Google Launching Privacy Sandbox to Limit Ad Tracking on Android, Calls 'Blunt Approaches' Like Apple's 'Ineffective'

[gaximus]

Gotta call BS on this. Which model?

INSIGNIA NS-50DF711SE21, and it might have been a bluetooth module, not wifi. They sent me a new remote but that didn't work. They only thing I could do with it was boot it into "Store Mode" which looked awful, and couldn't change any of the display settings.

 

[gaximus]

Most of the stuff FB lets you do is already available, securely, privately and at no additional charge in the Appleverse. You can share pictures and video with people you select and they can like them, comment on them etc. Engage in group chats. Privately message people. Make video calls and group video calls. Send and receive money. In fact, as I think of the feature set of Facebook vs the Appleverse, I cant think of a feature that Facebook has that Appleverse does not. The price of entry to all that is an Apple device, and all of your stuff is available on all the Apple stuff you own.

And that stuff works great for everyone I know that's in the AppleVerse, but I have a few friends that just refuse to go Apple. Some can't afford it, some are against it, and one had a jailbroken iPhone 3G 10 years ago and says the experience was awful and hasn't tried iOS since.

 

[Jetscreamer]

This is like hiring a cat burglar to secure your home. Google sell ads, their wall garden must have holes built in.

 

[You’re not me]

I’ve got two words for you google, one is a verb and the other is a pronoun.

 

[ian87w]

Ineffective; because it actually works ?

Exactly, something like ad tracking on a personal device like a phone needs a blunt approach, either I decided to opt in, or I want to opt out, completely.

 

[dba415]

It’s funny how most people trust Google (all the polls prove it) but on macrumors no one does. Gee I wonder if massive fanboyism for Apple is the explanation

 

[Beautyspin]

I don't use Android, but if I did; I wouldn't trust Google

So, you trust this company? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/apple-reaches-quiet-truce-over-iphone-privacy-changes/

 

[Beautyspin]

Okay lemme process this real quick.

Google says Apple taking initiative to limit cross tracking is bad.
Google says we’re going limit cross tracking, by figuring out a different way to limit cross tracking.
Google says we’re so great look at us.

Takeaway: Google realizes what they were doing is bad and people hate it once they know what was going on, and are responding by, we’re still going to do it but figure a different way to do it that is “respectful of your privacy”.

The definition of a fool comes to mind, and something something about a dog returning to its own vomit.

I guess there are people who take anything that Apple says as Gospel truth. Apple knows what to tell its fanboys while doing exactly the opposite. Lockdown Privacy, an app that blocks ad trackers, has called Apple’s policy “functionally useless in stopping third-party tracking.” It performed a variety of tests on top apps and observed that personal data and device information is still “being sent to trackers in almost all cases.”

 

[Beautyspin]

Google was never trustable

So, Apple is? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-scanning-calls-it-an-advancement-in-privacy/

 

[CordovaLark]

I'll believe when I see it.

 

[cmaier]

It’s funny how most people trust Google (all the polls prove it) but on macrumors no one does. Gee I wonder if massive fanboyism for Apple is the explanation

Yeah, all the polls don’t say what you say they say

 

[williedigital]

I’m seriously considering starting a business and creating a social media platform that costs £1/$1 a year and has no tracking, advertising, snooping etc of any kind and making it impossible to do so. Have spoken to a few people that code for a living and they have assured me it can be done. Have quite a bit of money set aside to start it. Bit of a poll for you all…

Would you pay £1/$1 a year for a social media platform with no ads, no tracking of any kind if it was really well coded and offered similar features to Facebook ?

Already have a brilliant brand name, design and list of features that I think would be better than the competition as it is now, never mind what more I could add at a later date.

To add it would be totally platform independent and not reliant on AWS, Google or anybody. Own servers, own rules, own cast iron guarantee of absolutely bo tracking or adverts and I’d encourage professionals to come and visit and check whenever they would want. Basically a good, honest company.

No, because it's a social media company and most people don't want to spend $ on something you get for free. Also, even $7B in revenue wouldn't come close to covering the infrastructure costs.

 

[dba415]

View attachment 1960122

Yeah, all the polls don’t say what you say they say

They say that more people trust Google than Apple.

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

Google’s "products" include a wide variety of software and hardware products/services (see list below). Google is a technology company that happens to generate most of its revenue for their technology product/service offerings through advertising.

You're missing the point. Two of those products are what make up virtually all of Google's revenue. TV stations make money from ads, licensing, merchandising, etc - but they're TV stations, because their primary offering is TV content. Google's primary offerings are AdSense and Google Ads.

They're an advertising company, disguised as a technology company.

 

[monopoly]

Could you resist the urge if Facebook came to you and said “we want to buy your company for $500 million”.

You and your kids/family never have to work again?

I don’t have to work again now if I wanted so not much different lol. I was brought up to have pride and to be a good person. Not enough money in circulation to make me act differently.

 

[monopoly]

As long as you understand that you’ll be putting some of your money in on top of that 70 million each year, then you’ve got a good understanding of the scale of such an effort.

I don’t think you really understand just how far £1m can go if spent wisely never mind 70m.

 

[monopoly]

No, because it's a social media company and most people don't want to spend $ on something you get for free. Also, even $7B in revenue wouldn't come close to covering the infrastructure costs.

Not true. £7b is an obscene amount of money. What do you envisage that is to be so costly? Do you actually realise how much money £7b is when spent wisely??

 

[wanha]

This Google blog post is written to sound as if it is pro-consumer and pro-privacy, but when you really read it carefully, it's actually written as a letter of reassurance to advertisers - basically saying, nothing is going to happen until 2024 at the earliest.

In fact, when Google calls Apple's approach "blunt" and "ineffective", they're not talking about privacy - they're talking about the impact to advertisers.

As other have astutely mentioned here already, this whole thing sounds like Google wanting to simultaneously:
A) sound as if they are pro-privacy (they're not), and
B) to funnel all advertising money into their own system (thereby crippling Facebook, their biggest advertising competitor)

Color me unimpressed.

 

[wanha]

Trust me, it has been extremely effective.

That's because Google is actually not addressing consumers here - they're addressing advertisers.

The whole point of this blog post by Google is to reassure advertisers that they'll be taken care of and that nothing will change on Android until 2024 at the earliest.

 

[Shirasaki]

Heh. Big company fist fight on something that is dead by now. PR boost for them I suppose, just to maintain the illusion. Your data will be collected by so many parties anyways.

 

[msackey]

If you have a Smart TV, you are running Android or WebOS Rancheros

We have a dumb TV. Thank goodness

 

[svish]

Coming from Google, don’t think you can trust much.

 

[wanha]

If you have a Smart TV, you are running Android or WebOS Rancheros

True.

The best way to stay private while using smart TV services is to never hook up your smart TV to the internet in the first place while using an Apple TV (which is connected to the internet) to use all the apps, streams, and services.

 

[cmaier]

They say that more people trust Google than Apple.

Also more people distrust Google than apple.

What they certainly do not show is what was claimed: “most people trust Google”

 

[webkit]

You're missing the point. Two of those products are what make up virtually all of Google's revenue. TV stations make money from ads, licensing, merchandising, etc - but they're TV stations, because their primary offering is TV content. Google's primary offerings are AdSense and Google Ads.

They're an advertising company, disguised as a technology company.

I get the point you are trying to make. I am disagreeing with it. Yes, advertising (and mostly Google Ads) is the primary way Google makes money but it's their various technology related products like search that are the vehicles which generate the traffic and allow the ads to be displayed and make money.

The ad department of TV stations, newspapers, magazines, etc. may be where those companies make most of their money but it's the broadcasts or news and information content, etc. that create the traffic which allows the ads to be displayed and make money. These companies aren't "advertising companies", they are TV station or newspaper or magazine, etc. companies.

Google is a technology company. You are welcome to continue to refer to them as something else if you choose.