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

271–280 of 343 posts

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

#271

Post by anoncake »

dorgo wrote: post #246
zwaps wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably would be well advised to read up on the economics of consumer differentiation and price discrimination. All of today's ad-tech is set up and developed for that purpose. Whether overtly or covertly, it is the singular purpose, because the case is so clear cut: We are distributing the share of the pie between companies and consumers. It is therefore clear why people aware of basic economics consider agress…

Why is price discrimination bad? It is about charging the highest price the customer is still ok with. Sure, if a merchant knows how badly you want his product he can increase the price. But, on the other hand, he will decrease the price for somebody who wouldn't pay the high price. It's like bargaining on a fair. A method to determine a price suitable for both sides - instead of charging every customer the same pric…

At best, price discrimination is a waste of time and resources. The buyer loses as much as the seller gains, making it a zero-sum game. But since price discrimination requires more effort than setting a single fixed price, the sum is actually negative.

Aside from that, "charging the highest price the customer is still ok with" means to eliminate the consumer surplus. Which is bad for consumers, i.e. everyone.

And aren't prices supposed to be signals? How are customers supposed to compare the costs of each good if you don't tell them? All you tell them is how much they're willing to spend.

They already know that. But you (probably) don't. If you did, congratulations: you've solved the economic calculation problem. This should raise red flags.

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

#272

Post by buboard »

faizanbhat wrote: post #151

As someone who worked in ad tech for half a decade, I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting. We're speaking of databases mapping data to random numbers stored in a file that can easily be deleted. The real issue is ad targeting by a handful of large companies that have personally identifiable information. It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either. It's very difficult to get cook…

> a generally poor understanding

Probably this. Adtech (ironically) do not advertise what they do. Most people read and think that e.g. google literally sells personal files on themselves.

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

#273

Post by buboard »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #268
faizanbhat wrote: post #151

As someone who worked in ad tech for half a decade, I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting. We're speaking of databases mapping data to random numbers stored in a file that can easily be deleted. The real issue is ad targeting by a handful of large companies that have personally identifiable information. It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either. It's very difficult to get cook…

Let's rephrase that > I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting ...because he... > worked in ad tech for half a decade, To continue > It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either Then why's it being done? Because it doesn't work, or because it does? > Instead most companies do the bare minimum and try to make a guess that is slightly better than a coin flip Uh huh. From https://en.wi…

> That's the bare minimum. Right.

That's not addressing the argument. Advertising follows eyeballs, so naturally it went online. There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however, despite all the claims about high ad tech.

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

#274

Post by Razengan »

puranjay wrote: post #209
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)?

Personal experience shows that poor results from targeted ads is usually because of a) poor product, b) poor audience targeting, c) poor creative, or d) poor testing and tracking. There's an entire cottage industry of marketers (especially affiliate marketers) who make a lot of money through targeted ads. Unlike big brands, they can't afford to throw money at branded campaigns; they have to see results. If they conti…

Why isn't "e) targeted ads don't work as well as ads agencies want you to believe" a possibility?

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

#275

Post by Razengan »

simonh wrote: post #259
Joe-Z wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 custo…

I very much doubt the small bump in sales of Coke after a major ad campaign actually pays for the campaign. That's not the point. Lets suppose CocaCola stopped advertising completely. No TV adds, no product placement, no billboards, nothing, but Pepsi and the other soft drinks companies kept up their rate of advertising or even increased it to fill the gap. The only time anyone ever saw the name Coke would be when th…

> The only time anyone ever saw the name Coke would be when they saw it on a shelf.

Or, when it was posted/mentioned by people who liked Coke.

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

#276

Post by thecatspaw »

dorgo wrote: post #246
zwaps wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably would be well advised to read up on the economics of consumer differentiation and price discrimination. All of today's ad-tech is set up and developed for that purpose. Whether overtly or covertly, it is the singular purpose, because the case is so clear cut: We are distributing the share of the pie between companies and consumers. It is therefore clear why people aware of basic economics consider agress…

Why is price discrimination bad? It is about charging the highest price the customer is still ok with. Sure, if a merchant knows how badly you want his product he can increase the price. But, on the other hand, he will decrease the price for somebody who wouldn't pay the high price. It's like bargaining on a fair. A method to determine a price suitable for both sides - instead of charging every customer the same pric…

> But, on the other hand, he will decrease the price for somebody who wouldn't pay the high price.

I highly doubt that they would actually decrease the price. They maybe wouldnt increase it, but unlike the bargaining on a fair, the seller can not see that the prospective buyer is really struggling to make ends meet, and sell it at a loss to help them out.

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

#277

Post by Retric »

panpanna wrote: post #269
acdha wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using “FUD” in one sentence and calling WebKit “crippled” in the next is not a good way to establish yourself as a rational analyst. Firefox is my primary browser but I don’t think advocacy like that is helpful.

3rd party browsers are forced to use a webkit engine instead of their own. By any definition, this adds a severe limitation => crippled. I also think (I could be wrong) safari has access to a slightly different webkit engine than third party browsers.

A forced choice is only a severe limitation if it’s significantly worse. That’s currently a guess as there are no iOS comparable options to consider at this point in time.

Further, Google has a competitive interest in eventually crippling their iOS rendering engine.Then again I don’t use desktop Crome so that could be my bias talking.

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

#278

Post by ubercow13 »

scarface74 wrote: post #249
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…

What’s the practical difference between an OS update that can be one tiny patch and an app update? Not only does iOS 13 support all phones back to 2015. They released a patch for older devices going back to 2011 less than 6 months ago.

One requires you to restart your phone and one doesn’t. One allows you to get the security patch without other unwanted changes to the OS.

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

#279

Post by cptskippy »

soup10 wrote: post #266
danaris wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple will let whatever browsers want to run on iOS. Chrome is, in fact, on there. They just won't let them using any rendering engine but WebKit—and this restriction long predates Google's current level of draconian dominance in that sphere. I don't believe the tracking settings are tied to the rendering engine, so I would be surprised if Chrome on iOS has settings that different to Chrome on macOS in that regard.

So they allow WebKit reskins, that's not the same thing as allowing competing browsers.

And it's not as dire as just a reskin of Safari. You have to use Webkit but everything before and after it are up to you.

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

#280

Post by Mirioron »

zwaps wrote: post #188
faizanbhat wrote: post #151

As someone who worked in ad tech for half a decade, I fail to understand the fuss about cookie based targeting. We're speaking of databases mapping data to random numbers stored in a file that can easily be deleted. The real issue is ad targeting by a handful of large companies that have personally identifiable information. It's not like cookie based targeting is very effective either. It's very difficult to get cook…

You probably would be well advised to read up on the economics of consumer differentiation and price discrimination. All of today's ad-tech is set up and developed for that purpose. Whether overtly or covertly, it is the singular purpose, because the case is so clear cut: We are distributing the share of the pie between companies and consumers. It is therefore clear why people aware of basic economics consider agress…

>All of today's ad-tech is set up and developed for that purpose. Whether overtly or covertly, it is the singular purpose, because the case is so clear cut: We are distributing the share of the pie between companies and consumers.

That's not entirely true though. Better ad targeting increases the "size of the pie" by increasing the chances that a consumer will find something that's useful to them.

>At this stage, it is entirely rational and ethical to consider the entire ad industry as hostile.

At that point, why not consider the entire software industry as hostile? They're the ones that enable this, so clearly they are also the devil. Life is not this black and white. Ads do serve a useful purpose, to which degree cookie based ads do that, I'm unsure, but it would be very difficult to start a business without any kind of advertisement.

Post reply on HN