3 ms·
It's a lot more nuanced than the WSJ article made it seem. Google and other web advertisers engaged in what most would consider normal activity, but that Apple
by bishnu 15y ago
It's a lot more nuanced than the WSJ article made it seem. Google and other web advertisers engaged in what most would consider normal activity, but that Apple had specifically disabled in Mobile Safari. Here's a good explanation from John Battelle: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2012/02/a-sad-state-of-internet-affairs-the-journal-on-google-apple-and-privacy.php http://battellemedia.com/archives/2012/02/a-sad-state-of-int...
- AllenKids 15y agoOh please, you know who else does not ask me about my choice regarding third party cookies? Every other major browser vendor. Just because everybody is making money selling user information and attention to the advertisers does not negate the fact that Apple's choice is sitting on the safer side for user privacy. And you know what's also common practice? Scrap user's address book and beam it up the cloud. Apple is at fault in both cases for failing to safeguard users from the abusers. Path and Google are the abusers. And I think there might be a non subtle, non nuanced difference here.
- jdq 15y agoThe Battelle link is a horrible explanation. His position is that user tracking for ads is a normal function of the web people want and therefore it is Apple's fault for blocking it by default. Unreal.