or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Advertisers criticize Apple for holding back customer targeting data in iAd campaigns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advertisers criticize Apple for holding back customer targeting data in iAd campaigns - Page 2

post #41 of 90
Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively.

The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that reaches your mailbox.

To Google, it's all semantics.
post #42 of 90

Damn that Apple. Why can't they sell my information to advertisers so they can turn around and try to sell more shit to me! Makes me furious!!! >:(  

 

Apple is NEVER going to beat Google, until they can make money from iAd!!!

 

 

/s

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #43 of 90
On a previous thread here on AI today, I mentioned that I get a lot of cat food and animal supply ads when surfing without Ghostery... I wasn't kidding. Even though the only thing relating me to those ads is a picture of a cat that I have used for years as an avatar in assorted Google services... a YouTube/gMail/Google+ business account for testing and demo purposes. I have mentioned my cats in only a handful of posts over the years, but have never searched for anything related to them.

I commented that I found Google Analytics to be pretty powerful software, but as the story stated, "the data is not as clean as Apple's".... I'm left wondering the same thing.

Whatever... if they want to think that I'm a sauve, charming and starving (for love) Pepé Le Pew... rather than a Garfield crossed with Grumpy Cat, I'm OK with that... 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

lol because you try to clear up common misconceptions about Google you are a Google sycophant? The second sentence is just pure nonsense (and you probably know it). The third one is easily countered by this: 'anyone who thinks that your data isn't being collected by all kinds of data brokers all over the internet is a fool'. Compared to data brokers Google is a lamb.

What misconceptions? Google is evil. End of discussion.
post #45 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 

lol because you try to clear up common misconceptions about Google you are a Google sycophant? The second sentence is just pure nonsense (and you probably know it). The third one is easily countered by this: 'anyone who thinks that your data isn't being collected by all kinds of data brokers all over the internet is a fool'. Compared to data brokers Google is a lamb.

 

Google sells you the end user Apple doesn't, this false equivalence you are trying to sell isn't flying, Apple and Google aren't the same, the Ad men are happy with Google for a reason they share user info.

post #46 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


What light should those Google advocates see then? Do you even know what is talked about here? With deeper insights it is meant that advertisers can get aggregated none-personally identifiable information from Google. For things like trend analysis and stuff like that.
If you ever read Google's privacy policy you would have known this. No personal data is shared without consent (exceptions: domain admins if necessary, external processing and legal reasons, which are the same exceptions as in Apple's policy) but what they can do is this: "We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites."

Hate it when people criticize something without actually knowing what it is about. I know a lot of people on this forum see Google as evil, but let's be rational shall we...

 

Apple makes products for people and protects their users.

 

Google makes things to attract people and sells their details as a product to their real users.

 

viva la difference

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Looking forward to the CNBC spin on this one.

 

 

And The BBC, The Guardian online to ignore it.

post #48 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Apple makes products for people and protects their users.

 

Google makes things to attract people and sells their details as a product to their real users.

 

viva la difference

 

 

That is indeed.

 

Free means - it should have no string attached.

post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post

Google sells you the end user Apple doesn't, this false equivalence you are trying to sell isn't flying, Apple and Google aren't the same, the Ad men are happy with Google for a reason they share user info.

You act like Google is the only one. Don't you get mailings for pre - approved credit cards, or for better insurance rates? Your info is being sold all the time and way before Google ever existed. I applaud Apple for their privacy standards, but they're the exception not the norm.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 90

The great thing about iAds is that they are all such high quality.  I love to just watch iAds sometimes.

post #51 of 90
This is good news, the option is customer based.
post #52 of 90

Thanks, Apple.

post #53 of 90

Advertising is a hobby for Apple. It doesn't have to sell out its customers to make money.

Thank you Apple.

post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post

Advertising is a hobby for Apple. It doesn't have to sell out its customers to make money.
Thank you Apple.

The point of advertising is not for Apple to make money but for the advertiser to make money. If a advertiser can't make money with Apple it'll back a competitor. Something like that could potentially be bad for iAds.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that reaches your mailbox.

To Google, it's all semantics.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Google only matched adverts to people and gave aggregated statistics to advertisers. Can you give me some more information on this because that would be going way too far IMO.

post #56 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


 I know a lot of people on this forum see Google as evil, but let's be rational shall we...

They are.  Remember Eric T. Moles Motto about privacy "We like to get right up to the creepy line".  You could not pay me to have anything google on my computer. 

post #57 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You act like Google is the only one. Don't you get mailings for pre - approved credit cards, or for better insurance rates? Your info is being sold all the time and way before Google ever existed. I applaud Apple for their privacy standards, but they're the exception not the norm.

 

Actually, I don't get mailings like that.  Maybe I'm the exception, I don't know.  

post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

You act like Google is the only one. Don't you get mailings for pre - approved credit cards, or for better insurance rates? Your info is being sold all the time and way before Google ever existed. I applaud Apple for their privacy standards, but they're the exception not the norm.

No, I don't get mailings for ore approved credit cards, then again I block Google every chance I get and barely use any of their services in spite of their constant nagging to 'log in'.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #59 of 90

Seems like I see more iAd banners advertising the iAd service than any products.  Apple defending users' privacy is all well and good, but if it means that app developers use other advertising networks instead because iAd doesn't have the fill rate then it's all in vain.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

No, I don't get mailings for ore approved credit cards, then again I block Google every chance I get and barely use any of their services in spite of their constant nagging to 'log in'.

So you get zero junk mail to your house?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Seems like I see more iAd banners advertising the iAd service than any products.  Apple defending users' privacy is all well and good, but if it means that app developers use other advertising networks instead because iAd doesn't have the fill rate then it's all in vain.

 

Why, exactly.  Unless I'm missing what you're saying (which I admit is quite possible).  As I said above, iAd is essentially a rounding error when it comes to Apple's revenues -- less than 0.05%.

post #62 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


So you get zero junk mail to your house?

 

You weren't asking me, but I almost never do.  For one, I get no third class mail -- I told the carrier not to deliver it.  

post #63 of 90
Delete
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You weren't asking me, but I almost never do.  For one, I get no third class mail -- I told the carrier not to deliver it.  

But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.

 

By definition, third class mail wasn't sent to me.  It was sent to everyone.

 

Now, sure I get stuff from my bank or from ATT.  But they already have my info, since I'm using their services.  Now, if I started getting stuff from, say, a different bank, or from Verizon or something, that would be different.  But I don't.

post #66 of 90

Does Apple advertise on behalf of advertisers like Google does, or do advertisers using iAds have to reach out themselves? Google has so many web properties and has such a vast database that advertisers basically trust Google to deliver the ads to the appropriate viewers. Could it be that an advertiser needs more customer data to wage an equally effective ad campaign with iAds?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/18/14 at 5:20pm
post #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

Why, exactly.  Unless I'm missing what you're saying (which I admit is quite possible).  As I said above, iAd is essentially a rounding error when it comes to Apple's revenues -- less than 0.05%.

My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.

 

Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line.  But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it?  It's just a distraction.  In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour.  Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #68 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.

 

Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line.  But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it?  It's just a distraction.  In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour.  Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.

 

Ahh, gotcha.  I figured I wasn't catching on. :)

 

OTOH, even if it's fairly meaningless, they might as well hold onto it.  Just because they haven't found (or revealed) a grander purpose, it also doesn't hurt anything.

post #69 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post

Google sells you the end user Apple doesn't, this false equivalence you are trying to sell isn't flying, Apple and Google aren't the same, the Ad men are happy with Google for a reason they share user info.

You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics (i.e. number of people employed in car manufacturing), so not at all.
Edited by Chipsy - 2/18/14 at 6:19pm
post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics, so not at all.

 

From: http://tinyurl.com/pzollzp (NY Times)

 

 

Quote:

Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements

SAN FRANCISCO — Those long-forgotten posts on social networks, from the pasta someone photographed to the rant about her dentist, are forgotten no more. Social networks want to make them easier to find, and in some cases, to show them in ads.

 

Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.

 

 

And from further on in the article:

 

Quote:
Google, which is under the supervision of the F.T.C. for a previous social networking privacy violation and faces privacy audits and fines for privacy misrepresentations, is taking pains to show that it has considered the privacy implications of the new ads. For instance, it will notify users of the change with banners on Google’s home page, in search results, in Google Plus notifications and elsewhere.
post #71 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

From: http://tinyurl.com/pzollzp (NY Times)

Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements



SAN FRANCISCO — Those long-forgotten posts on social networks, from the pasta someone photographed to the rant about her dentist, are forgotten no more. Social networks want to make them easier to find, and in some cases, to show them in ads.

Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.

That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.

And that last part had nothing to do with the endorsements but rather the failed experiment Buzz that didn't offer clear ways of controlling what you shared. Although it clearly was an offence it has nothing to do with the selling of user info of any kind.
Edited by Chipsy - 2/18/14 at 6:45pm
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.

 

I did read it.  But why the hell would I want that done in the first place?  I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album."  And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?!  WTF?

post #73 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I did read it.  But why the hell would I want that done in the first place?  I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album."  And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?!  WTF?

Then don't post anything on the 'net.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Then don't post anything on the 'net.

 

What's my name?  What do I look like?  You did notice that the article said, "Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web," right?

 

Frak that noise.

post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

What's my name?  What do I look like?  You did notice that the article said, "Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web," right?

Frak that noise.

How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I did read it.  But why the hell would I want that done in the first place?  I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album."  And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?!  WTF?

Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.
post #77 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?

 

I'm not on Google+ so I don't know, but do you have to use your real name?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.

 

Yeah, opt-out is really BS.  How may people know about all this stuff?  I mean the privacy policy is over 2,000 words long.  I doubt many people read it.  And they shouldn't have to in the first place.

 

As to Facebook, yeah.  They are even worse, no question.

post #78 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively.

The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that reaches your mailbox.

To Google, it's all semantics.

 

No that's not true.  Google doesn't provide any personally identifiable information to advertisers, not even anonymous personally identifying information.  Advertisers provide keywords and other criteria to Google, and Google makes sure that users who make the right searches see the right ads.  Google then provides the results of the advertising (clicks, views, sales, etc.) to the advertisers without ever revealing who those people were.

post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


What misconceptions? Google is evil. End of discussion.

 

What misconceptions? Google is evil. End of discussion.

post #80 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I'm not on Google+ so I don't know, but do you have to use your real name?

Yeah, opt-out is really BS.  How may people know about all this stuff?  I mean the privacy policy is over 2,000 words long.  I doubt many people read it.  And they shouldn't have to in the first place.

As to Facebook, yeah.  They are even worse, no question.

I've read it 1wink.gif. But yeah I'm probably an exception. It is something that Google has had trouble with in the past, clearly communicating such changes (which is what most privacy violations regarding Google are about, not necessarily the policy itself). But it's been greatly improved these last years (with the exception of opt-out instead of opt-in) and everything they do with their privacy policy is always under great scrutiny of watchdogs so I'm not too worried.
Edited by Chipsy - 2/19/14 at 3:25am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Advertisers criticize Apple for holding back customer targeting data in iAd campaigns