cgWerks

Hedware said:
So for me I will only buy apps from the Apple App Store and will only pay via that Store’s payment gateway. 

Same here, but partly because I can't think of an app I need on iOS, like MakeMKV (for example), on MacOS. If I could, I'd probably think differently about this.

ericthehalfbee said:
Liar. AppleInsider is fair. MCaRumors is a known anti-Apple site disguised as a fan site. The fact you can’t see this tells me all I need to know about you.

Different approach from what I usually see. I'm not sure which is more fair. AI pulls down whole posts when things get out of control. MacRumors seems to disappear people. Maybe that happens at AI as well, but I get pretty ticked off when I've spent hours participating in some conversation, and then the whole thing goes away in a poof.

davidw said:
... "Side loading" using Xcode requires an Apple Developer account.  It's not something that the average iDevice user can do themselves. ...

Yeah, it's just obscure and technical enough that it isn't done by many, which keeps things safer as a whole. Well, except for all the bad apps in the App Store.

avon b7 said:
The trickery is mostly web/email related and therefore device independent. There is actually another vector on mobile phones which is SMS. And then you have the age old and eternal problem of old fashioned calls, where someone actually calls you pretending to be someone else and tries to extract information from you. A lot of older people fall for that. 

My banking app always gives me a splash screen on openings on mobile, warning me of phishing, smishing or other kinds of nefarious attempts to get my personal data.

On the bright side, I haven't seen a 'security question' when signing up for an account since the last time I did anything with the government.

foregoneconclusion said:
It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.

Isn't this a bit like, 'there are only 5 flies in my soup, not 100'? Then, there are apps you can't get on the App Store because Apple decides to play politics, like Gab.

Japhey said:

Like a spoiled child who takes all his toys and goes home whenever things don’t go his way. Just genius-level thinking there. 

I'm hoping this is more a reflection of legacy-media and social-media these days, and not reflective of the state of the masses. But, I'm not so certain any longer.

Oh the humanity! Companies wanting to advertise might actually have to do some work and learn something.
I wonder if they realize advertising was around before Facebook ad-tracking? You wouldn't think so.

mattinoz said:

In the old days publishers curated the content and ads together into an attractive product people wanted to pay for. Seem that skill has lost any random ad smashed against any content just because some point in the last little while I took an interest in a fleeting idea and ignoring completely the continued interest in the content. 

Advertising is drunk on money and doesn’t want us finding it never had any skill. The internet gave them for a time a big enough audience for dumb luck to work. 

Well put!

It has been interesting, being an excessive podcast listener, watching that industry wrestle with this. It started out nearly anti-ad, then transitioned to various forms of ads, some more effective than others (and the most effective kind actually take some work). Now the big media companies and others are getting involved and loudly complaining about the lack of data (which is far more than any traditional media ever had). Hopefully they don't ruin podcasting!

They basically want a bunch of data handed to them on a platter, and then be able to depend on algorithms or idiots to fill content up with advertising.

The most effective form of advertising in podcasting (by a wide margin) is a 'host read' ad that is a good fit for the audience. I say 'host read' because the most effective form of that, is simply the host talking about their own use, excitement, and advocacy for the particular product who is sponsoring the show. (ex: I've purchased a couple products I've heard Marco Arment talk about on ATP over the years. He's a master at it.)

But, again, this takes work. It takes a company finding good podcasts with the right audience, and building a relationship with the podcaster, etc. You can't just throw some cash at a 'ad buyer' who shotguns your 'campaign' across hundreds of podcasts. The reason they want all the data is that they *think* such data combined with algorithms can exceed the performance of what I just described. That's total BS sold to them by Facebook and Google, and they bought it. Now they think they can't live without it.

For the end consumer, it is mostly lose-lose. For the content producer, it means they get paid pennies (I guess rather than nothing?). With a bit of work and sense, it could be much more a win-win. As much as I like to think of the panacea of ad-less content, well-done advertising is often beneficial. I'm actually torn on good-ad or ad-free content. I think some combination of value4value and host-read ads is about perfect for everyone.

If this continues, it could become easy money for various countries. They can get millions and billions out of Apple a lot easier than their citizens, right?