I'm okay with it. Browse almost any website today and you're practically inundated with ads almost everywhere. Some sites are almost unusable due to all the ads and third party links.
I guess this sort of feeds itself, the more people use blockers the more they have to make off the users that don't, more ads go up, more people get blockers.
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 mean like an Amazon app? When I want to see an Amazon ad, I just open the Amazon app... how nice, how convenient. The same for Apple, eBay, AliExpress, and all the other Ecommerce sites that are important to me...
Screw them, if they want that info then ask for goddamn permission. Then we can opt in, if we want.
I keep a fairly close eye on who is placing cookies on my system and am quite disappointed at how easily FaceBook in particular slips cookies in through other sites.
"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love," the letter says. "Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful. Put simply, machine-driven cookie choices do not represent user choice; they represent browser-manufacturer choice."
Or maybe things could shift to people finding the services and products they need via reviews, word-of-mouth, recommendations, etc? Instead of assuming that bombarding people with empty images and slogans is "the one true path". Those online content providers could make money by providing links to products directly related to their content and/or informative product reviews. Instead of just plastering mindless ads everywhere which rely on creepy tracking. Sorry advertisers that you thought your current business model would go on forever. Adapt or die just like every other industry.
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.
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.
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.
If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.
Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."
Apple would do no such thing, ever. And yes, I do believe websites would do whatever is needed to protect their advertising incomes. Follow the money. What would you be willing to pay for access to AppleInsider if they couldn't make anything off of ad clicks because of blocking or no more tracking?
"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love," the letter says.
If people really love these services why don't they try and turn them in to direct customers? (99c per quarter trickle subscription or the like) Or is it to big a shift to think about people as customers not product.
Users of Apple computers and devices who feel "hurt" by Apple's security and identity protection features in Safari are totally free to install other web browsers such as Google Chrome, Chromium, FireFox, Opera, etc., on their computers. If they really miss being inundated with very selective targeted ads, having their online browsing habits surgically tracked, and their humanity productized for the benefit of ad agencies and Google - stop using Safari.
Comments
That and ads targeted to me find things that I've already bought or dealt with.
I guess this sort of feeds itself, the more people use blockers the more they have to make off the users that don't, more ads go up, more people get blockers.
As a grumpy old man, I find Freedom From Facebook liberating, even if I miss out on hearing about all the cool parties.
Ad_industry: (gulp)..
(99c per quarter trickle subscription or the like)
Or is it to big a shift to think about people as customers not product.