Apple addresses ad industry complaints over Safari tracking prevention feature

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    dewme said:
    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.
    If a website blocks the blocker, I don't go back. Fuck Forbes.
    baconstangRayz2016
  • Reply 42 of 67
    More advertising industry whining over self-inflicted injuries. Cry me a frelling river.
    baconstang
  • Reply 43 of 67
    I've been testing Safari via MacOS HS for months and It is a fantastic if long overdue feature. Apple takes the lead, others will follow.
  • Reply 44 of 67
    georgie01 said:
    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.
    If I could Like this post 100x, I would!!! THIS is something most people in today's modern culture simply don't get, and because of their complacent attitudes, allow to happen, and then inflict it on the masses...
    baconstangblah64
  • Reply 45 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,439member
    georgie01 said:
    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.
    If I could Like this post 100x, I would!!! THIS is something most people in today's modern culture simply don't get, and because of their complacent attitudes, allow to happen, and then inflict it on the masses...
    You're both complacent and misinformed if you think ads are the privacy-enemy you should be fearing.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/2991329/#Comment_2991329
    edited September 2017 spheric
  • Reply 46 of 67
    Thumbs up.  Thank you Tim Cook and Apple.
    jSnively
  • Reply 47 of 67
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,078member
    zoetmb said:
    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 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.   
    Not only that, but even if it 'works' it might not be working right. For example, the other day someone sent me an article about BitCoin type stuff, so I went to it and quickly scanned it. So, for the last week, nearly every ad spot on the sites I visit show ads for various kinds of crypto currency. There's like zero chance I'm going to be buying and products related to crypto currency in the near future (maybe even the far future). It was just an article a friend wanted me to check out. They data they collected on me, and used was not only irrelevant, but it prevented them from serving up an ad that might have worked on me.

    And, you also noted the other problem. The more 'noise' the less attention people pay. On most news websites I visit, I kind of mentally block out the advertising, and I'm almost certainly never going to click on it unless I'm trying to help out that site. I'd probably just open a new browser window and Google-search the product instead of clicking the ad. (This is especially true now that I know about affiliate programs and links... if I'm going to buy something, I'll go to one of the podcasters or bloggers I know and click through their affiliate links or Amazon boxes, etc. so they get the commission.)

    StrangeDays said:
    If a website blocks the blocker, I don't go back. Fuck Forbes.
    Yea, I often wonder, given Google's penalties, how a site like Forbes (and there are much worse) remains a top site. They must have a special deal with Google or something, because if anyone else made a site that horrible, they'd get penalized onto page 100.

    gatorguy said:
    You're both complacent and misinformed if you think ads are the privacy-enemy you should be fearing.
    They were talking about crap, not privacy. :)
  • Reply 48 of 67
    Basically every site today has a pay wall, except you set to allow cookies then they will let you in like Forbes.  By automatically blocking, this is no different than Chrome or Firefox using a setting to disable all cookies and rejecting location requests.  

    Many sites that depend on ads will just block browsers that don't accept tracking.
  • Reply 49 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."
    That would be as crazy as a major news network still requiring Flash to view its videos online.

    What? Oh. Never mind.
  • Reply 50 of 67
    georgie01 said:
    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.
    That's very noble of you...
    ...  But, the rule still stands:   "Don't do stupid things"
  • Reply 51 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.
    So.... do the wrong thing???


    Don't do stupid things....
  • Reply 52 of 67
    macxpress said:
    Flash I don't think is as big of a deal as blocking ads intentionally. 
    Just to be clear, Apple is not blocking ads. Apple is just putting some basic limits on how long a tracking cookie survives. All that does is make it harder for a random advertiser to follow you from site-to-site ad infinitum, collecting information about your browsing habits along the way.
    cgWerksGeorgeBMacRayz2016
  • Reply 53 of 67
    macxpress said:
    Flash I don't think is as big of a deal as blocking ads intentionally. 
    Just to be clear, Apple is not blocking ads. Apple is just putting some basic limits on how long a tracking cookie survives. All that does is make it harder for a random advertiser to follow you from site-to-site ad infinitum, collecting information about your browsing habits along the way.
    I know this....I did read the article unlike some people here. 
  • Reply 54 of 67
    Websites will make you agree to a terms and conditions modal. People will quickly agree to the tracking signing away their rights. All parties are happy.
  • Reply 55 of 67
    cgWerks said:
    [...] They data they collected on me, and used was not only irrelevant, but it prevented them from serving up an ad that might have worked on me.
    Yup.

    Even in cases where the product *IS* within my scope of interest, the whole concept of this kind of persistent advertising seems peculiar to me.

    In one case, I searched for an item on Amazon and bought it. I then saw ads for that product several times in the days that followed. Is the expectation that I'll buy another one? What's the point of showing me ads for something I already own?

    In another case, I looked into a product I thought I might like but found it wasn't a good fit for my needs. That time I didn't buy anything, but the ads for that product were still wasted. If it didn't suit my needs the first time I looked at it, seeing it five more times isn't going to magically make it a better choice.

    Does anyone here have knowledge of the ad industry's reasons for this seemingly pointless practice?
    cgWerks
  • Reply 56 of 67
    Simple solution. Release a phone that allows your companies to track users and see which phone consumers will want to buy.
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 57 of 67
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,078member
    vision33r said:
    Many sites that depend on ads will just block browsers that don't accept tracking.
    That's fine... and then we'll have to decide whether to enable/white-list that site if the information is valuable enough to us. In many cases, it will probably be easier to just move along to one that doesn't. Their choice. (And, if enough do that, they'll have to learn a better way, or go extinct.)

    lorin schultz said:
    That would be as crazy as a major news network still requiring Flash to view its videos online.
    What? Oh. Never mind.
    There is a site on the Internet still requiring Flash? (Haven't had Flash for 4-5 years now, at least, and haven't noticed... so they must be rather irrelevant.)
    Or, I suppose that was your point. :)

    So.... do the wrong thing???
    Don't do stupid things....
    Like standing up to someone who is doing wrong things? I don't think I want to live in that world.

    cgWerks said:
    [...] They data they collected on me, and used was not only irrelevant, but it prevented them from serving up an ad that might have worked on me.
    Yup.

    Even in cases where the product *IS* within my scope of interest, the whole concept of this kind of persistent advertising seems peculiar to me.

    In one case, I searched for an item on Amazon and bought it. I then saw ads for that product several times in the days that followed. Is the expectation that I'll buy another one? What's the point of showing me ads for something I already own?

    In another case, I looked into a product I thought I might like but found it wasn't a good fit for my needs. That time I didn't buy anything, but the ads for that product were still wasted. If it didn't suit my needs the first time I looked at it, seeing it five more times isn't going to magically make it a better choice.

    Does anyone here have knowledge of the ad industry's reasons for this seemingly pointless practice?
    I think it's a combo of 'AI' at it's finest, along with the general marketing principal that if you put a brand or product in front of someone's eyes (or in their ears, etc.) enough, it impacts their purchasing decision. So... I guess either there are some huge flaws..... or we're just way smarter than the average person, huh? :)
  • Reply 58 of 67
    Great, can we next have YouTube in a resolution higher than 720?
  • Reply 59 of 67
    evilution said:
    Great, can we next have YouTube in a resolution higher than 720?
    Blame Google for refusing to encode in MP4 anymore.
  • Reply 60 of 67
    cgWerks said:
    There is a site on the Internet still requiring Flash? (Haven't had Flash for 4-5 years now, at least, and haven't noticed...
    It's even goofier than the fact that a site requiring Flash still exists. This network serves Flash video to computers, but the same item plays fine on an iOS device. I don't pretend to know anything about how this stuff is managed behind the scenes, but doesn't that mean they're already generating a non-Flash version for iOS? If so, why would they still be serving a Flash version to computers?

    I'm sure there's some reason that makes perfect sense in Corporateville, but it *seems* like an odd way to run a railroad.

    cgWerks said:
    so they must be rather irrelevant.)
    News division of Canada's #1 TV network.

    My guess is it's a case of "old habits die hard" but I could be wrong. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.