7 ms·

Obviously, but where do you want to go with that? Are you suggesting that because kids can use any app on a phone that all tracking and ads should be banned?

• lukevdp 7y ago
  No, looks like it is just the apps targeted at kids.
• Kluny 7y ago
  iPhones have kids mode that prevents the kid from using any app on the phone. That will probably only deter toddlers, but it's something.
  • xoa 7y ago
    >That will probably only deter toddlers Is this actually true? Jailbreaks haven't been persistent in the face of updates in a long while, so for devices kept up to date it's possible to lock down an iPhone fairly hard. I haven't investigated how parent control compares to full MDM, but the supervision capabilities now in iOS [1] are pretty powerful. For better and for worse of course, that kind of control over user devices, particularly in the context of parents and children, is definitely a double edged sword. But compared to typical computers I don't think it should be lightly dismissed either as something kids can just get around. They aren't open systems. ---- 1: https://www.apple.com/business/resources/docs/Managing_Devices_and_Corporate_Data_on_iOS.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/resources/docs/Managing_Devic...
    • Kluny 7y ago
      I figure older kids can use tactics like social hacking -- ie, whine at mom until she unlocks it.
• colechristensen 7y ago
  I think where it is going is just fine. The reduction of tracking and ads is a good thing, but that there is going to be a FAANG that is explicitly encouraging this is great news. I would prefer if the market itself forced out tracking and ads. Provide a space for it and that space can compete with everything else and if we're lucky will wildly outcompete the competition. This is the kind of walled garden I want to see. One with high walls and a door.
  • munk-a 7y ago
    The market is never going to do that at large - but I hope someone somewhere manages to kill tracking and third party data-reselling into non-existence.
    • Despegar 7y ago
      If you think about it Apple is basically the corporate manifestation of GDPR. They can just decide whatever they want and everyone has to comply or get out. In the real world someone has to file a complaint with the DPC, it gets investigated, gets appealed for years. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/21/french-data-protection-watchdog-fines-google-57-million-under-the-gdpr/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/21/french-data-protection-wat...
      • munk-a 7y ago
        That's correct, and quite terrible IMO - I'd prefer to have a non-private entity serving as the gate keeper to walled gardens like these... or just not have walled gardens.
        • Despegar 7y ago
          I think it's great, refreshing even.
        • Analemma_ 7y ago
          Then use Android. No one is preventing you.
        • frereubu 7y ago
          If you're saying that it's terrible because government haven't stepped in to legislate rather than relying on corporate entities like Apple to protect privacy, I agree.
    • kristianc 7y ago
      > The market is never going to do that at large - but I hope someone somewhere manages to kill tracking and third party data-reselling into non-existence. Overall the market is moving away from third-party now, as it's simply a lot less effective. Everyone in the industry wants to be working with first-party data.
• gameswithgo 7y ago
  > that all tracking and ads should be banned? that would be fantastic!
  • Fnoord 7y ago
    Then we can go back to the time where we simply paid for software with money instead of with privacy (such as tracking or PII) or time/focus (advertising). If there is one company of FAANG who's up for this task -and can beat Google at their game- it is Apple.
    • hexane360 7y ago
      Why do we expect one of the other 4 oligopolists to save us? Also, I have serious doubts that Apple can beat Google - and it certainly won't be "at their own game" (which is advertising).
      • rchaud 7y ago
        Because people have fully inculcated the notion David cannot beat Goliath, so now we have to hope that the lesser evil "wins".
    • cbsmith 7y ago
      > Then we can go back to the time where we simply paid for software with money instead of with privacy (such as tracking or PII) or time/focus (advertising). A time when the digital divide was vast & software companies had no reason to heed the interests of those without disposable income... ;-)
      • rchaud 7y ago
        The digital divide was vast because computers cost thousands of dollars and the Internet was something available only to corporations and universities. As a result, most of the paid software out there was targeted at rich users for professional work and priced accordingly. BTW, how are ads incentivizing user-focused development? Look at the Top 100 apps in any apps store, and tell me they're not virtual clones of Clash of Clans, Plants v Zombies and Candy Crush. Every developer is heeding self-interest first.
• frereubu 7y ago
  With all due respect, this is the kind of self-evident truth that I find it weird people use as "yeah, is that what you REALLY want?" Yes, that is what I want. I think society would be much better off without this kind of rubbish, and stuff the financial backers of this amoral race to the optimised bottom.
  • lotu 7y ago
    I realize you are not the original poster but it sounds like your view would be the same even if we lived in a world without children. In this case it’s not really about helping children it is about advancing your desired outcome and that annoys me a bit. The bigger issue is do you really think things will be better this way. Services like Google Search, Maps, newspapers would all become pay-walled. I honestly would personally like this outcome, as I have enough income to pay an extra $20-30 / month for these features. However for those in poverty 15-20% in the US and much more world wide this would be a major hardship. I really don’t think we want all of these currently ad supported things to be pay only in future, which is the inevitable outcome of banning advertising.
    • kd5bjo 7y ago
      But in monetary terms, what do these “free” services cost to various populations? The advertisers believe that paying for the service is turning them a profit, so someone is paying more for the advertised products than they used to. Is this a case of people with disposable income subsidizing everyone else, or one of manipulating vulnerable populations to spend their money unwisely?
      • cbsmith 7y ago
        In reality, it is neither people with disposable income subsidizing everyone else nor manipulating vulnerable populations to spend their money unwisely. Much like with trade, advertising isn't necessarily a zero sum game. Nor is it the same experience for everyone. I suspect your perception of advertising is distorted by your own context. A high income individual might see advertising as targeting their disposable income and attempting to get them to spend more of it... because that's what will really move the needle for the advertiser with that customer. But it's a totally different experience for advertising's impact on low-income consumers. Amongst lower income folks little if any of their spending is disposable income; that's not going to move the needle for an advertiser. What might move the needle is the non-disposable income, particular for staple consumer packaged goods (CPG) like food, clothing, cleaning products, etc. The goal isn't to get lower income folks to spend more of their income at all, because that isn't an option. The only way to reliably get low income consumers to spend more money is to give them more money to spend. In most cases, all or almost all their income is going to be spent even without advertising. When you are hungry and on a limited budget, an ad isn't going to convince you to spend more money on food, but it might change your mind about what you decide to eat. So advertisers aren't trying to convince poorer folks to spend more of their disposable income, but rather to choose to spend their non-disposable income with the advertiser instead of a competitor. While advertisers may be attempting to manipulate an audience, lower income folks aren't so vulnerable. You can show them as many ads as you want for yachts, they aren't going to buy one. The more vulnerable audiences are those with more choices, not fewer. Stronger players in a market tend to be able to afford more on marketing, which can mean that advertising ensures those consumers are aware of the stronger players in the market. Consumers consequently have learned to treat extensive marketing as an easily detectable proxy signal for that strength, which, despite its pitfalls, is often more reliable than other signals (unfortunately, targeting can undermine this a bit by making an advertising seem more pervasive to a targeted audience than it really is, but overall it remains more true than not). Brand awareness advertising in particular tends to increase the importance of providing a successful product experience to those lower income populations, because those populations are more risk adverse to a disappointing experience (one can't just buy more food if the stuff one spent the last of one's paycheck on turns out to be terrible). Consequently, even though lower-income consumers might have a lower expected customer lifetime value, an advertiser might be more concerned that a negative experience with them, as the damage to the brand image might be far more lasting. If you have a non-staple CPG good, your revenue isn't going to be coming from consumer's non-disposable income, so you're going to naturally disenfranchise consumers who don't have much if any disposable income. You won't care about their needs or their complaints. Maybe if you are creative, you might increase margins on your product so you can find some way to give away your product to those without disposable income, thereby having people with disposable income subsidize everyone else. Unless... ...you make your product ad supported. Now you might derive much of your revenue stream by appealing to a customer base with no disposable income, because you are getting paid by an advertiser with a product that might target non-disposable income... and even if those consumers are being influenced by the advertising, they aren't going to be spending money they wouldn't spend anyway (not a choice available to them), and while it is far from certain, they are more likely to be getting better value for that money. So one can argue that advertising makes advertisers and ad supported products more sensitive to the needs of lower income populations who do not have disposable income.