'Apple Wants To Kill the Ad Industry. It's Forcing Developers To Help.' (char.gd) 221
"As a consumer, the idea of Apple sign-in is genuinely an exciting one..." writes developer/tech journalist Owen Williams at Char.gd.
"As a person in digital marketing, as well as a coder and startup founder, the feature terrifies me... I don't have a choice. Apple plans to force developers using third-party signin features to add its signin along any competing ones, rather than allowing them to make the choice. Essentially, Apple will force its success..." [B]y selling the tool as a privacy-focused feature, the company is building a new identity system that it owns entirely. Because it is a powerful privacy feature, it makes it hard to debate this move in any constructive way -- personally, I think we need more tools like this, just not from the very platforms further entrenching their own kingdoms... All of the largest tech companies have switched gears to this model, including Google, and now sell a narrative that nobody can be trusted with your data -- but it's fine to give it all to them, instead. There's bitter irony in Apple denouncing other companies' collection of data with a sign-in service, then launching its own, asking that you give that data to them, instead. I definitely trust Apple to act with my interests at heart today, but what about tomorrow, when the bottom falls out of iPhone sales, and the math changes?
I'm not arguing that any of these advertising practices are right or wrong, but rather that such a hamfisted approach isn't all that it seems. The ad industry gets a bad rap -- and does need to improve -- but allowing a company that has a vested interest in crippling it to dictate the rules by forcing developers to implement their technology is wrong...
This feature, and the way it's being forced on developers, is a fantastic example of why companies like Apple and Google should be broken up: it's clearly using the App Store, and its reach, to force the industry's hand in its favor -- rather than compete on merit.
"As a person in digital marketing, as well as a coder and startup founder, the feature terrifies me... I don't have a choice. Apple plans to force developers using third-party signin features to add its signin along any competing ones, rather than allowing them to make the choice. Essentially, Apple will force its success..." [B]y selling the tool as a privacy-focused feature, the company is building a new identity system that it owns entirely. Because it is a powerful privacy feature, it makes it hard to debate this move in any constructive way -- personally, I think we need more tools like this, just not from the very platforms further entrenching their own kingdoms... All of the largest tech companies have switched gears to this model, including Google, and now sell a narrative that nobody can be trusted with your data -- but it's fine to give it all to them, instead. There's bitter irony in Apple denouncing other companies' collection of data with a sign-in service, then launching its own, asking that you give that data to them, instead. I definitely trust Apple to act with my interests at heart today, but what about tomorrow, when the bottom falls out of iPhone sales, and the math changes?
I'm not arguing that any of these advertising practices are right or wrong, but rather that such a hamfisted approach isn't all that it seems. The ad industry gets a bad rap -- and does need to improve -- but allowing a company that has a vested interest in crippling it to dictate the rules by forcing developers to implement their technology is wrong...
This feature, and the way it's being forced on developers, is a fantastic example of why companies like Apple and Google should be broken up: it's clearly using the App Store, and its reach, to force the industry's hand in its favor -- rather than compete on merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Eagerly ready and willing to kill off the ad industry. Where can I enlist?
Re: (Score:3)
If no one ever does anything for free then why did you make this post? Or are you getting paid? Also explain freeware and Linux and the entire Linux software ecosystem which, if you exclude games, almost matches that of Windows. In fact some of my favorite software is on Linux. I like to write software and I find it difficult to find a problem which is not already solved by freeware. Seems like an impossible situation if no one ever does anything for free.
The reality is that some people won't do anything fo
Re: (Score:2)
It's been nothing but Linux on the desktop for me for work or personal use for nearly 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising has been going on since Uglug bartered the first spearpoint for a smoking hunk of mammoth meat, and needed to persuade everybody that he was the best knapper in the cave. What you mean is that some advertising is more annoying and intrusive than others, and that this depends too much on which sites you like to visit.
Apple is just joining the mass of common logon apps that are already out there. Would you prefer the Facebook logon app, which everybody knows is selling your usage data, or the Appl
Alt Headline: Why Apple's App Store is a Monopoly (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple's app store was very innovative and is still really great. It's a safe and trusted way to download programs for the iOS ecosystem. But it shouldn't be the only way. Apple should be forced to allow side loading of apps and alternative app stores onto their devices. Otherwise they can make any demand they want from their ecosystem developers.
Re: (Score:2)
But it shouldn't be the only way. Apple should be forced to allow side loading of apps and alternative app stores onto their devices.
They control their own marketplace.
Grandparent was saying Apple's marketplace shouldn't be the only marketplace compatible with Apple's hardware.
Re: (Score:1)
Running Android would cause one to lose access to purchased apps, movies, and books, and lose access to the opportunity to purchase apps exclusive to iOS or iPadOS. If someone wants to run applications from multiple stores, should he or she have to buy and carry multiple devices?
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
As I understand it, you can't run Android on Apple devices. Thus if someone wants to run both Android and at least one iOS-exclusive app, one would have to carry two devices. What am I missing?
Re: Alt Headline: Why Apple's App Store is a Mono (Score:1)
Theoretically, you could dual boot most ARM based devices to run Android and whatever else you had.
What's that? You don't have the option of installing whatever you want? Well, maybe you shouldn't choose the locked down one. If everyone thought this way, you wouldn't have to worry about exclusives.
Android runs on more devices (x86/x64, ARM, so many other architectures, as long as you choose the software to install, not the company) because it was built with that it mind.
If you want Coke & Pepsi at the same time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i guess if you like paying money for bits that could be downloaded for free elsewhere
I like not being sued for having downloaded the bits for free elsewhere in violation of applicable law.
Re: (Score:3)
So the government gets to decided what the proper scope for determining a monopoly? Intel-based PCs, not desktop computers or computers in general. Proprierary OS only, not BSDs nor GNU/Linux. In a market less than 20 years old. While I would have agreed at the time, I do no longer: the case against Microsoft was wrong and they were not a monopoly. There was competition. I used Linux at the time, as did a lot of others I knew. Microsoft's "crime" was giving away Internet Explorer. Yes they did embrace
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should be forced to allow side loading of apps
You know you can do that today already, do you?
Lot's of companies already do that with "private" apps that they don't want to be available in the AppStore.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should be forced to allow side loading of apps
You know you can do that today already, do you?
Lot's of companies already do that with "private" apps that they don't want to be available in the AppStore.
There are unacceptable limitations on those "private" apps.
Re: (Score:2)
What you find unacceptable either is or is not enough to make you switch to a different platform. Decide.
I was never on iOS. I've literally barely touched an iOS device. I still don't think it's fair to iOS users, especially given all the times iDevices have been mandated in education and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Previously:
There are unacceptable limitations on those "private" apps.
There are no limitations. How can there be "unacceptable" ones?
Now:
I was never on iOS. I've literally barely touched an iOS device. I still don't think it's fair to iOS users, especially given all the times iDevices have been mandated in education and the like.
Then how can you have the experience or even come to the idea that there are "unacceptable limitations" for private appstores?
Re: (Score:2)
I took it to mean "drinkypoo never tried iOS after having read published descriptions of uncomfortable limits."
Re: (Score:3)
I'd agree when you're forced to buy an iPhone. As Steve himself said, "Don't like it? Don't buy one."
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple should be forced to allow side loading of apps and alternative app stores onto their devices.
I think the government forcing all platforms to be open is just as bad as them forcing all platforms to be closed. Users should be able to choose.
> Otherwise they can make any demand they want from their ecosystem developers.
You mean like any other platform/store owner? Why should only Apple not be allowed to do this?
A.
Re: (Score:3)
Where do we draw the line? I have a Samsung smart tv, why I can't I side load different apps onto it?
Nintendo Switch.. Why can't I side load a wii game?
Kindles.. why can't I install kobo books?
All of those are good questions. What would happen to the price of games if you could buy games for your switch that didn't have to pay a tax to Nintendo?
Why should Amazon be able to decide what you can and can't read?
Re: (Score:2)
Kindles.. why can't I install kobo books? .epub files on it?
Does a kindle not allow to be mounted as USB drive and you simply copy
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Alt Headline: Why Apple's App Store is a Monopo (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why should Amazon be able to decide what you can and can't read?" Because they sold you the platform with the EULA that you agreed to. Did you read it? No? Maybe that's the problem, simpler EULA laws needed?
It has nothing to do with the complexity of the laws, but rather the lack thereof. The problem is that the courts have simply let the right of first sale degrade to the point of meaninglessness, and the legislature has done nothing to fix the resulting chaos. The entire notion that a seller could dictate what you can do with the product was basically unheard of prior to the 1980s.
Because it seems to me if Amazon wants their Amazon product to speak Amazon and not Google, so long as they spell that out to all customers, the customer is still always right - as long as they read.
You're conflating two unrelated concepts, and as a result, are arriving at a legal framework that makes no sense. On the one hand, you have the question of whether Amazon should be required to support some other book seller that wants to do business on its platform. The answer to that is clearly "no". On the other hand, you have the question of whether Amazon has a right to deliberately prevent some other book seller from doing so. The answer to that should also be no.
And if unhappy that they don't support your desired brand/protocol/platform/garden, then don't buy it! Surely an all-open competitor has a right to eat their lunch, assuming that's really what consumers wanted enough to switch.
The more open competitors are already eating Apple's lunch. Outside of the U.S., Apple has only 14% market share, with Android at over 83%. But in the United States, Apple has 47% versus 52% for Android. Part of this difference is because there are no cheap iPhones, so Android picks up the entire low-end overseas market. But part of the difference is that Apple was a first mover in the United States, and a lot of people got hooked early on.
What you're failing to take into account is that switching cell phones is not as easy as you make it out to be. There are network effects. If you and all your friends own an iPhone and you switch to Android, no more FaceTime, no more iMessage, etc. Plus any apps you've bought are now worthless, because you can't resell them, and they won't work on your new device, as are any DRMed music or movies or TV shows that you've bought. Plus, plus, plus, plus, plus....
As a result, a lot of customers feel trapped in one ecosystem or the other, even though they might want to switch. That's why it is imperative to ensure that no company, whether it has 14% market share or 83% market share, is allowed to use its control over a particular segment of the app market to unfairly prevent competition in other markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm going to go with a big [Citation needed] there. Just because something is in a EULA, that doesn't make it legal. I could write "You agree to give up your firstborn child to work in our mines" in a EULA, but if I tried to enforce it, the courts would laugh in my face.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be because you clearly can't cite any laws that support your theory, because they don't exist.
I can claim to be the King of England. Doesn't make it so. Illegal contract terms are unenforceable. Period. That's literally the first thing you learn when studying contract law.
The entire rest of your argument boils down to arguing that
Re: (Score:2)
Since a EULA isn't an "express agreement," there is almost nothing in there that is enforceable against the consumer.
It is merely a disclosure of their policies. If they disclosed it at the time of sale, and you didn't return it right away, it gets pretty hard to enforce a lot of things.
That it is also a "contract" is very weasel-wordy, since none of the terms are expressly agreed to. But that is also its main value.
Re: (Score:1)
I find it rather amusing that you think I don't know about severability clauses. I've written them on several occasions, though judging from your apparent immaturity, I'm guessing it was long before you were born.
Either way, it is rapidly becoming clear not just that yo
Re:Dgatwood you solve your problems by reading EUL (Score:5, Interesting)
You missed a really important one: sue. Either way, though, your argument is basically crap, at several levels.
First, I'm not a "lay person" by any stretch of the imagination. Although I am not a lawyer, I have a fairly extensive understanding of intellectual property law, and at least some understanding of contract law.
Second, the notion of EULAs being "incomprehensible" is a red herring, and completely immaterial to the questions at hand. The problem with EULAs has nothing to do with whether they are understandable, and everything to do with the fact that they are contracts of adhesion, i.e. the person bound by the contract has no opportunity to negotiate terms. What makes EULAs particularly problematic contracts of adhesion is that, because of the nature of software that is tightly coupled to servers owned by the software manufacturer (as iOS is), those terms can effectively change at any time, even years after the sale, and you effectively become bound by those terms.
For example, suppose Apple decided to arbitrarily kick Spotify off of the App Store and treat it as malware, which would completely prevent existing binaries from being able to run. When you agreed to use the iOS platform, you did not care about side loading, because the apps you cared about were all available on the platform. Then, suddenly, Apple blacklisted the app, and not only did it become unavailable for downloading, but also it became nonfunctional even on existing devices. In such a situation, the overall effect of that blacklisting would be one of retroactively changing the device's fitness for a particular purpose, which is tantamount to changing the terms of sale post facto, and a good percentage of people for whom the EULA previously seemed reasonable would then see it as very unreasonable.
From a legal perspective, the very fact that Apple even has that ability is, at least arguably, a fundamental violation of your legal right as a consumer to use things that you have purchased in a way that a reasonable person would consider reasonable. That "right to use" is enshrined in many parts of U.S. law in the form of the right of first sale, patent exhaustion, antitrust law, etc.
Whether the courts will agree that a particular abuse is or is not an antitrust violation, of course, is anybody's guess until they actually do. I have my opinion, and it is based on a solid understanding of the law. And my opinion is that the only reason Apple has not yet been forced to allow side loading is because nobody with standing to sue has simultaneously had the resources to do so and been in a position where they felt that it was the only way do defend their rights as a company. My money is on Spotify being the pebble that starts the avalanche.
Re: (Score:2)
which would completely prevent existing binaries from being able to run.
No, it would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's not allowed because it is illegal, not because of any action by the knife manufacturer. You kind of missed the point there.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. And at that point, because Spotify would then have standing to sue over the terms in question, it would finally be resolved whether those terms are, in fact, legal. Thanks for conceding my point.
The score so far is Me: 1, You: 0. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the whole "meeting of the minds" thing? The courts have been remarkably lax at enforcing that requirement for as long as I've been alive. These days, the only absolute requirement is that the user understands the part where they give an affirmative response to "I have read and understood these terms." The burden is upon the r
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the person suing either lacks standing to sue (which I covered) or settles out of court (which obviously doesn't result in any legal finding). Otherwise, it's hard to think of any way that the court can rule on a lawsuit over whether a contract term is legal or not without... you know... actually finding
How many phones do you carry? (Score:2)
Well I think you nailed it right, It's their phone, they should be a able to decide what they want on their device. If you don't like it use one of the other hundreds of phones available on the market.
How practical is it to carry several phones, one to run at least one exclusive app for each phone's platform?
You would also have to buy 5 different cars (Score:2)
Don't you see how problematic that whole line of reasoning is? Anti-trust law was never intended to enforce interoperability--only competition, and no one can argue that there's isn't competition in smart
Alt headline : READ EULA, BUY ACCORDINGLY (Score:1)
"People are buying the phone not leasing it from Apple." The phone has software on it that Apple owns and you agree to a EULA to use. Read it sometime.
You buy the hardware. You are "agreeing to rent under specific contract" the ability to use it on their network running their software. If you want, you can void that contract and leave their network, do you.
But if you don't even read the EULA then you're never going to know what you ACTUALLY BOUGHT, are you now?
Re: Alt headline : READ EULA, BUY ACCORDINGLY (Score:2)
What approach works? (Score:4, Interesting)
A software product that has to be sold in a box.
Shareware.
Open source downloads.
Postcardware.
A network of shops around a nation that sells approved computer products. Only so much self space. That has to be for a product people really want.
A gov/NGO/nation sets what software is legally and who can sell what product for "computer" use.
A printed magazine that only has so many pages. Who gets the full review? How many ads can be placed in a printed magazine?
The internet with a web page dedicated to that software.
Banner ads to tell the world about software.
A one brand digital distribution platform that takes a big % of all money made.
The good thing about the internet is we can try all of the above.
Some ideas worked. People who actually buy products keep returning to some methods of selling and buying.
Then they don't. Someone has to have the next idea.
Whats the alternative? Have the EU regulate what software is and how its sold?
People are free to sell products in any way they want. To try open source.
To start their own site/shop/service. Their own internet page.
Buy into a digital distribution platform.
Once any way of selling takes too much money, people with products to sell have to find a better way.
Governments place to many demands, too much tax? People selling find a way around that censorship and tax.
A well established digital distribution platform demands 50% on each sale? Is that loss on every product still worth it?
Re: (Score:2)
I will tell one that don't:
Installing malware at computers of your potential clients.
This is exactly how advertising on the internet was killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Always use a quality browser that lets ad be blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly how advertising on the internet was killed.
Wait, what? I haven't personally seen an ad in years, but I read on the `tubes that google still existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you need to run a particular non-free application. Games tend to be non-free, as do chat clients that support A. more than text, B. push notification of direct messages and channel mentions, and C. sign-up using credentials other than a phone number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like it at new rate of 40%? How about change to keeping 60% AC?
Still making money on that time put into the smartphone app?
Re: (Score:2)
Or you invent your own and stop whining
A new phone platform would be incompatible with licensed cellular carriers' networks without the use of patented technology that I assume only the incumbent manufacturers can afford to license.
Re: (Score:2)
A new platform is exactly what Apple created. Like you, everyone said it could not happen. Boom.
A.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was already an incumbent manufacturer by that time. The engineering and patent negotiation for the iPhone were funded in large part by iPod sales. A startup would have a much harder time raising enough capital.
Apple was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And that is the real antitrust issue we should be fighting. Apple just sells trinkets.
WWBHD (Score:3)
Apple Ownz All It's Users? (Score:1)
So if "Sign In With Apple" becomes the norm for Apple customers, does that mean that Apple essentially has full access as that person to all the sites they participate on? It seems that way to me.
It bugs the hell out of me, which is why I never use any of those 'Sign in as' functions. I even play Pokemon Go but use a Pokemon Trainer's Club account and not Google or Facebook. There's no purpose in logging on through Google or Facebook, except to surrender control of the account to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep paying 60% to sell software?
Its all good until the profit taking gets too much.
At some point the software creator walks to a new system.
A smartphone made in Taiwan, Malaysia. Designed in England, Switzerland, Ireland.
With less of that % demand over the cost of all software sold.
Thats then change for walled 'Sign in as' smartphones.
Nobody smart will stay to code softw
There's no point debating a liar. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The % needed to stay will always go up.
"The ad industry gets a bad rap" (Score:5, Insightful)
and for good reason. Fuck ads, fuck each and every form of advertisement. You can't look at any direction anymore without a logo, ad, banner or similar, somewhere in your fov.
seriously tired of this shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"The ad industry gets a bad rap" (Score:5, Insightful)
but advertising does need to exist in some form for our economy to function.
It really doesn't. The world's economy existed for millennia before advertising existed. When was the last time you saw an advertisement for a book? You don't see book advertisements very often. And yet somehow, book sales continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising might not be a mandatory component of all economies, but it is of any post-industrial one.
You're going to have to back that up with more than, "I think so." Do you have any support, or is it your 'intuition?'
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on about 10 mailing lists for book advertizement :P
And I see book advertizements in the streets ... but you are right, not while surfing the net.
or an ad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see book advertising?
You haven't noticed the "news" programs that interview the latest tell-all author. I haven't figured out who is paying who, but I do recognize advertising when I see it. I suspect that "best seller"="most advertised" an awful lot of the time. I too am sick of this shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Nature is full of advertising - generally directed at the members of the same species - but if other species have senses attuned to the advertising they get a load of it too. The advertisements are largely for visual, olfactory, auditory perception.
Some are also avertissments i.e. negative advertisements or warnings to not come in my area, and not to mess with me. This one is also directed at members of other species.
As of humans - The FLOSS licenses that require attribution is part of the human drive to ad
Re: (Score:3)
a fucking scumbag scam artist popped up some malicious JavaScript no doubt inserted into the third party ad services that slashdot uses.
Why aren't you using an ad-blocking browser?
Re:"The ad industry gets a bad rap" (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy works just fine without predatory advertising. I never buy anything that is advertised directly to me. I block all advertising I can. Fcuk advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I block all advertising I can.
Enjoy your paywalls.
Re: (Score:2)
No, your paywall.
If you didn't pay, you walked away, it isn't your wall and you never see it again.
If it isn't worth money, and the people making money off it anyways start going out of business, things that aren't worth money will benefit. It is the nature of it; when the scammers all go home, the hobbyist sites get popular again. Local news gets popular again.
Is a paywall a good excuse not to RTFA? (Score:2)
If you didn't pay, you walked away, it isn't your wall and you never see it again.
Enjoy being made fun of because of your habit of asking questions that the paywalled featured article clearly answers.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here ;). Any excuse is a good excuse not to RTFA.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
If you go back in time and look at advertising before the 1920's, you'll find that it was actually pretty reasonable;
For me, the weird thing about nostalgia about old advertising is when places put up old ad displays, i.e. Coca-Cola ads from the 1920s and earlier to depict 'old fashioned' motifs. Coca-Cola and similar advertisers in that era were the encroachment of modernity onto authentic 'old time' culture and decor. It's like having a display about sheep but having wolves in each sheep pen.
Re:"The ad industry gets a bad rap" (Score:5, Insightful)
The devs get a kickback from facebook and google for the sign-in links because it helps the ad networks. They will never use sign-in with Apple if it's up to them. The service is an absolute win for all users and and absolute loss for the sleazy devs who want to fuck over their users.
This is a feature that alone is worth switching to iPhone for. And yet idiot crybabies on here are whining about Apple abusing the poor developers. A lot of people here have their head so far up Zuckerberg's ass they can taste his food before he can.
Re: (Score:1)
If there is no way to 'sign in' to a service without using Facebook, Google, or I guess Apple, is it a service really worth signing in to? If it's just a tagging operation to 'sign in' screw it.
There is no feature worth switching to iPhone for, btw, unless you are stuck in a family that excludes you by using Facetime or a similar proprietary service, and then you should exhaust all other options before being forced to buy the cheapest used iPod Touch you can find.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if Google did this. People would be screaming about Google trying to take over the internet, forcing everyone to log in with Google so they can track them, and block rival ad networks so everyone is forced to use their own services for revenue.
But when Apple does it they get commended. No, Apple is just another scummy company that has shown time and time again that they are customer-hostile.
Re: (Score:3)
But when Apple does it they get commended. No, Apple is just another scummy company that has shown time and time again that they are customer-hostile.
And most people will totally contradict you. Just like Google, Apple isn't customer-hostile at all. The difference is that Google's customers are the advertisers, and Google does what they can to keep them happy. Apple's customers are the people paying lots of good money for Apple devices.
So here's the difference between Google and Apple: Nobody in their right mind trusts Google about privacy. As Eric Schmidt said: Forget about privacy, you've lost it already. But Apple does things for their customers wh
Re: (Score:1)
Apple doesn't screw you on upgrades, dongles, cables, repairs and ecosystem lock-in?
Re:"The ad industry gets a bad rap" (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long ago, advertising involved very expensive creative campaigns to promote a brand or a retailer or the like. For instance, I knew a women whose job it was to draw up and layout the weekly ads for a local grocery store. This was her full time job. The cost to place the ads were hugely expensive. The same is true for the ads for all the brands that are now household names. Those did not happen organically. Those companies are big because they invested in their name. Of course, Walmart and later Target took the same idea and created a brand based on value, and people asked themselves why are we paying so much for a bag of chips when we can buy a store brand of nearly equal quality.
This was advertising. Throwing a bunch of money and bunch of talent to create propaganda so that people would shop the way you wanted them to, so they would act they way you wanted them to. The only way you kniew it was effective was that people did what you wanted. It was crass, it was overt, and it was everywhere. The TV show MASH was basically a vehicle to promote one insurance company. Soap operas existed to promote one brand of home products. Prime Time TV shows were there to promote one brand. Jim Henson originally developed industrials, where the muppets promoted common products. It was also effective. The model funded decades of television, radio, newspapers, and magazines. Fashion magazines existed only to build brands. The Super Bowl exists only to sell ads.
Of course you did not know if you were spending your money in the best way, all you knew is that if you did not spend money you were not going to get any traction with the spending public. This is where the internet model made the traditional advertisement model fall apart. Advertisers were no longer willing just to throw money away, at least not after around the turn of the century. At this point rather than building brands, they wanted to hard evidence that the public was responding to the ads. They wanted to see clicks, they wanted to see people immediately buy the product. It was no longer good enough that when people bought their monthly toothpaste they would buy yours. Ads were only good if they purchase was immediate.
Which lead to tracking, and click fraud, and web bugs, and pop ups, and all the stuff that makes the internet annoying. But Apple single sign in is not going to end most of that. What it will do is prevent Google and Facebook and the like from tracking you as easily as they do now. Which will not kill advertising, and will not stop firms from building their brand. What it will do is force web sites that depend on advertising to innovate and figure out how to connect consumers and products without facebook and google. It may require advertisers to once again be creative, instead of just throwing garbage on the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
and for good reason. Fuck ads, fuck each and every form of advertisement. You can't look at any direction anymore without a logo, ad, banner or similar, somewhere in your fov.
seriously tired of this shit.
The advertising industry deserves the bad rap it gets... But if I can think of one company I don't want controlling what I see and hear, it's Apple. The advertising industry is a huge, festering colony of rats, using Apple as a solution is like bringing in a plethora of snakes to deal with it. They might get rid of the rats, but then you have a huge, festering nest of poisonous snakes to deal with instead.
Investors nowadays... (Score:2)
You invested in a company with a dictator and now you wanna back out?
I have no ad revenu (Score:1)
Browser Choice Screen (Score:1)
Yeah! Apple should be forced to allow competing signin services to appear next to the Apple signin service!
Including Apple's ads? (Score:2)
It would be nice to kill their own too. :P
It's an easily visible... (Score:2)
Of course they want to kill ads (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is scored -1, but I think it should modded up for "funny".
Re: (Score:2)
Rust in 2019 is like where Java was in 1998. It's new,
I don't think Java was 8 years old in 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1998 universities were already using Java as the language for their introductory level course.
I don't remember a single university using java in 1998 as an introductory language. After all, it was only released in 1996. Java 2 (which went on to become the standard introductory language at universities) was only released in 1999 IIRC.
So, no. I don't think Rust (9 years old, actually) att this point in time is where 2 yo Java was.
The biggest difference, of course, is that 2yo Java was seeing more usage proportionally than 9yo Rust is seeing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, look this stuff up before posting, it's only an AltaVista search away.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Java was 8 years old in 1998.
And Java was not released in 1996, it was released in 1995. And J2SE 1.2 was released in 1998, not 1999.
Seems like we're in agreement about the age of Java.
I don't think Rust (9 years old, actually) att this point in time is where 2 yo Java was. The biggest difference, of course, is that 2yo Java was seeing more usage proportionally than 9yo Rust is seeing now.
I have to amend that: 3yo Java was seeing more usage proportionally than 9yo Rust is seeing now. In light of your links to universities starting to teach Java in 1995, even 1yo Java was seeing more usage than 9yo Rust.
Re: Will Apple's tech be compatible with Rust? (Score:2)
Re: Privacy feature? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How does it hurt the consumer to simply not have any third party 'sign in' buttons at all? Apple should just prohibit those in the 'apps' on it's proprietary market. If authentication for a service is required, maybe Apple could even provide an API for site/app operators to use, one that doesn't involve mothership Apple in the middle of the transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of buying into the "Apple lifestyle". Stay out of it if you don't like the mindset, the obsolescence schedule, the locked down and controlled Apple store.
I chose Apple at work because the other choice was a Windoze box, at least my tools will compile in a posix environment so I'm all good there.
Of course at home I use Linux Mint on PC and laptop, no way would I buy into that Apple hipster life
Re: (Score:2)
no way would I buy into that Apple hipster life
What exactly is that?
If Eve Online and WoW would run on linux I would perhaps switch to a Linux laptop ... but so far it lacks a decent eMail client. No idea what hipsters have to do with that (actually I don't know what a hipster is, except that it is used as a swear word on /. quite a lot)