Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14 • Hacker News Board

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#251

Post by dialtone » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:49 AM UTC

alexchamberlain wrote: post #187

gridlockd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about "healthy", but un-targeted advertising is a total waste of money, unless you're some big generic brand. High-value advertising revenue generally comes from very specific brands targeting very specific users. Of course you can do certain kinds of targeted advertising without user profiles, but I don't see how that would work on Facebook.

Does it not depend on context? For example, you don’t need to know anything about the user of a recipe website to know they are hungry and once they pick a recipe, some basic notion of what they are looking for. On top of that, extremely course information can be gathered without tracking users. For example, you can probably get a country level location and maybe even language from the request the browser sends.

I can buy ads generically on a site, but what happens after the user clicks on the ad or just views the ad and then buys the product? How do you keep track of this when you can't measure the effect? The only way is to measure some form of before/after analysis of your conversions with or without the marketing campaigns... Too much noise to be able to do that on the web.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#252

Post by tomc1985 » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:51 AM UTC

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #58

Joeri wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do newspapers need to know what websites every subscriber visits in order to put ads in the paper? The idea that privacy needs to be conceded in order for a healthy ad market to exist is false.

Sure. As long as the flip side of that argument is equally appreciated - ad revenue pays for the apps, so less revenue will necessarily lead to fewer "free" apps and/or fewer "free" features and/or worse quality. It's a rational response of the intermediary (i.e. app makers) to the customers (i.e. advertisers) having less access to the product (i.e. us).

Good, the app market is flooded with crap anyway

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#253

Post by Razengan » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:54 AM UTC

nuker wrote: post #245

Cannot wait for iOS 14. Apple is the only big company taking privacy seriously, well done. How is that so many anti-Apple comments in this thread? Are we already in a stage when giant Ad Corps are intentionally distorting public discussions?

As a user, when developers and other companies complain about Apple’s overreach, it just tells me to avoid those developers and companies.

As to your last question: Of course, why wouldn’t they?

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#254

Post by dialtone » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #113

Despegar wrote: post #2

>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…

Yeah the DNT header didn't work due in large part to middle men (like routers or anti-virus tools) flipping that bit without asking the user in automatic, or again broad decisions, such as from Microsoft, of flipping the default of that header without asking users. Obviously if one side chooses to just do what they want, the other side is free to do what they want as well. This whole situation needs people to sit down and talk these issues through, like it's happening inside the W3C. It doesn't need a few companies to strong arm whatever is better for them financially (Apple makes no money off of current ads, but they'll force themselves in the picture with their attribution tool and will get more paid app revenue out of this, pretty clear incentive).

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#255

Post by tomc1985 » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #235

pseudalopex wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Facebook alarmed about users getting a choice if users are happy to be tracked?

Because forced decision making is a barrier to tool use. For instance, imagine if every time you opened your IDE it asked you which language you're going to type in. You like your IDE to be work best with the language you're working in, so that's good. You're adding user choice here, so that's good. But the outcome is bad. Why is that?

Writing behavior like that is probably the least-charitable interpretation of an instruction to ask the user what they want, and is certainly not within the spirit of that original request.

Ergo that tactic makes whoever uses it a malefactor

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#256

Post by danShumway » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #250

danShumway wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't every time you open an app though, it's once, on install. Imagine if the first time you opened your IDE it asked you what language you're going to type in. That would actually be very reasonable and helpful.

Well, if the discussion has shifted from "Why is Facebook alarmed about users getting a choice if users are happy to be tracked?" to "What frequency of being asked about a choice is acceptable?", I think all the tough parts of the argument are now complete and it's possible for the reader to walk through to the conclusion of why Facebook is alarmed.

I don't think the discussion has shifted. It's just that the objection you're raising, that too much choice is a barrier to tool usage, doesn't really apply to this situation.

Given that this isn't overloading the user with a ton of options each time they launch an app, why is Facebook alarmed about users having the choice to opt out of tracking?

And I'll extend on that question: even if users are annoyed at a single extra popup that gets shown once when they install an app, why does Facebook care? Users will still pick the option that they prefer, they'll just be annoyed at Apple for asking. Why is Facebook alarmed that users on iPhone will have to spend a half second, once, saying, "ugh, Apple, of course I want a company to track everything I do online"?

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#257

Post by dialtone » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #228

renewiltord wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is Facebook alarmed about users getting a choice if users are happy to be tracked?

FB isn't really alarmed... The majority of their revenue comes from their own app which they'll continue to be able to target you on because people give data to it willingly. They won't be able to use their partner mobile apps to display ads to, that was a decent business but obviously will become less valuable, but it wasn't that big for them. They are signaling to their customers that things are changing and to expect that they'll change dramatically. FB however remains with your real email address on file and lots of accurate data about you, with their SDK and other mobile apps their accuracy in data collection won't change a whole lot.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#258

Post by dialtone » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #109

shajznnckfke wrote: post #102

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?...

This is a pretty shitty move by Apple! Having said that, I can still disable Apple's tracking. I cannot easily do this with Google or Facebook. So while separating the first and third party preferences a shitty move, the changes to tracking protections in iOS 14 still do protect users.

You can 100% easily disable tracking with Google and Facebook. They both are required by GDPR and CCPA to provide the tools to do that. In both cases you can go in your account and disable targeted ads. Do it.

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#259

Post by treyfitty » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

It’s interesting that Apple is taking steps that are tough on Ad networks and tracking. From Apples perspective, why are they waging this war? Sure, user experience in the Apple ecosystem is improved, but there has to be more to the story.

At first, I thought it was a long-game strategy of chipping away at Google + Facebook while developing a walled-off user base that only Apple (and their affiliates/partners) can monetize. But there has to be something more substantial.

Assuming it costs $X to develop these adtech walls, Apple must require $Y in return... where is this $Y going to come from?

Re: Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14

#260

Post by klyrs » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #192

klyrs wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to do a deep dive on the politics of textbooks, standardized tests, and the economics of charter schools. Corporate interests run deep, and it isn't limited to trump or either party.

I wouldn't call examining the controversy over school text books as a "deep dive" into anything. As far as education topics go, it's as shallow as a google search. I've been to a few thousand school board meetings in my day. There are a lot of unmined topics there.

You're right, a deep dive does involve more than a single google search. Read multiple stories, dig up references, find what google's filter bubble isn't showing you, figure out what people on "both" (but usually several) sides are saying; maybe hunt down some podcasts if you're into that.

And, y'know, reading past the first comma in somebody's comment to notice that multiple topics were listed. I'd love to hear what you consider to be unmined topics.