Did I miss the part where it says it will block ALL advertising? This is only going to prevent the various data-mining, cookie tracking, DeviceID tracking, etc.
Apps can STILL be loaded to play ads in between every level, they just won’t be ‘targeted’ based on the data they harvest. It doesn’t matter to most people. They either ignore the ad while it plays, or cancel it as soon as the X button appears.
Almost accurate. What this will do is 1) stop junkware apps and non-social media apps from selling ads based on unrelated content (ex: i go look at shoes on google then see a sneaker ad on my flashlight app) 2) stifle data collection by data marketplaces (DMP) from tracking you across all devices and apps 3) limit the amazons, facebooks, and googles of the world to the properties and integrations they own, which are many but not ubiquitously placed, save google.
The reason apple is doing this may seem altruistic, but if you understood their true corporate motivations, you’d realize that it may just be as simple as them not being able to take a 30% cut of ad revenues, like they can in in-app purchases, for junkware apps that litter their app marketplace, so it’s cost efficient to starve those apps to death and stop hosting them to improve overall app quality and push developers toward premium pay to play apps where they get a greedy 30% chunk of every purchase (merchant fees are 3% on the web for instance).
Btw, notice in that last post i said it will stifle, not eliminate collection of data. Personal data has been handed out for free ever since cookies were introduced at the dawn of the interactive internet. Now, tracking identifiers will have to be explicitly collected via IDFA requests or logins that collect your email address, hash it to md5 and ship that psuedo-anonymized id, which btw is actually less private than an idfa, to supply side platforms (SSPs) and DMPs and use those to track you instead. The main difference obviously is they have to ask for it.
I kind of make the analogy all the time that this is like asking someone out on a date rather than just going over to their house, crawling into their bed, and waiting until they get home to get lucky. It sounds creepy because it is creepy. And while they’re waiting, they sell pictures of all your stuff on craigslist to the lowest bidder. BUT YOU CAN OPT OUT ANY TIME... except ahead of time.
It’s unlikely to make much difference (to advertisers) - as the advertising revenue will continue unaffected. The recipients however might change. No doubt, all the players will adjust to take advantage of any change of rules. The lazy may find this adjustment difficult.
That’s been my thought. My feeling is that Facebook is terrified that advertisers will discover that targeted ads aren't as effective or valuable as Zuch has promoted.
That’s not why he cares. Solid guess though. That’s definitely what has assumed as to why they force you to use their measurement software rather than independent measurement vendors. But the reason they do that is more likely to prevent a DMP from collecting the entirety of the facebook audience data effectively for free, meaning there would be no differentiator between facebook and some Goliath like Oracle or Adobe who don’t own a major publisher network. What Facebook doesn’t want is to lose ground to their competitors, who they would probably view as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
Possibly unpopular opinion, but the reason 90 percent of apps went to in-app purchases and data-mining (and selling that info) in the first place was because consumers decided they didn't want to pay even $5 for a game they might play for 100+ hours.
I think the scamjob of FB and Google et al convincing developers that ONLY micro-targeting (ie webstalking) is effective at getting new customers is a major reason why things went this way, but let's be clear: consumers who want everything for "free" bear some of the responsibility here.
Possibly unpopular opinion, but the reason 90 percent of apps went to in-app purchases and data-mining (and selling that info) in the first place was because consumers decided they didn't want to pay even $5 for a game they might play for 100+ hours.
I think the scamjob of FB and Google et al convincing developers that ONLY micro-targeting (ie webstalking) is effective at getting new customers is a major reason why things went this way, but let's be clear: consumers who want everything for "free" bear some of the responsibility here.
I was about to post something similar. In the gold rush that happened when Apple opened up the iPhone to independent developers, competition became based primarily on price - Apple managed to "commoditise their complement" in economic terms. The market provided a huge supply of apps, and once supply exceeded demand the price dropped to the marginal cost per unit which for software is essentially zero. As early as 2010 I was reading complaints from developers that they had no choice but to adopt exploitative practices if they wanted to get any revenue at all from their apps.
So let's not give Apple a free pass on this one. The company continues to push the message that they're helping the economy by allowing "app developers" to earn a living from putting software on Apple devices, but they know the economic forces at play.
I'm not maligning anyone, though. Frankly, this idea that software is intrinsically valuable is dangerous - economic value comes from either improving efficiency, satisfying a need or growing the entire market. Software is just the automation of the means to achieve those goals.
All this means is that companies have to WORK to get customers instead of having someone else spy for them to get customers. Imagine that.
Be very careful here. Getting an app developed and on the store is typically a LOT of very hard, very rime-consuming work, and you’re faced by customers who b*tch st you that your work isn’t worth 99 cents “and why isn’t it free like everyone else’s?”
of course privacy is important and a]Apple’s policies are correct, and ultimately this will help smaller developers. But do NOT assume that any developer complaining is lazy. You’re wrong that that is a motivation.
You mean they will no longer be able to monetize their customers without consulting them, instead of earning their money by selling something someone might want? It isn't an atomic bomb, it is an insecticide!
The reason apple is doing this may seem altruistic, but if you understood their true corporate motivations, you’d realize that it may just be as simple as them not being able to take a 30% cut of ad revenues, like they can in in-app purchases, for junkware apps that litter their app marketplace, so it’s cost efficient to starve those apps to death and stop hosting them to improve overall app quality and push developers toward premium pay to play apps where they get a greedy 30% chunk of every purchase (merchant fees are 3% on the web for instance).
Or, maybe it's as simple as Apple realizes that people actually do care about privacy and it's a smart business decision to build protections into the OS.
But, I get your point, never attribute to a simple, smart business decision what you can attribute to nefarious greed, especially if you can wrap it in a quasi-conspiracy theory.
I’d like to hear these same folks explain why they thought it was a good thing to be sneaking around behind their customer’s backs to game them into buying more products or generate a side hustle for the developer by tracking their customer’s activities and behaviors.
Let’s not forget that it was Apple who came up with the concept of the IDFA tracking ID in the first place. They put it in place specifically to allow developers to track us, in order to maximise tracking-associated marketing revenue, so that prices on the App Store remained low or zero.
Apple’s putting right that wrong now, but let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that developers and marketers have been working independently of Apple all these years. They built their businesses on top of a tool that Apple provided them.
I wonder if these measures had been there from the start if the App Store would have been as much of a success
Apple are quick to claim how many apps and how many jobs have been generated off the App Store, but a lot of that has been on the shoulders of advertising revenue.
I think they're right to be doing what they're doing, but if does seem a bit late to the party and opportunistic, with a little whiff of hypocrisy over the self-righteousness.
Comments
Telemarketer: Hi, would you be interested in switching over to TMI long distance service?
Jerry: Oh, gee, I can't talk right now. Why don't you give me your home number and I'll call you later?
Telemarketer: No.
Jerry: Well, now you know how I feel. [Jerry hangs up phone]
So let's not give Apple a free pass on this one. The company continues to push the message that they're helping the economy by allowing "app developers" to earn a living from putting software on Apple devices, but they know the economic forces at play.
I'm not maligning anyone, though. Frankly, this idea that software is intrinsically valuable is dangerous - economic value comes from either improving efficiency, satisfying a need or growing the entire market. Software is just the automation of the means to achieve those goals.
of course privacy is important and a]Apple’s policies are correct, and ultimately this will help smaller developers. But do NOT assume that any developer complaining is lazy. You’re wrong that that is a motivation.
But, I get your point, never attribute to a simple, smart business decision what you can attribute to nefarious greed, especially if you can wrap it in a quasi-conspiracy theory.
Apple are quick to claim how many apps and how many jobs have been generated off the App Store, but a lot of that has been on the shoulders of advertising revenue.
I think they're right to be doing what they're doing, but if does seem a bit late to the party and opportunistic, with a little whiff of hypocrisy over the self-righteousness.