> “We also want to work across the industry (ideally including Apple) longer-term to address more robust, cross-device advertising targeting and measurement capabilities that are also consumer friendly.”
Just to be clear: you want that. Whatever lies you tell yourself to get to sleep at night, no one outside your parasitic industry wants this. I, for one, absolutely 100% do not want you to target and measure me robustly across devices.
Designing your company so that you share your customer's incentives is a major source of Apple's success. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft don't seem to even grasp the concept.
Pop the champagne bottle on this news. The ad industry has been consistently sucking money out of smaller content producers and consolidated behemoths like FB and Google. Apple being the only browser player who can afford to do such a move, how is this not good news?
Waiting for Microsoft to move next
I think you have to keep in mind that this isn't particularly benevolence, but ecosystem pruning.
Apple would prefer that everything be conducted in apps on mobile where they can take a 30% cut of initial sale and IAP revenue and not on the open web where most of these ads take place.
I think I speak for many when I say: "Cry me a river."
It's a shame their revenue only got cut by 1/5 and not 1/1.
They said the same thing when browsers started blocking pop-ups.
The advertising industry will survive.
I'm quite happy with Apple; they are providing a needed service.
Ads are one of the top vectors for malware and have been for years. I have a right to not be tracked, my data sold for money (and I get no profit), and generally my privacy invaded. I don't allow it and have not since I was able to understand the threat and mitigate.
I run a Pi-hole on my home network and I also run one at work, as I work for a small business. Works like a charm. I also use uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes, Privacy Badger, No Coin and a couple of others on every machine I control. I disallow my browser from sharing data like fonts installed, visited history, etc. I disallow HTTP/S referrer, geo location, network prefetch, and more. I use a proxy server and sometimes a VPN. I prevent WebRTC from leaking my private address schema. What ads? I also run only unix-like operating systems running fully open source software.
You can even take advantage of a Pi-hole by passing your phones traffic through your home network even when you're away. Defense in depth to avoid the dreck.
"Advertising technology firm Criteo, one of the largest in the industry, says that the Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) feature for Safari, which holds 15% of the global browser market, is likely to cut its 2018 revenue by more than a fifth compared to projections made before ITP was announced."
Wow! A feature which doesn't block ads, in 15% of the browsers, is going to cut over 20% of this poor company's revenue.
I wonder if it's possible to make an opt-in ad network that could take the place of what existed before. Is there any way ad-supported monetization strategies and the free/open web can co-exist? While the current system is indeed terrible (buggy, overbearing ads taking valuable bandwidth and screen space, pervasive tracking, etc) is what we want really an arms race between ad companies and the rest of the internet?
As much as I dislike overbearing ads and marketing, a "free" web should enable enable monetization strategies I like as well as ones I don't like.
Could an opt-in ad network work?
Let's say you like the work of some content creator -- is there no ad network currently that you can go into, register preferences, allow/add the cookie (maybe download a browser plugin that inserts it for you on registered sites), and enable you to pay the content creator by way of watching an ad from time to time? Even something that did a monthly fee (like twitch) for just any kind of content? Surely this exists already and I just haven't heard of it yet -- the only thing similar I can think of is Flattr/Patreon.
Fun anecdote: my friends christmas gift for his wife was revealed pre-christmas. He bought a trip to London and a particular theater visit that had some special significance to her. But, he was doing all the planning on their shared computer so it started showing ads for this, so she added A, B, and C and in the end wasn't very surprised on christmas eve (still happy though).
Can someone from the AD industry list a few (3 or more) legitimate uses for ‘pervasive’ tracking.
Fuck advertisers. The last thing in the world I want to do is pay thousands of dollars for a device/OS/other product, only to have the company not only sell me out to advertisers, but also turn around and waste my time peddling me shit I don't want.
I think a more-accurate title would be "Ad companies can make millions with web bugs."
These features cannot “cost” ad companies something, any more than my higher fence “costs” thieves in lost opportunities.
Ad companies survived with basic magazine-style ads. The only reason they complain now is that they are being forced to shift from “absurd money grab” to “ordinary company profit” for the first time in years. And there are small violins everywhere playing for these whiners.
What can we do that would cost ad companies billions?
> Criteo, one of the largest in the industry, says that the Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) feature for Safari, which holds 15% of the global browser market, is likely to cut its 2018 revenue by more than a fifth compared to projections made before ITP was announced.
If Safari is 15% of the browser market, how is this causing a 20% drop in revenue?
I like ads that are targeted to my interests. Far, far better to see ads for SaaS tools on Facebook than the standard generic or offensive crap. I help Facebook every chance I get, via the UI to signal when I like an ad vs. when I don't.
Same with Carbon ads. If all Internet advertising looked like that I wouldn't care at all.
I think (well, hope) that internet content creators will start to figure out different monetization strategies. Do online ads even show any kind of ROI? I suppose they must, but I'm curious what kind of numbers they actually get.
It seems a lot of the tracking that is happening is in an effort for ad network companies to show their value. I'm hoping that eventually advertisers will realize that it isn't really worth their money to continue throwing money into the black hole that is internet ads.
We really need a new model for the ad economy. Brendan Eich is making some promising steps in the direction with Basic Attention Token (BAT)
I'm wondering how long we'll have to wait before iAd 2.0 is launched as the only ad service offering tracking on Apple devices.
Why would The Guardian be against privacy?
I helped a friend set up his new Samsung phone and was surprised to see the browser nagging us about a installing adblockers and anti-trackers. Looks like Samsung too is taking privacy seriously.
Happy to see things are improving, it was a wild west for a while...
>> Internet advertising firms are losing hundreds of millions of dollars following the introduction of a new ...
Was this number calculated by the same people that calculated that media and software companies loose billions due to piracy?
It costs them nothing, because there was never any data Apple was sharing. They should look at the differential privacy data Apple was talking about, and maybe that will be better than nothing.
No one owes these ad companies their business model. They took advantage of the inherent insecure nature of internet and preyed on users all the time.
I am very much against regulations a la what EU is doing but at the same time I acknowledge that monopolies are evil and bad. There is a reason countries have antimonopoly laws and it puzzles me why we do not have a solution yet to fight against the global monopolies like Google. I mean this is something that obviously free market cannot solve on its own.
I find some irony that my content blocker app blocks the guardian’s article about ads.
What would happen if ads were illegal?
Good. We need an ad apocalypse
Costs them? I don't think that's the right expression.
More like cuts their income/profits.
Once again, free market solves the problem more efficiently than any regulation would: Apple sees that users needs privacy, uses it's position to capitalize on that, everybody's happy and users who don't care about it that much (like me) are free to choose other phone manufacturers and pay less.
I used to work for an ad company, and a frequent thing missed in these articles is that the ad company isn't the only one who looses out.
Ad companies take some percentage of revenue as a fee. If they're loosing out, then three other people are also loosing out:
* The advertiser, who no longer gets their ad in front of the right audience. Now they're stuck advertising their potentially excellent product to people who have no use/desire for it. Selling their product now costs more, and it might make an otherwise profitable product not work out.
* The content producer. The person who made that webpage/video/funny meme. They only did it for ad revenue. Now that revenue is reduced, they'll have to make do with a shittier camera or will have to get a side job.
* You. You now have to put up with more lower value ads. They tend to be less useful to you (you might think normal ads aren't useful, but these are even more annoying and even less useful). That on top of the shittier content and fewer worse products available to buy from the above two reasons.