Apple Responds to Safari 11 Criticism From Advertising Groups: 'People Have a Right to Privacy'

[now i see it]

Anyone right now can accomplish the same thing (avoid cross tracking cookies) by using Private Mode browsing. Once you leave a website while in Private Mode, the cookie that was set is automatically deleted.

This big hubub is all about evil cookies.
Don't want cookies following you around? Use Private Browsing.

 

[FreemanW]

"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice . . . ."

Because, consumer choice is one of their (the Data and Marketing Association and the Network Advertising Initiative, among others) most cherished and revered concerns.

HERE'S MY CHOICE

 

[a.gomez]

There's a huge difference between being shown advertising and being tracked constantly.
[doublepost=1505594271][/doublepost]
I'm sure everyone else on that bus is very glad they're blocking your Netflix access. Stream it through LTE data and pay for it yourself instead of making everyone else suffer.

Seeing how the comment is about how the tech not only knows what to block but also what else you using/browsing... Your point is irrelevant.

 

[tmarks11]

iPhone X $999 or Samsung Note 8 $929. Screw It!.... I rather stay with my iPhone 6

Well there is the iPhone 8 that just got introduced, and the price isn't that much more than when you bought the iPhone 6. Of course, in terms of improvement per $$$ spent, you might as well make that iPhone 6 last for at least another update cycle.

 

[sponch]

Awesome!!!
Remember the old days:
- only 10 minutes of commercials on a hour long TV show. Now it's about 25 minutes.
- No pop up Ads or moving ads on a website.
- Watching a video on a website without forced ads.
- Videos game without in-app purchase or ADs.
- Solicitation phone calls maybe twice a year.
- Walking from one side of the mall to the other without being pestered to try products.
- Not being pestered to fill out surveys every time I buy a product at a store.
Life used to be so pleasant.

- and no Apple product placements in Movies and tv shows

 

[H2SO4]

My take. Whilst there does need to be some control over what advertisers do, be careful what you wish for. Nothing in life is free. All this browsing and googling that we do needs to be paid for. If you've ever done a Google search then all I can say is Pot-Kettle.
Also that rubbish people cite about targeted advertising, really??

 

[dilbert99]

This is one issue I will stand behind Apple on! Down with tracking and targeted advertising!

I actually prefer targeted advertising, I guess it all comes down to transparency of what information is being used for what.
But everyone should have the choice to accept or deny targeted advertising and choose to pay for services instead or have service providers try to come up with some other sort of revenue stream.
[doublepost=1505634412][/doublepost]

I LOVE BEING TRACKED AND LOVE TARGETTED ADS! Said no one ever.

I really hate it when some “group” thinks they speak for consumers with drivel such as the open letter these parasites wrote.

I much prefer targeted ads, but there are other ways to target people without tracking them e.g. explicitly giving details on the kind of ads you want to see.

 

[scaramoosh]

I hate ads... they waste your battery and slowly load in and cause your to make miss-presses.

I've never bought anything as an adult on the back of an ad, I've always bought stuff on the back of research and how much it costs.

 

[ShaneSparkyYYZ]

Apple may have expensive products but at least they’re vocal about privacy and making sure you have it. Thanks for being real 

 

[Pike R. Alpha]

Has any noticed that the granularity on tracking seems to be getting worse in Safari over time...

On a side note - when I finished my install I did my usual round of examining all my privacy settings to see what Apple helpfully changed. When I went to Safari I clicked the Manage Website Data button to see how long the window took to populate. It came up instantly, but instead of all the saved cookies and cache from my recent week's browsing, it had only three cookies: Apple, Yahoo, and Instagram....

I don't know how or what you did, but here, on this website alone, I get 21 cookies of which only one comes from macrumors.com

 

[MLinneer]

I hope this new feature works. After a recent Amazon product search, just about every site I visit has ads for the same product, but from different retailers. It amazes me that Lowe’s knows what I look at on Amazon, or Walmart, or eBay. It’s getting ridiculous.

 

[Sill]

I don't know how or what you did, but here, on this website alone, I get 21 cookies of which only one comes from macrumors.com

I don't doubt it. Cookies are out of hand these days, and the size of the Ghostery info dialog for a given site grows week over week. In my case, as soon as the new Safari opened up to my Apple home page, I went to my preferences and found that in addition to the usual Apple cookie, there were the two from Instagram and Yahoo. Unless Apple was having part of their home page delivered by those two servers, there is no logical reason for there to be cookies from them in a browser from an install that was just a few minutes old.

I should probably go look at the source code for Apple.com/startpage to see if there is indeed any reference to either company.

 

[You are the One]

I don't doubt it. Cookies are out of hand these days, and the size of the Ghostery info dialog for a given site grows week over week. In my case, as soon as the new Safari opened up to my Apple home page, I went to my preferences and found that in addition to the usual Apple cookie, there were the two from Instagram and Yahoo. Unless Apple was having part of their home page delivered by those two servers, there is no logical reason for there to be cookies from them in a browser from an install that was just a few minutes old.

I should probably go look at the source code for Apple.com/startpage to see if there is indeed any reference to either company.

Hi Sill, please do. And I'm using Startpage.com as my search engine as well.

Macrumors.com have a default connection with Twitter, which I don't use so I normally just block it.

 

[Pike R. Alpha]

I don't doubt it. Cookies are out of hand these days, and the size of the Ghostery info dialog for a given site grows week over week. In my case, as soon as the new Safari opened up to my Apple home page, I went to my preferences and found that in addition to the usual Apple cookie, there were the two from Instagram and Yahoo. Unless Apple was having part of their home page delivered by those two servers, there is no logical reason for there to be cookies from them in a browser from an install that was just a few minutes old.

I should probably go look at the source code for Apple.com/startpage to see if there is indeed any reference to either company.

When I visit Apple then I get only one cookie.

p.s. You can use Menu -> Developer > Open Web Inspector -> Storage to see what is stored locally.

 

[v3rlon]

Can you please name one 1 hour TV show in which there are 25 minutes of commercials? I watch many shows whether live on DVR or on Netflix on average episodes are 42+ minutes most of them are closer to the 45 minutes mark, making it 15 - 18 minutes max, and it's usually a mix of actual commercials and other shows on the same network.

Where on earth did you get the 25 minutes of commercials ?

Most 1 hour TV shows run about 43 minutes on the big networks (including titles/credits).

Note that in syndication, there is some speedup done, especially on the end credits, to give more commercial time. But, you are spot on that 25 minutes is excessive.

BUT, on the other end, the estimate is also high. Star Trek TOS episodes were 53 minutes a pop (only 7 minutes of commercials).

And, product placement has become more popular so that your show IS the commercial. Now don't get me wrong, sometimes product placement can be cool (Burn Notice with the Michael Westin voiceover talking about how the active suspension could give you a leg up in a car chase), but it can be HORRIBLE (Smallville Stride gum giving stretchy powers).

So it is a mixed bag.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

The most personal technology must also be the most private. https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

 

[StyxMaker]

They (Apple) just want to make sure they are the only ones that know what you're doing online so the value of their telemetry data is worth more $$$$

Some comments *really* make me wish I could do a thumbs down.

 

[StyxMaker]

I'd be more impressed if Apple stopped accepting $3B/year secretly from Google for allowing them to be the default search engine on iOS.

It’s not a secret, and you can opt to use a different search engine.

 

[Gameboy70]

i support Apple on this, but you need to understand the other point of view: is that the free web is not free. It cost money to have a website. Unless you pay a subscription fee, you news, entertainment, and everything you do on the web is supported by advertisement. Even your favorite blog, such as MacRumors, is supported by advertisers. If those advertisers don't get a good return on their investment, will simply move on.

Advertisement supporting content is nothing new, heck, to this day, great shows on on TV get canceled simply because they failed to generate enough audience (enough viewers of tv ads).

It's typical; we want all the content: ithe best shows the best movies the best apps, we want it all for free, and we don't want to see advertisements.

What's being challenged here isn't advertising generally, but cross-site tracking specifically, where third party ad networks access your browser history to serve more "relevant" ads.

This is different from online advertising a decade ago, where individual websites would sell spots to advertisers directly (like Daring Fireball still does). Now the transactions are sped up through ad networks that have automated the process of looking for unsold inventory and matchmaking the various publishers' content profiles with users' browser histories. Since the process is automated, CPM revenues have become a race to the bottom, so ads necessarily become more frequent and heavy handed, prompting users to retaliate with ad blockers, which makes publishers resort to desperate measures like email opt-ins and other obnoxious popups.

Smarter publishers like Stratechery, Relay FM, and MacStories have escaped this conundrum by offering subscriptions for premium content. It's more labor intensive to create extra content, so most publishers still monetize through ad networks, but I don't think that will be the case in five years.

 

[StyxMaker]

"customers prefer targeted ads" <---- You've got to be kidding me. They actually said that

Most of the ‘targeted’ adds make me chuckle. They are always for items I’ve already purchased, or something I looked up out of curiosity but never intended to buy.

That being said, I have this option turned on.

 

[Gameboy70]

True, but reducing the ability to target the ads reduces their effectiveness. Advertisers will pay less for less effective ad placement, which means websites will have to make up for the lost income.

I don't think that's how things would play out. Advertisers would have two choices: keep advertising or let their competitors fill the vacuum. CPMs have been declining for over five years, but it's still a publisher's market.
Quality writers and podcasters can always monetize in other ways, but advertisers will always need websites and podcasts.

 

[kazmac]

This I can agree with. Their commitment to privacy is a a prominent reason why I stick around.

 

[BootsWalking]

It’s not a secret, and you can opt to use a different search engine.

It was a secret until the details were revealed during the Oracle trial. While it was still a secret, Tim Cook was railing against other companies like Google for making products out of their customers, then we learned Apple was doing it as well all long. So not only does Apple make money off the currency of selling privacy but they're hypocrites as well.

 

[Constable Odo]

Who wants to watch commercial ads if they can avoid them? I understand that they're useful in providing revenue and such but still... Do advertising groups think that average consumer is going to side with them to get bombarded with ads. I know Google will be on the side of the ad groups because that's how Google makes its money. Well, all the people who love watching ads can support Google and the ad groups and I hope they're happy watching commercials like OTA television shows have. I'm sorry but I have to back Apple in this case. Users are given the option to turn off cross-site tracking if they want to, so it's not as though Apple is absolutely stopping it. The advertising groups probably know most users will prevent cross-site tracking and that's why they're complaining. Too bad for them.

 

[StyxMaker]

As with current add-on ad-blockers, the more aggressive websites will require you to enable cross-tracking before proceeding to the site. At the very least, you will be able to detect which companies are actively doing the tracking as part of their web-generated income.

And I’ll immediately take my business to someone else.