81–90 of 254 posts
So what is going to happen when Apple succeeds in making it impossible to make any money off advertisements shown to iOS users on the web? I'm currently imagining a future where publishers start to just redirect iOS traffic to install their app, where they can actually make money. Good news for the walled garden, I guess?
A man can dream.
So what is going to happen when Apple succeeds in making it impossible to make any money off advertisements shown to iOS users on the web? I'm currently imagining a future where publishers start to just redirect iOS traffic to install their app, where they can actually make money. Good news for the walled garden, I guess?
I came here to say exactly this. Most profits for online ventures come from retargeted ads, and most businesses lose money on cold audiences just so that they can build retargeting audiences. As a result, when tracking dies, so does most online ad spend. I am really curious what the web itself (outside of apps) will look like in a world where the quality of content and services implodes because of the inability of pu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not impossible to advertise without tracking users.
For some reason people just have an aversion to paying for stuff they use. Facebook's revenue per user is less than 7$, I don't use facebook, but do not mind paying that little for something I use instead of getting tracked wherever I go. Similarly Google's service that I use like gmail and photos are easily worth about 7$ per month. I would pay if they said they will stop tracking me. I don't know about youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google Analytics Website analytics should not rely on cross-site tracking. Breaking any cross-site tracking ability of GA is unambiguously good for users. > Google Ads conversion tracking Apple already proposed a mechanism of privacy-protecting click attribution. If Google doesn't want to use that, it's because they don't respect your privacy. Again, unambiguously good for users. > Using same login across different…
Also I thought that the way Google solves the shared login problem is that completing the login process on accounts.google.com redirects you to YouTube briefly (as a top-level navigation), which sets a first-party cookie for itself and sends you back to Google.
Interactions with other parties are considered third-party, even if the user is transiently informed in context (for example, in the form of a redirect). Merely hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does not constitute an intention to interact.
and
Navigational tracking is tracking through information controlled by the source of a top-level navigation or a subresource load, transferred to the destination.
It sure sounds to me like Apple intends to block YouTube’s trick. Transiently redirecting to a domain to install a first-party cookie seems like an unambiguous attempt to circumvent third-party cookie restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You were enraptured by content and services provided by companies that lost billions of dollars, courtesy of investors, during the dot com era. What about the independent blogs?
Of course anyone who wanted to spend their time back then doing what we now call blogging, who wanted to pay for their own hosting, could have done so. However, I am not sure that the ability to read the thoughts of independent bloggers was a major driving force behind the mass adoption of the Internet. It was quality content and services, subsidized by investors who for the most part hoped companies could generate r…
It’s everyone else who makes click bait ad spam that will suffer; and frankly, why should we care?
Gmail isn’t going to disappear.
Kotaku or TechCrunch might... or maybe some of those spam cooking sites. ...but, seriously? The whole internet exist because of personalised tracking > big marketing spend?
Come on.
You’re vastly overstating the case here: yes, there would be some impact, no it wouldn’t really make a big difference at this point.
Maybe if you go back in time, it would, but you can’t, so it’s a mute point.
What’s important is where we want to go from here, and personalised ad tracking driving content farms of fake cooking videos isn’t really the ideal “endstate” for the internet imo.
...even if some spammy companies I don’t like end up going out of business, along with some companies I do like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not impossible to advertise without tracking users.
For some reason people just have an aversion to paying for stuff they use. Facebook's revenue per user is less than 7$, I don't use facebook, but do not mind paying that little for something I use instead of getting tracked wherever I go. Similarly Google's service that I use like gmail and photos are easily worth about 7$ per month. I would pay if they said they will stop tracking me. I don't know about youtube.
[1] https://mondaynote.com/the-arpus-of-the-big-four-dwarf-every...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason people just have an aversion to paying for stuff they use. Facebook's revenue per user is less than 7$, I don't use facebook, but do not mind paying that little for something I use instead of getting tracked wherever I go. Similarly Google's service that I use like gmail and photos are easily worth about 7$ per month. I would pay if they said they will stop tracking me. I don't know about youtube.
YouTube being the only one you've listed that has a premium option. The problem is people will say they'll pay but as soon as the option comes up, they don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The walled garden of AAPL. Spend money in an app, Apple gets a cut. As it is, Google and Facebook get the revenue instead.
Apple gets no money from in-app advertisements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it very easy to use "Apple" and "monopoly" in the same sentence. Apple has been consistently making it harder to make money off iOS users without sharing that revenue with apple. Furthermore, they don't allow side loading of apps, their own apps have special api's that their competitors can't use, etc. I could go on and on.
Luckily for this discussion, the word 'monopoly' has an accepted definition, which is: > The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service Since Apple has, at most, below 50% market share in developed countries (and a much lower market share in developing countries), they do not possess a monopoly on the smartphone market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are not presently manually curating a specifically targeted mitigations list. Just saying we might in the future. We did do a one shot rollback of HSTS super cookie abuse in the past, but that’s it.
But it needs to be public. “Trust, but verify.”