Ad industry complains Apple Safari update is 'unilateral and heavy-handed' against trackin...

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 117
    What you want is uBlock Origin.
    Or AdNauseum, which is built on uBlock and automatically clicks on all ads it blocks to destroy all of the tracking data. Google has been refunding advertisers lately, so it seems to work.
    anton zuykov
  • Reply 82 of 117
    lkrupp said:
    payeco said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 would never do such a thing? I thought the same thing about content blockers in iOS a few years ago to. Then they did it.
  • Reply 83 of 117
    payeco said:
    Apple would never do such a thing? I thought the same thing about content blockers in iOS a few years ago to. Then they did it.
    Totally different concepts.
  • Reply 84 of 117
    payeco said:
    Apple would never do such a thing? I thought the same thing about content blockers in iOS a few years ago to. Then they did it.
    Totally different concepts.
    How so?
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 85 of 117
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member

    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more. Do-the-right-thing my ass....
    Google isn't complaining. 
    Is that straight from your overlords or your own opinion?
    gatorguy said:
    Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more. Do-the-right-thing my ass....
    Google isn't complaining.
    No, it is not complaining. In fact it is fully onboard with the decision to cut ads, and there is no conflict of interest here. None...
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    I don’t think so. Source?

    If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-ordered-pay-ftc-225-million-violating-privacy/story?id=16968371
    Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. 
    ... ive seen nothing that indicates they encouraged apple to implement this cross domain tracking blocker as you claim. Again, source? until you link otherwise i'll just assume it's more GoogleGuy FUD. Grade A stuff. 
    So I dug in a bit this morning to see if my memory was correct or not. As it turns out it both was and was not. It was correct to a point because certain ad trade blogs (I thought AdWeek as that's the one I'm most likely to read but it could have been one of the others) were stating this was being done with Google's blessing. But that's where my memory also failed me because that was not an official Google response but instead the opinion of the trade-paper/author, something I didn't recall.

    So then why would Google not be complaining? Isn't this meant as a dagger straight to the heart of their cash-flow? Perhaps not so much. Instead it appears it's effect will be to kill off a few Google (and Facebook) competitors, and impact the big boys lightly to not-at-all. 

    At this point you might hear a chorus of "HUH? More GG FUD no doubt". Well here's why it's not:
     
    Apple Safari will not be blocking targeted ads 
    despite what you might have thought you read in various PR or blog articles.
    AI mentions the actual effect but only in passing and in a single-sentence. Safari ad tracking cookies will have a limited lifespan, 24 hours, as AI writes "a 24-hour limit on ad retargeting" according to Apple. There's only a handful of very wealthy techs who have engagement with billions of visitors on an everyday basis, and so in generally avoiding those 24-hour limits.

    Apple will still allow cookies that enable ad-retargeting but since smaller ad companies (there's dozens of them here on AI alone) are less likely to "see you" every 24 hours they may feel a significant impact as their cookies expire. They get poorer while those with vast and oft-used services engaging with visitors on a daily basis sign up their former advertising customers.

    With that said tho i would suspect some of the most engaged sites, and AI might be one of those, will become a favorite for the ad companies who will depend even more on regular daily visitors to reset ad targeting for another 24 hours. Many of the small companies will be falling by the wayside, with ad buyers shifting budgets to the already wealthy Google and Facebook and a couple of others with a pervasive web presence, and those that don't will become even more reliant on the major websites with small sites definitely feeling a jolt in their wallets IMO.

    So yes, while I can't find reference to Google coming out and saying "Thanks Apple" in a public proclamation, Google CEO Pichai may have sent a personal Thank-you card to Mr. Cook. Don't be shocked if you see ads for items you seem to have an interest in based on a visit to some other site. Amazon, Google and Facebook may come out holding roses, and at least you'll be less likely to be presented ads for things you researched weeks ago and have no current interest in.

    Anyway, that's why you aren't seeing a complaint from Google as this will likely have a negligible effect on them and IMO gets their Stamp of Approval.

    But for the other 90+ trackers set by ad companies and data miners here on AI alone (I turned off Ghostery for a few minutes just to check) it will be a different outcome. And no I'm not faulting the ownership of AI for making a living, that's just the way sites on the web are generally supported since far too few of you ( and me included) are willing to part with cash in return for the valued services. Note that Google of all companies is considering one more time trying to give website visitors that option.
    First attempt didn't meet with much success,  
    https://9to5google.com/2015/07/29/opinion-flawed-google-contributor/

    ...but Google has begun limited testing of a new version, tho as of yet very few websites are involved as it's still a beta service AFAIK. If you honestly don't mind paying for content you should consider supporting the effort if/when a website you value joins up. Avoid targeted ads but still pay what what you take in value from sites like AI. Seems eminently fair.
    http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/12/17/google-contributor-discontinued-favor-newer-iteration-due-early-2017/


    edited September 2017 randominternetpersoncgWerks
  • Reply 86 of 117
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    I don’t think so. Source?

    If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-ordered-pay-ftc-225-million-violating-privacy/story?id=16968371
    Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking. 

    ... And no the reason you stated was not why Google was fined by the FTC. Tracking was fine and still is, lots of companies currently ignore "Do Not Track". That's a failed effort. It was the improper advice Google gave Safari users regarding opt-out that the FTC took issue with, as they should have. 

    You're being disingenuous again. Saying Google was only guilty of "improper advice" is like saying Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion.

    You conveniently left out the part that Google discovered an exploit in Safari and intentionally wrote code to use that exploit to get around do not track. They then had the nerve to claim it was an accident, causing coders all around the world to spit their coffee out at the ridiculousness of it. 

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 87 of 117
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    I don’t think so. Source?

    If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-ordered-pay-ftc-225-million-violating-privacy/story?id=16968371
    Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking. 

    ... And no the reason you stated was not why Google was fined by the FTC. Tracking was fine and still is, lots of companies currently ignore "Do Not Track". That's a failed effort. It was the improper advice Google gave Safari users regarding opt-out that the FTC took issue with, as they should have. 

    You're being disingenuous again. Saying Google was only guilty of "improper advice" is like saying Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion.

    You conveniently left out the part that Google discovered an exploit in Safari and intentionally wrote code to use that exploit to get around do not track. They then had the nerve to claim it was an accident, causing coders all around the world to spit their coffee out at the ridiculousness of it. 

    Nope didn't forget that at all as I've discussed it several times myself over the years here as well as telling you personally and others in general that I don't believe Google when they say it was a "mistake". (don't believe Google when they say it was a "mistake" collecting snippets of openly available wi-fi data, and of little use IMO so no idea why in the first place, during Street-view logging activity.

    But still not the reason Google got fined and you know that, nor am I saying Google is only "guilty" of such-n-such even if you'd like to imply that's what I believe (And that sir is an actual example on your part of being disingenuous). We were discussing the fine itself and basis for it. The fine was because their help page advised Safari users they did not need to take any other action to opt out 3rd party cookies beyond a Safari setting which was not true. Tracking itself is not illegal and would not get a second look from the FTC under current rules, much less a fine. 

    ..and I'll repeat again for you so you can lock your dogs back up: Google deserved to be fined, and really should have been fined more IMO.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 88 of 117
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    Sorry ad companies, you unscrupulous entities annoy us with pop ups, redirects, and auto play ads. I have no sympathy for you. 
  • Reply 89 of 117
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    I don't get what they mean by consumer choice. The latest iteration of advertising in the social media age has its hooks so deep into consumer interactions it's beyond disturbing. Company's tried to curtail this with "Do Not Track" options in browsers but it's completely Opt-In and many advertisers never bothered to care. Everywhere I go I get ads for things I've looked at, or purchased, or what have you. I recently looked at Umbrella Strollers at a manufacturers website, and you bet i'm going to see that company prop up in ads around the web, or on my Facebook feed. It's stalking and badgering.

    Back in 2002 we would be using Spybot Search and Destroy to clean this type of crap off our computers. Now it's baked into every website, social media app in existence.
  • Reply 90 of 117
    payeco said:
    payeco said:
    Apple would never do such a thing? I thought the same thing about content blockers in iOS a few years ago to. Then they did it.
    Totally different concepts.
    How so?


    You really don't see the difference?  Apple intentionally having their flagship browser misrepresent itself as another browser would be a PR disaster.  It would be characterized as akin to fraud.  News teasers would say things like "iPhone reports that it's a Google product to access certain sites." 

    How is that remotely similar to giving users the OPTION of blocking certain content?  

  • Reply 91 of 117
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member
    sog35 said:
    Like I've been saying here for years:

    ADS ARE THE BANE OF SOCIETY.


    I'll pay $$$ for content. I absolutely despise ads.
    Visit Google Contributor. 
  • Reply 92 of 117
    Hmmn, to whom do we complain about these six organizations?
  • Reply 93 of 117
    Soli said:
    After I started using the High Sierra betas I noticed right away that Amazon ads on websites were no longer things I had looked up, but seemingly random stuff without any rhyme or reason for why they were chosen to appeal to me. That no longer seems to be the case but for awhile some of the oddball choices were funny.
    I've noticed that over the last few years the ads I see are more in line with things that have at least a shot at being of interest to me, and less for things that are not intended for the demographic I occupy.

    That said, they still seem to be utterly devoid of any imagination whatsoever. Every time I research a product I wind up seeing ads for that exact product for weeks afterward. What's the point of showing me ads for things I've already either purchased or decided I don't want?

    I'm still not sure where I stand on the subject of ad targeting. It seems like my browsing experience is actually improved by only seeing relevant ads snd not seeing ads for stuff I'll never use. On the other hand, it's creepy as hell.

    Is "creepy" a valid objection? What actual *harm* do I suffer as a result of being tracked? Does it affect my credit rating or increase my risk of fraud? Does it endanger my safety? Does my privacy have intrinsic value in and of itself? When protecting my privacy has an adverse affect on my browsing experience (like when a site won't display unless I disable my ad blocker, or I can't use a particular service at all because it uses a third-party for authentication), am I better off giving up the content I'm after, or is sharing information about my habits and interests less of a sacrifice on my part than going without the content?

    I can't decide who I'm hurting more by blocking -- advertisers or myself.
  • Reply 94 of 117
    payeco said:
    How so?
    There’s nothing duplicitous or disingenuous about expanding functionality of a piece of software. There is, however, in making said software report as though it’s different software. Apple’s not really about doing things like that, particularly when they had a lawsuit against their competitors for doing the same thing (with hardware).
  • Reply 95 of 117
    I recently experienced a positive outcome by surrendering some privacy. See if you think it's relevant to the discussion of ad tracking.

    I didn't upgrade to Final Cut Pro X because I prefer the interface of the older version. I'm still using FCP 7.x. Some projects are not yet finished.

    Presumably because I've chosen to share my usage information with Apple, I recently received an email warning me that the version I have won't work if/when I upgrade my OS to High Sierra. At first it felt a little creepy that Apple knows which editor I'm using, but I had to admit that I really appreciate the heads up. It would have sucked in a major way to find out the hard way that I can't complete a project I've been working on for months because it hadn't occurred to me that an OS upgrade would disable my editor.

    I've also experienced two negative outcomes by choosing privacy.

    A couple years ago I signed up for CraveTV. That service uses a third-party to authenticate users. Blocking third-party cookies makes it impossible to sign in.

    My wife wanted to sign up with Ancestry.com. Ghostery flipped out and prevented even the home page from loading. I don't know why in that case.

    I can't decide if the benefits of sharing information sometimes outweigh the seemingly ambiguous liabilities of sacrificing privacy.
  • Reply 96 of 117
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member
    I recently experienced a positive outcome by surrendering some privacy. See if you think it's relevant to the discussion of ad tracking.

    I didn't upgrade to Final Cut Pro X because I prefer the interface of the older version. I'm still using FCP 7.x. Some projects are not yet finished.

    Presumably because I've chosen to share my usage information with Apple, I recently received an email warning me that the version I have won't work if/when I upgrade my OS to High Sierra. At first it felt a little creepy that Apple knows which editor I'm using, but I had to admit that I really appreciate the heads up. It would have sucked in a major way to find out the hard way that I can't complete a project I've been working on for months because it hadn't occurred to me that an OS upgrade would disable my editor.

    I've also experienced two negative outcomes by choosing privacy.

    A couple years ago I signed up for CraveTV. That service uses a third-party to authenticate users. Blocking third-party cookies makes it impossible to sign in.

    My wife wanted to sign up with Ancestry.com. Ghostery flipped out and prevented even the home page from loading. I don't know why in that case.

    I can't decide if the benefits of sharing information sometimes outweigh the seemingly ambiguous liabilities of sacrificing privacy.
    Lorin, you may not be aware that ad tracking cookies report zero personal information. I found what I thought is a really excellent and easy to understand explanation at another Apple fan site this morning (where the author is almost certainly guaranteed to attract a lot of personal accusations and assorted venom for writing it):

    "An advertising cookie works like this. You visit Facebook, and see an ad for a new iPhone case. You think it looks cool, but you’re busy catching up with your feed, and so just make a mental note to check it out later. Silently, in the background, Facebook drops a cookie on your Mac: a text file with a couple of ID codes. One code is for Facebook, the other is for the specific ad. The cookie contains no identifying information about you.

    The next day, you remember that cool case, Google the name of it and end up at the company’s website. The website sends a request to Safari, asking it if it has stored any cookies with the ad code. Safari says ‘Yes, I do’ and sends it to the website. The website reads the data inside it and sees that you saw that ad on Facebook. It then increments a counter so that it can see, for example, that 3,172 people visited its website after seeing that particular Facebook ad.

    Remember, that cookie contains no identifying information for you. The website has no idea who you are, it only knows that you are an anonymous Internet user who saw a particular ad on Facebook.

    Advertising cookies also work the other way around. If you visit the case manufacturer website first, the site drops a cookie onto your Mac noting that you visited the site. Once again, there is no personally identifiable information in that cookie: it identifies the website, not you.

    When you visit Facebook, the web server asks Safari if it has any cookies containing codes for any of its current advertisers. Safari says ‘Yep, here’s one for this iPhone case maker.’ Facebook says ‘Thanks very much, I’ll display an ad for an iPhone case.’ That’s targeted advertising using cross-site cookies.

    Once again, the website has no idea who you are, it only knows you as an anonymous Internet user who has visited a particular website.

    There are more sophisticated versions, such as dropping a specific cookie when you carry out a particular action at a website, such as placing a product in your basket and then not buying it, but the key point applies: at no point does the website know who you are.

    There are also complications with third-party cookies – ones that are nothing to do with either the site you are visiting or an ad that you have seen – that we needn’t get into: Safari has always blocked those, and I fully support Apple in that choice.

    What Apple is introducing with the version of Safari included in High Sierra, however, is what it calls Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP). What this does it severely limit the use of what are known as first-party cross-site cookies – the ones I described above. Here’s what Apple has to  say about it:

    If the user has not interacted with example.com in the last 30 days, example.com website data and cookies are immediately purged and continue to be purged if new data is added.

    However, if the user interacts with example.com as the top domain, often referred to as a first-party domain, Intelligent Tracking Prevention considers it a signal that the user is interested in the website and temporarily adjusts its behavior as depicted in this timeline.

    And here’s the timeline:

    What that effectively means for businesses is that, in many cases, if you visit a website more than a day after you saw an ad, the company will have no idea that its advertising brought you there. Advertisers are upset about that, and have written an open letter to Apple asking the company to rethink."

    Courtesy 9to5Mac.

    https://9to5mac.com/2017/09/15/what-are-cookies-how-do-cookies-work/



    edited September 2017
  • Reply 97 of 117
    I have 12 item's blocked on this story alone.
    Sorry, that's excessive. If websites and advertisers want to look for someone to blame, look only at yourselves.

  • Reply 98 of 117
    THIS is why I'm an Apple customer.  F the advertising hounds -- they're creepy as hell!
  • Reply 99 of 117
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    Safari share is about 25%, not 3-4. It is gonna hurt for Google and other ad pushers, that is for sure. https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=1
    Oddly it may actually work to Google and Facebook's benefit. As is often the case the rich may get richer. 
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-ad-blocking-could-help-facebook-and-google-despite-slowing-online-ad-growth-2017-06-07
    Or it may not. That depends on "logged-in and engaged user bases" member, and it looks like those (cough) [engaged] members are getting less and less engaged.
    "Facebook’s decline in personal updates reflects a common growing pain for online communities".
    http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/facebook-sharing-decline/

    Google, on the other hand, is in no better state. Massive problems with content censoring is starting to drive people away from the company services en masse. Duckduckgo had experienced a huge surge in the number of searches right after Google went full retard several times in the span of the last year. That surely does not mean that the number of enganged users is dropping.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 100 of 117
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    I don’t think so. Source?

    If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-ordered-pay-ftc-225-million-violating-privacy/story?id=16968371
    We have to be objective here and give the benefit of the doubt to Google. I mean, come on, of course they want to limit their own revenue, right? Businesses do that voluntarily all the time. Besides, it is very natural for a very abusive company to, all of a sudden, stop abusing its powers and advocate for the reduction of the powers. I mean, that happens all the time, doesn't it?
    edited September 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.