Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Privacy Features Have Cost Social Media Companies Nearly $10 Billion in Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would have preferred a $100 billion hit rather than just $10, but it's a start.
Until all tracking/ads become opt-in, I support all of them going all out of business - every last one, big or small.
Until all tracking/ads become opt-in, I support all of them going all out of business - every last one, big or small.
Apple should not be injecting ads in its Apple Music playlists | AppleInsider
There are now advertisements for first-party Apple radio shows within the paid Apple Music service — and there absolutely shouldn't be.
appleinsider.com
I get your point and there should be a strong rebuke of Apple too.Apple should not be injecting ads in its Apple Music playlists | AppleInsider
There are now advertisements for first-party Apple radio shows within the paid Apple Music service — and there absolutely shouldn't be.
What do these ads have to do with the forum topic?Apple should not be injecting ads in its Apple Music playlists | AppleInsider
There are now advertisements for first-party Apple radio shows within the paid Apple Music service — and there absolutely shouldn't be.
I guess the idea is that Apple takes pride in its fight against ad companies, while at the same time it resorts itself to even more despicable ad-related practices.
If these ads are just random ads imo, it’s a “so what? I don’t think they should be fully paid version but I can ignore them.
Whether you can (and are willing to) ignore them is irrelevant. They shouldn't be there in the first place. There mere existence is inexcusable.
Unless it's just an inadvertent bug, and Apple owns up to it, that is.
I disagree. If these ads are not data driven I don’t care. That you believe these ads are inexcusable to me is a big so what. If these ads are there due to a bug somewhere apple should fix them.
Apple has never been against ads, but the tracking that goes on behind targeted ads. It's not a neither/nor proposition.
Good for you. You have the right not to care. That link was posted for people who do. Just ignore it.
Not against ads per se, but against dishonest practices in regard to ads. And now Apple is being dishonest as well (assuming that it's intentional, not a bug).
Not really, and it goes back to how Apple has defined the terms surrounding ATT.
Apple defines tracking as an app following you across apps and websites from other companies with the goal of creating a personalised profile. Since third-party apps and websites are involved, the implication is there is also data transfer / mixing / crossing present.
Conversely, Apple’s ads business is based on collecting first-party data from Apple-owned apps. No data is transferred or crossed with third-parties in order to create personalized user profiles.
If case you wonder if this is Apple trying to have their cake and eat it too, it's possible, but it's also in line with how W3C defines tracking, so there's precedent. This is also how Apple is able to exclude their own stock apps from being subject to ATT rules while companies like Facebook are.
At the end of the day, privacy (as Apple defines it) is about companies being upfront about what is being done with your data (which is why ATT has a toggle which lets you decide if you want to let yourself be tracked across apps for the purposes of being served personalised ads; in the past, companies like Facebook simply did so without the express approval of their users). You can also opt out of Apple's personalised apps, though the caveat is that this has been turned on by default, while it's off by default for competitors).
In all, I still believe that Apple is best positioned to do what many other companies can't or won't - offer ads in a way that doesn't go against their pro-privacy culture. This would be a win-win scenario, in that users still get some form of ad personalisation without the invasive tracking or profiling, while advertisers can still get their products in front of users.
And by the same token, you have the right to your opinion. However, these ads don’t seem to fit in with the thread premise. (And since MR is a discussion board we all have the right to comment. If you don’t like a particular post, then just ignore it.)
Don't forget actual people with families to feed and children work for the evil ad companies.
You know--your neighbors.
There are actual people with families to feed and children that work for malware organizations, too. I’m sure organized crime involves families that have children, too.
“Wanting to eat” isn’t a justification for whatever a person/organization decides to do to get food.
If you think people working for legitimate companies--legal entities--are in some way like the mob, well...I wish you Godspeed.
If ad companies would take the morally correct approach which is to only track/target people by opt-in only, then people like me would start supporting them. They can profit by contextual advertising, and don't need to be leeching peoples data. Until the time they only operate under an opt-in framework, I personally, could care less if they all go out of business, and all employees go bankrupt or have to sling burgers and McD.
How legitimate is any company that built its empire on insidious tracking? Perhaps you may be unaware how difficult it is to stop tracking of ones every move on the internet. There is no legitimate need for that.
Value added services should be paid for directly by customers. Others, that choose "free" services should be able to do so by opt-in tracking/ads.