5 ms·

Pop the champagne bottle on this news. The ad industry has been consistently sucking money out of smaller content producers and consolidated behemoths like FB a

Pop the champagne bottle on this news. The ad industry has been consistently sucking money out of smaller content producers and consolidated behemoths like FB and Google. Apple being the only browser player who can afford to do such a move, how is this not good news? Edit Waiting for Microsoft to move next

clarkenheim 9y ago
The features in Safari only harms the smaller companies who's domain is not in the visited sites list. the behemoths like Google who always have a first party cookie dont have a problem with the feature and therefore get even more control over online advertising.
- samsonradu 9y ago
  I agree that it harms smaller companies (though some are not that small), but I see this as a big step in the right direction. I think the big players can only be stopped by legal means anyway.
  - ThorAndZeus 9y ago
    I agree this is definitely a step in the right direction. At very least it (hopefully) makes the public at large aware of the issue.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Not if people install a content blocker in Safari. Especially since the same blockers also work in the newer WKWebView that's embedded into apps.
  - goalieca 9y ago
    Highly recommend installing Firefox focus. It will integrate its blockers into safari.
  - eridius 9y ago
    Nitpick: The blockers work in SFSafariBrowserViewController, but they're not installed in WKWebView (you can of course install your own blockers into your WKWebView, but you don't get the ones from the app store; this makes sense because otherwise there's too much potential for screwing with webviews that show content curated by the containing app).
- IBM 9y ago
  The consolidation of online advertising is a real problem, but I don't think Apple should be making product decisions to preserve competition in the ad market. Preserving competition is literally the job of antitrust regulators and that is the avenue to address concentration in markets. Fortunately they seem to be waking up to this.
- drb91 9y ago
  This attitude is exactly what makes the ad networks money. You really think thise small sites will continue without a sustainable source of real, verifiable revenue? People who make content worth something to me should get that money honestly, not baiting me onto the site to get ad revenue and subtly lowering my quality of living and happiness. Nobody deserves ad revenue.
nopriorarrests 9y ago
Microsoft started doing ads in Windows 10 and, more importantly, they have bought LinkedIn. One of the most obvious ways to monetize it, other than paid services of course, is to deliver highly targeted ads. They know your age, your occupation and can guess your income more or less precisely. I won't hold my breath.
- user5994461 9y ago
  Linkedin has companies and recruiters pay a huge premium to reach you. They shouldn't need stupid advertising.
Avamander 9y ago
pop Though, Google getting hit and Google making internet specs, I don't have any doubt they'll add something there to track.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jasonkostempski 9y ago
What do you think is holding Firefox back from doing the same?
- samsonradu 9y ago
  That’s a good question. I’d assume they have to little of a market share and is too fragile to piss off anybody. But this is just a guess so looking forward to other opinions on this.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >What do you think is holding Firefox back from doing the same? Probably the fact that Google pays them billions of dollars.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > Probably the fact that Google pays them billions of dollars. Isn't that over? Their default search engine is Yahoo now, IIRC.
    - ovao 9y ago
      Google is now the default search provider in U.S. and Canada.
    - 2xlbuds 9y ago
      No, they made a new deal with google and ended theirs with Yahoo late last year. http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-back-its-firefoxs-default-search-engine-again-after-mozilla-ends-yahoo-deal/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-back-its-firefoxs-defau...
- starsinspace 9y ago
  Good question... I often wonder why Mozilla talks so much about privacy and user-rights, but then in reality does so little in Firefox to implement them by technical means. Why isn't their tracking-blocking the best among major browsers? Why is Firefox still so easily fingerprintable, as confirmed by EFF's Panopticlick? But then again when you know the recent stories like Firefox+Cliqz... it doesn't really leave questions open...

clarkenheim 9y ago

The features in Safari only harms the smaller companies who's domain is not in the visited sites list. the behemoths like Google who always have a first party cookie dont have a problem with the feature and therefore get even more control over online advertising.

samsonradu 9y ago
I agree that it harms smaller companies (though some are not that small), but I see this as a big step in the right direction. I think the big players can only be stopped by legal means anyway.
- ThorAndZeus 9y ago
  I agree this is definitely a step in the right direction. At very least it (hopefully) makes the public at large aware of the issue.
scarface74 9y ago
Not if people install a content blocker in Safari. Especially since the same blockers also work in the newer WKWebView that's embedded into apps.
- goalieca 9y ago
  Highly recommend installing Firefox focus. It will integrate its blockers into safari.
- eridius 9y ago
  Nitpick: The blockers work in SFSafariBrowserViewController, but they're not installed in WKWebView (you can of course install your own blockers into your WKWebView, but you don't get the ones from the app store; this makes sense because otherwise there's too much potential for screwing with webviews that show content curated by the containing app).
IBM 9y ago
The consolidation of online advertising is a real problem, but I don't think Apple should be making product decisions to preserve competition in the ad market. Preserving competition is literally the job of antitrust regulators and that is the avenue to address concentration in markets. Fortunately they seem to be waking up to this.
drb91 9y ago
This attitude is exactly what makes the ad networks money. You really think thise small sites will continue without a sustainable source of real, verifiable revenue? People who make content worth something to me should get that money honestly, not baiting me onto the site to get ad revenue and subtly lowering my quality of living and happiness. Nobody deserves ad revenue.

nopriorarrests 9y ago

Microsoft started doing ads in Windows 10 and, more importantly, they have bought LinkedIn. One of the most obvious ways to monetize it, other than paid services of course, is to deliver highly targeted ads. They know your age, your occupation and can guess your income more or less precisely. I won't hold my breath.

user5994461 9y ago
Linkedin has companies and recruiters pay a huge premium to reach you. They shouldn't need stupid advertising.

Avamander 9y ago

pop Though, Google getting hit and Google making internet specs, I don't have any doubt they'll add something there to track.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jasonkostempski 9y ago

What do you think is holding Firefox back from doing the same?

samsonradu 9y ago
That’s a good question. I’d assume they have to little of a market share and is too fragile to piss off anybody. But this is just a guess so looking forward to other opinions on this.
aphextron 9y ago
>What do you think is holding Firefox back from doing the same? Probably the fact that Google pays them billions of dollars.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > Probably the fact that Google pays them billions of dollars. Isn't that over? Their default search engine is Yahoo now, IIRC.
  - ovao 9y ago
    Google is now the default search provider in U.S. and Canada.
  - 2xlbuds 9y ago
    No, they made a new deal with google and ended theirs with Yahoo late last year. http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-back-its-firefoxs-default-search-engine-again-after-mozilla-ends-yahoo-deal/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-back-its-firefoxs-defau...
starsinspace 9y ago
Good question... I often wonder why Mozilla talks so much about privacy and user-rights, but then in reality does so little in Firefox to implement them by technical means. Why isn't their tracking-blocking the best among major browsers? Why is Firefox still so easily fingerprintable, as confirmed by EFF's Panopticlick? But then again when you know the recent stories like Firefox+Cliqz... it doesn't really leave questions open...