“Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#391

Post by cbsmith » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #361

cbsmith wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then we can go back to the time where we simply paid for software with money instead of with privacy (such as tracking or PII) or time/focus (advertising). A time when the digital divide was vast & software companies had no reason to heed the interests of those without disposable income... ;-)

The digital divide was vast because computers cost thousands of dollars and the Internet was something available only to corporations and universities. As a result, most of the paid software out there was targeted at rich users for professional work and priced accordingly. BTW, how are ads incentivizing user-focused development? Look at the Top 100 apps in any apps store, and tell me they're not virtual clones of Cla…

So, I wouldn't say that ads incentivize user-focused development. I'm saying the incentivize paying attention to the needs/interests/desires/etc. of lower-income users. Without ads, almost all software shops would be better off ignoring that market segment entirely.

Do you really think you'd have so many developers, competing so aggressively with each other in an attempt to appeal to millions of people with a collective negative disposable income, the bulk of which is probably not spent on software at all? No. Even if you were hugely successful, you'd be lucky to get enough income to pay a developer's salary.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#392

Post by penagwin » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

gsich wrote: post #322

penagwin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike tracking as much as anyone, but can you really fault them for using Google analytics? It's not like PBS choose to use them "to profit off the viewers".

Yes. Do it yourself or don't. Besides that, has any good feature come from using GA?

For the record, all of my projects use self hosted analytics.

But you have to understand, the marketing team wants analytics. You can request to allocate engineers to setup a server with motamo, which will require replication, setup, maintaince, etc.

Your project manager is going to say "Wait this is going to take X man hours, require maintenance, etc? Why don't we just use GA like everyone does, like we always have, as it's free, has builtin redundancy, requires no maintaince, and can be added in 5 minutes?"

They aren't going to even think about privacy. Most consumers don't even care (although they should).

To answer your question though: Instant setup, ease of use, zero-maintance, zero-cost, and it's an industry standard. Literally the only downside is less-flexibility (mostly only applicable to programmers/power users) and privacy issues, which again, not very many consumers or companies care about this form of privacy (but again they should be).

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#393

Post by Kluny » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 5:01 AM UTC

xoa wrote: post #59

Kluny wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones have kids mode that prevents the kid from using any app on the phone. That will probably only deter toddlers, but it's something.

> That will probably only deter toddlers Is this actually true? Jailbreaks haven't been persistent in the face of updates in a long while, so for devices kept up to date it's possible to lock down an iPhone fairly hard. I haven't investigated how parent control compares to full MDM, but the supervision capabilities now in iOS [1] are pretty powerful. For better and for worse of course, that kind of control over user…

I figure older kids can use tactics like social hacking -- ie, whine at mom until she unlocks it.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#394

Post by robomartin » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:00 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #357

robomartin wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with the anti-advertising crowd is that none of them take their philosophy to the required ethical conclusion: Stop using free ad-supported resources. Google and Facebook are easy examples of this. The position would be far more ethically aligned if they unplugged from all ad-supported products and services.

That's not how I think about it, though. It's not about the principles of a website using ads or issues with advertising companies. I just personally don't want to see them. If I'm using a Google service, I generally see no or almost no ads because I use uBlock Origin, so I'm not bothered at all. And I actually do subscribe to YouTube Premium because there's no decent way to block ads in the mobile apps, as far as I…

It isn’t cognitive dissonance. You are using something others are paying for and don’t wat to be bothered. If you don’t like the add, don’t use the service.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#395

Post by robomartin » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:05 AM UTC

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #313

robomartin wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with the anti-advertising crowd is that none of them take their philosophy to the required ethical conclusion: Stop using free ad-supported resources. Google and Facebook are easy examples of this. The position would be far more ethically aligned if they unplugged from all ad-supported products and services.

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha Just because someone, either by choice or necessity (have you tried to stop using all ad-supported resources? You've practically gotta be a hermit) participates in something they find morally wrong, doesn't cease to make it morally wrong.

The morality, or lack thereof is your perspective and yours only, it is not an absolute fact.

What is a fact is that some are perfectly content having others pay for services they use while, at the sane time, trying to weave a fake moral framework with which to justify their actions.

Nobody is forcing anyone to use these sites, and you don’t have to.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#396

Post by robomartin » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

andygates wrote: post #320

robomartin wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with the anti-advertising crowd is that none of them take their philosophy to the required ethical conclusion: Stop using free ad-supported resources. Google and Facebook are easy examples of this. The position would be far more ethically aligned if they unplugged from all ad-supported products and services.

"Pay for the ad-free version" is pretty common. I don't see that option in these services.

Then don’t use the service. Nobody is forcing you. You want to use a service for free and have other people pay fir it.

You can also start paid versions of these services and show them how it’s done. People who don’t want ads are sure to flock to your services.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#397

Post by robomartin » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

Jyaif wrote: post #358

andygates wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pay for the ad-free version" is pretty common. I don't see that option in these services.

https://contributor.google.com

Brilliant. And, of course, nobody using ad blockers will sign up. They want others to pay while they use the web for free.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#398

Post by brownbat » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #96

brownbat wrote: post #55

If you charge for listing and take 30% for sales, people are going to try some aggressive revenue techniques. One of the biggest unsolved problems for users is how to get the security of a walled garden while still encouraging open development, the sort of little experiments that become free simple QoL apps or toy proof of concept programs that spawn a business. It's a problem only for users of course, less so for th…

You mean they are going to charge enough money to account for the cost of distribution? That could even be a new business model -- charging people money and giving them stuff. Like software makers have done since the first personal computer or game console came out? You realize that retail stores were routinely charging 60%?

This has sat for a while. I don't really understand why the sudden dismissive sarcasm, but my best guess is I just didn't explain my point very well. You probably don't care at all, but for posterity maybe I ought to explain what I meant.

I feel like it's easier to find reputable free software on PCs than on app stores. I'm not saying all software should be free, or that free software is better than paid or ad-supported software, or that it's crazy to charge for hard work. Nothing radical.

It just seems like on other platforms there are a variety of models that all overlap. Less so on app stores.

My best hunch is that the dev fees have something to do with that.

I feel like you're saying this is purely a distribution cost, but all these platforms are using the same Internet. I also don't think Apple is setting these fees at pure cost. They have a captive set of users that developers can't get access to in other ways. Monopoly rents for access to that unique set of users wouldn't be that crazy.

Maybe I'm wrong though. If there's some other theory that explains this, I'd love to hear it. "It's expensive to move electrons" doesn't seem to explain why the ecosystems on different platforms are so different though.

EDIT: tone.