Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Apple Technology

Google Spells Out Consequences of Apple's Privacy Push and IDFA Changes (venturebeat.com) 56

Apple has prioritized user privacy over targeted advertising, and Google is spelling out today what that means for itself as well as game and app developers. From a report: Apple is advocating its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy, which will require developers to ask for permission when they use personal data from other companies' apps and websites for advertising purposes, even if they already have user consent. It will ask users to opt-in if they will allow advertisers to use their data via the Identifier for Advertisers, or IDFA. Many tests show that many users won't allow it, and that means they won't be so easily tracked for advertising purposes. This change could have a huge impact on the mobile advertising ecosystem, as it could make it harder to target users efficiently with advertising.

Eric Seufert, a user acquisition expert, said on Monday that he believes that Facebook could suffer a 7% revenue hit -- a loss of tens of billions of dollars over time -- as a result of the IDFA changes, and it's no secret that Facebook isn't happy about the impact on itself as well as small businesses. At our Driving Game Growth event on Tuesday, Facebook leaders pointed to the IDFA changes as creating uncertainty for mobile games in 2021. Google, which could also be impacted by the policy change, has stayed out of the fray -- until today. "Today we're sharing how Google is helping our community prepare, as we know that developers and advertisers in the iOS ecosystem are still figuring out how to adapt," said Christophe Combette, group product manager for Google Ads in a blog post.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Spells Out Consequences of Apple's Privacy Push and IDFA Changes

Comments Filter:
  • by Orange Man Bad ( 5608829 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:12AM (#60996900)

    If your business model is failing or can't keep up with a changing business climate then you either need a new business model or you can die as a company.

    Your failure to adapt is not my problem.

    You are not owed a successful business.

    Furthermore, my data is mine, not yours. If you make a high enough quality app, game, or service to be worth paying for while protecting my privacy I will pay accordingly if your price is within my value range. If your offering is of such low value you fear trying to charge me real money and instead require funding from advertisers outside my knowledge and control then your service was of zero or highly limited value to me in the first place.

    Build it and they will come. Everyone else can do better or find a new job.

    • by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:21AM (#60996948)
      I love how you made an excellent point and it likely got modded down because of your handle. Either that or Sundar Pichai has mod points.
    • blah blah blah advertising is good

      blah blah blah advertising revenue enables tons of free services

      blah blah blah the internet engine of growth fueled by advertising

      blah blah blah critics lack an economic alternative to the ad model

      blah blah blah our whole business is tracking people and selling them ads and selling their info

      blah blah blah whats good for google is good for america

    • Mainly because it's not representative. They've known this for years.

      https://www.comscore.com/Insig... [comscore.com]

      https://www.comscore.com/Insig... [comscore.com]

      https://www.comscore.com/Insig... [comscore.com]

    • "If your business model is failing or can't keep up with a changing business climate then you either need a new business model or you can die as a company."

      In this case, hopefully in a ditch.

    • +1 Insightful

    • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:51AM (#60997078) Homepage Journal
      Google succeed on fair and reasonable trade. In exchange for services, I let your cookie on my computer. This was innovative, as services like 2o7 relied on subterfuge and deception. Facebook also made a fair trade.

      But we are back in the world where there is only subterfuge and deception people who have no use for Facebook services are still being surveilled by Facebook. This is not a sustainable model, and every consumer centric company, like Apple, has responsibility to protect their customers.

      Even Google is refusing to provide service in exchange for cookies. On mobile devices, for example, you have to pay for PIP. It has ended Loon because it was not profitable, cost a hundred million a year. Loon could easily have been a tax deductible non profit, offsetting a profit a few billion dollars. Loon is mostly useful, after all, for helping in disaster situations.

      • I let your cookie on my computer

        Did you? Or did the browser make that decision for you, back in the 90s?

        People like you ruin everything. You're ok with paying for internet, then paying again with tracking. I bet you are ok with paying for TV, then paying again by watching commercials.

        • by fermion ( 181285 )
          My browser had lists most did. This is why 2o7 was so successful. No one could figure out how to block it.
        • I bet you are ok with paying for TV, then paying again by watching commercials.

          Public acceptance of this revenue structure predates the invention of television. Neither the subscription price alone nor the advertisement revenue alone can cover the entire cost of writing, printing, and distributing a paper magazine or newspaper. For this reason, publishers of printed periodicals require both. Many magazines even have a counterpart to interstitials in the form of multiple 2-page spreads of ads that precede the table of contents.

    • It will be (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @12:18PM (#60997210)
      when the economy takes a hit and you lose your job or take pay cuts from the knock on effects. No man is an island.

      Also there's the fact that real Journalism has been advertiser funded for centuries now. Without ad revenue they're moving behind paywalls (or shutting down all together). Meanwhile fake news, which is cheap to produce (no need to pay a newsie to pound a beat, you're making it up) and largely propaganda is free.

      This means that the Truth is Paywalled, but the Lies are Free, and that's having huge effects on our politics. There are now 2 Qanon followers in the United States Congress (the National one, for anyone outside the US who doesn't understand what that means). Both of them seem to have been involved in the Jan 6th riots (encouraging and helping the rioters). With more real journalism that wouldn't have been possible.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        I completely agree with your statement: Truth is Paywalled and Lies are Free. But that has true for centuries as well. The only part of the paper you could read without paying for it was the top-half of the front page.

        I have absolutely no problem with a paid advertisement appearing alongside, in-line, a web page. I also have no problem with a brief (under 10 sec) add appearing before a video or periodically in-line with something I'm watching. Hey, they have to pay for their services somehow.

        I also have

        • covered a lot of rather corrupt goings on and cost 25 cents. That newspaper is more or less gone now. They kept losing advertiser revenue and people wouldn't pay $3-$5 bucks for a newspaper except for the Sunday edition with the Coupons (and even that's starting to fade as old folks who clip coupons pass away).

          As for FB et all being the Deep State, not really. Zuckerberg's certainly a member of the Upper class, but nothing he does is secret. There is no "Deep State". What they do is all out in the open,
    • A Chamber Pot company, will complain on how expensive getting your home to have plumbing, and pointing out how much more inconvenient it is to have to go to a different room to do your business.

      Despite the advantages, sometimes the customer doesn't want to deal with shit.

    • And that is why your only options are either Apple or Linux.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Social media isn't all bad, it's helped many more people have a voice and get involved in politics. Taking that away from them because they can't afford it seems like a loss.

      I don't like ads and I don't know what the solution is, but it's not pay-to-participate.

  • by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:18AM (#60996932)
    I'm opposed to mining my personal data, particularly if I do not have a business relationship with entity. For example, I do not use Facebook and yet they will build a profile using data gathered from websites I visit.

    The other two issues with advertising are (1) that it is poorly vetted and malicious software has been delivered via advertising, and (2) the overhead is significant.

  • by Likes Microsoft ( 662147 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:26AM (#60996966) Homepage
    Ignoring privacy for a moment, Google and Facebook, and the parasitic targeted advertising industry surrounding them, have sold business leaders on this idea that âoepreciseâtargeting of ad messages is worth paying high premiums for. Iâ(TM)m not sure that the return-on-investment data truly supports this. However, the idea that there is a âoeneedâ for privacy-invasive ad targeting appears to have achieved the status of a tribal/religious belief.
    • by vakuona ( 788200 )

      I think the problem is not so much that it's not effective, but that it is an arms race.

      Advertising can only help change consumers spending, and not increase it. If everyone advertises, they may well, in aggregate, be exactly where they would have been, just with a bit less money as they have spent it on advertising. If you are the lone holdout, you might find yourself left behind and everyone else picking up your market share.

      Just my $0.02.

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @01:10PM (#60997512) Journal

      I'm not sure that the return-on-investment data truly supports this.

      It absolutely does. This was Google's other big innovation in the ad space, the ability to show advertisers exactly how effective their ad campaigns were, or not. Google provides tools that help advertisers determine how much revenue and profit they generate from each ad click, and what percentage of ad displays generate clicks. So advertisers can see exactly how effective their ads are... and so can Google. Advertisers pay more for Google ads because they work better, and they work better because they're targeted.

      However, the idea that there is a need for privacy-invasive ad targeting appears to have achieved the status of a tribal/religious belief.

      Do you remember the web as it was in the mid-90s, when everything was covered with blinking, jumping, pop-under, pop-over ads? Google's invention of targeted ads (first targeted based on search term and site, then later targeted on personal interest as well) did away with that, massively reducing the number and intrusiveness of ads. Targeted advertising isn't necessary... but if you eliminate it you're going to go back to a web were advertisers will do anything to grab your attention. Content will be drowned out.

      And it's important to note that privacy invasion is not necessary for effective ad targeting. Privacy-preserving ad targeting is what Google is trying to build with the privacy sandbox stuff. If the web is changed in ways that make it provably impossible to identify and track individuals, but their browsers tell advertisers "This anonymous person who sent you a GET is interested in foosball and furry costumes", then advertisers can target ads without knowing the individual at all. The Google scheme aims not only to make advertisers lose all interest in knowing about the individual, but to apply concepts of differential privacy [wikipedia.org] to ensure that it's impossible for them (including Google) to gain enough information from the entire set of information included in the request to distinguish individuals, even if they wanted to.

      • Do you remember the web as it was in the mid-90s, when everything was covered with blinking, jumping, pop-under, pop-over ads?

        X10!

      • by Halo1 ( 136547 )

        I'm not sure that the return-on-investment data truly supports this.

        It absolutely does. This was Google's other big innovation in the ad space, the ability to show advertisers exactly how effective their ad campaigns were, or not.

        That's what they claimed. In practice, their statistics have very little to do with ad campaign effectiveness [thecorrespondent.com].

        • I'm not sure that the return-on-investment data truly supports this.

          It absolutely does. This was Google's other big innovation in the ad space, the ability to show advertisers exactly how effective their ad campaigns were, or not.

          That's what they claimed. In practice, their statistics have very little to do with ad campaign effectiveness [thecorrespondent.com].

          I don't think that test is meaningful. eBay is big enough that most people search it in addition to Google, if not first.

          • by Halo1 ( 136547 )

            It's mainly about how to measure success. Google's statistics tell you nothing about e.g. the selection effect the article is mostly about.

    • Well the reality is you can't run a company on hopes and dreams. If they are able to convince business suckers to pay for targeted advertising all the while ridding us from an internet of spanking monkeys, herbal growth pills, and singles in your area then it's not really all that bad is it.

      What do you propose, and internet wh ***You need a Slashdot Premium Account to continue reading this message.***

  • words betray (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:26AM (#60996970) Homepage Journal

    harder to target users

    When you speak about users with the same word you would speak about enemy soldiers or terrorists, you should stop and think if you're approaching the issue with the right mindset.

    If people largely do not give consent, that means they OBJECT to what you are doing. Take a hint already and stop doing it.

    Will the mobile games market be hurt? Yes, probably. Then again, a large part of that market is essentially click-baiting and attention-whoring with a thin layer of gamification, so it's not a loss anyway.

  • by JKanoock ( 6228864 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:31AM (#60996994)
    I care more about my privacy than I do about my phone OS, I have used both for many years and always liked Android because of more options and less walled garden. This will make me change, Fuck Facebook, Google etc. and their invasive, parasitic business models.
    • No kidding. I never thought I'd consider an iPhone, but this is making me strongly consider switching.
      • by mattr ( 78516 )

        I switched to iPhone because of 1) constant intrusion of ads acting like malware and 2) being able to join family chat. I am *extremely* happy with the change. Part of that may be moving from a Galaxy S5 to an iPhone 11 Pro Max, which is skipping a number of generations. An unexpected plus is that the iPhone has some incredible assistive features that work very well and I use daily, mainly verbal (set alarm, turn on/off flashlight), zoom and three button clicks to magnify (necessary for me to read tiny thin

  • Today we're sharing how Google is helping our community prepare, as we know that developers and advertisers in the iOS ecosystem are still figuring out how to adapt,

    What fucking community. Stop trying to manufacture a "community" to astroturf for your pro-tracking, pro-advertising monopolistic business model.

    Now I'm just waiting for the petulant payback -- deciding to give Trump back his bullhorn and reinstating Parler. Because they only dropped that seditious psychopathic fuck because they thought they could buy good will to keep all their special exemptions and market stranglehold.

    And watch the Democrats cave to the extent they can by prioritizing muting their enem

  • Apple says "IDGAF"
  • Same place being opt-in adverts. Maybe not with stock Android. LineageOS?

  • IDKFA .. unlimited ammo. Haha you Bitches!

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I make money shitting on people's faces. If they have to opt in, most don't, and I can't shit in as many faces, and therefore make less money. So for the good of the industry (and my profits), people shouldn't have a choice.
  • by tanstaaf1 ( 770797 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2021 @11:53AM (#60997088)
    As DuckDuckGo has said in its advertising, and as its profitability PROVES (so the issue is settled) you can advertise based upon what the consumer is looking for (their need) versus needing to compile a dossier on who they are and what they react to. What is "modern" advertising? Advertising where both the product being pitched and, inevitably, the "stimulus" used to trigger a consumer action has a name and a precedent: It is a Skinner Box or, if you wish, a psych operation designed to control/provoke/manipulate the customer using secret knowledge and repeated experiment. "If you would not give your body to any passer-by to do with as they wished, why do you give your mind?" -Epictetus
  • How will I find out about single friends in my area now?
  • When your product is a commodity, such as sugar water, it's hard to compete. Advertising is a primary solution. If you sell spoons or blue jeans or cars or houses, you will have to advertise. You have a slight advantage if you have a well known brand or a reputation for a very high quality product or very low prices.

    When your product is a commodity, you should consider suicide. You have no place in the economy. Innovate or die. The world doesn't need another taco shop, another widget factory, another bland

  • My heart bleeds lumpy custard.
    I DONT have Facebook , Google, or Amazon Apps or services on my iPhone
    My Search engine is DuckDuckGo

    I do NOT consent to all your user tracking BS.

    My phone, My data, My life = My Choice to block you
  • For decades, newspapers and television managed to run just fine on ad revenue for ads that did no tracking whatsoever. The newspaper ads didn't even move. They managed it with ads that only targeted demographics in the broadest sense (ads of interest to the kind of people that also watch crime dramas, lifestyle ads in the lifestyle section, ads of interest to the elderly in the obits, etc.).

    In spite of technology making the services steadily cheaper to provide, the various ad supported industries have been

  • I would not mind seeing advertisements if all of them were only for a list of products/services i am interested in.
    Since i bought a new EV car, ~40% of the ads i see on the Google platforms are for new ICE cars (compared to maybe ~2-3% before). Completely useless for the companies paying for the ads as i won't buy another car for a long time.
    If i had an option to go in my google profile or in my browser and put a list of stuff i am really interested in, i would love to see ads about those things (and only t

Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.

Working...