4 ms·

> 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.
    - cbsmith 7y ago
      So, I wouldn't say that ads incentivize user-focused development. I'm saying the incentivize paying attention to the needs/interests/desires/etc. of lower-income users. Without ads, almost all software shops would be better off ignoring that market segment entirely. Do you really think you'd have so many developers, competing so aggressively with each other in an attempt to appeal to millions of people with a collective negative disposable income, the bulk of which is probably not spent on software at all? No. Even if you were hugely successful, you'd be lucky to get enough income to pay a developer's salary.

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.
  - cbsmith 7y ago
    So, I wouldn't say that ads incentivize user-focused development. I'm saying the incentivize paying attention to the needs/interests/desires/etc. of lower-income users. Without ads, almost all software shops would be better off ignoring that market segment entirely. Do you really think you'd have so many developers, competing so aggressively with each other in an attempt to appeal to millions of people with a collective negative disposable income, the bulk of which is probably not spent on software at all? No. Even if you were hugely successful, you'd be lucky to get enough income to pay a developer's salary.