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

Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

uk.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#81

Post by kodablah »

sudhirj wrote: post #3

> The group of European marketing firms said the pop-up warning and the limited ability to customize it still carries “a high risk of user refusal.” If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough.

> If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough.

I think the statement would be more meaningful with "if they have the choice" removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing in favor of only those with the power to remove choice.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#82

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

jjcon wrote: post #66
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #39

It is interesting. Apple is trying to position itself as more privacy friendly suggesting that the tide may be finally turning. It is difficult for me to believe that they would do it without customer demographic suggesting their user base places some value on it.

As has been said before - it is kinda hilarious to see people suggest Apple is privacy minded for marketing purposes because 5-7 years ago when they were privacy minded people said it would be a huge competitive disadvantage because users didn’t care.

In a sense, it does not take much when main competitor in that space does not really hide a desire to hoover anything and everything.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#83

Post by scarface74 »

jjcon wrote: post #66
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #39

It is interesting. Apple is trying to position itself as more privacy friendly suggesting that the tide may be finally turning. It is difficult for me to believe that they would do it without customer demographic suggesting their user base places some value on it.

As has been said before - it is kinda hilarious to see people suggest Apple is privacy minded for marketing purposes because 5-7 years ago when they were privacy minded people said it would be a huge competitive disadvantage because users didn’t care.

And it would put Apple behind with AI/ML. They are behind, but they are catching up. Google has to do everything on the server. Most Android devices have slow outdated hardware so you can’t do too much on the device.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#84

Post by kodablah »

valuearb wrote: post #53
justapassenger wrote: post #23

> Apple engineers also said last week the company will bolster a free Apple-made tool that uses anonymous, aggregated data to measure whether advertising campaigns are working and that will not trigger the pop-up. > “Because it’s engineered to not track users, there’s no need to request permission to track,” Brandon Van Ryswyk, an Apple privacy engineer, said in a video session explaining the measurement tool to deve…

Forcing themselves into the identity business? By giving it away for free? What kind of business it that? I guess it’s the same as trying to get in the ads business by making ads less valuable?

> Forcing themselves into the identity business? By giving it away for free?

The price has nothing to do with the "forcing" part, unsure why you are guessing that's what is being referred to. The word "forcing" is clear enough on its own.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#85

Post by papeda »

nojito wrote: post #21

Everyone should regularly be reminded that Google was caught paying professors to publish papers "friendly" to Google. https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-google... Convincing the public that they are correct is how Google normalized the idea of sharing private information without oversight.

The web of corporate intrigue that powers watchdog groups is remarkable. The people who caught the professors are from the Campaign For Accountability, a "watchdog group" [1]. They pursue this role for a variety of issues. Their work on Google comes from a wider initiative they call the Google Transparency Project. One of the funders of said project is Oracle [2], which has...its own motives for bringing Google down a peg [3].

[1] https://campaignforaccountability.org/

[2] https://fortune.com/2016/08/19/google-transparency-project-2...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Oracle_America

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#86

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

koluna wrote: post #2

“Increase the chance of user refusal” - imagine that applied to literally any other context, such as bank accounts, credit cards, buying cars, etc. to see how ridiculous that statement is.

Being sober increases the chance of girl refusing to have sex with me.

Solution: I should be able to slip drugs in their drink without their knowing to keep being able to have sex with girls against their will.

I really don't understand how someone with 2 neutrons can ever utter a phrase like this and think they are doing themselves a service?!

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#87

Post by scarface74 »

rajansaini wrote: post #76

Does anyone more well-informed than I know if Apple's recent pivots spells a reduction in ad-based revenue for mobile developers?

I hope between this and Apple Arcade, it completely kills off apps that don’t give you a choice to turn off ads via an in app purchases.

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#88

Post by Despegar »

justapassenger wrote: post #23

> Apple engineers also said last week the company will bolster a free Apple-made tool that uses anonymous, aggregated data to measure whether advertising campaigns are working and that will not trigger the pop-up. > “Because it’s engineered to not track users, there’s no need to request permission to track,” Brandon Van Ryswyk, an Apple privacy engineer, said in a video session explaining the measurement tool to deve…

Apple is incentivizing ad networks to use SKAdNetwork [1], an API that lets you do attribution while preserving privacy. Guaranteeing that necessarily means they have to intermediate the relationship between users, apps and ad networks. They also proposed a similar API for the web [2].

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/skadnetwo...

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

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#89

Post by giardini »

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #86
koluna wrote: post #2

“Increase the chance of user refusal” - imagine that applied to literally any other context, such as bank accounts, credit cards, buying cars, etc. to see how ridiculous that statement is.

Being sober increases the chance of girl refusing to have sex with me. Solution: I should be able to slip drugs in their drink without their knowing to keep being able to have sex with girls against their will. I really don't understand how someone with 2 neutrons can ever utter a phrase like this and think they are doing themselves a service?!

odshoifsdhfs says>...I really don't understand how someone with 2 neutrons[sic] can ever utter a phrase like this and think they are doing themselves a service?!"

FTFY:

odshoifsdhfs says>"I really don't understand how someone with 2 neurons can ever utter a phrase like this and think they are doing themselves a service?!"

Re: Google-backed groups criticize Apple's new warnings on user tracking

#90

Post by CyberDildonics »

kodablah wrote: post #81
sudhirj wrote: post #3

> The group of European marketing firms said the pop-up warning and the limited ability to customize it still carries “a high risk of user refusal.” If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough.

> If you’re doing something and you know users are going to refuse to let you do it if they have the choice, don’t do it. Apple will give them a choice soon enough. I think the statement would be more meaningful with "if they have the choice" removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing in favor of only those with the power to remove choice.

I think you misunderstood what they were saying. How can someone refuse if they don't have choice?
Post reply on HN