Are Apple's Privacy Changes Hypocritical, Unfair to Facebook and Advertising Companies? (chron.com) 168
iPhone users will have to opt-in to tracking starting with iOS 14. Advertisers are "crying foul," reports the Washington Post:
[W]ith Apple under the antitrust spotlight, its privacy move has also been called a power move by an advertising industry that is scrambling to adjust to the changes, expected to be included in iOS 14, the company's latest mobile operating system expected to go live next month... "This is not a change we want to make, but unfortunately Apple's updates to iOS14 have forced this decision," Facebook said in a blog post.
Some in the advertising industry see the moves as part privacy, part self-interest on the part of Apple. Apple also offers advertising, and by limiting the amount of data outside marketers collect, Apple's access to the data becomes more valuable. "I think there's probably 30 percent truth in that they're doing it for privacy reasons and it's 70 percent that they're doing it because it's what's good for Apple," said Nick Jordan, founder of Narrative I/O, which helps companies gather data for advertising. "It's a question for regulators and courts whether they should be able to wield the power they do over this ecosystem," he said. "They created it, but can they rule it with an iron fist...?"
Apple says that when customers open apps, they'll be asked whether they'd like to give that specific app permission to track them with something called an "ID for Advertisers," or IDFA. Apple created the IDFA in 2012 to help app developers earn money on iOS. The unique number, assigned to iPhone customers, allows advertisers to track their movements around websites and apps by following that unique identifier... With the new pop-up messages, customers will be forced to make a choice. It is likely that most consumers will opt out of being tracked. Facebook said in a blog post that it would render its off-platform ad network so ineffective that it may not make sense to offer it to developers at all. Facebook said that in testing it had seen a more than 50% drop in revenue as a result of the loss of data from Apple...
"There's been no discussion, no commercial transaction. They're saying this is what we decided is right in the name of privacy and this is what we're going to do," said Stuart Ingis, a partner at the law firm Venable who represents the Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media, an association of advertisers.
"Personally, I don't see the problem here," argues Slashdot reader JustAnotherOldGuy.
The Post notes that Apple runs its own advertising business based on data gathered from its users — but Apple's director of privacy engineering "doesn't consider this data gathering 'tracking'...because Apple collects the data from its own users on its own apps and other services. Facebook and other advertisers, Apple says, gather data on users even when they're not using Facebook."
Some in the advertising industry see the moves as part privacy, part self-interest on the part of Apple. Apple also offers advertising, and by limiting the amount of data outside marketers collect, Apple's access to the data becomes more valuable. "I think there's probably 30 percent truth in that they're doing it for privacy reasons and it's 70 percent that they're doing it because it's what's good for Apple," said Nick Jordan, founder of Narrative I/O, which helps companies gather data for advertising. "It's a question for regulators and courts whether they should be able to wield the power they do over this ecosystem," he said. "They created it, but can they rule it with an iron fist...?"
Apple says that when customers open apps, they'll be asked whether they'd like to give that specific app permission to track them with something called an "ID for Advertisers," or IDFA. Apple created the IDFA in 2012 to help app developers earn money on iOS. The unique number, assigned to iPhone customers, allows advertisers to track their movements around websites and apps by following that unique identifier... With the new pop-up messages, customers will be forced to make a choice. It is likely that most consumers will opt out of being tracked. Facebook said in a blog post that it would render its off-platform ad network so ineffective that it may not make sense to offer it to developers at all. Facebook said that in testing it had seen a more than 50% drop in revenue as a result of the loss of data from Apple...
"There's been no discussion, no commercial transaction. They're saying this is what we decided is right in the name of privacy and this is what we're going to do," said Stuart Ingis, a partner at the law firm Venable who represents the Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media, an association of advertisers.
"Personally, I don't see the problem here," argues Slashdot reader JustAnotherOldGuy.
The Post notes that Apple runs its own advertising business based on data gathered from its users — but Apple's director of privacy engineering "doesn't consider this data gathering 'tracking'...because Apple collects the data from its own users on its own apps and other services. Facebook and other advertisers, Apple says, gather data on users even when they're not using Facebook."
Haw-haw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Haw-haw (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that Facebook itself has dramatically shifted the goalposts on its own advertising platform before, including sharply reducing the value of things its advertisers had previously paid it for, I have zero sympathy for them here. How much were they even paying Apple for this facility in the first place?
Re:Haw-haw (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly - this alone has me reconsidering apple devices.
Advertisers don't just collect data, they fail to secure it.
The only safe data is data that isn't retained.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is the country club of computing, seriously that is it's nature and it's market base, country clubs are all about walled gardens. You think any country club could last if they let salepersons in to stand around at various locations in the country and scream at the members to buy stuff, the idea is insane. Apple has been a little slow to fully take on the country club of computing marquee but that is it's nature and so privacy, freedom from advertising, a pleasant environment free from the worst trolls
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone has a link to a good illiterate-to-english translator?
That makes me want to switch to Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it unfair, yes? (Score:2)
Re: Is it unfair, yes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Apple can really stick it to Facebook by creating their own social platform just for Apple users, and have consistent policies regarding politicians lying.
Any platform that bans Trump for life will have some uptake.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay to get on there :)
Edit: does /. STILL not understand emojis? Amazing.
Re: (Score:3)
Edit: does /. STILL not understand emojis? Amazing.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget emojis, Slashdot still doesn't support UTF-8 in 2020. That's the reason some posts from iPhones and iPads users are full of "garbage characters" because Apple converts some punctuation into the proper characters but Slashdot is filtering everything down to ASCII from 1960.
"Unfair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are we even worrying about being 'fair' to advertising surveillance outfits?
Because the monopoly arguments aren't going anywhere and we still aren't clear on which is cooler to hate.
Re: (Score:3)
If they had feelings they would have other jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
But but, they provide a valuable service to the end user. You see only *relevant* ads, not all that dross that you'd be subjected to if they didn't know about your specific sexual proclivities and genetic predisposition to IBS. Yes, a very valuable service, one which they are terrified nobody will want enough to click a button.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me that advertising and marketing existed for decades well before advertisers had the ability to build massive databases on each and every one of us. And if getting back to that point means that I see a few ads that aren't relevant.... then so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the huge cost of trying to build "accurate" profiles, and the potential lawsuits and legal problems, has to be higher than just showing everyone the same ads.
Re: (Score:2)
cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
It still seems strange to me that the advertising industry thinks they have some sort of "right" to shove their propaganda in our faces. I know, I know, that happens to be the underpinnings of our entire economy and culture, but it still seems weird and creepy to me.
Re:cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with the advertising industry being part of the system that pays for content that I'm interested. Perhaps that is because television worked that way for many decades (before cable came along) and I grew used to tuning out commercials I didn't care about (and laughed at/enjoyed the few amusing ones).
What I object to is people in the advertising business thinking that they have the *right* to monitor my information-accessing behavior using a device that I own to access a world-wide information network that no one owns.
If I go to "Vendor A"'s website and check out Vendor A's products, I'm already submitting to an unprecedented level of monitoring and scrutiny, in that Vendor A can track my visit and behavior via my source IP address (in many cases). This wasn't possible in the days of television/radio/newspaper advertising. Tracking my behavior across multiple sites/services via my source IP is also possible, although it muddies the water a bit. So be it. But the act of taking software running on my device, and loading that software with tracking code that monitors what I do and reports my behavior to faceless invisible people - fuck no.
There is no inherent *right* on the part of advertisers (or anyone else) to track my behavior, using software running on my device as the data collection engine. What Apple is doing is a good start, and long overdue. The erosion of personal rights and control that started with the first "phone home" code in consumer software turned into vast engine of mass surveillance embedded in software products that should be under our control with respect to what information they collect and transmit to others.
If companies want to show me their wares, they are more than welcome. Occasionally I see something interesting, and I make a purchase. Otherwise I ignore them. That's *advertising*. What has been going on now is surveillance. And letting people "opt out" will show what people think of the "benefits" of targeted advertising based on that surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a long time since advertising was simply a showing of wares. Even before this intrusive tracking, advertisers have long been devising more and more sophisticated ways to manipulate their suckers, er I mean customers, into parting with cash. Lots of highly-trained scientists have analyzed the psychology and sociology of marketing, all the better to move product.
I certainly agree, if every manufacturer would simply make available a catalog with specs, I'd be very happy. But we've gone way too far be
Re: cognitive dissonance (Score:2)
Non targeted advertising is useless. Considering the number of products and services that are being advertised, you could spend your entire lifetime being fed ads completely irrelevant to you and not see anything relevant. What's needed instead is an opt in system for advertising categories. If you are a vegan, you don't sign up for steak advertising, or if you are a Democrat you probably don't care about adveriseing for fund raising events for the GOP, etc, etc. And for some who want to see ads but don't w
Re: cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
"Non targeted advertising is useless."
BS. Seriously. As I pointed out above, advertising and marketing existed for decades well before advertisers had the ability to build massive databases on each and every one of us.
And you can still do "targeted" advertising, again, just like we did pre-internet. If I'm reading a fashion magazine (on a fashion website), then you should know better than to place farm equipment ads there. Different fashion magazines/sites cater to different demographics, so don't push Porsche ads on a sweet-16 site, though you might consider it for W.
You know the content of the site, perhaps even the article. You know the type of ad served. You know click-through rates. After awhile that's more than enough to determine what "works" on site A and what doesn't work there.
Massive data-collection and tracking of individual personal information is NOT needed.
Nor wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Non targeted advertising is useless.
The only "target" (you do notice that it sounds like they're shooting us, do you?) that should be acceptable is "people who are looking for the thing you sell".
I would be a big fan of a platform that makes searching for things easier. If I am looking for a new table, an easy way to show me all the available tables would be cool. Or cars, or computers, or phones, or nearby supermarkets, or local restaurants with delivery services.
If something would tie all those things together, you know, like a website that
Re: (Score:2)
Non targeted advertising is useless
The continued existence of advertising on TV and billboards by companies with very large advertising budgets (Coca Cola, etc.) shows that this is false. These large companies can and do measure the effectiveness of their advertising and collectively they would have abandoned such advertising if it weren't effective. The fact it isn't targeted means that they reach people they don't expect who aren't looking for their product or something related, which might even be a plus to them.
(Ok, these ads are somewha
Re: (Score:3)
Notably, you almost never see online ads for actual necessities, like food. My physical mailbox is crammed with spam from grocery stores and takeout places, but not a peep online. Online is virtually all luxuries that they'd like to convince me I really, really, *need*.
Re: cognitive dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not interested in any content from Facebook. Or Google. Or YouTube. No Google serviced such as maps, Gmail, or anything else. No Chromebooks. Do you see the trend?
I should not have to take steps to keep them from tracking me - it should be opt in. And an easy way to revoke consent.
Until then, let them cry while the rest of us laugh at them.
Re: cognitive dissonance (Score:2)
That's easy, just block Google, FB, Apple, and all other companies by setting up some IP subnet blocking at your firewall. Heck, it might be easier for you to just block everyone and whitelist only the companies whose content you do want to see. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a bad idea, the whitelist only.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with the advertising industry being part of the system that pays for content that I'm interested.
But they don't, not really. They just function in a way that funnels some proportion of everything we spend, back into content creation. It's just disguised, so we don't see it. But the companies that pay for the advertising, pay for it out of the money they receive for the goods and services that they sell.
We could have the exact same system, without the advertising, and call it a "media tax". Of course, everyone would hate that, because taxes. So we disguise it as advertising instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!
Back to browser (Score:3)
Will probably push Facebook and other companies away from creating custom apps and back to a web browser based business model. I'm sure Google is thrilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, Safari on iOS is the worst modern(ish) browser, so trying to write a nice web app to run on iProducts is going to be annoying for those companies too.
Re: Back to browser (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox on iOS works well these days.
Re: (Score:2)
All browsers on iOS are just veneers over the underlying iOS Safari engine. Apple has consistently refused to allow any other browser engine on their platform.
Re: Back to browser (Score:2)
Apple has consistently refused to allow any other browser engine on their platform.
Considering how many exploits are browser-based, I'm sure Apple (correctly) figured they would have enough trouble just trying to keep WebKit reasonably secure!
Re: Back to browser (Score:2)
Websites can still set cookies to track you when you visit one of their web pages with browser. Not as good as what they had, but still a money maker.
Re: (Score:2)
But every modern browser lets you control or block those cookies, so it's still arguably less intrusive than the shady ad ID stuff being done with native mobile apps that iOS is about to kill.
Good Job Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate ALL and I mean ALL ad slingers. I've had google (and its hundreds of domains) blocked for years.
Add an Ad blocker (adguard in my case)
Just doing that makes the internet useful.
My life is NOT fair game for the data slurpers.
Anything that gets advertised to me more than say three times goes on my 'do not buy' list.
Being a certified Grumpy Old Man, I seem to be a target for the life insurance and funeral plan scumbags.
For the above, I applaud their move to limit shysters like Zuck from stealing data on
It is indeed self-inetrest (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple makes money selling devices that actually respect user privacy, instead of giving it away any chance they can.
So yes it is in Apple's self-interest to protect user privacy in as many ways as possible, mind-boggling that "self interest" that also benefits all consumers, is being painted as a negative.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while, and maybe I'm forgetting something. But I can't recall... off the top of my head anyway... any MacOS iOS data transfer that I use iCloud for now, that I didn't used to do through iTunes. iCloud is just more convenient, and I don't store sensitive data there anyway.
iCloud data all encrypted (Score:2)
If Apple truly respected user privacy, it wouldn't push them to upload so much to iCloud when it's not properly secured,
How is it not properly secured? All data sent to iCloud is encrypted, even before it is sent. Apple can't read it, nor can anyone else without your account credentials.
Not everything is end-to-end encrypted (Score:2)
The problem is, that isn't true [apple.com]. Note that only certain specific categories of data are end-to-end encrypted. The rest, including potentially very sensitive data like photos, are not.
Until iOS 13, the list that was not also included things like browser and maps history, but at least those have now been corrected. So there are steps in the right direction, and Apple clearly has the means to do full end-to-end encryption of everything, yet it chooses not to do so.
Re:iCloud data all encrypted (Score:5, Informative)
Apple can read device backups but not other iCloud data. Just because a password reset doesn't prevent access to your data doesn't mean Apple can access that data.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It is indeed self-inetrest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does GMail have to do with the price of fish? We were talking about whether Apple respects user privacy. It is abundantly clear that Google does not, but that wasn't the subject of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling people names like you do says more about you than about them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you overlooked the use of the word "standard" in my previous comment. Requiring more of Apple's proprietary technology just to get data off some of Apple's proprietary technology is hardly a cause for celebration.
If you plug a modern iPhone into some random Windows or Linux PC via USB, it will allow you to transfer photos and videos just like any digital camera. That's using one of the standard USB protocols.
There is absolutely no reason that other types of data on your phone couldn't be transferred
Who cares? (Score:2)
I don't give two shits for Facebook or advertising agencies nor the people who work for them.
Unfair to ad-firms? (Score:3)
Are you crazy? There's no such thing.
Easy answer (Score:3)
"Are Apple's Privacy Changes Hypocritical, Unfair to Facebook and Advertising Companies?"
Hopefully, yes.
To quote Serenity (Score:2)
Do we care? Do we care about advertisers and Facebook?
war of the parasites (Score:2)
Pants On Fire (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple also offers advertising,
Liar.
IAd ended in 2016. They donâ(TM)t âoeoffer advertisingâ.
"I think there's probably 30 percent truth in that they're doing it for privacy reasons and it's 70 percent that they're doing it because it's what's good for Apple," said Nick Jordan, founder of Narrative I/O, which helps companies gather data for advertising.
What a trustworthy source! [/sarcasm]
So, even taking this literally paid shill at his word, what percentage does he think Facebook's tracking and data-mining is done "for privacy reasons", vs. "what's good for" Facebook?
"It's a question for regulators and courts whether they should be able to wield the power they do over this ecosystem," he said. "They created it, but can they rule it with an iron fist...?"
Sorry. Their ecosystem; their rules.
Already decided in Apple v. Psystar. An Operating System (a/k/a "Ecosystem") is not a Market nor Submarket; therefore, it cannot form the basis of a Monopoly.
Also, Android exists, and has a handy majority of the smartphone device sales.
And, most importantly, the overwhelming majority of those who chose Apple actually enjoy the many security and privacy protections that Apple has built into their Ecosystem. Otherwise, they would simply switch to Android, and use one of the available Apps to migrate their data. Apps don't count, as they would have to be replaced regardless of the direction of migration.
Re: Pants On Fire (Score:2)
Sorry to Reply to my own Post; but IMO, my point regarding the non-difficulty of migrating from iOS to Android deserved some amplification and citations:
Unless you count Google Drive, these methods of iOS to Android transfer don't even require an App:
https://www.android.com/switch... [android.com]
https://www.macworld.co.uk/how... [macworld.co.uk]
https://www.appgeeker.com/ios-... [appgeeker.com]
https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]
Here's a guide that lists six iOS to Android Transfer Apps:
https://mobiletrans.wondershar... [wondershare.com]
So, anyone that claims that people re
Re: (Score:2)
Sent from my â(TM)tphone.
Re: (Score:2)
"Liar.
IAd ended in 2016. They donâ(TM)t âoeoffer advertisingâ."
Yet they reported almost two billion in advertising profits and expect to be able to hit past ten billion in ad profits by 2025... hmmm.......
It's like you don't actually look into Apple statements, and just spout off with extremely outdated information!
Re: (Score:2)
They sell ads on the App Store and for all I know their other services like Apple TV and Apple Music. They don't run their own ad network anymore. That's presumably where that advertising income comes from. So the OP is technically correct, and so are you - they no longer sell ads through third parties like Google does, but they do sell ads that they run on their own services.
That being said, anyone who thinks Apple doesn't collect the exact same information that Google does is being completely naive. Of co
Re: Pants On Fire (Score:2)
They sell ads on the App Store and for all I know their other services like Apple TV and Apple Music.
Sorry, no.
No ads on either AppleTV nor Apple Music.
Re: Pants On Fire (Score:2)
Nope. I saw the $2B figure, and the SPECULATION that it could rise to $12.5 B by 2025.
1. $2B is FIVE TIMES less than your LIE of $10B.
2. $12.5B is a SINGLE-SOURCE SPECULATION.
As I said: LIAR.
Re: (Score:2)
Already decided in Apple v. Psystar. An Operating System (a/k/a "Ecosystem") is not a Market nor Submarket; therefore, it cannot form the basis of a Monopoly.
An App Store is a market, and if you make your App Store the only source for software for your operating system, then you're anticompetitively tying. That wasn't the case for MacOS, which is what Psystar was violating copyright on.
No (Score:2)
Ad quality (Score:3)
Being the devil's advocate here, there is going to be a drop in the ad match quality. The controls are usually binary (tracking / no-tracking) without an ability to tune things.
Having lived the 1990's net, and remembering the horrible ads on all pages (literal human genitally on crowded computer labs were no longer embarrassing, since everyone knew it was most likely an unwanted popup), the current state is comparable better.
That does not mean there should not be oversight into the ad profiles though. I am okay when they know I am a gamer, or my rough geographical area. In fact, I can probably fill a simple questionnaire. But I would not want each and every step of mine to be followed. (I have ublock that roughly does this for me).
I am hoping we will not go back to dark ages of really terrible ads, but still assert personal control on how much they know about us.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is in the 90s, we didn't have Ad-Blockers yet ( other than maybe your host file hacks ) as no one would ever have dreamed we would have needed one. :| Leave it to the same folks who fucked up TV to also fuck up the internet. ( advertising )
These days, all my mobile traffic is piped through a VPN ( OpenVPN ) which also runs DNS though Pi-Hole ( which is also configured to run DNS over HTTPS ). Apps I use are minimal. OpenVPN and a weather app ( RadarScope ) since I live near the coast. I
Re: (Score:2)
Just noting that I write mobile banking apps for iOS and that the level of security (penetration testing, certificate pinning, encrypted communications, encrypted keychain, protected binaries, etc..) is much higher than that of a "simple website".
Especially when for any major company website you're going to have a ton of third-party Javascript libraries involved in the process. (Have you seen a typical Javascript/Typescript/(Angular/React) web stack these days?)
FB, Google, etc can Respond by Boycotting Apple (Score:3)
If the advertising/data gathering industrial complex doesn't like what Apple is doing they can boycott or leave the Apple platform.
Re: FB, Google, etc can Respond by Boycotting Appl (Score:2)
Facebook and google boycotting Apple users would be an incentive for people to get Apple hardware.
Never seeing an ad served by either of them would be BIG!
Of course I don't see ads anyway, but you get what I mean.
Not hypocritical - just dishonest (Score:2)
There are two business models in play here.
Apple: Charge upfront - Charge loads for devices (and get something from the store, services, etc)
Facebook/Google/Many others. - Free upfront, Make it pay through advertising.
Apple's just throwing a giant fuck you in the 'make it pay through advertising' business model.
It isn't hypocritical except in so far as they pretend that they're acting in their consumers' interests.
The thing is the consumers have been getting a load of really cool products from the free stu
The only fair thing (Score:3)
The only fair thing to do would seem to be to pass a law that requires clear and detailed opt-in for all tracking. Or just ban it entirely.
Damaged reputation of ad companies (Score:3)
"iPhone users will have to opt-in to tracking starting with iOS 14. Advertisers are "crying foul," reports the Washington Post"
The advertisers did this to themselves through their own actions. I don't know how many people here are aware of this, but your medical insurance company, among others are sifting through this data looking for anything they can use against you to deny your claim. And with the lack of transparency of WHO buys the data, you may not know that you are getting screwed over right now.
"I don't want my privacy invaded" isn't just a mostly empty slogan because people simply don't like being watched. There is potential real world damage that can be done with the misuse of this data.
A fight among advertisers? (Score:2)
Boo-fucking-hoo. I hope they all kill each other and leave a Web that has a chance of being what it was before advertisers raised their hind legs and piddled all over every square inch of it.
Dear adverters and facebook (Score:2)
I wonder if there will be a knock-on effect (Score:3)
Considering the reason a lot of things are made free by advertising revenue....could it result in iDevices eventually losing access to some of these free services / products in the long run?
Apple really appears to be heading back in the direction they used to be....where they were hostile toward anything that didn't come from Apple. Heck, I remember originally they weren't even going to allow 3rd party native apps on iOS originally.
I wonder what their perceived value would be if all the big players withdrew from the iOS / Safari market?
Re: (Score:3)
Key different between Apple and Facebook (Score:3)
Is that Apple tracks user activity on its own apps and Facebook tracks users all over the internet. I would be willing to bet that most FB users have no idea this is happening. Privacy advocates have been pushing for FB to go to an "opt-in" model for years and they have refused to do so.
While Google isn't much better in this regard at least they make products (search engine, mail, Android, laptops, etc.) that are largely beneficial to mankind. I believe that somewhere around 90% of FB's revenue comes from advertising, much of which is gathered and sold to other companies. It wouldn't be as bad if FB would at least be up front about it (i.e. have a opt-in policy). But no, they hide their privacy settings in a endless maze of settings that the average user simply cannot figure out.
I just refuse to use a product that is so underhanded with their own customers. So I applaud Apple for taking a stand for the data privacy of their customers by calling out FB on their shoddy practices. My hope is that Google will follow suit for their Android customers.
Mmmmm ... schadenfreude (Score:2)
iPhone users will have to opt-in to tracking starting with iOS 14. Advertisers are "crying foul,"
Advertisers? Cry me a river. These fuckers have claimed for themselves the unchallengeable right to monitor the actions of every person on the internet and profit from selling the data. Let them work for it. Mmmmm ... schadenfreude.
What Apple ads? (Score:2)
I've never seen any ads pushed by an Apple OS or app on any of their devices.
There are or were in-game ads presented via the app developer,
but I've never seen anything like what happens on the ad-subsidized Kindle,
or other nightmare scenarios I've read about from Windows 10.
Have I been missing out?
Yes. No. (Score:2)
Hypocritical? HELL, yes. Apple is not doing this to protect user privacy - it's doing this to keep the gold mine to itself.
parasites (Score:3)
Some in the advertising industry
You don't need to read further than that to know that they're full of shit.
The advertisement industry is a parasite and has become increasingly toxic ever since they discovered that thing they call "target advertisement" and that normal people call "bringing in total surveilance in order to make a few bucks".
If the government were doing half of what the advertisement industry is doing, we would all be up in arms (literally, in the USA).
Now they're crying foul that someone is throwing sticks in their way. But damn, it's been enough and too much for years already, and time someone does something about it.
I love headlines like these. (Score:2)
Oh those poor advertisers! (Score:2)
FTA: Advertisers are "crying foul," reports the Washington Post:
Boo hoo. I bought the device, I pay to charge it up, and I pay to use it. Where do advertisers gain any rights in this relationship? Nuts to them.
Re: Their just Mad because (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's garden has higher and thicker walls than their gardens! ;)
And, as a fellow "old grey beard", speaking for the vast majority of those who chose Apple, that's just the way we like it!
Re: Their just Mad because (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an important point. All the people who whine about the walled garden in the Epic threads are all Android users. I have yet to hear from an Apple user who is upset about the iOS restrictions.
Re: Their just Mad because (Score:2)
This is an important point. All the people who whine about the walled garden in the Epic threads are all Android users. I have yet to hear from an Apple user who is upset about the iOS restrictions.
By George, I think he's got it!
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, then let me. I want to be able to sideload my own apps I make myself. I want to be able to buy ebooks off Amazon. I want to be able to put icons on my homescreen where *I* want them, not in whatever order Apple deems appropriate. And yes, my daily is an iPhone, but I also have an Android.
Re: Their just Mad because (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ok, then let me. I want to be able to sideload my own apps I make myself. I want to be able to buy ebooks off Amazon. I want to be able to put icons on my homescreen where *I* want them, not in whatever order Apple deems appropriate. And yes, my daily is an iPhone, but I also have an Android.
Disregarding for the sake of argument that you are nothing but an offtopic troll...
1. You are free to install anything you write in XCode onto your own iPhone/iPad. In fact, you are even free to Build and Install any of scores of Open Source iOS Projects available from any of a number of Repositories around the internet.
Neither requires a Dev. License.
2. What do you mean "ebooks bought off Amazon?" If you mean Kindle Books, there is a Kindle App for that. If you mean generic EPub format books, here'
Re: (Score:2)
Try buying an ebook from the amazon/kindle app. You can't. Apple has decreed that ebooks are digital goods, so they are subject to the rules around IAP, meaning you can't use your own checkout process for ebooks, you have to use Apple's, meaning Apple gets 30% of the sale.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a few ebooks with the kindle app.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then let me. I want to be able to sideload my own apps I make myself.
You can do that since year.
I want to be able to buy ebooks off Amazon.
You can do that with the Kindle app, oops. That was a no brainer.
I want to be able to put icons on my homescreen where *I* want them,
Then just do that. Use your finger and drag them to the point you want them. Troll? Or Idiot? Or both?
Re: (Score:2)
An Apple user who is upset will move away and will not be an Apple user anymore.
It's like those ads where a company brags that it has 95% satisfaction among its customers... the real question is, who is that 5% that stays despite their dissatisfaction?!
Re: (Score:2)
Users that are forced to use Apple by corporate/reasons, users that are not satisfied with Apple but think the other options are even worst, users that are waiting for a new hardware/software release from the competitors before switching.
Re: Time for a positive Apple story I see :) (Score:2)
This is just setting up some people whining about the inevitable and refusing to face reality for punching bags to make Apple look better
Apple could hardly look any better than they already do for this feature.
The proof is in the fact that even most of the Apple Haters can't say anything bad about this. Parent had to resort to a strawman change-of-topic to even attempt an anti-Apple pist in thus thread!
Oh, and no one reading Slashdot can seriously claim that their Editors have a Pro-Apple bias. That's just a hoot!
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen what most third-party app stores provide on Android... ah... no.
Unless it's your thing to collect malware, adware, trackers, clipboard snoopers and the like, in which case... still no. Buy Android.
Seriously, I don't understand developers that think they're going to make more money from third-party app stores. First, the fewer places I give my credit card number to, the better.
Second, I suspect that most would make less money, since from what I've seen a lot of third-party "stores" exist to sell
Re: Time for a positive Apple story I see :) (Score:2)
Re: How Long Until Android Adopts This Feature? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't even remove googles key apps - they're all marked "system."
Re: Irrelevant. The users are what matters. (Score:2)
Really? Firefox may be struggling, but it works fine on IOS on my phone. And since I've set toblock all images and videos, I never end up going over my crat2 gig mobile data w, even if I never use WiFi.
Re: Apple IS an advertising company (Score:3)
That s not the deal. They track everyone, even people who don't use Facebook. So I like that Apple is giving people the power to say "I have changed the deal. Pray I don't change it again."