has changed, and I would be cautious in extrapolating that experience to Apple today. I can't imagine Apple executives saying…

I feel the same way. Imagine how Steve Jobs would feel if he found out you could go to an Apple store, buy a Macbook and an iPhone, and still have to buy an additional cable to connect them together!

He'd probably be satisfied knowing that a significant fraction of iPhone users never connect their phone to their computer.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple under Steve Jobs 2005 and Apple under Tim Cook now are different beasts. Steve would go crazy at the executives releasing all the buggy/unpolished products Apple released recently. Imagine the Macbook keyboard or the Touchbar being released under Steve. iPod was a great product. But time has changed, and I would be cautious in extrapolating that experience to Apple today. I can't imagine Apple executives saying…

I feel the same way. Imagine how Steve Jobs would feel if he found out you could go to an Apple store, buy a Macbook and an iPhone, and still have to buy an additional cable to connect them together!

You don’t. Anything you need to do can be done via iCloud.

Also the newest generation comes with a usb-c to lightening port.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#119

> The cost of reaching Safari users has fallen over 60% in the past two years, according to data from ad tech firm Rubicon Project. Meanwhile ad prices on Google’s Chrome browser have risen slightly. This is a great metric for privacy.

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?

Numbers below are just for making a point:

Let's say someone is trying to sell snowboards using ads. Previously they could target say "young male users who have previously browsed snow sports." Let's say the ad had a 5% conversion rate and they were willing to spend $100 per conversion (sale). This means they are willing to pay $5 per ad displayed. Now they can only target "all safari users" and their conversion rate is now 0.5% since not everyone likes snowboarding. They are still only willing to pay $100 per conversion, but now they are only willing to pay $0.50 per ad displayed since they need to display 10x as many ads per conversion. If the auction rate is >$0.50, they stop buying ads completely which decreases aggregate demand for ad slots.

Re: Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would disagree. "People who can afford Apple gadgets" is a desirable high-income audience. I wouldn't be surprised if it was broken out as a special category for purchase by FB and GOOG soon.

I feel really comfortable being in that bucket. It’s a very large bucket.
Post reply on HN