If they can't track or use cookies... how do you propose they serve up relevant ads without communicating "something" back to the servers?
They can't.
Advertisers have long used "relevant advertising" as an excuse to collect data from and track users. But the reality is that ad targeting has been based entirely on the advertiser's intentions rather than on the users' interests and wishes. Companies like Apple know their customers and know how to place the right kind of ads n the right places. But for every Apple there are thousands of sleazy little companies with shitty products and services whose intent is to trick gullible consumers into buying them. These, unfortunately, make up a large percentage of the online advertising business.
So no, tracking is no longer justifiable from the users' perspective. Many advertisers, meanwhile, will refuse to spend big money on non-targeted, non-trackable advertising. So we're back to square one: small publishers like DaringFireball can do well with only a small number of tasteful ads, while larger publishers continue their reliance on larger and more obnoxious ad networks. There appears to be no middle ground at the moment that will satisfy both sides, so... continue the ad war must. (read in Yoda voice)
Apple can't get away with blocking ALL ads by default.
But they can get away with blocking Spyware and Trackware. It will be up to users to choose to block ads.
There is precedent. iOS already blocks pop-ups by default. So it would be no problem for them to block other obnixous ads by default such as App Store redirects and auto play videos.
Many ads are, themselves, trackers. It's almost impossible to remove all the tracking without also removing ads.
We need to stop pushing these Apps as AD-BLOCKERS.
They are PRIVACY-BLOCKERS, SPY-BLOCKERS, and TRACK-BLOCKERS.
There is no defense for allowing your privacy to be raped.
So will web publishers go out in the public and say they need to spy/track you to keep the lights on? Hell no.
But they label it AD-blockers because it sounds more innocent.
Yes poor web publishers not allowed to display ads. I don't mind ads but I don't want my privacy to be raped.
Apple has no problem blocking Virus by default.
They should block Spyware/Trackware by default also.
Usage of that terminology is technically correct; however by repeating it over and over and over... it starts to devalue your message and cry for help. Something about "crying wolf" is raising my hackles.
More importantly, what Content-Blocker can I now get to replace Crystal, now that I'm gonna ask for a refund? What is out there that does at the very least the same but allows for varying degrees of content blocking.
Apple can't get away with blocking ALL ads by default.
But they can get away with blocking Spyware and Trackware. It will be up to users to choose to block ads.
There is precedent. iOS already blocks pop-ups by default. So it would be no problem for them to block other obnixous ads by default such as App Store redirects and auto play videos.
You're making Apple judge and jury here. I actually don't think they would be able to get away that for too long.
too bad. They need to make ads that don't tract then.
This is like saying many ads have virus in it. So too bad you have to accept Virus.
Bullshit.
From an advertiser's perspective, there's a reasonable argument to be made for wanting to know how effective an ad placement is before deciding how much to pay for it.
Imagine yourself as the marketing director for ACME, Inc., and you want to place some ads for your latest widget. Would you pay the same amount for a regular ad (e.g., a billboard) as you would for one where you could pre-select the audience's age, gender, education, income bracket, location, and brand preferences (e.g., a targeted web ad)?
Advertisers have long used "relevant advertising" as an excuse to collect data from and track users. But the reality is that ad relevance has been based entirely on the advertiser's intentions rather than on the users' interests and wishes. Companies like Apple know their customers and know how to place the right kind of ads n the right places. But for every Apple there are thousands of sleazy little companies with shitty products and services whose intent is to trick gullible consumers into buying them. These, unfortunately, make up a large percentage of the online advertising business.
So no, tracking is no longer justifiable from the users' perspective. Many advertisers, meanwhile, will refuse to spend big money on non-targeted, non-trackable advertising. So we're back to square one: small publishers like DaringFireball can do well with only a small number of tasteful ads, while larger publishers continue their reliance on larger and more obnoxious ad networks. There appears to be no middle ground at the moment that will satisfy both sides, so... continue the ad war must. (read in Yoda voice)
Yes. And No. Just don't expect public opinion to always go your way, nor underestimate it's ability to disappoint.
Tip: if "public opinion" wasn't so easily swayed by blatant propaganda and click-whores so much, Apple and it's fans wouldn't have to work so hard fighting the trolls across the media jungle, would they?
Comments
If they can't track or use cookies... how do you propose they serve up relevant ads without communicating "something" back to the servers?
They can't.
Advertisers have long used "relevant advertising" as an excuse to collect data from and track users. But the reality is that ad targeting has been based entirely on the advertiser's intentions rather than on the users' interests and wishes. Companies like Apple know their customers and know how to place the right kind of ads n the right places. But for every Apple there are thousands of sleazy little companies with shitty products and services whose intent is to trick gullible consumers into buying them. These, unfortunately, make up a large percentage of the online advertising business.
So no, tracking is no longer justifiable from the users' perspective. Many advertisers, meanwhile, will refuse to spend big money on non-targeted, non-trackable advertising. So we're back to square one: small publishers like DaringFireball can do well with only a small number of tasteful ads, while larger publishers continue their reliance on larger and more obnoxious ad networks. There appears to be no middle ground at the moment that will satisfy both sides, so... continue the ad war must. (read in Yoda voice)
You should try that statement out on sog35's patented "Court of Public Opinion™"...:p
Apple can't get away with blocking ALL ads by default.
But they can get away with blocking Spyware and Trackware. It will be up to users to choose to block ads.
There is precedent. iOS already blocks pop-ups by default. So it would be no problem for them to block other obnixous ads by default such as App Store redirects and auto play videos.
Many ads are, themselves, trackers. It's almost impossible to remove all the tracking without also removing ads.
Usage of that terminology is technically correct; however by repeating it over and over and over... it starts to devalue your message and cry for help. Something about "crying wolf" is raising my hackles.
More importantly, what Content-Blocker can I now get to replace Crystal, now that I'm gonna ask for a refund? What is out there that does at the very least the same but allows for varying degrees of content blocking.
Don't start with that "wealth inequality" BS or we'll be arguing all day over an invented political "problem."
public opinion is very powerful.
Yes, it can be.
I agree with you to an extent, because I see people clicking "cookie notices" away daily... heck... do it myself!
Same with EULAs BTW.
Which leads me back too you screaming "rape" a bit too often. There's other words in your vocabulary I'm sure.
You're making Apple judge and jury here. I actually don't think they would be able to get away that for too long.
too bad. They need to make ads that don't tract then.
This is like saying many ads have virus in it. So too bad you have to accept Virus.
Bullshit.
From an advertiser's perspective, there's a reasonable argument to be made for wanting to know how effective an ad placement is before deciding how much to pay for it.
Imagine yourself as the marketing director for ACME, Inc., and you want to place some ads for your latest widget. Would you pay the same amount for a regular ad (e.g., a billboard) as you would for one where you could pre-select the audience's age, gender, education, income bracket, location, and brand preferences (e.g., a targeted web ad)?
[/quote]
[B]I warned you.[/B]
When did Bromwich finally leave the Apple HQ?
And I sure hope you don't plan on dropping this on Eddy's table. The courts don't like him that much.
Good post.
Yes. And No. Just don't expect public opinion to always go your way, nor underestimate it's ability to disappoint.
Tip: if "public opinion" wasn't so easily swayed by blatant propaganda and click-whores so much, Apple and it's fans wouldn't have to work so hard fighting the trolls across the media jungle, would they?
You bet...
^^^ Thanks [@]sog35[/@]
Did you just 'invent' that graph? Next [@]SpamSandwich[/@] is going to tell us is that white privilege doesn’t exist either.
Edit: you know it's gotten bad when other whites complain about it.
"White privilege"...LOL!
People who spout that don't understand how America works. Money talks, not skin color.
I'll believe you when a white tennis pro gets tackled by cops, because black with money obviously means nothing.
I'll believe you when a white tennis pro gets tackled by cops, because black with money obviously means nothing.
It wasn't the cop's fault. He didn't know he was rich.