Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Ad-Targeting Crackdown Shakes Up Ad Market

theinformation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 343 posts

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

#211

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

snowwrestler wrote: post #150

> Only about 9% of Safari users on an iPhone allow outside companies to track where they go on the web > In comparison, 79% of people who use Google’s Chrome browser allow advertisers to track their browsing habits on mobile devices through cookies. Something to keep in mind the next time you see someone from Google complaining about how Apple won’t allow Google Chrome to run natively on the iPhone.

And when there is a security vulnerability which exploits webkit by just visiting a website, one has to wait till Apple releases an OS update(if it decides to acknowledge and fix it[1]), where as one on Firefox 'if Apple had allowed its own engine' could get updated via the AppStore.

What Apple has done with the trackers is commendable, but the security argument when it comes to browsers is always in favour of allowing browsers with their own engines; which apple doesn't.

[1]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple...

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

#212

Post by boring_twenties »

dmitrygr wrote: post #86
manigandham wrote: post #33

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.

At least in my experience, lots of iPhone users are rocking old models they bought used for like $200.

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

#213

Post by onion2k »

_eht wrote: post #182
ramphastidae wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Genuinely curious so would appreciate calm, non-aggressive responses. My browser history is none of your business. That’s it. I don’t take care if violating my privacy by stealing my browser history is less effective than the newest way of violating my privacy. Doesn’t make it any better.

>My browser history is none of your business. That’s it. Your browser was made to handle cookie data. It is publicly known. If it bothers you, you can turn it off. I do not see what all this sort of huffing is about.

If you walk in to Walmart you don't automatically think you're sharing your shopping habits with thousands of other companies who pay for that data[1]. People believe the web works the same way - when they visit someDomain.com they, entirely reasonably, accept they're sharing their data with someDomain but don't realise they're also sharing their data with whichever tracking/surveillance services someDomain has installed.

You're right that this is just how browsers and websites and the internet as a whole works, but what tech workers and tech companies are just recently discovering is that people don't actually like or trust how it works and aren't always willing to accept it. In Apple's case they can leverage that distrust to market their products.

[1] Today facial recognition and phone tracking means that you are 'sharing' that data with tracking companies, obviously.

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

#214

Post by yoasif_ »

quotemstr wrote: post #174

People are going to unpleasantly surprised by the way the internet changes after tracking for personalized advertising stops working. Already, I see tons of complains about paywalled news sites, micropayments everywhere, and the death of the "old internet". Just imagine how much worse it'll be when only two or three giant social media companies can make money with advertising (since they can rely on first-party data)…

It will likely make fake news less profitable, since I would bet that a lot of value in advertising on those sites is driven by the audience, not the type of content being posted.

I think that would be a nice return to the "old internet".

Also, it isn't clear to me that the larger sites you talk about would not recoup more value from their audiences and thus need to paywall less.

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

#215

Post by hvmonk »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #211
snowwrestler wrote: post #150

> Only about 9% of Safari users on an iPhone allow outside companies to track where they go on the web > In comparison, 79% of people who use Google’s Chrome browser allow advertisers to track their browsing habits on mobile devices through cookies. Something to keep in mind the next time you see someone from Google complaining about how Apple won’t allow Google Chrome to run natively on the iPhone.

And when there is a security vulnerability which exploits webkit by just visiting a website, one has to wait till Apple releases an OS update(if it decides to acknowledge and fix it[1]), where as one on Firefox 'if Apple had allowed its own engine' could get updated via the AppStore. What Apple has done with the trackers is commendable, but the security argument when it comes to browsers is always in favour of allowi…

wdyt about the frequency of security patches vs you getting tracked on all sites you visit? Not to say Apple doesn't care about security.

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

#216

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

hvmonk wrote: post #215
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when there is a security vulnerability which exploits webkit by just visiting a website, one has to wait till Apple releases an OS update(if it decides to acknowledge and fix it[1]), where as one on Firefox 'if Apple had allowed its own engine' could get updated via the AppStore. What Apple has done with the trackers is commendable, but the security argument when it comes to browsers is always in favour of allowi…

wdyt about the frequency of security patches vs you getting tracked on all sites you visit? Not to say Apple doesn't care about security.

>Not to say Apple doesn't care about security.

Not as much as it advertises itself as a torch bearer of Security & Privacy (or) Not as much its ardent proponents believe it to be.

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

#217

Post by grey-area »

snowwrestler wrote: post #150

> Only about 9% of Safari users on an iPhone allow outside companies to track where they go on the web > In comparison, 79% of people who use Google’s Chrome browser allow advertisers to track their browsing habits on mobile devices through cookies. Something to keep in mind the next time you see someone from Google complaining about how Apple won’t allow Google Chrome to run natively on the iPhone.

The browser rendering engine used has nothing to do with tracking permissions, which is set by the browser itself. Chrome is on iOS for example, as is Firefox.

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

#218

Post by thomaskcr »

onion2k wrote: post #213
_eht wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My browser history is none of your business. That’s it. Your browser was made to handle cookie data. It is publicly known. If it bothers you, you can turn it off. I do not see what all this sort of huffing is about.

If you walk in to Walmart you don't automatically think you're sharing your shopping habits with thousands of other companies who pay for that data[1]. People believe the web works the same way - when they visit someDomain.com they, entirely reasonably, accept they're sharing their data with someDomain but don't realise they're also sharing their data with whichever tracking/surveillance services someDomain has insta…

> If you walk in to Walmart you don't automatically think you're sharing your shopping habits with thousands of other companies who pay for that data

You can literally buy that data. Either by targeting credit card transactions of people who shopped at a walmart via a broker or you can get more direct data (albeit probably more limited) from them directly here: https://www.walmartmedia.com.

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

#219

Post by visarga »

artyomavanesov wrote: post #157
ddlatham wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't go to the grocery store to give their money to the cashiers. So from a user standpoint the cash registers shouldn't be there in the first place. The ads typically are paying for what the users are going to the website for. I don't like it, but most users seem to prefer visiting sites with ads over sites they have to pay directly for. I hate how intrusive and abusive many ads can be, block ads on many sit…

I agree that ads serve their purpose. Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place. My point is indeed that people go to grocery stores to buy food, not to spend money. Doesn't mean cashiers aren't justified.

> Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place.

The desperation about monetising ads usually makes them crappy website creators. They would just fill pages with low quality articles propped up by SEO. I prefer the sources that don't earn money on advertising for quality of content.

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

#220

Post by Joe-Z »

1propionyl wrote: post #202
Razengan wrote: post #201

Sometimes I wonder if the entire ads racket isn't a case of the emperor with no clothes. Has anyone here actually had a meaningful increase in users and revenue by using targeted-ad services, that they couldn't achieve by more organic methods (e.g. posting on places like Reddit, word of mouth)?

The real goal for the big players using these services isn't actually increasing their own users and revenue. They have better ways to do that. Rather, the goal is to lock everyone else out from even possibly doing so. For example: AdWords isn't about reaching new audiences, it's about staking a claim on an audience in perpetuity (as long as your budget allows). This is completely apparent from the pricing model. Goo…

That's like the 1000th ad-targeting article I've read, but the first time to hear this perspective. Absolutely fascinating, thank you!

Here's one question though: If you're the established player in one field and don't really need the online ads other than for staking a claim, would it really influence your sales that much if a competitor takes over that space? Probably just a downturn in number of sales to new customers? (Who presumably haven't heard about the other players in the field and just go with the one that's shown to them in online search results?)

Okay, that's more than one question, but maybe you'd like to elaborate a bit.

Post reply on HN