Slashdot Mirror
Every Major Advertising Group Is Blasting Apple for Blocking Cookies in the Safari Browser (adweek.com)
The biggest advertising organizations say Apple will "sabotage" the current economic model of the internet with plans to integrate cookie-blocking technology into the new version of Safari. Marty Swant, reporting for AdWeek: Six trade groups -- the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others -- say they're "deeply concerned" with Apple's plans to release a version of the internet browser that overrides and replaces user cookie preferences with a set of Apple-controlled standards. The feature, which is called "Intelligent Tracking Prevention," limits how advertisers and websites can track users across the internet by putting in place a 24-hour limit on ad retargeting. In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as "opaque and arbitrary," warning that the changes could affect the "infrastructure of the modern internet," which largely relies on consistent standards across websites. The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Who could have predicted that consumer privacy would be a lesser concern than revenue flow to industry trade groups?
I bought a motorcycle helmet years ago, I still get ads for the helmet and others I researched. Fucking ads suck.
Unless Apple has a patent on it...
I have to manage enough other stuff and generally ignore cookies.
That said, cookies do show me what my wife is shopping for on Amazon, but I don't need to see that (it is funny to call her and implicitly talk about what's she's looking at, but that only worked a couple of times).
BlameBillCosby.com
This might just get me to use Safari.. The idea that advertisers have any right to users browsing habits is a concept that needs to be crushed.
If I have to see ads on a web site, my preference is that they are "generic and less timely and useful" since I'm going to ignore them anyway.
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
The advertising industry is MAD! We're sooooo scared!
If they get too mad they may just deprive us of their services! God forbid if Adblock become irrelevant!!
If "Every Major Advertising Group" hates this, then it shows that Apple is probably doing the right thing :-)
These guys killed "Do-Not-Track" in the US and made a joke of "cookie laws" in the EU. Looks like now they have found a stronger opponent.
I hadn't thought about it, but all major browsers allow users to block third-party cookies. If they would only make this the default behavior, it would do a world of good. And piss of the marketeers even more.
The only problem I ever have is when I want to read comments on a site that has outsource them to an external service like Disqus. But then, that's usually a good reason to skip the site entirely...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Small violins, get your small violins here
Yes, Microsoft has a long history of enriching companies it works with to their mutual benefit.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
For all of the complaints people have about Apple, I feel the one thing that really sets them apart is their continuing effort to protect the user's privacy, even at the cost of software functionality. Siri has been lagging far behind other services, and at least some of it is due to her inability to track a user's preferences and habits. Apple is now introducing changes to the software that attempt to solve this by storing the information locally on the user's device so that government and law enforcement officials can't "demand" the data from Apple.
People do not want advertising. They do not want 'targeted' advertising, either. Find a different business model, marketers, we don't want the one you keep pushing.
The idea that "consumers" want ads, much less that they want "timely and useful" ads is mistaken.
Ultimately though, I imagine it is good for Google, Facebook, and other advanced tracking providers; they can easily evade any tracking avoidance strategies... unless Apple decides to proxy everything via iCloud.
A twenty four hour time limit? That's about twenty three and a half hours to long!
Apple doesn't subsidize their hardware by selling your private information to people.
Ever wonder why Google gives away Android?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
So on my Mac I have Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Firefox has a whole heap of extensions that help keep things tight so I'll use that in the darker regions of the net, and Chrome works well with Google Docs so that's pretty much all I use it for. Safari is my main browser and that's what I'm using now. For all the hate Apple gets they did kill Flash and if they can kill cookies then all the better, especially on mobile.
As others have said, Google is an advertising company and for all the good things about Android, that's the main thing that keeps me away. You would think though that the rise of AdBlock, and do not track, and cookie controls would be enough to tell these advertisers that we don't like what they're doing? Don't they track that stuff?
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Mac.* RewriteRule .* - [R=404]
As has been pointed out, Google is an advertising company cubed and won't do this unless they're forced to. But Mozilla and Firefox (and it's descendants) could, and I hope they will. All the more reason to switch (back) to Firefox.
If the advertising industry is opposed to this move, then I'm all for it. Fuck them.
The internet has ads?
My guess as to the retargeting apologist's reply: "Have you bought another of the helmet as a gift for another biker in your circle of friends?"
Perhaps the biologists studying hippo butt leeches ? Because "yes, there are simularities."
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It's in Apple's best interest to regulate the ads because in the end if usability suffers or if privacy issues arise it reflects badly on their product. Same thing with Google. Intrusive ads eventually discourage people from going on the internet or using their devices. Things neither company wants.
They said this before when Safari introduced Reader mode. Somehow the advertisers survived anyway. Next...
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
If timely and useful advertising is so valuable to us users, then why are they giving it away for free?
They should make us pay a subscription fee to get timely and useful ads.
And seeing what percentage of the population that signs up to pay for "timely and useful" ads would indicate whether the advertisers are full of shit or not.
Apple doing something good, amazing
Now if they also stop supporting javascript it would definitely be a browser worth using !
If web browser developers were to stop supporting JavaScript, web application developers would make native applications instead. And many such developers aren't going to have the resources to make and thoroughly test five versions of each native application, one for each of GNU/Linux, Android, Windows, macOS, and iOS. This means users will end up unable to use some applications that they would have been able to use had they been web applications.
Or should a developer deliver a Windows application that has been tested in Windows and Wine, expect GNU/Linux and macOS users to use Wine, and expect Android and iOS users to do without?
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Won't somebody please think of the users? These ad groups are just trying to get them the information they need! *chortle*
I always get a kick out of it when these types of groups make it sound like they give a crap about the wellbeing of their cattle. Like anyone wants to see their ads in the first place.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
A better user experience doesn't involve ads.
I agree. A user experience is possible without ads. You just have to chan...
To read the rest of this comment, log in to your comments by tepples account or subscribe to comments by tepples.
Self-Destructing Cookies is a great Firefox plugin that sandboxes cookies and deletes them with a configurable interval. Thus, you can still use sites that break when you disable cookies. It also supports deletion of Adobe Flash ghost cookies, you probably have *never* cleared out.
Personally, I also use NoScript and Ublock Origin to further make life hard on the blackhats trying to pwn my browser, use me to gather data, or track me constantly. I prefer my web with passive content. Once you ask me to run code, I'm off the bus unless you have a really, really good reason, and let's be honest - you fsking don't have one.
So everyone can hear how upset you are about a marginal loss of ability to stalk users as they move from website to website.
Phone the press... demand they cover this very important issue before it's too late. Better still.. launch a public awareness campaign... after all stalkers have rights and are people too.
I can't believe that the ad agencies are still trotting this out:
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
It's almost as if they actually believe that spying on everyone is a good thing. But then, they also say this:
collectively representing thousands of companies that responsibly participate in and shape today’s digital landscape
Judging by their use of the word "responsibly" there, I'm thinking that they simply don't understand what words mean.
- Sites which demand removal of ad blockers are avoided.
- Pages which demand payment after a couple of paragraphs, showing encrypted content below that payment demand have their window closed.
- Unique email addresses used for any purchase or other web contact and deleted when they start sucking.
- The greatest sucker for me right now is opera-mini, whenever one opens a new tab or window _not_ with ssl, they bring up an ad page in your face instead the URL you entered - immediately hated and ignored, not even looked at.
- try finding a parts manual download for some equipment, welcome to internet hell. Impossible to wade through all the suckers and get what you need.They want a CC # for "verification" - OK give them one virtual with a pay limit of $ 1 and cancel the CC # if you don't like them, but still they can't get you what you actually are looking for. What a circus of suckers out there!
- You buy an item for $ 4, and be rewarded with emails sucking for "feedback", how do you like... Sometimes I reply that it costs $ 25 for my time, they never bought into it. Maybe put an email filter in for "content rejected" and bounce them?
What all this boils down to - kill those sucking sites by ignoring them - good luck! It only will get worse....
It's the nice way of saying "This prevents us from targeting users"
It's not an ad blocker. It's more like a "self-destructing cookie" plugin.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Utter and total BS! A better user experience doesn't involve ads.
And you can argue that generic ads may bring something to your attention that you wouldn't have encountered with ads targeted toward the things you've recently read or searched for. When the advertisers start saying "less timely and useful", what they're saying is that they have to fall back on serving ads that you're less likely to respond to, making the ads less valuable, limiting the prices they are able to charge the companies for ad placement. Nothing about generic ads hurts you; they only inconvenience the ad-service agency. Which I think is a good thing; it puts them in the same boat as the companies who, say, pay for billboard advertising -- they have no control over who drives past them, so they're essentially serving a generic ad to drivers. The ad-service agencies want to have the sort of ecosystem they have with magazines, where they can expect that someone buying a magazine will be more interested products relevant to the theme of the magazine. The problem is that targeted ads on the Net are almost invariably flogging something that is relevant to something you looked at or searched for some time ago, and are jarringly discordant with what you're looking at now. And trying to make ads relevant to the site you're visiting is way too limiting to the ad service for them to make decent revenues off of it.
To the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others:
Your ads hurt my user experience.
Your tracking hurts my privacy.
Your infected ads hurt my computer.
Basically, you hurt people. If you disappear that will be a good thing.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
The only "standards" these guys are in favor of are the ones that line their pocketbooks. Do-not-track is a standard, and all these fuckers ignore it.
Apple should put it in raw, deep, hard, and repeatedly.
The parasite scream when you pull them off.
Apple has never given any indication that they'd be willing to fork over user data. They've fought harder for user privacy than any other company.
No, not because they are better human beings, but because *that's what their business model demands*.
They make money by selling physical devices and they are judged by how well those devices work. They have every financial incentive to improve the actual user experience.
well...
There's a non-zero probability that you were somehow unsatisfied with your purchase, returned it, and are still in the market for a similar superior item.
yeah, that's still straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
...so websites will support Safari less and less, if at all. Because a Safari user will bring in less advertising revenue than a Chrome, Firefox or IE user. Why waste time on a user that doesn't pay the bills? Like a coffee shop catering to the freeloaders.
I can't recall a single time in my entire internet history that I've ever purposefully clicked on an ad. Relevant or not, I blanket ignore them and always have. I've been trying to figure out how so many people use ads on the internets that they're a lucrative business.
I SEE them. Sometimes they're for things that I might actually want or use. But even when Google shows me exactly what I want in my search, I skip past the advertised slots. There's 1/100th of a penny they may not get, but there's a slightly weaker advertising profile they have on me.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Microsoft works with people in the same way that a tapeworm works with people.
There are a LOT of Safari browser users, and they have (and spend) more money on average than other browser users. iOS uses Safari.
I was going to comment too. Apps are inherently ephemeral, they're going to be popular today and shunned tomorrow, they're highly risky. If you're entry level, or already financially secure, then it's probably ok to deal with apps. But anyone who wants stability should avoid basing their livelihood on them.
but goddamn, it's tshirt with a goat on it! Almost made me look it up on amzn and buy one. almost.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You can't violate an agreement that you didn't enter into.
In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as âoeopaque and arbitrary,â warning that the changes could affect the âoeinfrastructure of the modern internet,â which largely relies on consistent standards across websites.
When will people learn that what is provided to a web browser is merely a series of suggestions? The browser can take the suggestions, or discard them, and there is only so much the server side can do about it. I've seen website refuse to show content to browsers that block JavaScript or cookies but that's fine, I don't have to go to your site.
If their advertising model can be broken with a web browser that provides a feature that people want then perhaps they should change their advertising model. Disposing of cookies that want to exist until the end of time is a place to start. Ignoring autoplay requests would also be nice. If I want to watch your video then I'll hit the play button, thankyouverymuch.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
... the groups describe the new standards as "opaque and arbitrary"
Not arbitrary at all. They're specifically designed to target the advertisers.
Nope, no sig
The only cookies I allow with uMatrix are the ones set by the primary domain, all others are dropped.
but goddamn, it's tshirt with a goat on it!
Not just any goat. It's a goat powered by the C programming language. What programmer wouldn't want a goat C?
If the ads weren't so annoying this wouldn't be happening
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Hey, now, it takes a really high quality polish to finish off a turd and make it presentable. Ask Jony Ive.
... 'that the changes could affect the "infrastructure of the modern internet," ' ...
That sounds very desirable to me, I would really enjoy an internet that wasn't taken over by advertising. It seems like a lifetime ago when all you had to endure from websites were animated gifs from over zealous web designers.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
You can't violate an agreement that you didn't enter into.
If the TOS has the following: 1) Your browser must accept cookies. 2) If your browser does accept cookies, you're entering into an agreement by accepting our cookie. 3) And you're so out of luck.
^^^
This really needs modding up. I am surprised the advertisers are even slightly concerned about cookies anymore when browser fingerprinting is a far more insidious and (currently) difficult to overcome privacy invasion for the end-user.
Since Google has persuaded almost everyone and their kid brother to run adsense code on the page, they have a canvas-fingerprint-trackable record of clickstream from page-to-page/site-to-site.
Tools like panopticlick and ipduh can give you an immediate sense of the problem, but trying to reduce it is tricky.
To sidestep fingerprinting pretty much means running the Tor browser or Firefox with Random Agent Spoofer, Decentraleyes, and a custom user.js set up with something like pyllyukko's prefs.
All of that is for the user who is visiting the site, not the maker of the browser they're using.
Ghostery + hosts file + cookie monster = Yumyumyum internet. Next we need a way to get around "dynamic pricing" , we currently use 2 machine with one being via a VPN so we can price compare.
Meanwhile, Nabisco’s board of directors hold an emergency meeting to discuss the eminent demise of cookies and alternative confectionary marketing synergies.
They actually believe that pissing off potential customers is a good thing.
.... they're all mentally retarded.
Their logic is that people pissed off enough to be whining online about advertising industry practices are guaranteed to have noticed advertising, and people noticing advertising is Their Entire Point Of Existence.
Anybody with more than half a brain can see the obvious flaw in that logic, but like I said
This change will not impact me in the slightest:
1) I don't use safari aside from extemely rare occasions 2) I ALWAYS use a variety of STOP THE BULLSHIT ALREADY tools already, like uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, etc.
If the ENTIRE global advertising industry fell into a black hole overnight the world would be a better place, these people are pretty much the amoral unethical inhuman scum of the earth, up there with NeoNazis, the Alt-Right and friends.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's a miracle that advertising has existed for thousands of years without the ability to target people based on random bits of inaccurate data.
There was a new industry sprouting up. People were being paid to write junk articles for fractions of a BitCoin (a bit like Amazon Turk where you had to write five paragraphs on a holiday in Hawaii using chosen words a selected number of times). People were starting to complain about all they were seeing were these articles.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Have you considered making actual software instead of apps?
Mobile apps are still sofware. Sure they have a different form factor but often their audience overlaps the desktop market.
If someone has a use or need for an expense reporting app, they most likely have a PC of some sort.
Likely, yes. What about tradespeople and mobile support/salespeople? They all have mobile phones so that they're contactable. With the appropriate mobile app they can photograph receipts as they make purchases and send them to their accountants for up-to-date book keeping. (There are actually apps that do this already.) Beats keeping a pile of receipts in your truck that you'll probably lose or just forget about.
Just because it can be an app, doesn't mean it must be an app.
Totally agree. Apps are tools just like any other software and they should only exist to fulfill a purpose. Who'd want an integrated development environment on their phone, for example?
>infrastructure of the modern internet
Holy shit. The ego on these guys. The fucking ego.
YOU showed up to the party. Uninvited.
This is NOT your fucking party. This is not your house. And it logically follows the party will go on without you, because your implied dependency is bullshit.
You are unneeded. You. Are. Not. Needed. Stop pretending otherwise.
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Now if they only make it so the browser won;t report anything about itself that would be great !
I really, really wish browsers would stop handing this information out. It's such an obvious thing, and I remain baffled about why no browser has fixed the issue.
If you piss off ALL the Mad Men, you've obviously done SOMETHING RIGHT!
In the past, I was willing to allow ads to show up on the webpages I visited. I knew how to block them, but I was sympathetic to the idea that most of the pages I visit are funded by advertisers, so it seemed fair. Then Facebook decided I desperately needed a Russian bride. That was the final straw and so from then on, I've blocked them.
However, I still feel like it is reasonable to support the websites that I want to visit. I'd be willing to pay a pittance, but until Google (because it'd have to be built into Chrome) decides to handle micro-transactions, it doesn't really work. Now that they're going to start doing a built in ad-blocker on Chrome, perhaps the time has come to suggest a Faustian compromise.
Dear Google: Step up your game and I will help you advertise to me. You already have huge amounts of data about me, so I'm willing to trust that you can handle my advertising preferences as well. I will give you permission to see my purchase history with my credit card companies and with my banking companies. You already have my search and email info, but I'll check a box that says you can use it so you can make the EU regulators happy. Give me the button on Chrome that says "Only ads from Google" and I will let you be the middle man on every online ad that I see. I will even do the same for my phone. Surely that's appealing?
In return, I ask four things:
1) Keep my data secure.
2) Let me unsubscribe from the ads that I find distasteful. I want to uncheck the "lots of skin" preference and know that no ad that I see will be of a scantily clad model. I want to uncheck the "wine and spirits" and uncheck the "marital aid" and uncheck the "boner pills" boxes. And please, please let me uncheck the "find a date (if you know what we mean)" box.
3) Make it super easy for websites to use your advertising to make money. If this doesn't work out better for the sites that want to be supported by advertising, then this will never be a winnable war.
4) Do not fail. I visit one site multiple times each day. I cannot get uBlock to consistently block their stupid video advertisement boxes. I'm never going to do business of any kind with that company and don't need to see them. Somehow, that website has so many hooks into them that uBlock can't seem to keep a consistent grip on the problem. I end up having to block them at the DNS level and that's a stupidly manual approach to the problem. If you do a good enough job of ensuring that I don't see irritating advertisements, I will not only accept advertising again, I will actively help you do it well.
The problem with blowing away your cookies every time you restart is that it breaks sites that use two factor authentication. Because receiving the verification code through SMS on a prepaid U.S. cellular plan costs money each time, sites using 2FA offer a "Remember this computer as mine" option. If you disable persistent cookies, you end up having to receive SMS every time. For whom would this be worth ten cents per day times the number of sites that one logs into per day?
There are those of us who don't mind an occasional ad. AB+ and its Acceptable Ads program is a workable compromise. And a program using ~140 MB while your browser is running isn't exactly a major concern in this age of multi-GB RAM builds. Most PCs come with 8 GB of RAM so the 140 MB for AB+ is a drop in the bucket. If you're dead-set against all ads, AB+ will block all ads for you. I use AB+ because it sends a message that responsible ads are fine. If I wanted to remove all ads, I could just as easily null-route all the known ad networks at the firewall and never see an ad again.
Today I am pro-Apple. Well done, Apple! I am hearing nice things about you for a change.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
... as when I got married in 1980.
We got mail (snail) offering us all kinds of deals on homeowner's insurance, local stores, and all that shit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Wouldn't the end result be pretty similar to IE's Tracking Protection feature where the browser just won't make requests to domain's on the blacklist?
...or Adam & Jamie...
Getting the same ads about that one product you've purchased for the next 30 years.
Buy Your Motorcycle Helmet Again Today! and we'll come back tomorrow!
Who'd want an integrated development environment on their phone, for example?
Well, I do have emacs on my wifi phablet, does that count?
Pale Moon (and Firefox, I presume) allow you to block all cookies not in a whitelist. I have 20+ separate profiles, 1 for each site I frequent. In each profile, I whitelist the domain name, to allow login cookies, etc. Thus...
* each profile only has the bare necessary cookies
* you don't end up with doubleclick.net dropping cookies on profile A and profile B, and figuring out that
person X on site A == person Y on site B
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
> ..so websites will support Safari less and less, if at all.
so websites will support browsers-that-report-user-agent-Safari less and less, if at all.
FTFY. Now I suppose that the next round consists of the advertisers' buying a judge to rule that falsely reporting a UserAgent contravenes the CFAA, and gets you several years in prison.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Really hard to imagine what was supposed to be insightful about that wannabe tweet.
Anyway, if Apple is doing the right thing, it must be for the wrong reason. More likely it isn't even the right thing, but just a confusing slight of hand of some sort. Not like Apple would upset the apple cart that made them the most profitable inhuman corporate monster on the planet.
Remember: There is no gawd but profit, and HIS prophets are Apple, Gilead, Google, Exxon, and some big gamblers. I'm lumping the big banks and other financial gamesters under winning "gamblers" there. This list of profit's prophets for 2016 courtesy Fortune.
Capitalism? Long dead. All hail corporate cancerism and Pope Apple the First, Last, and Infinite.
Now a word from our sponsors! This joke has been brought to you by...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I believe yours [MachineShedFred's] is the most insightful comment in the entire large discussion, so it is noteworthy that you (so far) have received no mods for insight. I admit I searched backwards, looking for the "google" keyword rather than "insightful". However, after I reflected on my joke about upsetting the apple cart, I realized that the insight here HAS to be centered around the google as the explanation for Apple's action.
There were a couple of weak-kneed defenses of the google. Their fundamental weakness was that google doesn't mind if a few people opt out of cookie-land as long as the default is cookies, cookies, everywhere (along with the related advertising that makes the google's profits possible). It's rather similar to the divide-and-conquer strategy that the so-called Republicans used to destroy public education in America (so they could cultivate that bumper crop of Trump-voting mushrooms). They left a few good schools behind so the people who actually cared could hope THEIR kids might get one of those slots in a good school while the lion's share of the students went to obedience schools you wouldn't send your dog to. In this case, the google is willing to allow the escape of the few people who care that much about their privacy. Their only concern is that the lion's share of Internet surfers accept the devil's bargain of privacy for "free" websites, including the google's own websites.
Which is where your unmoderated comment fits in. This is a war to be the biggest, baddest motherphucker in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, just like they taught me in boot camp. We were supposed to be fighting for truth, beauty, and the American way of life, but Apple and the google just want bigger profits, and each of the inhuman corporate monsters would gladly destroy the other for a nickel more in profits.
I say it's a fake problem because it has no solution. Always a bigger number for the next profit.
Apple thinks they have a winning jujitsu strategy here. I still say they are upsetting their own apple cart, though their motives are an interesting mix of short-sighted pursuit of profit and the actually good idea of protecting human privacy and freedom, per my sig. Too bad none them understand the sig, and probably not you, either.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I agree that not only are most ads annoying, but they are useless as well. Last evening I was watching some guitar reviews and an advertisement about a guitar capo came up. I haven’t clicked on an advertisement in a long while. I found the product interesting and new. I would rather have an option to set that I enjoy gadget and music advertisements, instead of getting tracking cookies.
They must really enjoy tracking their users. I can't even access the article. Instead I get a page that says "Access Denied - Sucuri Website Firewall" with "Block reason: Bad bot access attempt." Running Adblock, NoScript and UAControl with default:block (send no User-Agent at all) probably doesn't endear my browser to them.
Good! If Apple manages to do this, they should be applauded.
Fuck advertisers, they're the scum of the earth.
Eat the rich.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
â" Banksy
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I guess Safari users could install extensions to change the User-Agent to Chrome or FF, but I wonder how many people will do that. Seems like a pain. Does Safari even allow an extension to do that?
And in the mobile space, Safari accounts for over half of the web browsing being done. Not only that, but Apple users are considered a premium advertising niche because they are wealthier and spend more readily than the general population.
If the advertising groups are complaining about this already, it is probably going to be very effective, so I am all for Apple and every other browser maker going ahead with it. Fuck them.
This. Apple is just establishing themselves as the gateway, and will then require payments.
After all, it is quite well established that Apple sees their 'users' as both the customer AND the product - happy to charge them, and sell them.
The only way this would be avoided would be for the method to be transparently published, so everyone could clearly see what Apple was doing
I wont be holding my breath on that.
The difference is important.
Advertising is making sure people know your product exists, and some features of it.
Marketing is convincing people to purchase it, no matter their needs or its features.
Advertising is almost completely dead, and involves very little money.
Marketing is massive and involves a huge amount of money.
This is about marketing, not advertising.