8 ms·
The context for this proposal is NOT that, in a vacuum, ad-tracking is a desirable feature of HTML. The context for this proposal is Apple has already been rol
by lmkg 7y ago
The context for this proposal is NOT that, in a vacuum, ad-tracking is a desirable feature of HTML.
The context for this proposal is Apple has already been rolling out privacy protections for Safari and iOS, other players (like Big G) have had complaints, and this proposal undercuts those complaints. It's a negotiating tool, effectively.
Apple's privacy protections have made life harder for Google and other folks in the advertising space. Apple has basically tried to make it hard or impossible for anyone to stitch together user activity across different sites and build a profile of that user.
Advertisers have complained about losing ad attribution, and that complaint is legitimate. But, the existing techniques that are used to measure ad attribution also allow a excessive amount of additional data to be collected. Arguably, the ad attribution angle is just a PR-friendly fig leaf over what they're really worried about, which is user profiling.
So, Apple's counter-proposal: Here is a way to get ad attribution! Also, by the way, it doesn't allow user profiling, but that's ok, right? Of course it is. And now, ideally, we get to watch advertisers squirm as they try to come up with outlandish attribution scenarios that justify the collection of profiling data, while struggling to not admit what types of profiling they actually do and what fraction of their valuation that comprises.
- Despegar 7y agoIt also makes it easier to lobby for a privacy law with teeth (which Apple should absolutely be doing if they aren't already) when you can offer a solution to politicians who might have genuine concerns about the economic impact.
- akersten 7y agoI don't think we need legislation that is overly prescriptive by saying "this is the particular feature of the current web that you need to use to be privacy compliant." That's what was wrong with the cookie law, and was one of the improvements the GDPR made - it didn't prescribe any particular solution for advertisers, just told them "you can't do this kind of thing." That is the basis of a good law (prohibit a specific behavior, not the implementation thereof). In that lens though, Apple's proposal is a solution in search of legislation, which screams "regulatory capture" to me - another reason I'm against it.
- Despegar 7y agoThey wouldn't mandate any specific technology, but it makes it infinitely more likely that Congress would pass a GDPR clone when they are confident that doing so wouldn't just destroy every web publisher's business. And it certainly disarms any disingenuous arguments by the ad-tech lobbyists along those lines.
- akersten 7y agoI still don't understand why Apple would be compelled to offer the olive branch at all. Sure, advertisers have complained their business model is getting harder - what motivates Apple to help fix that? What possible leverage could advertisers even have? Apple doesn't need a negotiating tool if there's nothing Apple wants from the advertisers, just block the nefarious tracking and move on.
- vkou 7y agoApple wants something from advertisers. Money. They want 2 billion in revenue from advertising by 2020. They are testing the waters, and there's no doubt a faction within the company that believes that in the long term, getting a slice of the firehose of ad revenue is worth a small loss in revenue from opinionated anti-ads users[1] leaving their ecosystem. The best part about the Apple walled garden is that once ads become an important part of their revenue stream, they'll be able to ban ad-blockers on their platform. [1] What are they going to do, switch to Android? Communicate by carrier pigeon?
- coldcode 7y ago2B to Apple is couch change.
- vkou 7y agoRome wasn't built in a day. I'm sure there's slide decks that float much bigger future numbers to decision-makers in the firm.
- threeseed 7y agoSo Apple is going to do a 180 and suddenly switch to being anti-privacy and pro-advertising. Disable the Safari content blockers they only recently added, end the advertising campaigns they just started using. And all for a tiny 1% of their revenue ? Privacy is a fundamental part of Apple's selling proposition and personal to Tim Cook given that in many cases gay and other minorities are killed due to privacy leaks.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago>Advertisers have complained about losing ad attribution, and that complaint is legitimate. Ummm, no it’s not. My browser is my user agent, and I couldn’t care less about advertisers’ woes. You know what makes attribution even harder? Ad blockers.
- jlarocco 7y ago> Advertisers have complained about losing ad attribution, and that complaint is legitimate. It's not legitimate at all. No more legit than a ransomware author complaining that a Windows patch destroyed their revenue source.