3 ms·

I'm not a Google fan, but good for them. If they're able to produce value without invasive tracking, then it's a good thing for everyone who is interested in pr

by ratww 5y ago

I'm not a Google fan, but good for them. If they're able to produce value without invasive tracking, then it's a good thing for everyone who is interested in privacy. Apple's (official) intent was never to cripple companies, but rather to give users choice. > "As a result of the data drought, many brands have shifted their ad spending to Google because its flagship search-ad business relies on customer intent" This also goes directly against all the doomsayers who said there was no money in context-based advertisement.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Google is still doing plenty of invasive tracking. It’s just less affected by this specific change.
srcreigh 5y ago
> If they're able to produce value without invasive tracking This is completely backwards, no? Businesses want invasive tracking aka attributed ad spend. Apple's new rules prevent Instagram/FB and Snap ads from tracking / attributing properly. So those businesses just go to Google (Web, Android) to buy invasive tracking. The interesting followup question is whether businesses will need to start making budgets for non-invasive iOS FB/snap ads to be able to reach people, or whether Search/Chrome history tracking on iOS is good enough.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
The difference here is that Google makes their money on iOS mostly from searches in the browser (Google pays Apple >12B per year for this functionality to be promoted in the OS). When a user taps on an ad on a Google search in Safari, then makes a purchase on the advertiser’s website, that conversion is not defined as “cross-app tracking” so Google can record it and charge for it. When a user taps on an ad in Facebook and then is directed to the advertiser’s app to make a purchase, that is “cross-app tracking”, and Apple won’t allow that conversion to be recorded until after the user says yes to the prompt. Also, if the user clicks an ad in the Apple store, then makes a purchase in an app, Apple will happily charge the advertiser for that conversion without ever showing the user a cross-app tracking permission prompt.

by ratww 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

Google is still doing plenty of invasive tracking. It’s just less affected by this specific change.

srcreigh 5y ago

> If they're able to produce value without invasive tracking This is completely backwards, no? Businesses want invasive tracking aka attributed ad spend. Apple's new rules prevent Instagram/FB and Snap ads from tracking / attributing properly. So those businesses just go to Google (Web, Android) to buy invasive tracking. The interesting followup question is whether businesses will need to start making budgets for non-invasive iOS FB/snap ads to be able to reach people, or whether Search/Chrome history tracking on iOS is good enough.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

The difference here is that Google makes their money on iOS mostly from searches in the browser (Google pays Apple >12B per year for this functionality to be promoted in the OS). When a user taps on an ad on a Google search in Safari, then makes a purchase on the advertiser’s website, that conversion is not defined as “cross-app tracking” so Google can record it and charge for it. When a user taps on an ad in Facebook and then is directed to the advertiser’s app to make a purchase, that is “cross-app tracking”, and Apple won’t allow that conversion to be recorded until after the user says yes to the prompt. Also, if the user clicks an ad in the Apple store, then makes a purchase in an app, Apple will happily charge the advertiser for that conversion without ever showing the user a cross-app tracking permission prompt.