Apple addresses ad industry complaints over Safari tracking prevention feature

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    macxpress said:
    So what if websites are not supporting Safari as a result...kinda like how Spotify just decided to stop supporting Safari? I know thats a slightly different issue, but I wonder if websites would go this far as to try and do something like this, possibly by pressure from advertisers?

    That being said...anything like that might backfire. They'd be limiting themselves as there are a lot of Safari users worldwide. 


    I think its great that Apple continues to lead in this area. Its a damn shame others won't follow suit. There are non-intrusive ways to advertise. Advertising as a whole has gotten way out of hand IMO...both on the internet, radio, TV, etc. I don't know where this shove everything down someone's throat came from. Its not a good way to advertise and I can only speak for myself, but I will not buy something just because it keep getting nagged about it. In fact, I may purposely NOT buy something because of it. 
    Those websites will see their business impacted. 

    Spotify causing a spat? Take you money to pandora or better yet... Apple Music. 

    But it let's say you've just gotta have whatever it is some unscrupulous company that could care less about your safety is offering... just use a separate browser for that only. Then back to safari for everything else. 

    But with iphone and iPad using safari  and the significant Mac user base relying on safari, it's a decision that will only hurt those companies. 

    Remember Flash? Apple doesn't play around. Best to not underestimate them. 
    cgWerksbadmonk
  • Reply 22 of 67
    How long before websites start displaying something like

    "This site is unavaible to you using your current browser. Click this link to download an alternative OS that will allow you to experience our site to its full potential."

    They will find ways to strike back at Apple and its users. They always do.

    Kudos to apple for doing this though.
    Those sites will start dying or be forced to change. Just like the flash sites. People won't go for that kind of crap. Back when the internet was less mature, people just did whatever to get what they wanted. It's a much different story today. Internet content is like drinking water now. People care what's in it, how it impacts the environment, who's benefiting, etc. etc. 
    radarthekat2old4funbadmonk
  • Reply 23 of 67
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,569member
    sog35 said:
    macxpress said:
    So what if websites are not supporting Safari as a result...kinda like how Spotify just decided to stop supporting Safari? I know thats a slightly different issue, but I wonder if websites would go this far as to try and do something like this, possibly by pressure from advertisers?

    That being said...anything like that might backfire. They'd be limiting themselves as there are a lot of Safari users worldwide. 


    I think its great that Apple continues to lead in this area. Its a damn shame others won't follow suit. There are non-intrusive ways to advertise. Advertising as a whole has gotten way out of hand IMO...both on the internet, radio, TV, etc. I don't know where this shove everything down someone's throat came from. Its not a good way to advertise and I can only speak for myself, but I will not buy something just because it keep getting nagged about it. In fact, I may purposely NOT buy something because of it. 
    You cannot worry about consequences when you do the right thing.

    Who the hell uses Spotify on Safari anyway?

    If websites want to blacklist Apple, so be it.  It will be their loss in the long term.

    If website didn't use abusive tracking methods this would not even be an issue.
    I suppose you're going to deny ever saying that Apple should just sell users' information because users  don't care. 
    radarthekat2old4fun
  • Reply 24 of 67
    Safari is the best.
    edited September 2017 magman1979
  • Reply 25 of 67
    Great to see this happening. Ive been using Safari as my main browser for a few years now for a reason... It may lack Fire Fox's skins and (I think) nicer UI but really great to use both for privacy/security and speed.
    magman1979
  • Reply 26 of 67
    sog35 said:
    macxpress said:
    So what if websites are not supporting Safari as a result...kinda like how Spotify just decided to stop supporting Safari? I know thats a slightly different issue, but I wonder if websites would go this far as to try and do something like this, possibly by pressure from advertisers?

    That being said...anything like that might backfire. They'd be limiting themselves as there are a lot of Safari users worldwide. 


    I think its great that Apple continues to lead in this area. Its a damn shame others won't follow suit. There are non-intrusive ways to advertise. Advertising as a whole has gotten way out of hand IMO...both on the internet, radio, TV, etc. I don't know where this shove everything down someone's throat came from. Its not a good way to advertise and I can only speak for myself, but I will not buy something just because it keep getting nagged about it. In fact, I may purposely NOT buy something because of it. 
    You cannot worry about consequences when you do the right thing.

    ...
    There are hundreds of thousands of political prisoners around the world who agree with you.
  • Reply 27 of 67
    Didn't Microsoft try to do something similar a few years ago (by making 'in private browsing' automatic -- but then back down when advertisers yelled at them?
  • Reply 28 of 67
    macxpress said:
    So what if websites are not supporting Safari as a result...kinda like how Spotify just decided to stop supporting Safari? I know thats a slightly different issue, but I wonder if websites would go this far as to try and do something like this, possibly by pressure from advertisers?

    That being said...anything like that might backfire. They'd be limiting themselves as there are a lot of Safari users worldwide. 


    I think its great that Apple continues to lead in this area. Its a damn shame others won't follow suit. There are non-intrusive ways to advertise. Advertising as a whole has gotten way out of hand IMO...both on the internet, radio, TV, etc. I don't know where this shove everything down someone's throat came from. Its not a good way to advertise and I can only speak for myself, but I will not buy something just because it keep getting nagged about it. In fact, I may purposely NOT buy something because of it. 
    Those websites will see their business impacted. 

    Spotify causing a spat? Take you money to pandora or better yet... Apple Music. 

    But it let's say you've just gotta have whatever it is some unscrupulous company that could care less about your safety is offering... just use a separate browser for that only. Then back to safari for everything else. 

    But with iphone and iPad using safari  and the significant Mac user base relying on safari, it's a decision that will only hurt those companies. 

    Remember Flash? Apple doesn't play around. Best to not underestimate them. 
    Easier said than done...if advertisers start going elsewhere because they aren't getting the hits like they used to, then the websites will take a hit for not supporting the advertisers. 

    And its not as easy as just tell someone to use Pandora or Apple Music. 

    I'm not going to keep moving back and forth between browsers just to get to a website. 

    Flash was only on iOS, which yes is a significant amount of traffic. Flash still worked, and does today on the macOS version of Safari. Flash I don't think is as big of a deal as blocking ads intentionally. 
  • Reply 29 of 67

    macxpress said:
    So what if websites are not supporting Safari as a result...kinda like how Spotify just decided to stop supporting Safari? I know thats a slightly different issue, but I wonder if websites would go this far as to try and do something like this, possibly by pressure from advertisers?
    Once upon a time, Safari stopped supporting Adobe Flash. And Apple took a stand against it to drive adoption of the emerging HTML5 standard.
    Only on iOS...Flash still works today on macOS. 

    I'm not saying this isn't going to work for Apple...I'm simply throwing out the idea that certain sites may try to do this. Playing devils advocate here...

    I'm all for what Apple is doing and I hope other browsers follow suit (doubtful). 
    2old4fun
  • Reply 30 of 67
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,092member
    How long before websites start displaying something like
    "This site is unavaible to you using your current browser. Click this link to download an alternative OS that will allow you to experience our site to its full potential."
    Only a really, really stupid site owner would do something like that... but, that might be some of the big old-ad-world sites, as they seem to clearly be really, really stupid. :) When I visit some of those places to read an article, I can hardly believe it. It's like you've accidentally pulled off the highway into a cross between a carnival side-show and a haunted house.
  • Reply 31 of 67
    sog35 said:
    You cannot worry about consequences when you do the right thing.

    ...
    There are hundreds of thousands of political prisoners around the world who agree with you.
    That response is exactly why our culture accepts all of the crap that it does—very few are willing to endure personal loss or hardship to gain something better. We will complain about the incoming crap but don't really do much about it, and those pushing the crap keep pushing until we're semi-used to it. Then the crap-pushers weasel themselves into a position where we'd have to endure loss in order to get rid of the crap, or alternatively, the truly expert crap-pushers try to make people feel like they're deficient or evil if they don't accept the crap. The most insane part is that if people really would accept loss, especially early on in the fight, they would probably get their way.
    magman1979baconstangcgWerksadonissmublah64
  • Reply 32 of 67
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,969member
    linkman said:
    Regardless of what Apple does on this there will be some group ticked off about it. Cave into the ad industry's demands and you'll upset 98% of the population. Protect privacy and they get complaints from the ad group. Unfortunately a lot of companies have turned in favor of the ones with the fat wallets. It's nice to have Apple on the side of the consumer.
    Only because they make their money on hardware, not ad services like Google. Apple likes fat wallets too you know.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 33 of 67
    cgWerks said:
    How long before websites start displaying something like
    "This site is unavaible to you using your current browser. Click this link to download an alternative OS that will allow you to experience our site to its full potential."
    Only a really, really stupid site owner would do something like that... but, that might be some of the big old-ad-world sites, as they seem to clearly be really, really stupid. :) When I visit some of those places to read an article, I can hardly believe it. It's like you've accidentally pulled off the highway into a cross between a carnival side-show and a haunted house.
    Well what if the website has no choice? If advertisers start pulling out from that website because they're not supporting the advertiser by blocking Safari then it may get to a point where the website has no choice. Its not easy to just drop an advertiser and find another one. The website isn't putting ads on their site for the hell of it. Most sites are supported by ads unless its something like Amazon or eBay where the site is supported by sales of their merchandise. 
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 34 of 67
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,092member
    9secondkox2 said:
    Those sites will start dying or be forced to change. Just like the flash sites. People won't go for that kind of crap. Back when the internet was less mature, people just did whatever to get what they wanted. It's a much different story today. Internet content is like drinking water now. People care what's in it, how it impacts the environment, who's benefiting, etc. etc. 
    Back in the old days, the OS/platform was the primary point of power, and I think we're kind of there again... but instead of Microsoft in the driver's seat, this time it's Apple. Chrome might have a bigger *desktop* browser share, but there's no way anyone is going to (successfully) ignore iOS these days.

    mike54 said:
    Safari is the best.
    It's good, and I use it for most of my daily browsing. But, I still run across situations where Chrome works and Safari doesn't once in a while... so I still often test with Chrome when developing (also, for some odd reason, I've run into stuff like WordPress back-end where Safari was several times slower. Fortunately, that seems to have resolved in the last 6mo to year.)

    Safari has rendered pages much more nicely for a LONG time, whereas most people have a hard time believing that Chrome just started fully supporting Google Fonts a year or so back (can't remember the exact date/release).

    sog35 said:
    You cannot worry about consequences when you do the right thing.
    There are hundreds of thousands of political prisoners around the world who agree with you.
    So.... do the wrong thing???

    macxpress said:
    Easier said than done...if advertisers start going elsewhere because they aren't getting the hits like they used to, then the websites will take a hit for not supporting the advertisers. 
    Then you go find advertisers who actually get it. Again, look at podcasting. There have been a bunch of break-through start-ups who advertised to targeted, niche audiences where the big-old-advertisers wouldn't go because not enough 'impressions.' Like I said before, I think the days of spray-and-pray advertising are coming to an end.
  • Reply 35 of 67
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,969member

    How long before websites start displaying something like

    "This site is unavaible to you using your current browser. Click this link to download an alternative OS that will allow you to experience our site to its full potential."

    They will find ways to strike back at Apple and its users. They always do.

    Kudos to apple for doing this though.
    I made that point a day ago when this letter came out. However, some have pointed out that Apple is no longer the underdog to be ignored. Apple now owns the junkyard and websites should think twice about pissing off hundreds of millions of Safari users. Add to that the fact that any third party browsers on iOS must use WebKit and suddenly asking iOS users to select another browser would be, shall we say, a fruitless endeavor. I'm sure the ad companies will be working feverishly into the night trying to figure out how to defeat Intelligent Tracking Prevention. We may see an influx of squirrelly malware disguised as cookies.
    edited September 2017 magman1979
  • Reply 36 of 67
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,026member
    cgWerks said:
    How long before websites start displaying something like
    "This site is unavaible to you using your current browser. Click this link to download an alternative OS that will allow you to experience our site to its full potential."
    Only a really, really stupid site owner would do something like that... but, that might be some of the big old-ad-world sites, as they seem to clearly be really, really stupid. :) When I visit some of those places to read an article, I can hardly believe it. It's like you've accidentally pulled off the highway into a cross between a carnival side-show and a haunted house.
    Some sites are already refusing to open if you have an ad blocker enabled and are not a subscriber, e.g. The Atlantic, Forbes. Then you have to make a hard choice between whitelisting the site, subscribing, or giving up on it entirely. Yeah, the level of ad spew and ridiculous animation on some sites is horrific. If you're running a slower device or computer without any blocking or filtering the ad burden and gratuitous animation will absolutely crush your device's performance. I still have an iPad 2 and a first generation iPad Mini that don't support Safari's content blocking and much of the web is virtually inaccessible on these devices. Safari in iOS 9.3.5 seems to crash all the time.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 37 of 67
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,945member
    As a society, we need to join hands, band of brothers to fight against anyone tinkering with our personal data, privacy and annoyed following on internet to benefit at our cost. This web sites storing, tracking and target ads is like, a female says customary hello to a male and than male thinks female likes him and becomes stoker and shares that female's info with others without the consent/permission of female. This is also similar to Credit rating companies whom no one gave permission to collect your info and than charges for sharing your info. When your personal data is breached, they charges you to freeze credit.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 38 of 67
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,092member
    dewme said:
    Some sites are already refusing to open if you have an ad blocker enabled and are not a subscriber, e.g. The Atlantic, Forbes. Then you have to make a hard choice between whitelisting the site, subscribing, or giving up on it entirely.
    Yes, and I've started avoiding sites like that after a bad experience. And, when I do follow a shortened link to one of them, I typically just close them instead of dealing with the baloney. However, I suppose that I've even visited it for a half-second gives the advertiser what they want... an 'impression.' But, sooner or later, they'll wake up and discover how meaningless that actually is... just like they *eventually* did after the hits/clicks craze pre-dot-com-crash.
  • Reply 39 of 67
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member
    linkman said:
    Regardless of what Apple does on this there will be some group ticked off about it. Cave into the ad industry's demands and you'll upset 98% of the population. Protect privacy and they get complaints from the ad group. Unfortunately a lot of companies have turned in favor of the ones with the fat wallets. It's nice to have Apple on the side of the consumer.
    I think in the long run, this will benefit the ad industry.  I think that because there is far too much ad clutter on the web and this will help reduce the clutter making the ads that do display more effective.   Also, I believe I'm not alone when I say that I find cross-site tracking extremely annoying and offensive and I'm far less likely to click on an ad when I know it followed me from another site.   IMO, cookies never should have been permitted to be used except within a particular site.    The current ad tech is remarkably non-intelligent.  Not that I want the ad companies to know what I've purchased, but I find it incredibly annoying when I've bought something that's not a consumable and I start getting ads for it across the board.   I realize the site industry was forced into being ad-sponsored when consumers refused to pay for sites, but I think on most sites, it destroys the integrity of the site in a way that say magazine advertising never did.  

    I think this is a great thing Apple is doing.   It will certainly keep me on Safari.   

    I think one day the industry is going to wake up to the fact that just as banner ads didn't work, most of these Google ads and the like don't actually work either.   
    linkman
  • Reply 40 of 67
    wood1208 said:
    As a society, we need to join hands, band of brothers to fight against anyone tinkering with our personal data, privacy and annoyed following on internet to benefit at our cost. This web sites storing, tracking and target ads is like, a female says customary hello to a male and than male thinks female likes him and becomes stoker and shares that female's info with others without the consent/permission of female. This is also similar to Credit rating companies whom no one gave permission to collect your info and than charges for sharing your info. When your personal data is breached, they charges you to freeze credit.
    The problem is that most of those addicted to Social Media don't care one little bit about privacy. If they did then they would not have signed up and put so much of their private life out there for all to see.
    That's how a company like Cambridge Analitica were able to see what FB users were posting and then send them personal adverted from D. Trump re-inforcing the sort of thing that they were posting about and that he's got their back.
    I don't know how much it swung the election towards him (if at all) but that is the sort of thing that we should be worried about for the future. IT will only get worse.
    baconstang
Sign In or Register to comment.