Ad industry complains Apple Safari update is 'unilateral and heavy-handed' against trackin...

AppleInsider

Six ad industry organizations have crafted an open letter complaining about changes coming to Apple's Safari browser, claiming that a new feature -- "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" -- will hurt both them and the public.

The technology's restrictions on cookies, including a 24-hour limit on ad retargeting, are "opaque and arbitrary" and could impact the "infrastructure of the modern internet," Ad Week quoted the letter as saying. Some of the groups behind the statement include the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the American Advertising Federation, and the Data and Marketing Association.

"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love," the letter says. "Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful. Put simply, machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choice; they represent browser-manufacturer choice."

Intelligent Tracking Prevention will be present in both iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra, launching Sept. 19 and 25, respectively. Apple has argued for the technology as an essential privacy measure, since people may not want their data captured for purposes they don't consent to.

While many websites including AppleInsider are dependent on advertising, some people have become uncomfortable with the precision targeting of ad networks across unrelated pages. A person looking to propose, for instance, might see engagement ring ads on Spotify, even though they weren't searching for marriage-themed songs.

JinTech

Oh no you won't be able to make money by tracking or pushing ads on us! What on earth will we do!? /s

movingincircles

don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.

payeco

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

entropys

Apple is so mean!  Leave the poor ad industry alone!

StrangeDays

“Blocking cookies in this manner will […] make advertising more generic and less timely and useful”

Do not care. Thanks for the concern, please see yourselves out...

wonkothesane

   

eightzero

Pity.

justme12

"… unilateral and heavy-handed approach" look in the mirror jerk. it's because of advertisers such as you and the other 99.9% of advertisers. Apple looking out for their users. But why out web users install ad blockers in addition to Apple's help.

andrewj5790

Great reason to use it exclusively, favicons, or no favicons.

mike1

movingincircles said:

don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.

It's iOS Safari too with over a billion phones sold. Of which, the vast majority of people use the default browser.

"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love," the letter says. "Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful. Put simply, machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choice; they represent browser-manufacturer choice."

Translation - ...and it will make advertising less creepy and intrusive.
Thanks Apple!

irnchriz

Screw them, if they want that info then ask for goddamn permission. Then we can opt in, if we want.

mpf541

I feel real bad for the ad industry. They may not me able to send me all the crap I never wanted in the first place. 

larryjw

This will be my most favored feature of safari.

The ads simply piss me off. If advertisers think their advertisements have value to me, they are wrong. 

lkrupp

Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days. 

payeco

lkrupp said:

Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days. 

If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.

Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."

capnbob

mpf541 said:

I feel real bad for the ad industry. They may not me able to send me all the crap I never wanted in the first place. 

While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free". I don't think these Safari limitations will destroy the model we shouldn't knock it too much unless you want paywalls everywhere. The advertisers and the ad networks may suck but this is how the creators get paid. 

I was was a fan of Techpinions but as a niche site they decided to put up a paywall rather than rely on ads. $10 a month is to much for casual interest for one website for me but I assume it is working for them. 

It is just ignorant of the underlying business model of the web to wish for an ad-blocked world.

gatorguy

payeco said:

lkrupp said:

Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days. 

If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.

Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."

Since Chrome and Safari went off on different paths would Safari still report as Chrome? Honest question because I don't know. 

leavingthebigg

There is no reason for companies to be tracking my activity across the Internet without my explicit permission to do so just to serve me ads they think will make me happy they exist.

Now if Apple would enable me to choose which publishers will appear in my Stocks app, that would be something super special. Immediately blocking FT, NYT, WSJ and Bloomberg with Mark Gurman as the author would be instantly blocked.

SpamSandwich

Think of the children!

Soli

After I started using the High Sierra betas I noticed right away that Amazon ads on websites were no longer things I had looked up, but seemingly random stuff without any rhyme or reason for why they were chosen to appeal to me. That no longer seems to be the case but for awhile some of the oddball choices were funny.