4 ms·

But it's chicken and egg, right? They don't have that particular business because they made the choice of privacy long ago? Even if they're not in the ads busin

But it's chicken and egg, right? They don't have that particular business because they made the choice of privacy long ago? Even if they're not in the ads business because of a series of lucky decisions that just happened to steer them this way, there's nothing wrong with touting a selling point.

adamlett 9y ago
No. Apple has had the same business model always, which is to sell you hardware differentiated by software at a premium. Apple doesn't have an advertising-based business model[1] because such a model is fundamentally incompatible with their existing business model. The reason is that for an advertising based model to be truly successful, you have to reach as many consumers as possible, which ultimately means that your product must be free to use for consumers. Apple's stance on privacy is making a virtue out of necessity. [1] Yes, yes, I know: iAd. But how well did that work?
- 013a 9y ago
  I think its more complicated than that. There are reports that Apple has an internal committee, including a high level executive, dubbed their "privacy czars" which are required to unanimously sign off on any instance of user data collection, and this committee has actively limited products like Siri over concerns [1] There's also the San Bernadino customer letter, which has become a defining point in their privacy history [2]. They didn't have to publish that letter; they could have fought it privately or not fought it. There's really no fundamental reason why iAd couldn't have become a more powerful revenue generating part of their platform. They sell enough iPhones to reach a broad market. But, per [1], reports say that the team ran into internal privacy concerns which constantly forced limiting its capabilities. Apple is fundamentally different, in ways that can't solely be explained by their product history and revenue sources. Companies like HP and Samsung make consumer hardware, but also generate revenue by selling their customers' data to third parties. Its clear to me that Apple does consider Privacy a revenue-generating product that they sell. Of course, you can argue that maybe they wouldn't take that stance if they weren't so successful in hardware; that Privacy is a privilege afforded to them because of their success, and less successful companies need that advertising revenue. But now we're arguing hypotheticals, and I'm not going to partake in that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-insight/apple-privacy-czars-grapple-with-internal-conflicts-over-user-data-idUSKCN0WN0BO https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-... [2] https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
  - bob_theslob646 9y ago
    Are you disgreeing with him/her? I cannot tell lol. May you please elaborate on this > Apple is fundamentally different. What you said is just a little confusing considering that they all (the companies you mentioned) manufacturer hardware in some capacity.
    - GeekyBear 9y ago
      Apple's advertising customers certainly felt they were doing things differently. >advertisers became increasingly perturbed that Apple refused to give them access to the wealth of data iAd had on its consumers from Apple's hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts. And it moved slowly to keep up with the latest ad-tech developments, such as cross-device retargeting. Stefan Bardega, media agency ZenithOptimedia's chief digital officer, told us: "iAd has long been a story of unfulfilled potential. Apple has unique customer-level data that is hugely interesting to advertisers but has struggled (despite talented sales teams) to access that data in a way that doesn't conflict with the core business." Another media-agency director who asked not to be named told us iAd got little support from the wider Apple organization He said: "For me, they never understood that they needed to behave like a media owner, rather they could go it alone charging what they wanted, not sharing data, no third-party tracking http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-sales-support-for-iad-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-s...
  - damnyou 9y ago
    Do you really think other companies don't have internal privacy reviews?
    - mikestew 9y ago
      My experience leads me to believe that many other companies have privacy reviews only to the level required to keep them out of legal trouble. It is an inconvenience, not a feature.
  - adamlett 9y ago
    There's really no fundamental reason why iAd couldn't have become a more powerful revenue generating part of their platform. Maybe iAd could have performed slightly better if certain policies had been different. But iAd still had to compete with Google and Facebook whom by virtue of reaching effectively everybody, offer a much more attractive value proposition to most advertisers. Apple simply can't compete with that. And every decision Apple would have to make in order to be more competitive would be at cost of harming the user experience of their products, ie. the very thing that makes them able to charge a premium in the first place. Of course, you can argue that maybe they wouldn't take that stance if they weren't so successful in hardware That's not the argument I'm making. At all. My argument is that advertising as a business model is fundamentally incompatible with selling premium hardware products. To be succesful at one means making strategy choices that prevents you from succesful at the other.
- GeekyBear 9y ago
  Even iAd was a way to allow the sale of ads while still respecting their user's privacy. For instance: >Apple doesn’t like to hand over information about its users, not even to benefit its own business. When the iAd team wanted to use information about users’ iTunes purchases to target ads, Apple execs said no way. https://www.macworld.com/article/3046539/privacy/how-iads-closure-proves-apples-commitment-to-privacy.html https://www.macworld.com/article/3046539/privacy/how-iads-cl...

adamlett 9y ago

No. Apple has had the same business model always, which is to sell you hardware differentiated by software at a premium. Apple doesn't have an advertising-based business model[1] because such a model is fundamentally incompatible with their existing business model. The reason is that for an advertising based model to be truly successful, you have to reach as many consumers as possible, which ultimately means that your product must be free to use for consumers. Apple's stance on privacy is making a virtue out of necessity. [1] Yes, yes, I know: iAd. But how well did that work?

013a 9y ago
I think its more complicated than that. There are reports that Apple has an internal committee, including a high level executive, dubbed their "privacy czars" which are required to unanimously sign off on any instance of user data collection, and this committee has actively limited products like Siri over concerns [1] There's also the San Bernadino customer letter, which has become a defining point in their privacy history [2]. They didn't have to publish that letter; they could have fought it privately or not fought it. There's really no fundamental reason why iAd couldn't have become a more powerful revenue generating part of their platform. They sell enough iPhones to reach a broad market. But, per [1], reports say that the team ran into internal privacy concerns which constantly forced limiting its capabilities. Apple is fundamentally different, in ways that can't solely be explained by their product history and revenue sources. Companies like HP and Samsung make consumer hardware, but also generate revenue by selling their customers' data to third parties. Its clear to me that Apple does consider Privacy a revenue-generating product that they sell. Of course, you can argue that maybe they wouldn't take that stance if they weren't so successful in hardware; that Privacy is a privilege afforded to them because of their success, and less successful companies need that advertising revenue. But now we're arguing hypotheticals, and I'm not going to partake in that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-insight/apple-privacy-czars-grapple-with-internal-conflicts-over-user-data-idUSKCN0WN0BO https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-privacy-... [2] https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
- bob_theslob646 9y ago
  Are you disgreeing with him/her? I cannot tell lol. May you please elaborate on this > Apple is fundamentally different. What you said is just a little confusing considering that they all (the companies you mentioned) manufacturer hardware in some capacity.
  - GeekyBear 9y ago
    Apple's advertising customers certainly felt they were doing things differently. >advertisers became increasingly perturbed that Apple refused to give them access to the wealth of data iAd had on its consumers from Apple's hundreds of millions of iTunes accounts. And it moved slowly to keep up with the latest ad-tech developments, such as cross-device retargeting. Stefan Bardega, media agency ZenithOptimedia's chief digital officer, told us: "iAd has long been a story of unfulfilled potential. Apple has unique customer-level data that is hugely interesting to advertisers but has struggled (despite talented sales teams) to access that data in a way that doesn't conflict with the core business." Another media-agency director who asked not to be named told us iAd got little support from the wider Apple organization He said: "For me, they never understood that they needed to behave like a media owner, rather they could go it alone charging what they wanted, not sharing data, no third-party tracking http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-sales-support-for-iad-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-is-pulling-direct-s...
- damnyou 9y ago
  Do you really think other companies don't have internal privacy reviews?
  - mikestew 9y ago
    My experience leads me to believe that many other companies have privacy reviews only to the level required to keep them out of legal trouble. It is an inconvenience, not a feature.
- adamlett 9y ago
  There's really no fundamental reason why iAd couldn't have become a more powerful revenue generating part of their platform. Maybe iAd could have performed slightly better if certain policies had been different. But iAd still had to compete with Google and Facebook whom by virtue of reaching effectively everybody, offer a much more attractive value proposition to most advertisers. Apple simply can't compete with that. And every decision Apple would have to make in order to be more competitive would be at cost of harming the user experience of their products, ie. the very thing that makes them able to charge a premium in the first place. Of course, you can argue that maybe they wouldn't take that stance if they weren't so successful in hardware That's not the argument I'm making. At all. My argument is that advertising as a business model is fundamentally incompatible with selling premium hardware products. To be succesful at one means making strategy choices that prevents you from succesful at the other.
GeekyBear 9y ago
Even iAd was a way to allow the sale of ads while still respecting their user's privacy. For instance: >Apple doesn’t like to hand over information about its users, not even to benefit its own business. When the iAd team wanted to use information about users’ iTunes purchases to target ads, Apple execs said no way. https://www.macworld.com/article/3046539/privacy/how-iads-closure-proves-apples-commitment-to-privacy.html https://www.macworld.com/article/3046539/privacy/how-iads-cl...