Ad firms losing 'hundreds of millions' after Apple clamps down on Safari tracking

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,617member
    It's quite obvious Google isn't being harmed at all. Every year they make more and more ad money with no end in sight. Unlimited growth potential is always being said for Google.
    There is a limit on how much advertising the human mind can process.  Google will hit this someday and they know they will that's why they are desperate to find other sources of revenue.  So desperate, they even tried barges.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 67
    Ad networks are the main source of malware. The ad redirect downloads and tries to execute the malware in a blaze. If Apple enforces that policy this is mostly for the sake of security. Check the Downloads folder of a casual user, you’ll see a lot of .exes and .pkgs.
    edited January 2018 lostkiwipropodwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 67
    This is why I love Apple. It's also why I bought a 2017 MacBook to get the most up to date MacOS and Safari specifically for this feature! :)

    I could not see MS doing this. And for obvious reasons neither would Google. :)


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 67
    but safari users are a minority. and there are more android mobile and windoze desktop and laptop devices out there. do ad firms only publish on apple platforms?
    Only the ones that want to make money. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 67
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    It's once thing to have ad's on a Web site. It helps pay for the site to be up. It's completely different to be tracking me from one site to another site. I sure as hell didn't give a ad company permission to do that crap. So F them!!!
    lostkiwimuthuk_vanalingampropodwatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 67
    Let's call tracking without your consent what it really is: Stalking. If I stalked you as you went through you day shopping, working, eating, visiting and such you could get a restraint order against me. Why should it be any different online.
    muthuk_vanalingampropodwatto_cobratallest skil
  • Reply 47 of 67
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,068member
    The exquisite irony is that these 'industry protests' become free advertising for Apple protecting your user data.
    lostkiwimacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 67
    edrededred Posts: 48member
    They are not *losing* anything. They are not generating revenue from Safari users, that's all.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,718member
    Let's call tracking without your consent what it really is: Stalking. If I stalked you as you went through you day shopping, working, eating, visiting and such you could get a restraint order against me. Why should it be any different online.
    If it's a data aggregator like Experion or Acxiom I agree it's nearly akin to stalking. Their sole reason to exist as a business is selling the personal details of your life to insurers, financial institutions, potential employers, credit card companies, and direct marketers along with other various and sundry organizations and agencies who are willing to pay for information about the personal you. They gather your work history, schooling, home layout room by room, bank accounts and credit cards, the names and ages of your family members and your extended family, where you fill your prescriptions, what church you attend, what civic groups you're a member of, your sexual persuasion and marital status. Where you work now, what you earn, how much your mortgage is, a complete record of every legal dealing you've had and every traffic ticket you get. They want to know your accident history, medical conditions and what medicines you take. The reason they get away with it is because they've always done so . We just aren't made aware of it so we live in ignorance.

    If it's an ad provider they likely don't care one whit who you actually are (no doubt there may be some companies who are exceptions). In general they don't like nor dislike you. They don't judge you on religion or lack thereof, the color of your skin, place of birth, your place of employ, where you graduated (or not) or your family name. They only care about the likelihood of you buying a product from an advertiser who hires their placement services. That's the basket of otherwise unidentified people you'll be dropped in. The better they pigeonhole you the more valuable their service is so accuracy pays dividends. The anonymized basket of "you's" segregated by your identifiable interests and the size of your wallet is their biggest concern. The actual identified you will not be for sale, your name is of no importance whatsoever. Your computer, iPhone, tablet or other internet-connected device is what they've identified and follow, not the personal "You"
    edited January 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 50 of 67
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,692member
    aybara said:
    As long as home ISPs give data caps, unless you are paying me to download and watch your ad, I will block them in most cases.

    Granted ads aren't 'huge' but some sites are lousy with them.  There was another Apple fansite I used to visit that Ad Blocker would block upwards of SIXTY ADS before the actual non-ad content loaded.  That is outrageous.
    I used to block ads, but then sites detected my blocker and denied access unless I turned it off. This kept happening more and more frequently and on sites I used regularly. Finally I turned it off.

    I agree it's outrageous - outrageous that they are legally allowed to track us and use our data. I personally feel the country needs a law that establishes for every individual, absolute ownership of their personal information.  All data including SSN, email addresses, home addresses, all phone numbers, credit data, bank info etc., would be the legal property of each individual and could only be used, gathered or viewed with direct permission.  With a law like that we could actually make money off of our real and virtual personas.  If the credit bureaus want my data they can pay me for it.  If an ad company wants to know what I've been browsing, they can pay me for it. Seems fair.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 67
    beng said:
    Whenever I can, I send the following message to sites that gripe about ad Blockers:

    [...]  The pervasive popup adds are [...]


    You might want to fix up the spelling in your boilerplate response then
  • Reply 52 of 67
    I don't understand why websites think they are owed this information just for shopping their site.  We don't accept this kind of behavior from brick and mortar stores we go into to shop around.  Do salespeople get to follow us around the mall to see what other stores and items we look at?  Do they get to look over your shoulder and look at your identification to see who you are and where you live?

    Of course not.  Neither are website owners and advertisers owed the kind of information they seem to think they are entitled to about you and your surfing and buying habits.  If I come to their site, they are welcome to observe the same sorts of things a live salesperson in a store might observe.  They may recognize my face and know I'm a regular when I come in the next time.  They may see that I'm interested in certain items and not so much in others.  They might notice that I like to pay with my debit card but never a credit card.  That's about it.  They are not entitled to know that I browsed at the store on the other side of the mall or that I have an interest in British period pieces and like jazz music unless I purposely tell them.

    There needs to be a serious reset on what the expectations of advertisers and site owners are entitled to know about us.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 67
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,627member
    sunman42 said:
    See the tear? Sorry, you'll just have to look closer. Imagine the world's smallest tear, evoked by the world's smallest violin playing something barely sad in a decidedly minor key.
    Post of the month so far…
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 67
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,627member
    The problem is not the size of the Safari user base; it’s its value. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 67
    This settles it for me. I'm upgrading to High Sierra tonight!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 67
    i’m a big fan of 1Blocker, which i use on iOS and macOS for blocking of trackers and ads. 

    Any idea of Ghostery has a iOS blocker?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 67
    but safari users are a minority. and there are more android mobile and windoze desktop and laptop devices out there. do ad firms only publish on apple platforms?
    Nah but they get more clicks and thus ad hits when they mention Apple in an article/blog post.

    I hate Adverts. That is all Adverts and whatever the medium. Why? I spent 20 months working in the industry before I could take it no longer and escaped. The lengths that they will go to to get their ads seen is often beyond the pale. That side of the industry needs to die and soon..
    You can advertise ethically but only the foolish do that because of the so dominant dark side.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 58 of 67
    I am very pleased Apple is blocking these very intrusive and irritating pop ups and other advertisements.  I certainly do not want them and will not buy anything advertised in that way.  As other posters have said I did not ask for them, do not want them and will not buy anything advertised that way.  In fact I shut them off immediately and do not read them.  I suspect any revenue is largely a fiction and I wonder how much companies actually earn from such advertising.  It must be huge if the company providing the service earns hundreds of millions at, presumably, a very small percentage of the revenue earned by the advertiser.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 67
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,303member
    I dislike ads but understand the right of websites to host them and deny me access to content if I choose to use ad blockers (which I do).

    Too many of us expect content to be free and that we are not obliged to pay for the privilege of visiting their sites. 

    But I draw the line at having a digital band placed around my digital ankle to track me once I leave their site, or strip me of any information that may have stuck to me from visiting other sites. So I use ad blockers.

    Occasionally I'll disable them to see a site's content. I'd like to have a more convenient to toggle them on/off. For those who're interested, it's said that selecting Reader View, if available, will let you by some blocked sites, including pay walls. YMMV.

    Someone has said that the latest version of Firefox allows private viewing to be set as a default. I don't know how this affects the use of cookies and website passwords. I only use Safari, and if I go Private, I can't log in to some websites reliably. Often I can log in on one page but going to the next requires my password.
  • Reply 60 of 67
    BooHoo, I feel so sorry for the madvertisers. By protecting its customers it is clear Apple is not playing cricket. Good for them.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.