Given that ad publishing seems to be the vector used for a far amount of adware and hostageware these days, I find any effort to circumvent blockage of such things to be more than a little troubling, whether Apple allows it as an exception or not. Ever instance of malicious software or website that I've had to repair the damage from in the last year has been through the vector of ad publishing, usually with an assist from Flash (I see it most often in Chrome; but that might be pure coincidence).
I am slowly getting rid of all google on my computers and then iOS devices. I use yahoo for search.
I only use Google search, and I watch YouTube, and I suffer ads, part of them Google. I've tried Duckduckgo and I may stay with that over time. I'll be using Crystal when it is available on the App Store.
Bingo. Google is an advertisement auction service. That's how they turn a profit. The search engine is simply an outlet for serving up the ads.
Obviously this semantics, but aren't they a search engine startup that figured out the best way to make money on it was to serve ads? I don't pretend to know what their original intent was as a business, and I feel that, one way or another they have morphed into something rather dubious, but that's the way I see the old Goog...
Obviously this semantics, but aren't they a search engine startup that figured out the best way to make money on it was to serve ads? I don't pretend to know what their original intent was as a business, and I feel that, one way or another they have morphed into something rather dubious, but that's the way I see the old Goog...
Definitely not the same business model as Apple, no matter the details of this ATP workaround that was made available by Apple and encouraged by Google.
EDIT:
The Google blog was updated:
Update (8/27/2015): We've received important feedback about this post and wanted to clarify a few points. We wrote this because developers asked us about resources available to them for the upcoming iOS 9 release, and we wanted to outline some options. To be clear, developers should only consider disabling ATS if other approaches to comply with ATS standards are unsuccessful. Apple has provided a tech note describing different approaches, including the ability to selectively enable ATS for a list of provided HTTPS sites.
When Apple gives away it's products for free, do let me know.
What does that have to do with anything. Apple knows users are its lifeblood and doesn't hide that fact. Google pretends to be a user's best friend but justs uses them to extract as much info as possible to sell (the access) to advertisers.
Hardcode into iOS: “if Google, then refuse to load”. Remove their products from the App Store. MAKE THEM BLEED.
Apple can't and will never remove all of Googles apps. People that use the iPhone rely heavily on Google Apps and the iPhone they have would become practically useless. Tons of business's use Google Apps to run. It would be a bloodbath against Apple in the worst of ways.
Apple can't and will never remove all of Googles apps. People that use the iPhone rely heavily on Google Apps and the iPhone they have would become practically useless. Tons of business's use Google Apps to run. It would be a bloodbath against Apple in the worst of ways.
Forget all that, could you imagine how hard the DOJ would come down?
Google doesn't give away its products for free. Its products are user profiles that are matched with ads. They charge a lot for our personal habits. Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but I think you're mistaken about Google's business model.
You misunderstood my comment. Apple doesn't do what they do for free. Google doesn't do what they do for free. Spot the difference.
i get free software from apple. new operating systems and iWork and ilife. thanks to the educational discounts i got quite a bit of money off my new MacBook Pro and had free beats headphones added to boot.
google lets you have software for free, mostly online software, that they have the right to scour your data-- well, their data now.
How on earth did you manage to get all that out of Apple for free? To get that stuff, I've had to spend thousands! I feel absolutely cheated now, except for the Beats, which were priced about right.
When Apple gives away it's products for free, do let me know.
Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model. As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model. Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it.
The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other direction: people paying individually for the shows/movies they watch rather than having to sit through advertisements just to watch rubbish TV shows which are mainly designed to sell products. I'm hoping technology will as well.
An interesting discussion. I admit I really don't understand the original software issue, as I am not a dev.
Some time ago, I got a bit lost, and wound up driving through the Microsoft "campus" here in Seattle. I knew it was there, but I was struck by the immensity of the layout. Upon meeting up with a friend who used to work there, I said, "that place sure is huge. What do they make there?" He grinned, and replied, "money."
I do see some sort of reckoning coming. Google doesn't actually make anything, and yet are one of the most lucrative corporations on the planet. Still, banks and financial institutions were established centuries ago, and they are hugely lucrative even though they actually make nothing. But economics is only one of many things in this world I don't fully understand.
Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model. As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model. Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it.
The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other direction: people paying individually for the shows/movies they watch rather than having to sit through advertisements just to watch rubbish TV shows which are mainly designed to sell products. I'm hoping technology will as well.
I agree with your comments. The TV/Entertainment industry is faced with a real revolution in viewing habits, all driven by technology. It always sort of amazed me that I had to pay twice for content on cable TV: first to pay the cable company, then to watch content with ads. VCRs killed that starting in the 80s, and look how far it have now come.
The role of ads in content is a *huge* business issue, and will be for a very long time.
Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model. As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model. Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it.
The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other direction: people paying individually for the shows/movies they watch rather than having to sit through advertisements just to watch rubbish TV shows which are mainly designed to sell products. I'm hoping technology will as well.
IMHO people aren't as willing to pay for what they want content-wise as you may think. I recently "cut the cord" for cable. In my research on how to go about it I came across numerous questions about how to get certain pay services for "free", essentially stealing the content. In fact a recent article I read claims cord-cutters on the whole are a cheap lot, looking for any way possible not to pay for play.
IMO not only are folks becoming less willing to suffer ads in order to receive valuable content, they aren't willing to pay much money (if at all) either. Quite a conundrum for content providers. Should we all simply pay some dollar amount each month to access websites and blogs? Perhaps we should be paying some amount beyond the carrier each month just to access the internet?
If you can't afford to pay that access fee will the poor become even less informed about ways to break free of their condition in life? More of the same Have and Have-Nots?
An interesting discussion. I admit I really don't understand the original software issue, as I am not a dev.
Very simple. If you are compiling your app for OS X 10.11 or iOS 9, your app cannot access any non HTTPS site by default. If you want to access an ordinary HTTP site, you must exclude it or disable ATS completely. (Subtlety: your HTTPS site must comply with the latest standards, TLS 1.2, have a modern certificate and the highest security cipher suites, or else it will be blocked)
Not all of Google's ads are served over HTTPS because they sell the ads from a large number of sources.
A large number of apps must disable this feature. As an example, an app that wants to read AppleInsider would have to because HTTPS is broken on this site.
Comments
Given that ad publishing seems to be the vector used for a far amount of adware and hostageware these days, I find any effort to circumvent blockage of such things to be more than a little troubling, whether Apple allows it as an exception or not. Ever instance of malicious software or website that I've had to repair the damage from in the last year has been through the vector of ad publishing, usually with an assist from Flash (I see it most often in Chrome; but that might be pure coincidence).
I am slowly getting rid of all google on my computers and then iOS devices. I use yahoo for search.
I am slowly getting rid of all google on my computers and then iOS devices. I use yahoo for search.
I only use Google search, and I watch YouTube, and I suffer ads, part of them Google. I've tried Duckduckgo and I may stay with that over time. I'll be using Crystal when it is available on the App Store.
Bingo. Google is an advertisement auction service. That's how they turn a profit. The search engine is simply an outlet for serving up the ads.
Obviously this semantics, but aren't they a search engine startup that figured out the best way to make money on it was to serve ads? I don't pretend to know what their original intent was as a business, and I feel that, one way or another they have morphed into something rather dubious, but that's the way I see the old Goog...
Obviously this semantics, but aren't they a search engine startup that figured out the best way to make money on it was to serve ads? I don't pretend to know what their original intent was as a business, and I feel that, one way or another they have morphed into something rather dubious, but that's the way I see the old Goog...
Definitely not the same business model as Apple, no matter the details of this ATP workaround that was made available by Apple and encouraged by Google.
EDIT:
The Google blog was updated:
Update (8/27/2015): We've received important feedback about this post and wanted to clarify a few points. We wrote this because developers asked us about resources available to them for the upcoming iOS 9 release, and we wanted to outline some options. To be clear, developers should only consider disabling ATS if other approaches to comply with ATS standards are unsuccessful. Apple has provided a tech note describing different approaches, including the ability to selectively enable ATS for a list of provided HTTPS sites.
What does that have to do with anything. Apple knows users are its lifeblood and doesn't hide that fact. Google pretends to be a user's best friend but justs uses them to extract as much info as possible to sell (the access) to advertisers.
Apple can't and will never remove all of Googles apps. People that use the iPhone rely heavily on Google Apps and the iPhone they have would become practically useless. Tons of business's use Google Apps to run. It would be a bloodbath against Apple in the worst of ways.
Hatehatehate
Dontevenattempttounderstand
Repeat
Apple can't and will never remove all of Googles apps. People that use the iPhone rely heavily on Google Apps and the iPhone they have would become practically useless. Tons of business's use Google Apps to run. It would be a bloodbath against Apple in the worst of ways.
Forget all that, could you imagine how hard the DOJ would come down?
Google doesn't give away its products for free. Its products are user profiles that are matched with ads. They charge a lot for our personal habits. Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but I think you're mistaken about Google's business model.
You misunderstood my comment. Apple doesn't do what they do for free. Google doesn't do what they do for free. Spot the difference.
You misunderstood my comment. Apple doesn't do what they do for free. Google doesn't do what they do for free. Spot the difference.
Nobody understands your thought processes let alone your cryptic comments and writing style; hence the misunderstanding.
i get free software from apple. new operating systems and iWork and ilife. thanks to the educational discounts i got quite a bit of money off my new MacBook Pro and had free beats headphones added to boot.
google lets you have software for free, mostly online software, that they have the right to scour your data-- well, their data now.
How on earth did you manage to get all that out of Apple for free? To get that stuff, I've had to spend thousands! I feel absolutely cheated now, except for the Beats, which were priced about right.
Nobody understands your thought processes let alone your cryptic comments and writing style; hence the misunderstanding.
I will bet more than a few people understood my original comment, without the need for subtitles.
When Apple gives away it's products for free, do let me know.
Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model. As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model. Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it.
The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other direction: people paying individually for the shows/movies they watch rather than having to sit through advertisements just to watch rubbish TV shows which are mainly designed to sell products. I'm hoping technology will as well.
An interesting discussion. I admit I really don't understand the original software issue, as I am not a dev.
Some time ago, I got a bit lost, and wound up driving through the Microsoft "campus" here in Seattle. I knew it was there, but I was struck by the immensity of the layout. Upon meeting up with a friend who used to work there, I said, "that place sure is huge. What do they make there?" He grinned, and replied, "money."
I do see some sort of reckoning coming. Google doesn't actually make anything, and yet are one of the most lucrative corporations on the planet. Still, banks and financial institutions were established centuries ago, and they are hugely lucrative even though they actually make nothing. But economics is only one of many things in this world I don't fully understand.
Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model. As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model. Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it.
The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other direction: people paying individually for the shows/movies they watch rather than having to sit through advertisements just to watch rubbish TV shows which are mainly designed to sell products. I'm hoping technology will as well.
I agree with your comments. The TV/Entertainment industry is faced with a real revolution in viewing habits, all driven by technology. It always sort of amazed me that I had to pay twice for content on cable TV: first to pay the cable company, then to watch content with ads. VCRs killed that starting in the 80s, and look how far it have now come.
The role of ads in content is a *huge* business issue, and will be for a very long time.
IMO not only are folks becoming less willing to suffer ads in order to receive valuable content, they aren't willing to pay much money (if at all) either. Quite a conundrum for content providers. Should we all simply pay some dollar amount each month to access websites and blogs? Perhaps we should be paying some amount beyond the carrier each month just to access the internet?
If you can't afford to pay that access fee will the poor become even less informed about ways to break free of their condition in life? More of the same Have and Have-Nots?
EDIT: Apparently Apple too recognizes how unwilling folks are to pay for services, determining anything more than $40 a month for subscription TV is a non-starter.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/187915/apple-streaming-tv-service-negotiations-remain-divided-over-40-per-month-pricing-report#post_2767251
An interesting discussion. I admit I really don't understand the original software issue, as I am not a dev.
Very simple. If you are compiling your app for OS X 10.11 or iOS 9, your app cannot access any non HTTPS site by default. If you want to access an ordinary HTTP site, you must exclude it or disable ATS completely. (Subtlety: your HTTPS site must comply with the latest standards, TLS 1.2, have a modern certificate and the highest security cipher suites, or else it will be blocked)
Not all of Google's ads are served over HTTPS because they sell the ads from a large number of sources.
A large number of apps must disable this feature. As an example, an app that wants to read AppleInsider would have to because HTTPS is broken on this site.