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.
You think retail sites will gamble on potential lost sales by forcing people to switch browsers?
Especially on iOS, which generates 5X the shopping revenues of Android.
When the iPad came out some website developers refused to support it. Others, however, did support it with pages that displayed properly and interacted properly with users. I intentionally refused to visit sites that didn't support the iPad (or ones that clung to Flash). My thinking was "if their web developers are too lazy to support a device that millions of people use, they don't deserve my business."
I think you overestimate how many people would be willing to switch if it came down to that.
I really don't care much if I see ads or not, though some of the re-targeting is getting ridiculous. The main problem is a UX one (and I'm glad to see Apple championing such a push). Most ad supported sites have gotten to the point of being nearly unusable, but even the front page of AI is starting to cause issues for me (with it's relatively lite ad weight). (This morning it actually caused my browser to hang up.)
The future is value-for-value and sponsorships, not CPM. This kind of thinking is similar to the new idiots to the podcast industry writing about the 'discovery problem' and lack of ad-injection or exact listener tracking data. They are old-school media folks wanting to have, or force on the industry, what they are used to in their old, dying media models. And, when the revenue drops, they keep jacking up the amount of ads until it gets overbearing and they ruin platform.
It's also interesting about how this might impact Facebook and Google models of gathering mass amounts of user-data and then selling you to the advertisers. While Apple doesn't have much impact on the desktop, they do on ever-rising mobile.
But, here's the thing... isn't this targeted at injected ads? How would they block some ad-banner I put on my own site, or if some company sponsors me and I write articles about that company's products? In other words, this move wouldn't kill advertising, just a certain kind of advertising.
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.
Hmm, I wonder if Amazon would cut off Mac AND iOS users... It's hard for me to recognize as a primarily desktop user, but its actually a bit opposite from the Microsoft days in that Apple is now somewhat in that power seat.
We are already at the point where some websites do not work or work poorly or even lock you out completely if you using an ad blocker or are limiting cookies or tracking in some way. I've been experimenting with Ghostery, as well as Safari and Firefox's current browser options to limit tracking and I'm finding it fascinating that some websites are requiring you to accept 20 or more cookies and tracking scripts while others don't impose any on you. I found even a paid newspaper subscription didn't save me from having to accept the full suite of cookies the site imposes on you if you want normal functionality. I'm certainly prepared to whitelist favorite sites or pay for the content I really want. But I do want some control over the browsing experience. I think it's a fair compromise to accept some advertising on the sites you want to visit without consenting to being tracked so that you get some pre-packaged advertising on another site just because Google or Facebook has been tracking you.
Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more.
Do-the-right-thing my ass....
Google isn't complaining. On the contrary they agree that ads have gotten out of hand and take steps themselves to "encourage" websites to avoid many of the worst types. If I'm not mistaken it was Google who encouraged Apple to enable this in Safari.
I don’t think so. Source?
If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.
I wonder if the advertisers like looking at their own advertisements?
I went to a page once recently and an advertisement came up featuring a picture of my kitchen. That felt very strange. The ad was for a vendor of some of the materials used.
If I want ‘suggestions’, I will do a search and you (ad industry) provide suggestions. If I do not want ‘suggestions’ while just browsing around, then you (ad industry) should not intrude into my privacy using my personal data which I have not agreed/permitted and keep popping up or dishing out ‘suggestions’ to me, destroying the experience I have reading or looking at other contents.
I don’t give a damn if some heavy weight ecommerce players decide to block Safari. There are always others which I can make purchases with. Oh, there are concierge services which I can use too.
Thanks Apple for putting up a fight and standing on our side of the privacy battle. At least we now have a choice and stand in a better position to win some back.
Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more.
Do-the-right-thing my ass....
Google isn't complaining. On the contrary they agree that ads have gotten out of hand and take steps themselves to "encourage" websites to avoid many of the worst types. If I'm not mistaken it was Google who encouraged Apple to enable this in Safari.
I don’t think so. Source?
If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.
Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking.
... And no the reason you stated was not why Google was fined by the FTC. Tracking was fine and still is, lots of companies currently ignore "Do Not Track". That's a failed effort. It was the improper advice Google gave Safari users regarding opt-out that the FTC took issue with, as they should have.
This is fantastic. The Advertising, Web Tracking and research world has been getting away with murder in spying on people. It is high time that consumers get enabled to curtail and disable those trackers which would get put into users device.
The "Ad" companies have used cookies, and countless more to spy on people. It has become very difficult to remove some of them, this would be very welcome to me in my home, office and devices.
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 not about the desktop/laptop share, it is about mobiles. Iphones rule the roost in that market and most iphone users never use anything but Safari. And to make things worse for digital advertisers people who mostly browse on their mobiles are usually their prime market.
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.
The ad industry brought this on themselves. Pop-ups, auto-play videos, cookie tracking, loud audio. They have been abusing consumers for years. Like all abusers, they refuse to end their abusive behavior and instead view themselves as the victim.
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.
A total bs argument. The advertising industry has had, for a very long time, significant tracking assets to make advertising a useful and engaging service to people, but they don't do that, instead they just use it for metrics and profile building. It's completely one-sided and an abuse of the privilege of a person's screen, it's no surprise that users have "switched off".
So instead of designing campaigns that are clever and useful by presenting new information and products to what would be genuinely interested users, they go for eyeball traffic. Eyeball traffic basically means plastering the ad anywhere to get the impression count up - which is nothing more than a shiny number they can tell their customers. To their own benefit they have also overstepped boundaries in ad display, such as holding content hostage, count down timers and tricking users into clicking on ads by accident - none of these things actually help the user find new products that interest them, but they certainly do push up the impressions, viewing time and click through rate. (Don't forget about the megabytes-per-site of javascript that is running all of this.)
The more that technology protects the individual user and curtails these practises the better: the ad agency will have to sleep in this bed, they've made it for themselves. (Of note, these changes aren't going to affect people who seek out genuine sponsorship for their website.)
Comments
You think retail sites will gamble on potential lost sales by forcing people to switch browsers?
Especially on iOS, which generates 5X the shopping revenues of Android.
When the iPad came out some website developers refused to support it. Others, however, did support it with pages that displayed properly and interacted properly with users. I intentionally refused to visit sites that didn't support the iPad (or ones that clung to Flash). My thinking was "if their web developers are too lazy to support a device that millions of people use, they don't deserve my business."
I think you overestimate how many people would be willing to switch if it came down to that.
The future is value-for-value and sponsorships, not CPM. This kind of thinking is similar to the new idiots to the podcast industry writing about the 'discovery problem' and lack of ad-injection or exact listener tracking data. They are old-school media folks wanting to have, or force on the industry, what they are used to in their old, dying media models. And, when the revenue drops, they keep jacking up the amount of ads until it gets overbearing and they ruin platform.
It's also interesting about how this might impact Facebook and Google models of gathering mass amounts of user-data and then selling you to the advertisers. While Apple doesn't have much impact on the desktop, they do on ever-rising mobile.
But, here's the thing... isn't this targeted at injected ads? How would they block some ad-banner I put on my own site, or if some company sponsors me and I write articles about that company's products? In other words, this move wouldn't kill advertising, just a certain kind of advertising.
Hmm, I wonder if Amazon would cut off Mac AND iOS users...
It's hard for me to recognize as a primarily desktop user, but its actually a bit opposite from the Microsoft days in that Apple is now somewhat in that power seat.
If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-ordered-pay-ftc-225-million-violating-privacy/story?id=16968371
I don’t give a damn if some heavy weight ecommerce players decide to block Safari. There are always others which I can make purchases with. Oh, there are concierge services which I can use too.
Thanks Apple for putting up a fight and standing on our side of the privacy battle. At least we now have a choice and stand in a better position to win some back.
... And no the reason you stated was not why Google was fined by the FTC. Tracking was fine and still is, lots of companies currently ignore "Do Not Track". That's a failed effort. It was the improper advice Google gave Safari users regarding opt-out that the FTC took issue with, as they should have.
The "Ad" companies have used cookies, and countless more to spy on people. It has become very difficult to remove some of them, this would be very welcome to me in my home, office and devices.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-ad-blocking-could-help-facebook-and-google-despite-slowing-online-ad-growth-2017-06-07
So instead of designing campaigns that are clever and useful by presenting new information and products to what would be genuinely interested users, they go for eyeball traffic. Eyeball traffic basically means plastering the ad anywhere to get the impression count up - which is nothing more than a shiny number they can tell their customers. To their own benefit they have also overstepped boundaries in ad display, such as holding content hostage, count down timers and tricking users into clicking on ads by accident - none of these things actually help the user find new products that interest them, but they certainly do push up the impressions, viewing time and click through rate. (Don't forget about the megabytes-per-site of javascript that is running all of this.)
The more that technology protects the individual user and curtails these practises the better: the ad agency will have to sleep in this bed, they've made it for themselves. (Of note, these changes aren't going to affect people who seek out genuine sponsorship for their website.)