6 ms·

Initially, I was skeptical of the "good!" reactions. It's worrying/annoying when one company alone has the clout to massively impede a potential competitor (o

Initially, I was skeptical of the "good!" reactions. It's worrying/annoying when one company alone has the clout to massively impede a potential competitor (or legitimate service they simply dislike) in arbitrary ways. And then I read the subheadline of the article: > The social-media company says Apple’s privacy changes will affect its Audience Network business, which connects users’ Facebook identities with their off-platform activities Holy sh*t - GOOD! Go Apple

mywacaday 6y ago
I've never had an IPhone, this will make me consider it next time my upgrade is due.
soneil 6y ago
The actual UX of this is very telling. Apple haven't actually clobbered this, they've added a modal "This app would like to track you across apps, Y/N". Apple haven't actually said no to this, they've given the user the ability to say no. I find this an interesting distinction, because the only logical way to extrapolate "the user now has a choice" to "apple have ruined this for us", is to admit that given a clear and effective choice, the user will opt out of this almost every time. Which is why this one is a "good!". If every user wants to opt out of this, perhaps it should never have been viable in the first place.
breakfastduck 6y ago
Quite possibly the least polarising move Apple has ever made. I can’t think of a single reason as to why adding the prompt is a bad idea.
- fsociety 6y ago
  Not a single one? By reducing the effectiveness of advertising business models, Apple can force apps to use in-app purchasing and gain that 30% cut. Additionally they do not have to display the permission modal for their own user tracking. It’s good to display prompts and make users aware of what is happening.. but it should be mandated fairly by a third-party not the company owning the App Store. Google is heading down a similar route with Chrome. Nuking other’s ability to target ads while improving their own business in some way (in this case improving their ability to track users while negating others).
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Google take 32% of the Adsense money so 30% sounds like a bargain. I'm so tired of ad sprinkled apps. All I wanted was to play a cheap Tetris clone not look at some ad load screen. Any ad app feels like 90s ad-ware and you know it spies on you so atleast it is a good warning sign to delete it. I wish there was a filter option "no after purchase purchases, no adds" in the app stores.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    I'd still rather have to cough up cash than give in to tracking by default, though. So generally this isn't a negative for me. Naieve as you may think me, I think Apple want to get data so they can sell me products they sell (both Apple products and third party software) - I'm ok with that because I like their products and software. I'm consciously buying into an ecosystem that is purchase driven rather than making money off data sales. They don't have to display the modal on their own user tracking because I've already signed up and bought in.
fwiwm2c 6y ago
I hope you realize what this means is that ads as a monetization model for apps is getting decimated. These apps will now have to explore alternate monetization models such as either making themselves paid or subscriptions. And guess what, Apple takes a 30% cut of it. If you are thinking Apple is a benevolent savior of privacy, you are absolutely wrong. All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value. Get ready, as a user, to pay for these apps which were once free.
- shreddit 6y ago
  “Free” as in “you pay with your data”?
- techdragon 6y ago
  As someone who routinely asks myself how the fuck random useful utility apps and websites will pay for their costs. Good! More damn stuff needs to cost money so we have a damn choice. I’m sick of being the product when I have the damn money to buy services and products but everyone from startups to solo devs seem hell bent on pursuing advertising driven revenue models. If this drives some more developers to build more sustainable products and services then as far as I’m concerned Apple did a good thing. I’m not going to comment on the validity of Apple’s 30% cut because I don’t think they deserve 30% however that doesn’t change the fact that I think this is a good thing.
- Despegar 6y ago
  >All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value. Sounds like a great business incentive to be pro-privacy to me. You can count on profit motive.
- actusual 6y ago
  Additionally, this literally pushes more data into the hands of FB. Our FB advertising rep is already asking us to share more data with them to mitigate the impact of this change. People have become accustomed to ad measurement. Performance marketing is a thing for a reason. How will ad performance be measured now? FB is already rolling out a tool to do that, but only if you share more data with them (lifetime value estimates, etc).
gberger 6y ago
In what market are Apple and Facebook competitors?
robterrell 6y ago
I understand why everyone's instant reaction might be "good," but if you are in the business of making an app, you will eventually need to get users for your app. Advertising is how that happens. That's because app store discovery was nerfed years ago, to make store search ads a revenue source. This Apple IDFA change will likely force you to redirect your ad spend from the Facebook Audience Network to Apple search ads.
- moonbug 6y ago
  > but if you are in the business of making an app that's your mistake, right there.
  - FalconSensei 6y ago
    So you don't use a smartphone? With apps? That people make?
    - funtimesonly 6y ago
      oh cmon, clearly moonbug has a sense of humor.
- czzr 6y ago
  Advertising existed before detailed tracking, and can exist perfectly well without it. Perhaps it will be a little less effective, but we do not need to optimise our society to increasing the effectiveness of advertising.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    Except you don't get people buying fake ovens offline. There isn't a great analogy I can think of but there is a huge amount of ad fraud where it's profitable to fake an install, fake app use to generate more fake ad revenue ad fake installs, etc. So long as it's profitable for someone to fake installs and fake user traffic there will be a need for better value conversion tracking
  - 6y ago

mywacaday 6y ago

I've never had an IPhone, this will make me consider it next time my upgrade is due.

soneil 6y ago

The actual UX of this is very telling. Apple haven't actually clobbered this, they've added a modal "This app would like to track you across apps, Y/N". Apple haven't actually said no to this, they've given the user the ability to say no. I find this an interesting distinction, because the only logical way to extrapolate "the user now has a choice" to "apple have ruined this for us", is to admit that given a clear and effective choice, the user will opt out of this almost every time. Which is why this one is a "good!". If every user wants to opt out of this, perhaps it should never have been viable in the first place.

breakfastduck 6y ago

Quite possibly the least polarising move Apple has ever made. I can’t think of a single reason as to why adding the prompt is a bad idea.

fsociety 6y ago
Not a single one? By reducing the effectiveness of advertising business models, Apple can force apps to use in-app purchasing and gain that 30% cut. Additionally they do not have to display the permission modal for their own user tracking. It’s good to display prompts and make users aware of what is happening.. but it should be mandated fairly by a third-party not the company owning the App Store. Google is heading down a similar route with Chrome. Nuking other’s ability to target ads while improving their own business in some way (in this case improving their ability to track users while negating others).
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Google take 32% of the Adsense money so 30% sounds like a bargain. I'm so tired of ad sprinkled apps. All I wanted was to play a cheap Tetris clone not look at some ad load screen. Any ad app feels like 90s ad-ware and you know it spies on you so atleast it is a good warning sign to delete it. I wish there was a filter option "no after purchase purchases, no adds" in the app stores.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I'd still rather have to cough up cash than give in to tracking by default, though. So generally this isn't a negative for me. Naieve as you may think me, I think Apple want to get data so they can sell me products they sell (both Apple products and third party software) - I'm ok with that because I like their products and software. I'm consciously buying into an ecosystem that is purchase driven rather than making money off data sales. They don't have to display the modal on their own user tracking because I've already signed up and bought in.

fwiwm2c 6y ago

I hope you realize what this means is that ads as a monetization model for apps is getting decimated. These apps will now have to explore alternate monetization models such as either making themselves paid or subscriptions. And guess what, Apple takes a 30% cut of it. If you are thinking Apple is a benevolent savior of privacy, you are absolutely wrong. All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value. Get ready, as a user, to pay for these apps which were once free.

shreddit 6y ago
“Free” as in “you pay with your data”?
techdragon 6y ago
As someone who routinely asks myself how the fuck random useful utility apps and websites will pay for their costs. Good! More damn stuff needs to cost money so we have a damn choice. I’m sick of being the product when I have the damn money to buy services and products but everyone from startups to solo devs seem hell bent on pursuing advertising driven revenue models. If this drives some more developers to build more sustainable products and services then as far as I’m concerned Apple did a good thing. I’m not going to comment on the validity of Apple’s 30% cut because I don’t think they deserve 30% however that doesn’t change the fact that I think this is a good thing.
Despegar 6y ago
>All they are doing here is to hurt advertising so that more apps move to other models which lets Apple extract more value. Sounds like a great business incentive to be pro-privacy to me. You can count on profit motive.
actusual 6y ago
Additionally, this literally pushes more data into the hands of FB. Our FB advertising rep is already asking us to share more data with them to mitigate the impact of this change. People have become accustomed to ad measurement. Performance marketing is a thing for a reason. How will ad performance be measured now? FB is already rolling out a tool to do that, but only if you share more data with them (lifetime value estimates, etc).

gberger 6y ago

In what market are Apple and Facebook competitors?

robterrell 6y ago

I understand why everyone's instant reaction might be "good," but if you are in the business of making an app, you will eventually need to get users for your app. Advertising is how that happens. That's because app store discovery was nerfed years ago, to make store search ads a revenue source. This Apple IDFA change will likely force you to redirect your ad spend from the Facebook Audience Network to Apple search ads.

moonbug 6y ago
> but if you are in the business of making an app that's your mistake, right there.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  So you don't use a smartphone? With apps? That people make?
  - funtimesonly 6y ago
    oh cmon, clearly moonbug has a sense of humor.
czzr 6y ago
Advertising existed before detailed tracking, and can exist perfectly well without it. Perhaps it will be a little less effective, but we do not need to optimise our society to increasing the effectiveness of advertising.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  Except you don't get people buying fake ovens offline. There isn't a great analogy I can think of but there is a huge amount of ad fraud where it's profitable to fake an install, fake app use to generate more fake ad revenue ad fake installs, etc. So long as it's profitable for someone to fake installs and fake user traffic there will be a need for better value conversion tracking
- 6y ago