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

New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 385 posts

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#251

Post by m12k »

frenchie4111 wrote: post #232
ssharp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad platforms have very clear incentives to deliver the ads that perform best for marketers so that the marketers spend more with the ad platform. As much as you think the ads are doing a poor job, they're likely doing a better job in aggregate than alternatives. Retargeting ads deliver higher value than prospecting ads so that's likely why you get so many more of those.

Honest question: Do retargeting ads just appear to perform better because I already had purchase intent and I was already going to go back there to buy it later anyway?

It's hard to tell, since that data isn't publicly available. But I read this article, which makes the case that this is often the case, and that marketing departments are willfully ignoring this, because it's in their interest to appear useful to the rest of their organization, and it's easy to hide using bad statistics: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#252

Post by noja »

kin wrote: post #141

I have a serious question. Obviously if one were to choose between an ad-free experience and an ad-full experience, one would choose ad-free. But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized? Personally, I would go with personalized because a non-personalized experienced usually has no relevancy and frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world. From there, it real…

> But, if ads were needed for monetization

That's a big if.

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#253

Post by AdrianB1 »

jariel wrote: post #228
AdrianB1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few weeks ago my TV set died, so I bought a new one. At the same time I looked for a new motorcycle helmet. Since then I get tons of adds for TV's and motorcycle helmets that are not available to buy in my country. Useless like a nail in the foot. I never buy something suggested by an ad even if I need such a product, so the ad industry is a huge waste of time, money and neurons. Oh, and for some stupid reason Goog…

"I never buy something suggested by an ad " Many people think this, it's rarely actually true. Have a look at the things you buy, you'll remember you've seen ads for them at some point. Now the question is - how much self awareness does it take to make the material connection between those things?

I am extremely strict with my purchases, I rarely buy anything not groceries or fuel and I ignore ads.

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#254

Post by dylan604 »

stmL wrote: post #247
dylan604 wrote: post #217

>But being the most popular mobile ecosystem I keep seeing quote similar to this about Apple's iOS being so popular, yet the numbers clearly show that Android devices/users out number iOS. Are they saying that even with those numbers, Android is unpopular and people would rather be an iOS user? Is the price point whats preventing them?

I believe so. In my country, having an iPhone was a sign of higher income. An average Android phone with a known brand is about 1K local currency, iPhone SE is around 5K and iPhone 11 Pro is around 11K. Average junior developer earns around 5K monthly. Nowadays, even people that can't afford proper food buy them second hand or with installments. I, as an Android user, keep reading stories about how iPhone respects pr…

I guarantee you're better off not spending 20K on a MacBook. These lastest generations are total crap. I've been a MacBook owner/user since 1997 (before they were called MacBook). I never thought I would say that, but the buttefly keyboard debacle has lowered my opinion of Apple hardware to the point I'd consider a non-Apple device for the next one.

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#255

Post by WorldMaker »

ssharp wrote: post #225
m12k wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If personalized ads meant ads that were actually good recommendations for products I could be interested in and would be grateful to be informed about the existence of - maybe. The reality of it is that personalized ads are mostly just ads from those with the money and demographics info to stalk me around the internet - e.g. webshops running after me, believing that I abandoned my shopping cart simply because I got d…

The ad platforms have very clear incentives to deliver the ads that perform best for marketers so that the marketers spend more with the ad platform. As much as you think the ads are doing a poor job, they're likely doing a better job in aggregate than alternatives. Retargeting ads deliver higher value than prospecting ads so that's likely why you get so many more of those.

I think the illusion of "cheap" confuses most marketers. Marketers are left with an unbalanced sense that they are getting higher bang for their buck, ignoring centuries of marketing best practices about expanding reach and exploring non-traditional targets for secondary/tertiary effects. But I think it works well for the ad platforms themselves in the way that it encourages whales just like microtransactions in games. A marketer has an easier time considering opportunity cost for one big ad spend, versus not even paying attention to opportunity cost as they buy a lot of individual micro-targets. (And relatedly not paying attention to how much they are over-spending on people that already have their message versus missing opportunities on greater reach.)

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#256

Post by simiones »

jariel wrote: post #226
simiones wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> increases market efficiency This is manifestly false. An efficient market based on rational consumers doesn't require advertising. Advertising serves to skew consumer opinion away from rational behavior (in the economic sense of maximizing utility divided by price), so in fact it can be argued that it will always make the market LESS efficient. An ideal consumer would browse the market and read non-paid reviews, an…

This is completely false and implies lack of understanding of market dynamics. It's also insulting to the reality of any person or group who's actually created a business, and wants to get the word out about their product - as if the word magically just 'finds out' about it. I'm shocked at the level of anti-knowledge and anti- rationalism on a forum of such intelligent people. Of course advertising can 'skew' people'…

I'm not doubting the effectiveness of advertising, quite the opposite. Of course that if some players are advertising, anyone who isn't is at a major disadvantage.

But cigarettes were a very good study in what happens if you remove advertising from an industry - nothing much. They get to save a lot of advertising money, and the industry itself may shrink if there is no real need for it (for cigarettes, it reduces the rate at which people start smoking, even if it doesn't significantly reduce the rate at which smokers buy cigarettes).

Of course, people would still buy clothes and consumer electronics and cars if there were no advertising - these are all useful products. But most likely, the contrary of what you are claiming would actually happen: all these huge players would find themselves competing much more on price with small "no-name" producers if they couldn't sell an image of exclusivity, particularly in the case of Nike and Apple. Especially in fashion, most non-luxury brands are built entirely on advertising, as there is no real quality or style difference between them and by-the-pound clothing you get at thrift stores.

So yes, prices may fall like dominoes, but only because the market would become more efficient, bringing prices more in-line with costs, quality, and utility, rather than "prestige".

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#257

Post by dwighttk »

kin wrote: post #141

I have a serious question. Obviously if one were to choose between an ad-free experience and an ad-full experience, one would choose ad-free. But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized? Personally, I would go with personalized because a non-personalized experienced usually has no relevancy and frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world. From there, it real…

Why do I care about the advertisers efficiency?

If you were talking about some sort of imagined strong AI personalization I might prefer that assuming ad free wasn’t an option, but this absurd, deep from within the uncanny valley personalization is worse than generic advertising.

The only place I am exposed to generic ads are when watching sporting events at a bar or at someone’s house. Everywhere else I get ads blocked or get “targeted” ads that mildly (at best) offend me that that is what the algorithm thinks I’d be interested in buying. I prefer the generic ads.

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#258

Post by platelminto »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #157
pantaloony wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like Flash, not allowing third-party browsers could be explained as a cynical control mechanism on Apple’s part... or as their not wanting to see tech support volume shoot up as Chrome and Firefox users complain their battery life is terrible. Or some combination of the two.

I understand their have their reasons.. But I don't like them taking that choice away from me. The problem is, right now we have only 2 choices. Living in the open world but getting all our information sucked dry by advertisers. Or live in Apple's protected little garden but not be allowed to leave it. And pay much more for hardware specs. Neither are very appealing.

A new iPhone SE has flagship specs for $400-500, and Androids cheaper than that (and even much costlier ones) struggle to last 2-3 years - an iPhone easily lasts 4+.

I don't want to turn this into an Android vs iOS debate, but want to highlight that one of the main complaints against getting an iPhone (cost) no longer really applies - it could even be considered a strongsuit. I agree that the walled garden can be annoying, but I've rarely found myself longing for Android customisation, and have very much noticed how some apps work much better on my iPhone. This is completely down to preference though.

I also care deeply about privacy, but even with 0 consideration for it, I think I still would've switched - I am super happy seeing Apple pushing it this hard.

(I recently went back to iOS after 2 phones and 5 years on Android)

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#259

Post by cuddlybacon »

m12k wrote: post #162
kin wrote: post #141

I have a serious question. Obviously if one were to choose between an ad-free experience and an ad-full experience, one would choose ad-free. But, if ads were needed for monetization, wouldn't you choose personalized vs non-personalized? Personally, I would go with personalized because a non-personalized experienced usually has no relevancy and frankly it is inefficient use of money in this world. From there, it real…

If personalized ads meant ads that were actually good recommendations for products I could be interested in and would be grateful to be informed about the existence of - maybe. The reality of it is that personalized ads are mostly just ads from those with the money and demographics info to stalk me around the internet - e.g. webshops running after me, believing that I abandoned my shopping cart simply because I got d…

The other aspect of it is these ads are supposedly targeted yet they look like they were produced for a general audience like you'd get on TV. They target the lowest common denominator. They are so safe and inoffensive they end up being simply boring to watch.

Re: New iOS privacy feature may end an era of personalized ads

#260

Post by jefftk »

evilduck wrote: post #171
asplake wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before that, AMP

They're doing something. Safari has automatically converted AMP links back to their original pages since iOS 11. It could stand to be a system-wide behavior for my own usage, but it'd be a little intrusive if you actually did want to share an AMP link for a specific reason if it automatically altered your clipboard or text messages.

Chrome does it too, and the AMP project is supportive: https://9to5mac.com/2017/08/24/ios-11-safari-amp-links/

The idea is, when a foo has , if you go to share foo your browser will actually share the canonical url, bar.

Post reply on HN