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

301–310 of 343 posts

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

#301

Post by AstralStorm »

Retric wrote: post #277
panpanna wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they wouldn't ever do that. That would be like making an anti-demo. Google has an interest in getting as big a market share for their browser as they can. In as much as disabling their web application functionality of you do not use chrome. Android is much less relevant than the browser.

And this does not even begin to touch on Firefox.

The problem is a policy one, with Apple really liking their walled garden and veto rights to any design.

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

#302

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #282
AsusFan wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the record, Firefox has built-in anti tracker which is enabled by default and they do that on all platforms Firefox's anti-tracking protection doesn't block google analytics by default. They only block "third party" cookies - which in practice translates as: Google's competition. The fox knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

I'm not sure where you got this idea but it's completely untrue.

He's 100% correct. Google Analytics is a "first-party" cookie and thus not blocked by any privacy helpers.

"Cookie blocking" and GDPR is just Google abusing its monopoly position, nothing more.

Source: I work in adtech.

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

#303

Post by acdha »

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.

That doesn't feel like the right word: it's mandatory but you're still talking about a very competitive browser engine and the security rationale for blocking third-party JIT is not without merit even if I wish they'd relax it[1]. This feels similar to the IE 5-6 era: it got really bad by the end after Microsoft removed most of the team but there was an earlier period where they were forcing it on users but most developers would have acknowledged it having good performance and features relative to the competition.

In this case, it's especially complicated by the fact that iOS is the primary check on web standards meaning whatever Google chooses to implement. Mozilla isn't without influence but there's no incremental way to chip away at Apple's market-share the way they have with Google/Youtube.com pushing Chrome at Firefox users short of making Android phones far more competitive.

1. Say by requiring strong commitments to code quality and response time, which would allow e.g. Firefox and Chrome but not Adobe-level security commitments.

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

#304

Post by ubermonkey »

AznHisoka wrote: post #254
matheusmoreira wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. I hate it when people respond to concerns with "I make money that way, how could I possibly go on otherwise" as if it somehow legitimitized their unscrupulous activity. Their profits are nobody's problem but theirs and there is absolutely nothing wrong with putting them out of business if that's what it takes to stop their abusive surveillance capitalism. If people's use of privacy-focused softwa…

You got too emotional when reading my response. I was just asking the question because I was genuinely curious whether there was technically a way to do so w/o cookie targeting. I have no interest in doing such targeting. I was interested in whether a HNer had a creative workaround.

>You got too emotional when reading my response.

I read a dispassionate rebuttal of your point. Calling the reply "too emotional" is not an okay tactic.

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

#305

Post by buboard »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #296
buboard wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There is no evidence that its effectiveness has increased however If you're right, those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis. And this in an area where doing so is very easy (don't run the ad then do run the ad, then see the immediate and longer-term difference). Also, from the same wiki link I gave "The EU limitations restrict targeting by online advertisers…

> those who commission ads are idiots because they aren't doing the most basic cost/benefit analysis

i should clarify i meant the effectiveness of ads overall, not just targetting. there is no doubt that online ads work, and that tracking ads perform better than display ads. However despite the shift to online ads, advertising spending overall is similar and it doesnt seem to have increased consumption. So i dont understand if the rise in online ad spending means anything (imho it's purely because online audience is bigger now).

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

#306

Post by jeromegv »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #302
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you got this idea but it's completely untrue.

He's 100% correct. Google Analytics is a "first-party" cookie and thus not blocked by any privacy helpers. "Cookie blocking" and GDPR is just Google abusing its monopoly position, nothing more. Source: I work in adtech.

Mainly 1st party but some features might use 3rd party.

-- For customers that are using Google Analytics' Display Advertiser features, such as remarketing, a third-party DoubleClick cookie is used in addition to the other cookies described in this document for just these features. For more information about this cookie, visit the Google Advertising Privacy FAQ.

Source: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...

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

#307

Post by exhilaration »

panpanna wrote: post #265
AsusFan wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the record, Firefox has built-in anti tracker which is enabled by default and they do that on all platforms Firefox's anti-tracking protection doesn't block google analytics by default. They only block "third party" cookies - which in practice translates as: Google's competition. The fox knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

Do you have a source for that? Firefox docs and disconnect don't say anything about this https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Pri...

The above specifically shows you to make sure your site continues to function when Google Analytics is blocked by Firefox. I can't find any evidence that Firefox doesn't block Google Analytics.

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

#308

Post by AznHisoka »

ubermonkey wrote: post #304
AznHisoka wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got too emotional when reading my response. I was just asking the question because I was genuinely curious whether there was technically a way to do so w/o cookie targeting. I have no interest in doing such targeting. I was interested in whether a HNer had a creative workaround.

>You got too emotional when reading my response. I read a dispassionate rebuttal of your point. Calling the reply "too emotional" is not an okay tactic.

“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#309

Post by [deleted] »

manigandham wrote: post #222
inetknght wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. > Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. The registrar has a business relationship with the domain because the domain was purchased. The domain's owner uses DNS to point to an IP address. The client connects to that IP address and verifies that the IP address knows about the domain. "I paid for you to…

> " Business contracts don't mean shit to me because I can't inspect them. I can inspect DNS, however. " Your personal beliefs don't overrule how global business is conducted. Domain name ownership has nothing to do with business operations, liability or regulations. You can blame a certain domain all you want but it's ultimately meaningless. > " Publishers can just as easily create advertisements and host them... Sc…

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by repsilat »

guareber wrote: post #263
repsilat wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a countervailing force, depending on the market. First an example that supports what everyone is talking about: * User X loves cola Pepsi and Coke both bid more to serve their cola subscription services or whatever. Ad price goes up. Now add more data: * User is a Coca Cola fanatic. Even though this is the same user, the ad price goes down , because Pepsi doesn't want to bid. Now add another Pepsi fanati…

I think this is only on fake-scenario. In a real DMP, the user would be "loves cola","loves coca cola","loves fizzy drinks","drinks sugared drinks", and about 30 other related segments, and one of those would definitely sneak by. Humans create audience segments, and it's in the interest of dataset producers to have each user be a part of the maximum number of members they can be to maximize monetisation.

> Humans create audience segments

Eventually there will be machine learning models involved (maybe there are already? I don't know ads.) Those models might move closer to "perfect targeting" where advertisers could compete less over certain users.

And no matter the incentives of the data providers, "increase customer value" is probably always a Nash equilibrium. If better targeting leads to less revenue, eventually you'll probably do it anyway.

Post reply on HN