Apple is building an ad empire as its iPhone privacy crackdown weakens rivals | Hacker News Reader

Apple is building an ad empire as its iPhone privacy crackdown weakens rivals

axios.com

220 pointsgalogon167 comments

Sounds like they're copying google with their desire to get rid of cookies / FLOC etc.

Strong privacy stance on privacy for others (and in media)...but very quiet on 1st party inhouse ability to connect the dots.

I have a hard time seeing how this doesn't end in anti-trust tears for both of them

At least Android can't stop you from installing ad blockers.

I am able to use Firefox Focus to block ads in Safari on iOS. I’ve not had an Android for a while. What additional ad blocking features would I have on Android these days?

ublock origin on firefox

I would guess that the argument is that, on Android, you always have the option of rooting your phone or installing an alternative OS. So Google is a bit more limited than Apple is in how hard they can clamp down.

Personally, I don't know that that's true. It may be easier for Apple to do it because the ecosystem is more vertically integrated. But that's a coordination problem, not a technical one. I don't think there's a single major player in the Android ecosystem who wouldn't be willing to go along with a plan to lock things down just as far as laws will allow.

Always? I was under the impression it’s taking a lot longer for phones to get rooted.

I should have specified a non-rooted phone. Years ago I used to root androids, install cyanogenmod or similar, and sell them locally. People would pay a premium for that. But I am no longer in the camp where I want a rooted phone as my daily driver.

I am also weary of giving "random" third parties access to my browsing. I think that my least bad option on iOS is Mullvad, with all blocking turned on. But the bad part there is no browser integration to whitelist sites.

I wonder if it would be possible for Mullvad to present their system as an ad-blocker to Safari, if you are running Mullvad VPN.

> I am able to use Firefox Focus to block ads in Safari on iOS

You think you are able to, but you just got lucky so far.

Focus code is very buggy and work for only a few sites. It's very hard to contribute fixes, so I expect it to stagnate even more. And since the sites we, the tech elite, read are similar to the ones the few maintainers do, those will be well served while all the rest of the internet will not see any improvement. IMO it will probably rot away like reader-mode.

Also, it is trivial for publishers to evade it :( just not a effort anyone even bothers with because of the low traffic.

Real firefox for android allows you to install uBlockOrigin. The only actively maintained adblocker that is being gasslighted everywhere. And that you was never allowed to install on IOS devices thanks to Apple the company.

1Blocker and AdGuard Pro for iOS are both quite good.

1Blocker in particular has a great UI for homebrew element targeting, while AdGuard Pro supports arbitrary lists and relatively rich blocklist filter rules.

Both are very actively maintained. The innovation from AdGuard is surprisingly rapid, they are not just resting on feature sets from long ago.

The workaround on iOS for this seems to be something like Mullvad's VPN with blocking turned on. Are their lists up to snuff?

https://github.com/mullvad/dns-blocklists

If you are not using a custom Android OS such as Graphene, Calyx, Lineage that don't have Google Play Services,.. you can still remove Google Play Services and other bloat used for ad tracking by using the universal android debloater found on Github. Then you can use browser Mull with ublock origin found on f-droid.org.

Using Edge + adblock addon is like Firefox Focus.

iOS natively supports content blockers and Safari extensions.

Super misleading. You can block websites manually, but you can’t add an adblocker to Chrome - so if you want an ad free experience, then you’re forced to use safari, a historically subpar browser - but worse, it’s vendor lock in.

If this article is true, this is some terrifically anti competitive behavior

I believe that’s Chrome’s decision - like on Android.

I’m using Firefox Focus with its native Content Blocker.

All browsers on iOS are merely rebranded safari. No such thing as a subpar browser IMO, just subpar websites that require browser features no one should need.

I'll take the one with about a 1/4 the energy usage and proper tail calls in Javascript.

Think those are related? I think they are. Who knows. I just respect tail call elimination.

Chrome on iOS uses the same browser engine as safari; it's vendor lock in regardless of what you do.

Can you play a YouTube video in the background with no ads with that, like Firefox mobile?

“Content blockers” are merely a relatively short list of patterns that Safari itself will exclude. It’s nothing like uBlock Origin in power and flexibility and lets far too much through.

They sure could rip the whole extension store from default Chrome to make sure you don't get one without going the extra step (which like 90%[0] don't) of getting Firefox.

0: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/world...

I mean they could by locking down the platform more like Apple does...

You can install ad blockers for safari in iOS. For system-wide, I recommend using an adblocking Public DNS server, like AdGuard.

In getting rid of third party cookies it's Google copying Apple. This is something that Apple brought mainstream with ITP in 2017.

You could always disable them in Firefox both desktop and mobile. So I guess they're both copying Mozilla in this regard.

For decades you've been able to manually disable third party cookies. The place where Apple innovated was in defaults.

Probably gotta give it to RMS then. He's kinda the OG in this area. And if you must use the innovation parlance, then he is the innovator for pretty much all user freedoms on computers.

I argue IE6 (P3P Policy) was an early great try.

> I have a hard time seeing how this doesn't end in anti-trust tears for both of them

In Apple’s case, I hope antitrust action comes before they stray too far and whilst their interests are still aligned with mine. I don’t want them to make any money from advertising, because then they have a conflict of interest and their pro-privacy arguments fall flat.

(Google is too far down that path for me to trust them in the future. Anti-privacy is also their core business, whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices).

> whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices

I wonder if Apple is predicting that this wont be the case for much longer (lack of real innovation (excluding the M1) and market saturation), so they're being proactive to dominate another vertical. They will likely capitalize on their current image of being privacy kings.

Just because their primary revenue is from hardware, doesn't mean it isn't attractive to also add extra, uncorrelated revenue sources such as ads and data. Whether they have innovation or not is irrelevant to this.

It is relevant because transitioning from premium into an ad platform is a low-brow-caveman-bottom-of-the-bucket move, only the best one to make once you're out of better options.

Truly premium products respect your privacy.

It turns out truly premium goods aren't Google, Tesla, and soon won't be Apple, if Tim&co go down this path.

"truly premium" is one of those no-true-scotsman arguments.

The problem is that apple intends to make maximum profit. The premium product can produce that, but if they smell that their customers don't care enough about privacy, they could _also_ sell ads on top of the premium tax. So until people starts dropping iphones because of it, they will proceed.

If the US government (or any, really) makes that unattractive, then I am all for it, regardless of any innovation aspect. It’s like Samsung double-dipping by making its smart TVs gather data about their users. This should be illegal.

oh yes, it should be illegal. Just like people should care about poverty in the world, or should care about the environment and climate change.

It’s been explicitly stated many times. It’s why Ive left. They are a “services” company now.

this is what you get when you elevate an operator (an operations/finance focused exective) in place of a product visionary. that's no knock on tim, who's done what he's been incentivized to do by the board and shareholders, and a good job at that (and rewarded disproportionately so). but steve wanted to win with a superior product, not just numerically as tim does. that's why steve, many years after his death, still garners more respect publicly than tim (though tim is respected too).

it's the same slow decline that happens over and over in these cases. apple is already focused primarily on services, which you can see in their financials. product has stagnated, while services continues to grow, and with it, more and more capital invested in chasing manufactured prestige awards like oscars and emmys.

Services usually mean recurring revenue which is valued at a higher multiple. It’s very hard to build a high value multiple product focused company.

it's certainly harder, but steve did it. tim is unable to, hence the shift to services for easier short-term growth, at the expense of long-term brand loyalty.

It wasn’t been explicitly stated anywhere by anyone who matters

It was a core slide of the Leadership retreat several years back. Its been referenced several times. Hardware arrow goes down services arrow goes up.

No no, I meant the Johnny I’ve leaving part.

You’re right on all the numbers stuff

Read their financial reporting, they jump through hoops to show service revenue to their owners

I meant johnny Ive leaving, not the financials. Agree on that one for sure.

Two things have been stated publicly and privately in some circles.

1) shift from hardware to services 2) remaining hardware directions (VR) focused in separating users from the world vs augmenting

I haven't left yet but it's looking bad. They are nearly out of room to grab more market share, and can't continue growing that way, so one of the few ones left to expand is ad revenue or to purchase other companies, and Apple doesn't really seem big on polluting their brand "Apple" with "lesser" companies.

Why do you not think there is more room to grab market share in the laptop/desktop market?

> I don’t want them to make any money from advertising, because then they have a conflict of interest and their pro-privacy arguments fall flat.

Absolutely. Advertising and professional services (read: consulting) are both inherently user-hostile channels of revenue, and dangerous enough they should be capped for a company's own strategic good.

Some paths are too seductive and dangerous to naively wander.

> whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices

Microsoft primarily makes money selling software, too. Despite that they're really tracking happy. You'd think selling stuff incentivized less malicious conduct, but...

The anti-trust is a bit of an odd one. A few possibilities - do Google and Apple wind up controlling the online ad market? Or - does the ad market shrink because Apple exploits it less? (Killing an industry isn’t anti-competitive per se)

Another angle is that captive audiences will be steered to other Google or Apple products. But debatably this only becomes anti-trust worthy when Google and Apple will start to buy more businesses in non-core areas eg. To compete with Amazon as the everything store.

Microsoft is definitely doing this with gaming, buying up many huge game properties.

>Killing an industry isn’t anti-competitive per se

Using your dominance in one market (computers/phones) to muscle into another (ads) is about as anti-competitive as you can get.

Also if those ads are exclusively limited to the original market? People can easily choose to shop outside of that market and be exposed to exactly 0 of those ‘anti-competitive’ ads, only to the competing ads.

It’s not, though. Consumers don’t buy ads. Apple wouldn’t have a monopoly, or be harming consumers.

Otherwise Facebook using its social media site to take over ads from Google would be anti competitive. Or Google taking over with AdSense by using its search engine. Or TV/cable stations taking over from newspapers or radio.

None of this is anti-competitive. They’re different markets that change as the underlying communication medium changes.

And it’s not like ads are somehow killed by Apple. It’s the surveillance based customized ads that have been made less common as customers can deny their use (or approve them!). Ads existed for a century without that level of surveillance.

apple is in a better position to defend against our (laughably weak) anti-trust enforcement, because the platform is closed, so they'd argue that the ad network is an intertwined part of that one market (mobile computing). google, being an advertising (and surveillance) company first and foremost, has a weaker position wrt the any of their flanking businesses, especially mobile computing, since it's hard to argue that mobile computing is an essential component of the ads business.

i'd vote for anyone who promises (and has a realistic plan) to fund the anti-trust division with 100× their current funding (the IRS too) to crack down on all these distortions in our markets. i have little hope of seeing such a political candidate however.

There is precedent with broadcast affiliates and satellite/cable TV companies who have significant control over Radio or TV ads on some channels.

I also don’t see how giving consumers choice on ad surveillance could be seen as anti-competitive. Where is the consumer harm? Where’s the monopoly?

Heck, even ad networks dying weren’t considered anti competitive when AdSense took the industry over when Google exploited its search engine, or when Facebook took on AdSense by parlaying their social media power. Again, you have to prove harm or attempt to create monopoly.

i'm not sure what you mean by "choice on ad surveillance", but my point was about anti-trust, not simply anti-competitiveness or monopoly. anti-trust is using market power in one segment to distort another one unfairly.

the precedent you point out is what helps apple claim they're not a trust, because the two components, ads and content, go together in one business model. with google, being paid to place ads is the business model, and competing in the various channels for those ads are potential anti-trust encroachments because they're different markets.

as is usual in these cases, the harm is an inflated market price above the non-distortionary baseline.

My point was that all Apple has done is let end users disable third party tracking cookies on apps. They gave users choice on whether they wish to be surveilled. That’s it.

The only potential market this capability hurts is the market for ads based on surveillance on Apple devices. Would these be seen as an illegal/unfair practice? I find it highly unlikely to be seen as such by any western government.

Even if Apple is found to be anti-competitive, it could still be decided that their behavior is in consumer interest, right? For example if their ad service is actually privacy respecting somehow.

You don’t need to invade privacy to show ads in a search result, based on that search. That’s how DuckDuckGo survives.

We’ve all heard the anti trust whining about the App Store for over a decade now. It’s not happening. Nintendo gets to decide what you put on a Nintendo Switch, Apple gets to decide what you put on an iPhone. That’s not monopoly abuse, if you don’t like it buy different console or an Android phone.

Phones have become an important generic computing platform, which is why in different jurisdictions there’s political action to force Apple to loosen control. That wouldn’t be happening if it was so obviously illegal monopoly abuse because then it wouldn’t be necessary. Yet it apparently is.

> That’s how DuckDuckGo survives.

Interesting example. I found that their service is definitely going downhill.

I’ve been using them almost since they came on the scene. in the past two months I have had to double check search results against Google, where as I expected the results are far superior.

In the previous years I’ve almost never had to double check a result.

So, I don’t know about the future of Apple at all, but I hope the quality stays higher than your example.

Its not “obviously” monopoly abuse by virtue of the fact that the antitrust laws have not been updated to account for modern markets and technologies. Beyond that, its not hard to distinguish between Nintendo, a company that makes consoles and video games (and has several larger competitors); and Apple, a vertically integrated empire who controls a big chunk of the global communication and entertainment markets and does not have significant competition (just cartel-style competitors).

Apple controls slightly less than 20% of the global smartphone market and has been bypassed by Samsung in market share. It’s just ridiculous to claim they do not have significant competition, they have less than 20% while that other over 80% is all Android.

Even in their biggest market, the US, they barely pass 50% and the rest is all one very successful competitor. Pretty significant competition.

The global smartphone market is irrelevant, since the majority of global non-Apple purchases are cheap, one-time hardware purchases with low margin and no long tail revenue. Apple absolutely dominates the market in revenue (~65%) generated on those devices (which is recurring and high margin). They control the only roads that matter, and they only have 1 real competitor in Android. That's not a competitive market by any metric I am aware of.

Additionally, they have and continue to enforce regulatory authority on their platforms, which is the role of government, not a private company. It's anticompetitive for a massive private enterprise like Apple (or Google) to arbitrarily use its' distribution platform to control the economic fortunes of the companies built on that platform.

They have a real competitor, yet it’s not a competitive market.

Remember how Microsoft had 95% market share and how they were actively and overtly abusing that position to embrace, extend and extinguish any threats? Everyone was crying antitrust and it never went anywhere. The worst they got was the EU forcing them to put up Windows without Windows Media Player, which then got bought by nobody, and the browser choice pop-up they got rid of after a few years.

If you think anything worse is going to happen to Apple with their 20% market share, or even if you somehow inflate the number to 65%, think again. It’s not going to happen under antitrust law. If anything is going to happen it’s going to be new laws.

> They have a real competitor, yet it’s not a competitive market.

Yes, that's completely consistent with the Brandeis view of antitrust. Cartels are not a competitive market.

> Everyone was crying antitrust and it never went anywhere.

Not facts. It resulted in a successful prosecution by the Clinton DOJ, and Microsoft was ordered to breakup in 2000. The company appealed (dragging past the election) and it was settled by the Bush DOJ, which obviously resulted in weaker policies since the Bush lawyers subscribed to the Borkist view of antitrust.

> If you think anything worse is going to happen to Apple with their 20% market share, or even if you somehow inflate the number to 65%, think again. It’s not going to happen under antitrust law. If anything is going to happen it’s going to be new laws.

Guess we will see. Seems to already be happening based on the defensive moves these companies are making in response to more aggressive regulators, but I agree new laws would help move things along. I didn't "somehow" inflate it. I looked at the recurring revenue streams from the app store instead of device sales, because app store revenue is a massive stream of profit, and devices are low-margin commodities.

> You don’t need to invade privacy to show ads in a search result, based on that search. That’s how DuckDuckGo survives.

DDG does track how you interact with their search results and search ads, same as Google.

DDG does not set a cookie that identifies you and as such has absolutely no way to have your ads or anything else be influenced by what you searched for earlier or what results you clicked on, outside of the single page you get when you search.

Check it for yourself using your favorite browsers developer console, there are no cookies, unless you set preferences and if so, the cookie is a very short string that indicates your preferences and is obvious not usable as a user id.

What they do is log what is searched for and what results and ads are clicked and that is not tied to you. Because they don’t have a concept of ‘you’, only of that one search.

And that is definitely not ‘same as Google’, Google automatically sets a user identifying cookie once you open the homepage, tries all kinds of tricks to tie this user id to your Google account and tracks anything you do to that account and remembers it forever. That’s why you only need to search for a car once to get ads for cars for weeks. Even if you clear your cookies. That’s Google tracking you. DuckDuckGo does not do that.

And it is really unfair to just accuse them of being ‘same as Google’. They are not same as Google, obviously they are not perfect but they do make the sacrifices while still making it work without tracking everything you do.

Good point on the cookies!

> That’s why you only need to search for a car once to get ads for cars for weeks.

I don't think that's right? If you search for things about cars and then click through to a page about cars you'll get tagged with all sorts of advertising cookies, same as if you did that with any other search engine. But I'm pretty sure just searching for something on Google won't affect either (a) what ads you see on future Google searches or (b) what ads you see on non-Google pages around the web.

(Disclosure: I used to work on ads at Google, though not search ads.)

an in house ad network that only targets iphone users and Mac users by default? yeah I would choose that, no question

This article does not support its clickbait headline with much in the way of facts. "Analysts estimate" that Apple's ad revenue could drastically increase. Insiders talk of a reorganization. There might be ads included in more apps. The headline makes a major assertion the body does not support.

Article says Apple is adding ads, and they will benefit from data their competitors now do not have. What else is there to support?

There is nothing to support, because it is all conjecture. That is the problem.

This is the source the Axios page links to, which is just a Bloomberg writer postulating what Apple might do.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-...

How else are they supposed to report on this if Apple is not even disclosing the revenue they get from advertising? Expert analysis and anonymous sources seem like the most journalistically diligent path they have.

Do we just not report on Apple's ads because they choose not to provide us with first hand information?

With facts, research, leaked documents.

It’s Axios, vapid political clickbait is kind of their thing.

Analysts and insider leaks are the best we are going to get.

Are you expecting to have an official Apple press release be quoted?

I'm sure they can increase revenue but I'm not sure how Apple can build an ad empire by adding more ads to its own apps.

Apple canned their mobile ad platform and compared with Alphabet and Meta who's ads are peppered all over the web/search/facebook/instagram - the amount of impressions would be miniscule.

I found it useful conjecture. It presents evidence and states the conclusions it draws, with appropriate disclaimers. Based on the facts, the conclusions are not unreasonable.

- Apple has kneecapped ads from competitors, this is acknowledged fact

- Apple services revenue has grown significantly since, which includes ad revenue, this is acknowledge fact (to the SEC no less)

- Apple does not disclose ad revenue as proportion of services revenue, but it's reasonable to think it would grow as well

Digital marketers have personally told me app install ads and the like on Facebook are no longer effective, so we'd expect those dollars to move to other areas.

Moreover, the chart of 2021 ad revenue shows Facebook at $114B, Apple at $4B. The article text says Facebook worries Apple’s changes could cost them $10B, less than 10% of their 2021 ad revenue and more than double Apple’s total.

The narrative doesn’t match the numbers.

>The narrative doesn’t match the numbers.

Yet, just look at Amazon's if you want to see how fast it can grow. Or how the app tracking prompt popup compares for their own (pretty CTA for "Yes personalized ads please!") vs third parties ("Oh no I don't want spyware!").

We sell you super expensive product, charge everyone 30% tax for anything you buy on it, put health monitoring devices on you (that you pay for), have directly your credit cards in the wallet (including custom one from us) and in the end capture more data that any other ads giant now.

And we’ll use that for ads. But it’s fine. It’s locally so it’s fine and you are not a product. All because we convinced people using our deep pockets that they should only care if data is on servers?

There is no competitor to their super expensive product.

Of course there is. Apple advantage is it's closed system not the iPhone. If you only need to maintain compatibility to your own products it's easy.

If it wear MS not Apple they would already be fined for anti competitive behavior.

Where is the difference between MS bundling IE with Windows and Apple forcing Webkit in all iOS browsers?

> Where is the difference between MS bundling IE with Windows and Apple forcing Webkit in all iOS browsers?

Monopoly.

You mean Facebook which is today's scapegoat. They can't buy Beat Saber or Giphy.

Microsoft is buying the largest game developer for $70B without skipping a beat.

And every major tech firm buying up healthcare arms.

As of today FB owns Giphy and Beat Saber

UK courts are fighting them over Giphy. US FTC is fighting them over Beat Games (Beat Saber) and Within Unlimited (Supernatural).

I'm not saying FAAMGs should be able to spend hundreds of billions unchecked in consolidating M&A, but this contradiction when no one flinches at Microsoft buying Activision makes it pretty obvious, in my possibly mistaken opinion, that this is no objective process.

iOS doesn’t have 95% market share. Edit to clarify: Windows had a monopoly on the desktop market in a way that is different to regulators (I guess) from the Google-Apple duopoly of today’s mobile market.

But back then you could install another web browser. On iOS it's more like another skin for Safari

There isn’t much lock in with phones or tablets as people go back and forth between iOS and Android. Apple’s advantage is simply selling a compelling product with great advertising which is why they are so profitable.

I find it odd that people get so invested in Apple as a company, but while beating them head to head is difficult it’s also potentially extremely profitable.

Buying all the apps is an additional factor to be considered.

>There is’t much lock in with phones or tablets as people go back and forth between iOS and Android.

It still complicated to transfer all data and settings from one Android phone to another Android phone. I highly doubt it's simpler to transfer all data from iOS to Android or vice versa

> It still complicated to transfer all data and settings from one Android phone to another Android phone.

Odd, it’s almost trivial to go from iPhone to iPhone, but I never had 2 Android phones in a row.

Anyway, despite it being a major revenue stream most people purchase minimal if any apps and of those many can make the swap. Money sinks like Clash of Clans generally let you transfer accounts between platforms to keep people hooked. And of course subscription like Disny+ are independent.

Putting aside the walled garden of iMessage, what’s so special about iPhones that you can’t do with any other expensive smartphone?

The average person is just checking email, taking pictures of their food, reading garbage news sites, and watching mindless fad videos.

It doesn’t suck.

That’s basically the reason me and every iPhone owner I know buy one.

> It doesn’t suck.

Yet. If iOS News app is any indication of how bad their ads will be then I think they really will be hurting themselves in the long term. My guess is there are many like myself who now use Apple products as the “least bad” option rather than truly liking them anymore, that sentiment will grow way faster when people start seeing ads in more places.

I’m one of those people where consistent keyboard shortcuts is the main sticky feature, but that only let’s me put up with so much.

I agree. The iPhone is indeed not perfect, but Android makes me grow white hair. (I don’t use the news app though. Can’t say anything about it. If they start putting ads around the system I will think of alternatives.)

An acquaintance bought one and sent it back within the day. iOS is apparently "the worst non-meme OS" they've used in a while.

iPhones don’t have Samsung product managers.

When my $1000 Galaxy started waking me up with Samsung push notification ads I had not opted in to, I knew I was done with Android.

The mistake was getting samsung.

But yes it should be widely known that android on samsung isn't the same as android on nokia or motorola.

> Putting aside the walled garden of iMessage, what’s so special about iPhones that you can’t do with any other expensive smartphone?

Integration with Apple ecosystem, properly designed OS and not mishmash of dozens visual styles.

Your first sentence used "you". The second said "the average person".

That is two different statements. HN users are not Joe Average. Apart from working with the Apple Ecosystem, I cannot get enough privacy on Android. The new changes does not mean that Android is acceptable, it just means that the Iphone is also not acceptable, leaving me with zero acceptable smart phones.

> that you can’t do with any other expensive smartphone

There are two, again two platforms that matter for phones. That's it. "Well, it is not 1, so we can just twiddle our thumbs and ignore the problem" is not at all convincing. And then people get sidetracked with "but the term monopoly taken literally means...". Yes, nobody cares. Antitrust is explicitly not just about that.

> Apple is planning to expand its advertising business significantly by placing more ads directly on users' devices directly, Bloomberg reports. The expansion would include bringing ads to more of Apple's own apps on iPhones and iPads, including Apple Maps.

I smile remembering "if you don't pay you're the product" which apple lovers lobbied looking at G users, hinting they payment for extra margins will save them from being ad targeted.

But now:

- Paying won't save you from ads.

- You're paying but you're still the product

- And ultimately Apple also gets huge sums from Google, for selling their users.

Remember a long time ago, you'd get cable TV to avoid ads that you see via OTA TV?

It's ads all the way down.

Exactly, that was my argument that if eyeballs exist, it will be monetized using ads.

I never got the “if you don’t pay..” arguments, it seems like you pay and still become a product. What connected devices honestly don’t collect everything possible if you pay for it? I bought a kindle and listen to audible on my phone, now I get recommendations based on my listening on the kindle. Same for a Roku, same for a cable box, same for not trying to buy a smart tv or appliance, same for nearly everything…

Reminds me of a throwaway line on West World season 3, “… before the privacy laws...” like what is it going to take to stop this? Ad industry has been an absolute disaster for the human experience IMO.

I think they're just getting ready to compensate for the new EU law (Digital Markets). Nothing more, nothing less.

To be fair to Apple this is how our capitalist society is set up.

Apple device owners are generally rich, young, impressionable and loose with their money. They are the holy grail for advertisers.

I chose the MS ecosystem over Google with similarish reasons. And now everything is dark patterns into Bing, the browser won't end to end encrypt things like synced browsing history, etc.

TVs are the same. Pay a pretty penny for a high end TV, hello, we'll still stuff this thing full of ads and tracking cookies.

I really, really wish companies would stop asking themselves "Why not both?"

> We sell you super expensive product, charge everyone 30% tax for anything you buy on it, put health monitoring devices on you (that you pay for), have directly your credit cards in the wallet (including custom one from us) and in the end capture more data that any other ads giant now.

I get what you're saying, but Apple didn't put a health monitoring device on you, or shove a credit card in your wallet. That was your choice, totally voluntary, and as a knowledgeable person you were to some degree aware that your data would be stored and processed as a result. You made a choice to trade privacy for whatever convenience you expected those products to provide you.

I would disagree with all the "you knew that Apple does this bad X,Y,W and Z before you bought the device". I am not an iOS user and for example I bought an Android Phone for my son and I had the surprise that it did not had Google Play on it and I could not install it (some Google shit was required for school).

The issue is that on the sell page or the produc box there is not a list like

1 this device does not support Google Pay or for Apple

WARNING , before you biu you MUST acknowledge

1 you can only use Safari with skins

2 you can't use apps we think are too mature, or too siple, or might use compete with us, or apps we just don't like

3 if you are in China we will send your data straight tot eh goverment

4 you will not be able to developer or install any app for your device unless we review and anyone your account.

5 apps that are on our store today might be removed tomorrow , or blocked to send you updates

6 ad blockers are more crippled then on other devices,

7 messaging with your Andoid friends will be crippled

8 we will scan your photos for bad images and report you to the police ------

100 ....

So it is FALSE that ALL users know ALL the downsides and ALL future downsides when buying a device.

If I am wrong and you can see this on the online electronic shops or real world shops I would like to see this , I never seen this warnings so far.

Apple is a hypocrite. Have been saying this for years now. A deeply corrupted, arrogant and empathyless organization.

I was pointing out this very possibility when their 'privacy' controls started kicking in and I would get heavily downvoted for it. Their privacy measures are not privacy measures at all, they are simply a userbase lockout.

Corporation exists at the sole benefit of the shareholders unless they are a B corp.

Corruption would be if they used company money for something that doesn’t create value for the owners, or bribed government officials. Certainly there is more than zero corruption, but it doesn’t seem like a characteristic feature.

Arrogance would be if they rested on their laurels and stopped innovating.

Empathy is a human quality, and not something organizations can have.

Hypocrisy may or may not apply, but at least they aren’t selling my data to the highest bidder. I trust them with my data and they keep it to themselves. I’m OK with that.

Apple smells like a dystopian corporate org.

As a religious organization, Apple seems a lot more benign than say, Scientology. So far.

Unless what you care about is open computers now and in the future. Then theyre benign like a growing brain tumour. It might not be cancer, but it's still going to kill you.

> Apple’s ad business began to boom following changes it made last year to its app tracking policies that made it easier for iPhone users to opt out of being tracked across other apps on their phones.

What's the mechanism here? Is it something like this? Before the change:

1. I use say a free (with ads) guitar tuner app.

2. That app usage gets shared with Facebook's app.

3. Facebook now knows I'm probably a guitar player, or at least probably play some instrument that is commonly tuned by the player.

4. Companies who want to reach guitar players buy ads on Facebook. A Facebook ad has a good chance of reaching me.

After the change:

1. I use a free (with ads) guitar tuner app, but opt out of cross app tracking.

2. Facebook is less likely to find out I'm a guitar player. This reduces the value of Facebook ads to the companies that want to reach guitar players.

3. They shift some of their ad budget from Facebook ads to ads in guitar tuner apps.

> That app usage gets shared with Facebook's app.

That's not really the primary mechanism, as far as I know. My understanding of the flow is this:

Before:

1. You browse Facebook. 2. Companies who want to sell a guitar tuner app buy ads targeted to guitar tuner apps. 3. You click on the ad, and you download the app. Both the app and Facebook get an unique ID identifying you (this is called the "ID for Advertisers" or IDFA). 4. You use the app, maybe pay them money. The app is able to directly attribute you giving them money to the ad it ran on Facebook, and Facebook is able to know that you converted on the ad, which is very good signal. 5. The company is able to accurately track its conversions, and Facebook is able to accurately price ads.

After: 1. You browse Facebook (and opt out of cross-app tracking). 2. Companies buy the ad, you click on it, download the app. 3. You no longer get an ID, instead both Facebook and the company get a scrambled ID that they can no longer link. 4. As a result, Facebook can no longer attribute the results of its ads as effectively, leading to less accurate signal and less confidence from advertisers.

From my understanding, one of the ironic things now is that ATT has forced companies like Facebook to collect even more data (see https://twitter.com/modestproposal1/status/15272970860601139...). Because Apple no longer provides this unique ID for Facebook/advertisers to uniquely track conversions, apps/Facebook are forced to rely on much more data collection in order to probabilistically predict conversions.

Much of my knowledge of this area comes from Stratechery - I think this article, particularly the section entitled "And" explains what "cross app tracking" is: https://stratechery.com/2022/data-and-definitions/

Apple is uniquely positioned to come out on top of the cookie-pocalypse. All of their work with Apple ID will pay off once they have the largest first party audiencing capability in the world.

I suspect it won’t be the largest (by population), but it could easily be the most valuable.

I just wish the government stepped in and prevented this. this is an anti competitive move.

>I just wish the government stepped in and prevented this. this is an anti competitive move.

Apple just made the first move. The downfall of third party tracking was inevitable. Google themselves are ending cookie support next year with Chrome.

I also believe googles Ad ecosystem should also be broken up to foster better competition

What’s anti-competitive about letting customers block third party tracking cookies?

Unless you’re saying Apple shouldn’t be in the Ad business at all. But then neither should Google, or Meta, and that’s their entire revenue stream.

The moment they try something like this I'm popping out my 5yo Android phone with no Google sevices and adiòs. I already use a pretty much stock iOS system and only because the apps are just so convenient and ad-free, but if push comes to shove I'll have to retreat to AOSP default options.

And this is hopefully killing Apple. Right now they charge a premium for 1) having a seamless experience between devices, 2) being something else than google. Apple was interesting because you was paying for the hardware and software with money, not with data.

Regarding 1) Hopefully the EU will help breaking up the monopoly

Regarding 2) Why should I buy apple and pay the premium? I will buy Samsung or Huawei.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in Europe.

Close enough to a monopoly.

> And this is hopefully killing Apple

Seeing as how Apple managed to avoid dying in 1998 when it’s revenue was $7B and was operating in the red, I am pretty sure an excursion into digital advertising on 1.6B installed devices when they have revenues nearing $400B/yr, with $160B in profit isn’t going to be the death knell.

Apple must remember that it's a lifestyle brand. If their customers start seeing ads it will damage the brand substantially.

Imagine this with a business version/evolution of AirTags, digital targeted advertising with a physical element.

Yeah if ads are added, I’d like my money refunded

If I were Apple, I'd try serving ads something like:

Send a randomized bundle of ads to each iPhone (the ads must come from my servers). From that bundle, select the ads that fit user interests most closely. Don't report which specific ad the user was served.

This would presumably be quite annoying for advertisers, but it would preserve user privacy and, hey, Apple basically has a monopoly on users who actually pay for apps so what are they going to do? Perhaps the advertiser could be provided with some artificial profiles with statistically representative taste profiles to see how often their ads come up.

I don't care if the rivals fold and close up shop lol. Also I don't have to stick with apple if they start shoving ads at me constantly. To be honest I -could- get by with a flip phone or just using my iphone as such and turning off data. I consider most of the trappings of iphones as niceties and not necessities. All I really need is to check my email, sms, and receive calls. Most times I have a laptop with me to do the rest.

Google and Facebook build ad empires after kneecapping everyone's privacy.

But seriously, the aggregated annual revenue of the Top 5 (in the first chart in the article) is $375b. Regardless of what Apple has said or done, why would anyone think Apple wouldn't want a piece of that action?

I'm not defending Apple, only being objective and realistic.

The question will go to which company do you hate the least. I've used Android since forever and I'm planning on jumping ship. Apple is playing its cards to perfection. "No one is gonna track you... except for us, of course, but we won't be like those leeches at fb/googl".

Their brand is strong and consumer perception is everything. Fb has lost all credibility and loosing ground every day which explains their hail mary move with meta and googl with their "don't be evil" backfired really hard after they removed the slogan + change directions on different things + their "graveyard" and failed ventures (google plus, stadia, etc...).

"Luckily" for them (googl/fb), the rest of the world doesn't have the purchase parity of the US and they can milk that cow. Heck, Fb basically is the "internet" in some countries and TSPs have offerings around it (Free Fb, Ig, Ws Navigation).

as usual the apple subreddit was cheering for this before the thread got removed

HN is cheering it too, but I'm not surprised about it.

Talk about Stockholm syndrome...

Well, after selling 2 billion iPhones, it makes sense that Apple needs to start making money in other ways, such as user services in Apple+ (which I think is a good deal, especially for the family plan).

Just my opinion but I don't much mind some advertisements if I feel like they are not impacting my devices' security or my privacy.

I am a huge fan of Apple's new Lockdown Mode - I have it enabled 99% of the time.

Do you run into any difficulties with Lockdown Mode enabled regularly?

Only one difficulty: I like to look at Kindle books "Look inside" feature on amazon.com and Lockdown Mode messes this up. It takes me about 10 seconds to disable Lockdown for amazon.com domain, and when I am done previewing a book it takes another 10 seconds to re-enable it. The end result is that I don't preview as many potential Kindle purchases.

After the first sentence I thought this was parody, but after reading the rest I guess you're being genuine.

Why is selling billions of thousand-dollar devices not enough? Can't they be satisfied with a successful business selling hardware at high markups to repeat customers? Why do they also need to expand into ads and destroy their hard-won reputation of being a premium brand, to milk those few extra cents per user?

Do markets not demand continual growth forever?

New phones are no longer a growth market. Everyone has one, and buying a $1200 phone every year is something less and less people are doing.

If Apple totally trashes their reputation, who are they going to flock to... Google? That is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Markets do not demand continual growth forever. Simply being the most reliably profitable company quarter and quarter is perfectly fine. But the revenue streams of a company must evolve with the changing tides.

For example, I like the idea that Apple remaining insanely profitable doesn’t necessarily mean I need to keep buying new iPhones every 2 years.

It’s much better for consumers (and our planet by the way) if these devices continue to have increasing average lifespan.

Obviously it would need to be in Apple’s best self-interest to invest literally billions of dollars of R&D in order to get these devices closer to a 10 year lifespan than a 2 year lifespan, it’s not going to happen in a capitalist system if it halves their revenue.

For that equation to work out, factoring in increased market share for making a phone so robust and software so un-bloated, I’d say they would need to earn roughly 3-4x the revenue of selling a new device from each user over that 10 year period from higher-margin services instead.

"Do markets not..." That's not my problem. Apple can't get busted up for all I care. I don't really have a whole lot of sympathy for one of the largest corporations in the world.

I don’t disagree with you, but markets also get saturated. I have an old iPhone 11 Pro and I just bought my wife an iPhone 13 Pro. I could by a new phone for myself, but nothing that I see is worth my time of going to the store, setting up a new phone, etc. Piling on: buying new gear unnecessarily often is also really bad for the environment. If Apple wants to continue to thrive, I think they need alternative income streams.

You mentioned Google. I think they are also working hard to find additional income streams. Google has good products in GCP as well as entertainment media like YouTube, YouTube Music, Play books/movies. But they are still too reliant in advertising.

I think Apple will do better than Google in branching out, but to be honest I enjoy both companies products while taking full advantage of Google’s privacy settings, Apple’s Lockdown Mode, etc. if people use Google with default settings, well, that is their decision.

>Can't they be satisfied with...

No, capitalism & capitalists are never satisfied. The whole system requires constant growth.

Hate the phone, love the stock.

capitalism?

They talk about Apple maps and I for one would like to be able to say I’m looking for a restaurant and see the logos pop up along my route.

I’m just hoping Apple will keep their privacy focus. Ads and privacy do not need to be opposed ideas. Ie, my fav Dutch tech blog tweakers.net recently removed all tracking form their ads and serve them locally. I gladly turned off adblock for them and the site was still pleasant. Ads are tech relevant, well labeled, unobtrusive and not about what I bought 2 months ago, win win.

If they serve them locally (same domain as / part of the main site) they could still track you on the backend and you wouldn't even know it.

All I want is to easily be able to tell Maps “find the next exit with a McDonalds” but this is too complicated a query and so you need a copilot to fight the maps (or use Google maps to find the McDonald’s while leaving the original on your destination on Maps).

I've actually done this multiple times on google maps - search along route is the feature

There is a feature to search along the route.

Well this is not a story about a tech blogger.

This is a story about a Corporate Mega Machine with thousands of Corporate Robots all programmed with the same code. To optimize for growth. One robot opposes it. Ten robots will line up to slit its throat and take its place.

Unobtrusive ads have nothing to do with serving them locally, and are main reason why people have problems with them.

Give it some time. Ads become obtrusive because it works and it brings more revenue.

They had tracking ads, everybody blocked them, then they changed it.

Non tracking ads bring very little revenue as ads all about effectiveness. After initial experiments and cool off period you’ll either see more ads, tracking or scaling down of operations due to limited revenue.

Id think a tech blog with tech ads will work better than a tech blog with ads for the outdoor headlamp I ordered weeks ago.

I assume you do understand that you seeing ads for outdoor headlamp you've ordered weeks ago is a proof that you actually have some privacy? Conversion signal (as in - you've purchased the product) didn't reach the ad network, for whatever reason.

Also - what do you think brings more money for the publisher - ad for outdoor headlamp (that you already bought, but still, you're potentially "lucrative" customer, as you are interested in this product) or a same ad for Windows 10 for 3 years, while you run everything on Linux and never touched Windows in your whole life?

"Tech" is a very very broad category. There's a reason why tech sites serve non-tech ads and personalized ads took over internet.

I was thinking of something similar. It really depends on the ad. Something like this is or ads with search results don't really bother me as much, if it's relevant to what I'm searching for. However the relevant question is, how secure is our data. The privacy issue didn't actually catch on to the mainstream until people realized just how leaky Facebook is, with 3rd parties gaining access to your entire life.

> They talk about Apple maps and I for one would like to be able to say I’m looking for a restaurant and see the logos pop up along my route.

But then you don’t really want ads: you want information (facts about the local business near your position), ideally factual, impartial and unbiased. The fact that a lot of people seem to conflate both is actually a PR tour de force from advertising companies. Do you really want the prominence of local bars being a function of the tax they pay to advertisers?

>They talk about Apple maps and I for one would like to be able to say I’m looking for a restaurant and see the logos pop up along my route.

How would you feel if only the logos of the highest paying corporations popped up? There might be the best Mom and Pop Restuarant that every existed on your route, but you're not going to see it for all the mcdonalds and subway logos they throw at you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com