221–230 of 311 posts
I’m all for how these changes are going to negatively affect Facebook and advertisers. But I just can’t also escape the feeling in the long term I’m giving up control of the devices I own and the actual act of computing to get to this result. If it came to destroying advertisers or free open computing I want free computing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ironic given some of the best possible ad blocking on mobile devices is Ublock Origin on Firefox mobile which is only available on Android (Apple only allows third party browsers to wrap Safari on iOS). Its 2020 and the only modicum of privacy you can get is a rooted android device.
iOS has many ad blockers which work as well as Ublock. 1Blocker for example. On top of it these blockers don’t need to read contents of the site to block ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook’s top ad business on iOS is promoting other apps. The tracking being blocked by this change is how they attribute app sales to the Facebook ad. Apple has a competing service: https://searchads.apple.com/ I think the purpose of this change is to redirect the revenue from FB to Apple.
That is, for Apple, perhaps a nice side effect of the change. But I don't see it replacing Facebook app ads ... I never "see" the Apple ads. The real purpose of this change is to continue to drive home to Apple users, who are increasing aware of privacy issues, that Apple has their back. Anything else is gravy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise, I'd be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a truly unlocked iPhone.
The difference is the iPhone isn't sold below cost, you should already be able to unlock it (except Apple just doesn't want you to) .
What a squirmy and deflective piece of writing.
>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with…
To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good pla…
Left the guard clause in, in the end, because of some misguided need to "do the right thing". It's just dead code. I'd just get rid of it now.
Despite online Internet attention, users don't care about this stuff so long as it's wicked fast (response times People online who talk about all this stuff visit whacky sites, get angry at being infected with god knows what from some shit Forbes.com or some crap or some porno site and then flip out at "Google for tracking me" or some crap.
Glad I'm not in that industry anymore. No one outside it knows what it does or enables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I would love to be able to buy a full-price PS5 to install whatever I want on, rather than the discounted-because-PS-store one we have now.
It's called a PC. And the fact that people still flock to consoles means that users want a safe, curated, vibrant, affordable gaming platform. Which would be destroyed if you (a) stopped Sony making a profit of games and forcing them to make it from the hardware and (b) stopped Sony from blocking crapware, malware and counterfeits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good pla…
We respected it in our ad pixel server. DNTs didn't get tracked, just returned 200 blank, no logs generated. It didn't matter, though, in the end. Didn't get us positive/negative attention, users didn't really care, browsers stopped supporting it, and then it was just dead code. Left the guard clause in, in the end, because of some misguided need to "do the right thing". It's just dead code. I'd just get rid of it no…
In iOS 13, Apple and third-party ad tracking were both controlled by the same opt-out setting. In iOS 14, the settings have been split, with third party tracking disabled and and Apple’s tracking enabled by default. Blatant anticompetitive behavior to promote their own tracking services in the guise of protecting users. Genius move by Apple. https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...
Hmm, what is "their own tracking services"? iAd is dead since long, the only ads they serve are Apple Search Ads right? Is there any evidence/suggestion that they are using usage data from outside the App Store to target ASA? The promo-page doesn't seem to indicate that at least [1]. I mean, still in iOS 14, Google can use your data from e.g Google Maps / Chrome to target ads in the Youtube app on the same device wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS has many ad blockers which work as well as Ublock. 1Blocker for example. On top of it these blockers don’t need to read contents of the site to block ads.
uBlock Origin can filter HTML elements. That includes script tags. It can replace scripts when blocking them breaks pages. Safari content blockers can't work as well.