You have both given arguments as to why Google's targeted ads, which may not even be as invasive as geolocation based ads, are evil. These are OK because they're done by Apple, right? Hypocrisy.
Except this is false. Google captures a lot of data for contextual ads including email content, search history and YouTube habits.
This is hugely more invasive than geofencing ads around stores...especially if the ad provider does not get to see when or if you are ever in proximity to a store unless you click the ad. In one case ads are targeted at me because they have access to tracking data based on my private information correlated to my google account.
The other can be implemented in an anonymous fashion needing no correlated tracking data or knowledge other than the fact my device is within 500m of a store. Nor does the advertiser need to get any demographic or purchasing behavior information for geofencing targeting to work. Just anonymous eyeball proximity like any billboard ad.
Except this is false. Google captures a lot of data for contextual ads including email content, search history and YouTube habits.
This is hugely more invasive than geofencing ads around stores...especially if the ad provider does not get to see when or if you are ever in proximity to a store unless you click the ad. In one case ads are targeted at me because they have access to tracking data based on my private information correlated to my google account.
The other can be implemented in an anonymous fashion needing no correlated tracking data or knowledge other than the fact my device is within 500m of a store. Nor does the advertiser need to get any demographic or purchasing behavior information for geofencing targeting to work. Just anonymous eyeball proximity like any billboard ad.
Go troll elsewhere.
Except google ads are just as anonymous as you think apple ads might be. Google's entire business model relies on preventing advertisers from knowing your interests. A company wants to show ads for a product or service, but only Google knows the mapping between interests and persons. Therefore the company pays google to show the ads to the appropriate persons. To use your billboard analogy, an advertiser pays Google to install a billboard, but only Google knows where to place it. If google were to sell its users' actual personal data, it would torpedo its own business because no advertiser would pay google more than once.
You have both given arguments as to why Google's targeted ads, which may not even be as invasive as geolocation based ads, are evil. These are OK because they're done by Apple, right? Hypocrisy.
Yes, they are OK because they increase Apple's value and decrease Google's.
The latest on how iAds and iRadio will work according to Ad Age. One audio ad every 15 minutes, video once an hour. Ads will appear on all devices than use iTunes.
Comments
Except this is false. Google captures a lot of data for contextual ads including email content, search history and YouTube habits.
This is hugely more invasive than geofencing ads around stores...especially if the ad provider does not get to see when or if you are ever in proximity to a store unless you click the ad. In one case ads are targeted at me because they have access to tracking data based on my private information correlated to my google account.
The other can be implemented in an anonymous fashion needing no correlated tracking data or knowledge other than the fact my device is within 500m of a store. Nor does the advertiser need to get any demographic or purchasing behavior information for geofencing targeting to work. Just anonymous eyeball proximity like any billboard ad.
Go troll elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except this is false. Google captures a lot of data for contextual ads including email content, search history and YouTube habits.
This is hugely more invasive than geofencing ads around stores...especially if the ad provider does not get to see when or if you are ever in proximity to a store unless you click the ad. In one case ads are targeted at me because they have access to tracking data based on my private information correlated to my google account.
The other can be implemented in an anonymous fashion needing no correlated tracking data or knowledge other than the fact my device is within 500m of a store. Nor does the advertiser need to get any demographic or purchasing behavior information for geofencing targeting to work. Just anonymous eyeball proximity like any billboard ad.
Go troll elsewhere.
Except google ads are just as anonymous as you think apple ads might be. Google's entire business model relies on preventing advertisers from knowing your interests. A company wants to show ads for a product or service, but only Google knows the mapping between interests and persons. Therefore the company pays google to show the ads to the appropriate persons. To use your billboard analogy, an advertiser pays Google to install a billboard, but only Google knows where to place it. If google were to sell its users' actual personal data, it would torpedo its own business because no advertiser would pay google more than once.
Yes, they are OK because they increase Apple's value and decrease Google's.
http://adage.com/article/digital/big-marketers-sign-apple-s-itunes-radio/243734/