Apple Luring TV Content Partners With Promises of Data Sharing

[tardman91]

My thoughts exactly. And we wound still have to pay for Internet service, most likely from the cable company. They could just jack up prices for Internet service if we don't get a TV package as well.

This is the kicker right here. It would actually cost me more money to "cut the cord." I get my FIOS HD cable and 50/50 internet for $84.99/month. Since my contract is up soon I called today to see what they had to offer, and if I wanted JUST my 50/50 internet, it's $89.99/month! I actually save $5 by getting cable. WTF...
I guess all of these cord cutters must live in areas with cheap broadband options. Here in the Tampa Bay area there isn't squat.

 

[AppleScruff1]

You want proof??

http://bgr.com/2015/03/17/apple-tv-service-viewer-data/

A subscription TV service from Apple is an exciting proposition, but when television networks get involved, compromises must be made. The New York Post has learned that Apple is offering potential partners access to viewer data from its service if they agree to bring their networks on board.

What's so exciting about a subscription service from Apple?

 

[Tech198]

First they took away Ping, then they took away the 4" iPhone, then they started giving your data away!

and they continue to give your data away..

I thought the whole point of this streaming service was NOT to put ads..


There is a reason why i 'cut the cord' and its not to see ads... I see plenty of that already. What this whole business of Apple around "putting up that transparency report to get users to know they don't sell your data ?" Although i never mention third parties,, but ther just nit-picking... privacy is still privacy regardless who gets it.

Then they come out with this..... Just one more reason why they can have it, because none of it it real anyway


You can't trust anyone now days can you..

 

[Mr. Gates]

What's so exciting about a subscription service from Apple?

I will come in gold, silver and space grey ! Duhhhh !

 

[SirCheese]

What's so exciting about a subscription service from Apple?

Because it's Apple! DUH!

 

[DevNull0]

That's why people pay money to buy newspapers and magazines, because they WANT the useful ads.

Really, you think people buy magazines for the ads?

Well I buy them for the articles. And the pictures.

 

[iSee]

The New York Post is the source.
That means they almost certainly have highly significant facts flat wrong.

 

[bozzykid]

Of course they store it, the point is they don't sell it.

They do sell Siri data to third parties. It is funny how people think Apple doesn't profit off of customer data. They do not come close to Google in the amount of data they collect and sell but they do make use of customer data.

 

[dazed]

so when Tim said "Apple doesn't have any interest in users data", he forgot to mention "unless we can make money from it".

If this does happen and they don't anonymize the data then Apple has basically become Google, and that will be a very sad day.

 

[shiseiryu1]

If that is what it takes for a la carte

If Apple can get the content providers to agree on an a la carte model in exchange for better data sharing then I'm ok with that. What I DON'T want is some overpriced package full of crap that I'm not interested in. Let us choose what channels we want to pay for and in exchange you can better target your ads. Sounds like a win-win to me...

 

[drumcat]

Anonymized

The key is that data they collect needs to be anonymized. We have data collected on us all day long. The key is whether my habits will be traced back.

Case in point, I was dumb and looked up a car dealer for an oil change on google maps. When I got home, my in-browser ads were LOADED with other dealers' ads. That creeped me out.

Apple has never tracked me with ads based on my map usage. I'll take an inferior map that doesn't judge me (not that it's inferior anymore). I'm trying to ween away from free stuff because it doesn't take much to be invaded. I think if Apple chooses to sell specific information, they risk MUCH MORE than just losing tv customers. Part of my belief about Apple products is that I won't be betrayed like Google did. Undoing all of that will take a while, but in the end, there's a lesson.

DON'T TAKE CANDY FROM STRANGERS.

 

[Steviejobz]

The cable companies won't just sit and watch their moat get filled up with Apple sand. For this service you will still need a data connection and a high speed one at that. Guess who provides that? You'll just pay more for it under a cord-cutting scenario because you need the cord anyway.

Moreover, cable companies (most) have hedged by owning content providers.

 

[Cubeeless]

Bad move from Apple if true and overpriced on top of it.

 

[samcraig]

The key is that data they collect needs to be anonymized. We have data collected on us all day long. The key is whether my habits will be traced back.

Case in point, I was dumb and looked up a car dealer for an oil change on google maps. When I got home, my in-browser ads were LOADED with other dealers' ads. That creeped me out.

Apple has never tracked me with ads based on my map usage. I'll take an inferior map that doesn't judge me (not that it's inferior anymore). I'm trying to ween away from free stuff because it doesn't take much to be invaded. I think if Apple chooses to sell specific information, they risk MUCH MORE than just losing tv customers. Part of my belief about Apple products is that I won't be betrayed like Google did. Undoing all of that will take a while, but in the end, there's a lesson.

DON'T TAKE CANDY FROM STRANGERS.

First of all - you were still anonymous.
Second - While Google offers a service to remarket to you, at no time did the advertiser know who you were other than the fact they knew you visited the site and looked them up. They likely have a google ad words retargeting program and are spending money to market to someone who has expressed interest in their service. Betrayed? Strong word there.

At the end of the day - you are always going to be anonymous to the advertiser if the company who has your data has any intention of keeping you and/or not violating compliance laws in regards to PII.

As so much of google's business is predicated on data, it is in their very best interest to keep your info private from 3rd parties.

Same goes for Apple. If they enter into an agreement to share information, I would be very surprised to learn it was actual personal information vs. a device ID, cookie or whatnot that's been anonymized.

 

[citysnaps]

Funny watching most here getting all frothed up based on information from the New York Post and sourced by "one source familiar with the talks."

 

[a0me]

People think too highly of themselves if they think their anonymous TV watching data should be private.

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

You princesses need to stop being such narcissists. You'll get a better viewing experience that way.

To exemplify what this means: If you're a 20 year old male, it means you'll now get ads for video games when you watch a show, instead of ads for feminine hygiene products.

You are going to appreciate the ads for video games. Most people find useful ads useful, and are turned off by unuseful ads. That's why people pay money to buy newspapers and magazines, because they WANT the useful ads.

There are far too many narcissistic princesses complaining about things they like anyways.

Would you say the same thing if Google was doing the same thing?
I get your point but there are a lot of double standard in Apple forums.

 

[kingtj]

re: cord cutting

Yeah.... The bottom line is, people usually want to watch the same content, produced by the same small set of content providers. No matter who is reselling that content and delivering it to you to watch it, they've got to negotiate annual deals to carry it and those prices are going to be pretty high (and usually going up each time negotiations are due).

Meanwhile, most of us with suitable high-speed internet for streaming television (especially if you're talking about HD broadcasts) are getting it from providers like the local cable company who already negotiated all of these programming deals on the content and resell it to all takers. They're not going to price the internet service in a manner that makes it a much better deal for you to pay someone ELSE for the TV content!

The biggest advantage to streaming broadcasting instead of a satellite or cable subscription is probably the ability to be more selective. If you don't watch sports on TV anyway (like our family), why pay for a cable TV bundle that includes several ESPN stations? Your money might be better spent on several subscriptions to services like Amazon, Netflix or Hulu Plus - where your monthly cost might be similar in the end, but you're getting more of the types of content you'd actually watch.

Personally, I watch so little TV, I'm just fine doing nothing but picking up local stations with an antenna (free HD quality too!). But Comcast has broadband priced in such a way that it's only about $10 more to take their bundle with 60 or so TV channels + your 50 or 100mbit broadband than to get the broadband by itself. So yeah, it seems silly NOT to just pay the extra $10 and let them give you the TV content too. (Less fussing with antenna positioning for various local stations to get the best possible reception too, that way.)

This is the kicker right here. It would actually cost me more money to "cut the cord." I get my FIOS HD cable and 50/50 internet for $84.99/month. Since my contract is up soon I called today to see what they had to offer, and if I wanted JUST my 50/50 internet, it's $89.99/month! I actually save $5 by getting cable. WTF...
I guess all of these cord cutters must live in areas with cheap broadband options. Here in the Tampa Bay area there isn't squat.

 

[mozumder]

Really, you think people buy magazines for the ads?

Well I buy them for the articles. And the pictures.

Yes. That's why people buy magazines. Because they value them as shopping catalogues. They don't read them for the articles. They get that info online.

Fashion magazines boast they have 800+ pages, with 750 of them ads.

 

[samcraig]

Steve: I've cracked TV!


... just wait until after I'm dead to invoke the plan to share our user's data outside of our walled garden.


I tease. Sincerely. All in fun.

 

[technosix]

Tim flat out lies with "and we make a little bit of money." So I don't exactly trust whatever other statement he said that was connected to that whopper.

I'd rewrite it as "Apple" collects our data and goes silent.

Lying in today's pro-government environment isn't lying, it's all in the interpretation ...(maybe/maybe not) it starts at the top, is condoned by the powerful, talking heads that fear truth, and is completely out of anyone's control at this late date.

Wrapped in warm fuzzy dialogs that many of the masses actually believe, there's no point in getting frustrated. It's only going to get worse /better depending on your perspective.

 

[RockSpider]

Because it's Apple! DUH!

Yep, double !DUH!
Just take my money Apple.

 

[garya73]

I at least hope they are at least releasing a better version of the Apple TV for this upcoming expansion.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I will come in gold, silver and space grey ! Duhhhh !

Wow! Not just the Apple TV unit itself, but also the subscription service will come in all those magical colors?

How have you been my old friend?

----------

Because it's Apple! DUH!

Silly me, CBS will be better on Apple than it will be elsewhere.

----------

Steve: I've cracked TV!


... just wait until after I'm dead to invoke the plan to share our user's data outside of our walled garden.


I tease. Sincerely. All in fun.

There are probably a few here who are already sticking pins in a voodoo doll with your name on it.

----------

Really, you think people buy magazines for the ads?

Well I buy them for the articles. And the pictures.

Some just for the pictures.

 

[69Mustang]

Apple will never do this, they have stated many times they won't sell your data, this information is false.

It's clear you have a lack of understanding of how Google and Apple use customer data for advertising. Apple doesn't sell your data. Neither does Google. That's not how Google makes money. Google and Apple sell ad space. Google just sells a crap ton more.

It's not the same though, Apple is in the business of selling devices, not selling data. One of Apple's key strengths is privacy, if you don't know that then I guess you don't follow Apple much. But feel free to quote me in June if I'm proved wrong.

Neither company sells your data. Both use anonymized customer data to sell ad space. Apple's privacy policy explicitly tells you they use your anonymous data for advertising; just like Google.


Short answer, they don't sell customer data. They do share customer data. They have done so for a long time. Read the privacy policy. Apple classifies data in two categories: personal and non-personal.
Personal information is data that can be used to identify or contact a single person.
Here's what Apple says about non-personal data: We also collect data in a form that does not, on its own, permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose.

You may wonder what constitutes non-personal data. Wonder no more:
We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, referrer URL, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising.

Apple also shares location data: To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. Where available, location-based services may use GPS, Bluetooth, and your IP Address, along with crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations, and other technologies to determine your devices’ approximate location.

This is extremely similar to Google's privacy policy. As a matter of fact, a lot of the language is almost exactly the same. Apple is not doing evil and neither is Google. Apple is just better at hardware and Google is better at selling ads. Again, neither sells your data.

Apologies for length.

 

[flaw600]

They do sell Siri data to third parties. It is funny how people think Apple doesn't profit off of customer data. They do not come close to Google in the amount of data they collect and sell but they do make use of customer data.

This is incorrect. Go back and read the privacy agreement. They don't sell Siri data. They share anonymized data with groups who specialize in language meaning and decryption who report back to Apple what a particular phrase meant, etc. so that Siri itself can be bettered. That's the key difference here. They share date to make their product, Siri better, not to make money.

----------

It's clear you have a lack of understanding of how Google and Apple use customer data for advertising. Apple doesn't sell your data. Neither does Google. That's not how Google makes money. Google and Apple sell ad space. Google just sells a crap ton more.



Neither company sells your data. Both use anonymized customer data to sell ad space. Apple's privacy policy explicitly tells you they use your anonymous data for advertising; just like Google.



Short answer, they don't sell customer data. They do share customer data. They have done so for a long time. Read the privacy policy. Apple classifies data in two categories: personal and non-personal.
Personal information is data that can be used to identify or contact a single person.
Here's what Apple says about non-personal data: We also collect data in a form that does not, on its own, permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose.

You may wonder what constitutes non-personal data. Wonder no more:
We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, referrer URL, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising.

Apple also shares location data: To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. Where available, location-based services may use GPS, Bluetooth, and your IP Address, along with crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations, and other technologies to determine your devices’ approximate location.

This is extremely similar to Google's privacy policy. As a matter of fact, a lot of the language is almost exactly the same. Apple is not doing evil and neither is Google. Apple is just better at hardware and Google is better at selling ads. Again, neither sells your data.

Apologies for length.

Well there's a difference. Apple doesn't share targeted data. I don't get targeted ads based on the information Apple shares, unlike Google where within a minute of me searching for food I'll suddenly have food-related ads. How do I know this? Because I keep getting ads that have nothing to do with my behavior patterns whenever Apple shares ads, whereas with Google I do.

Unlike Google, Apple doesn't specifically target advertisers. That's not their business model. Anyone who signs up and uses their iAd service gets anonymous data on who clicked on that ad. No cookies or anything like Google uses to make it targeted data. And unlike Google, they specifically have a do-not-track option and you have the ability to reset your ad identifier and iOS 8 spoofs your MAC address. Google's business model is ads; Apple's is not. Apple does a much better job at a) keeping data non-targeted and b) communicating that fact.

That being said, I have no problem with targeted data. It's true - I don't buy newspapers, etc. to see the ads (some, actually do). But if I'm going to see the ads regardless I'd rather see ads that appealed to me than ads that don't. So no, I don't lambast Google for their targeted data either.