Apple's iAds allows users to opt out of data collection



  • Reply 41 of 47
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,723member
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

    Do you use Google services extensively?

    You know, you're falling more and more back into your old patterns, tekstud. I guess now that everyone knows who you are there's no reason to pretend to be another alias?
  • Reply 42 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    You know, you're falling more and more back into your old patterns, tekstud. I guess now that everyone knows who you are there's no reason to pretend to be another alias?

    The noobs won't have any idea what you're talking about...
  • Reply 43 of 47
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,357member
  • Reply 44 of 47
    pickypgpickypg Posts: 6member
    Originally Posted by masternav View Post

    Even your mother. Wow.

    Yes, someone who is an outsider, especially compared to the fringe fanboys on the sites like this. If you cannot catch the hearts and minds of someone in the demographic that Apple claims to exist for (the simple computer for everyone--non-techies specifically, but also for techies), then they're in for a very big problem down the road.

    So let's make some adjustments here in your logic shall we? The statement above you crammed in Apple's mouth was "we can do everything, but you cannot... Google" when in fact the reality was "Google, as a competitor, you cannnot come into our platform and services and farm as much information as you like to gain a competitive edge on us or use personal information gained from it for your own gain." See the difference? Apple never came into this market with the mistaken concept that they had to be all things to all people, nor that it was all about freedom, and puppies, and sharing, and letting other people steal your IP and data and shake your head in an amused and befuddled way as they do it. but let's take this further into reality. They are not preventing 3rd party ad companies to harvest user data in the system, only those that feed directly into a competitor - for example, AdMob who are wholly owned by Google, which produces the Android OS and spec with their partners for the Android phone competition to the iPhone.

    Originally Posted by masternav View Post

    If, as was stated (and if you had paid the least bit of attention you'd know this) in the release keynote, Apple is driving an ad platform to benefit developers - by providing them a revenue source to support free games and apps on the platform (and make a bit on the side for themselves too), why do you struggle with that benefit? You plant bits of your information out on the internet, with your local government (talk about security vulnerabilities!) and with your utility suppliers day in and day out, all of whom have security issues, and yet you have issues with Apple stating rather baldly what they will and will not do with the information you provide them.

    Yes, because everyone knows that release notes are where you find the barest truth. Apple does not giveth to us peons because it makes them happy. They are sitting on well over $40 billion dollars in stockpiled money; they could have easily done many number of things to benefit developers (not the least of which includes NOT charging $100 to become one, while requiring a Mac to write software as one). The fact of the matter is, Apple is taking an even larger percentage (40% compared to 30%) of the profits from the ads compared to what they are harvesting while selling apps. They did this for their own benefit. The application community did not need another ad agency thrown into the mix (it doesn't hurt, but it didn't need it).

    The reasons for it cannot be any more obvious:

    1. Google was reaping all of the benefits, besides hardware sales, from the apps containing advertising.

    1a. This includes user information that can be sold, or data mined later. (This is the main reason everyone speculates that Google Maps will be disappearing at some point from the iPhone)

    1b. This includes large profits most obviously associated with advertising. 40%.

    1c. Apple was hosting these apps for "free" (really, for $100 per year).

    2. By tying user's to Apple's framework, they are more likely tying developers to a single ecosystem. A single ecosystem leads to better chances for "cool" apps that drive hardware sales.

    3. The advertisements did not reflect the best experience in terms of the iPhone. They're not bad, but as Apple has shown, they could have been better.

    None of this is to assist the developer. There may be a number 10,412 reason somewhere, where it makes it that much easier for the developer to find and use, but if the developer wants to monetize their application, then finding the very simple API calls to go to AdMob, or whoever they choose to advertise with is not the problem, and it never was.

    Now, I do not fault Apple for seeking a profit through advertising. Heck, I give them kudos for what they did because it looks good from a developers stand point--easy to use and it won't make my app look ugly. Their ads have the potential to be very attractive and in some cases may even be pretty fun. However, they decided to block major competitors from harvesting data--exactly as they do--simply because they can. Clearly, it's their product, and had they chosen to impose the requirements on everyone, strictly including themselves, then I would have no problem. But they didn't. Apple did what they do best: lock-in users and lock-out everyone else.

    The exact same situation happened with development tools simply to block another major competitor: Adobe. As a developer, I'm very disappointed because of the tools that I can no longer use (none of which were made/sold by Adobe, which admittedly does make some bad products). With regards to Flash, I'm a happy user. I never wanted Flash on my iPhone and I'm glad it will never make it, but Apple has successfully locked everyone into XCode, which used to be a subpar IDE (at least compared to the likes of Visual Studio, Eclipse, and Netbeans). I have not had time to try XCode 4 yet, but it looks like a solid improvement. Yet, that's not the point.

    Ignoring the marketing, the iDevices are just miniature computers that run ARM assembly code. I should not be limited by Apple's tools to write the exact same application. If they choose to block the application because it does not match their other App Store policies, then so be it, but to block because I was not using their tools is a bit ridiculous. Note: I am not bitter because this has actually happened to me, but because it could easily happen.

    Analogous to this problem is the problem that Google now faces (and I suppose Microsoft when it inevitably pulls an Apple and opens up its advertising for mobile devices for its new mobile OS). Somehow, Apple has made their devices untouchable to everyone on their scale, except themselves. What would I compare this too? Bundling with a forced deficit to a competitor's product. They are putting the equivalent of Internet Explorer into their iOS, and forcing competitor's to use less information to get the same results. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with bundling tools and applications, and I think iAd probably will benefit some developers. However, I do see something wrong with bundling while at the same time blocking the competition from doing the same thing, artificially.

    What are they blocking? The ability to give users relevant ads. What ads are users most likely to click on? Relevant ones. Who can feed relevant ads? Just Apple and small advertisers unknown to most developers.

    Just because the ads are written in HTML5 doesn't make it open, or right. It was wrong when Microsoft bundled IE to gain an edge on Netscape (performance), and it's wrong now for Apple to do the same (metrics).

    Originally Posted by masternav View Post

    There is no correlation between now, and your "late Steve era" reference. If you don't like what they do, buy a different product. Your iPod Touch 8GB is still a fully functional device in the same way my 1st gen iPhone is still a functional (and enjoyable) device. I don't need the latest-greatest to be satisifed with the device - but your experience may be different. As a consumer you have all the choice in the world - no one is twisting your arm to buy Apple devices - practice the ultimate freedom and buy from a corporate entity that practices the level of honesty and integrity you desire. Assuming you can find one. Hope springs eternal, but commonsense requires practice.

    It's not that my iPod touch is somehow no longer fully functional (it's not, compared to the third generation, or the upcoming generation in September/October). It's that they are still selling the model as-if it is fully functional.

    It's no different than how I feel about them selling the iPhone 3G leading up to WWDC, and only stopping as they announced the iPhone 4. I don't care that uninformed people were still buying the iPhone 3G, when I knew full-well the iPhone 3GS was about to take its place at the $99 mark--that's how you clear stock. However, Apple was being disingenuous by marketing it as the full experience, and giving it the full lifetime expectation that the iPhone 2G received (given that it's really the same hardware + 3G, it's not unfounded), but selling it until now.

    This has nothing to do with common sense, nor does it deal with finding a different company. Honestly, no one offered the hardware equivalent to the iPhone 3GS at its release and I still like the phone. But that's not what matters here. Just because the hardware is good, it does not mean that Apple can or should push people around. By discontinuing full support for still-sold hardware (iPod touch 2G [8GB model being sold]), they are being dishonest.
  • Reply 45 of 47
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Originally Posted by plus View Post

    I note that the cited support document says that if it fails, to try again in a few hours ... maybe they said that for a reason.

    Reason being that there's a few million iphones out there that can run iOS4 and a fair number would run to opt out asap. that would kill any server.

    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

    No opt out for location data?

    Every iOS app I've ever used that wanted to access my location asked the first time I opened it.
  • Reply 46 of 47
    balsakbalsak Posts: 17member
    Paranoid much?

    Data is mostly anonymous, going towards better targeting ads to you, nothing is seen by humans. I bet most of the people who shutter about this data use Facebook and are completely clueless about the mass amounts of private data available to actual friends/enemies via search apps on other websites...
  • Reply 47 of 47
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

    No opt out for location data? That sucks.

    Indeed it does:


    When users attempt to download apps or media from the iTunes store, they are prompted to agree to the new terms and conditions. Until they agree, they cannot download anything through the store.

    The company says the data is anonymous and does not personally identify users. Analysts have shown, however, that large, specific data sets can be used to identify people based on behavior patterns.
Sign In or Register to comment.