At the end of the day, we live in a capitalist society where the sole aim of business endeavors is to make money, no matter the expense to our lives, the environment, etc. Relying on corporate ethics within such an environment to do the right thing for social good is delusional. Yes, Apple is better than a lot of other corporations in some things. But let’s not forget that their primary goal is to gain capital. Everything else is secondary to that.
Yes, we do live in a capitalistic society but there are many pockets of resistance to a total capitalistic society. For example: Medicare, Medicaid, free public schools. None of those are a result of capitalism. In fact, you could argue they are AGAINST capitalism being the only form of economics that runs this society.
Not only was it an informative and exciting article, but the article now has an update saying that Apple has taken some action. This article should therefore be nominated for an award, if awards exist for web-based publishers. Maybe a Pulitzer would be a little too much.
I respect your arguments and appreciate your perspectives. I guess the only request I would have with articles like this one would be to preface the title with “Opinion: “ because much of what is presented here on AppleInsider, outside of the comments, is informative while this is clearly an opinion piece.
While I disagree with dewme’s libertarian position in general, in fairness to him the “Editorial” header does not appear when I access the article on my iPad using the AI app.
Yep, the AI app has had that problem since… well, as far back as I can remember! Not even the forum view of the article shows “editorial”. If I go to the AI website on safari, it does. So, @"Mike Wuerthele" showing that in the screenshot doesn’t really resolve the issue that the AI app does NOT show that it’s an editorial.
1) I am not a developer, web, app, or otherwise. 2) It is absolutely labeled an editorial for about 93% of our readers. 3) It's also very clear from the headline and lede that it is an opinion piece.
This avenue of conversation in the forums has concluded.
Then you should discuss this with your developers rather than being rather rude to your readers.
In the AI app, both iPhone and iPad version, it explicitly does NOT state that it is an editorial. Your app has had this problem for years. And while, yes, it is obvious from the content itself that it is an opinion piece, rudely stating to someone questioning about it being one or not because your app doesn’t label it as such is not that readers problem, it is a problem for the publisher’s developers if it isn’t properly showing that label.
1) I have discussed it with the developers.
2) While you are welcome to believe and feel what you want, because I did not throw myself on my sword and just listed the facts, does not make it rude.
And like I said, we're done here. Further discussion in the forum about it will be deleted. You are welcome to continue the conversation with me in DM if you'd like.
William & Mike, I'm sorry if my comment about tagging the headline with "Opinion: " created a controversy. It was strictly intended as a way for me to more easily understand where the article fits in the list of available articles. AppleInsider does not have a dedicated opinion/editorial section from what I can tell. Some news sites that I'm familiar with, like the Atlanta Journal Constitution, do tag their option articles exactly as I described. No ill will intended and I was satisfied with your response.
I think it was perfectly valid and timely to bring up this topic when you did. This is a new thing for everyone to discover. My comments were and are intended to express where I think Apple made mistakes in rolling out their new ad service, irrespective to the nature of the ads in question. I'm disappointed that Apple chose to place off-topic and contextually irrelevant ads in the "You Might Also Like" section of the App Store. To me it comes across as garbage regardless of what the ad is for and more so when it does not match the context of what I'm looking at or my history with the App Store. I'm content to ignore it, but it devalues the quality of the App Store just a bit, which is exactly the wrong thing to do when Apple is struggling to make the App Store better serve its partners, app developers, and improve its customer experience.
The App Store has serious issues around app discovery. There are so many apps and discovering all but a tiny few of them is very hard. Having a "You Might Also Like" section in the App Store is a good first step towards moving the needle in a direction that helps everyone. Polluting this section with ads that don't belong there and aren't relevant to me, the "You" in the "You Might Also Like" collection, is simply wrong in my opinion. And to be clear, there are people (who are not me) who like gambling, so if they are looking at the details of a gambling app and see an ad for a different gambling app, I don't care. If some folks don't like gambling apps to begin with, that is another problem to solve outside of Apple's new ad model rollout. With millions of apps in the App Store I'd bet there are many other categories of apps that other groups of people find offensive.
So no, I don't think Apple has a gambling problem. But I do think that using the "You Might Also Like" section as a fishing hole for randomly dumping ads that are not contextually related to what I am searching for or even my preferences that Apple has learned from my purchase history is a very bad decision by Apple. They stumbled on this rollout and have offended their existing partners and some of their customers. Did they do this to appease their new partners, those paying for the ads? Only Apple can answer that question.
Thanks for getting the discussion rolling and allowing others to weigh in on where they see the problem existing.
This somehow reminds me of the ads on the jerseys of Premier League teams. The big teams have mainstream sponsors, but most everybody else has gambling sites. It’s a weird sort of not-indirect acknowledgment of the fact that gambling and gaming is a significant part of the FIFA business model.
Likewise, Apple’s cut of in-app purchases in games like Fortnite (yes, we know) and gambling apps is not insignificant. So it’s not surprising at all that gambling apps would be first in line to pay whatever premium Apple is charging to have ads appear everywhere.
Comments
Yeah, so RESIST! Vivre la resistance!
I think it was perfectly valid and timely to bring up this topic when you did. This is a new thing for everyone to discover. My comments were and are intended to express where I think Apple made mistakes in rolling out their new ad service, irrespective to the nature of the ads in question. I'm disappointed that Apple chose to place off-topic and contextually irrelevant ads in the "You Might Also Like" section of the App Store. To me it comes across as garbage regardless of what the ad is for and more so when it does not match the context of what I'm looking at or my history with the App Store. I'm content to ignore it, but it devalues the quality of the App Store just a bit, which is exactly the wrong thing to do when Apple is struggling to make the App Store better serve its partners, app developers, and improve its customer experience.
The App Store has serious issues around app discovery. There are so many apps and discovering all but a tiny few of them is very hard. Having a "You Might Also Like" section in the App Store is a good first step towards moving the needle in a direction that helps everyone. Polluting this section with ads that don't belong there and aren't relevant to me, the "You" in the "You Might Also Like" collection, is simply wrong in my opinion. And to be clear, there are people (who are not me) who like gambling, so if they are looking at the details of a gambling app and see an ad for a different gambling app, I don't care. If some folks don't like gambling apps to begin with, that is another problem to solve outside of Apple's new ad model rollout. With millions of apps in the App Store I'd bet there are many other categories of apps that other groups of people find offensive.
So no, I don't think Apple has a gambling problem. But I do think that using the "You Might Also Like" section as a fishing hole for randomly dumping ads that are not contextually related to what I am searching for or even my preferences that Apple has learned from my purchase history is a very bad decision by Apple. They stumbled on this rollout and have offended their existing partners and some of their customers. Did they do this to appease their new partners, those paying for the ads? Only Apple can answer that question.
Thanks for getting the discussion rolling and allowing others to weigh in on where they see the problem existing.
Likewise, Apple’s cut of in-app purchases in games like Fortnite (yes, we know) and gambling apps is not insignificant. So it’s not surprising at all that gambling apps would be first in line to pay whatever premium Apple is charging to have ads appear everywhere.