- Last Active
"No telling yet how this will again affect ad firms, as even with its limitations previously, it was reported that hundreds of millions in revenue were being lost as a result of ITP...." As someone who works for one of the big 5 holding companies, ITP had no measurable impact - work arounds for data stitching and backdoors were identified pretty quickly so no meaningful losses ever surfaced. One work around that worked well was having advertisers drop the cookie from their site so it registered as a 1st party cookie and not a 3rd party. It took Apple a couple of releases to patch that but other methods exist. Maybe smaller performance based firms seen something but collectively it never reached losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Even blocking 3rd party cookies will have a less than expected impact because tech exists and continues to be developed for advertising to exist in a cookie-less world.
glennh said:Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.
Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash, that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store.I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs.Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.
The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE!
If you don't think there's profit built into the 15% - 30% you're crazy and you really have no idea how much money some of these apps really make...Candy Crush alone could support all of Apple's costs and more than likely still make them a profit.
ByteDance is a propaganda machine for the Chinese Govt and everything going on in Xinjiang - are people so blinded by their dislike of Trump that they're just going to ignore that ByteDance itself is a terrible company? They share data they collected with the Chinese Govt for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who it deems is going against China and is contributing to the literal slaughtering of human beings...
lkrupp said:"Apple has applied for many patents regarding aspects of what could become a folding iPhone, and it's been granted many, too”
Steve Jobs claimed Apple had patented the iPhone to the hilt and would go thermonuclear on anyone trying to copy it. But the iPhone to this day is copied by everybody. Apple apparently files for and receives thousands of patents every year.
So why does every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mary Jane sue Apple every chance they get? If a folding iPhone is ever released there will be lawsuits galore. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it.
GeorgeBMac said:NinjaMan said:ByteDance is a propaganda machine for the Chinese Govt and everything going on in Xinjiang - are people so blinded by their dislike of Trump that .....
Are you so blinded by Trump's hate of China?