Apple's IDFA Change Has Triggered 15% To 20% Revenue Drops For iOS Developers (venturebeat.com) 120
AmiMoJo shares a report from VentureBeat: Apple critics such as Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney have complained about Apple's alleged anticompetitive behavior with the App Store. But Consumer Acquisition's Brian Bowman has frequently sounded the alarm on Apple's decision to favor user privacy over targeted ads by changing access to its Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA). Based on Consumer Acquisition's analysis of $300 million in paid social ad spending, IDFA has had a devastating impact, Bowman said in an interview with GamesBeat. In a report issued today, Bowman said that iOS advertisers are experiencing a 15% to 20% revenue drop and inflation in unattributed organic traffic.
Starting in April, Apple began releasing iOS 14.5, which prompted users to answer whether they would allow their data to be tracked for advertising purposes. Apple believes this puts privacy front and center. But Consumer Acquisition and many of its game developer advertisers worry it will break personalized advertising. Only 20% of consumers are saying yes to Apple's App Tracking Transparency prompt, which means they will enable apps to personalize ads by tracking their personal data. For the traffic Bowman's company evaluated, performance has faded. Across paid social platforms, downstream event optimization and "lookalike audience performance" is also eroding. [...] Bowman believes -- or at least holds out hope -- that Apple will roll back or soften the IDFA changes by Black Friday.
Starting in April, Apple began releasing iOS 14.5, which prompted users to answer whether they would allow their data to be tracked for advertising purposes. Apple believes this puts privacy front and center. But Consumer Acquisition and many of its game developer advertisers worry it will break personalized advertising. Only 20% of consumers are saying yes to Apple's App Tracking Transparency prompt, which means they will enable apps to personalize ads by tracking their personal data. For the traffic Bowman's company evaluated, performance has faded. Across paid social platforms, downstream event optimization and "lookalike audience performance" is also eroding. [...] Bowman believes -- or at least holds out hope -- that Apple will roll back or soften the IDFA changes by Black Friday.
Bull business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bull business model (Score:5, Funny)
I don't need more TV ads after I bought one.
But you bought a week ago. By the end of the year my model shows you're likely to have about 25 more or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey about this. "Hey arsehole I was watching that, yeah I'll fucking remember you, not buying nothing from your arsehole". Screaming advertisements at people on the internet sells little but anger at the corporation screaming at you.
It is far more expensive to target ads at content but that is what works, the ads align with the content, do not scream at your potential client, if they are interested they will click and they will click if the ad aligns with the content, for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
This. With exactly one exception in my entire life, every time an ad actually motivated me to consider a product, that ad matched the content. And even then, they aren't great. They're just better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's so annoying. I presume it's because the advertisers aren't privy to the fact that you bought a TV, only that you were searching models on the internet, so on the chance you were shopping and not yet decided it shows you.
Do a few internet searches for yachts, then you won't get TV ads anymore. I was curious about them so I searched and I had banner ads for yachts for weeks. I had to wonder who is a banner ad away from pulling the trigger on a million dollar purchase that they were aiming for.
Re:Bull business model (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, burglars' income is negatively affected by the rise in home security systems.
Re: (Score:2)
And home fucking is killing the prostitution industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the same type of experience. I get advertising for stuff right after I had already purchased what I wanted.
So I know it wasn't a coincidence, because a while ago, I needed a replacement Worm-gear assembly for my Garage Door Opener. It costed about $25 compared to $100+ to replace the Garage Door Opener. For over a year later I kept on getting Ads for Worm Gear Assembly for Craftsman Garage door Opener. I guess it took my week of Googling and Amazon price checking for a replacement part that I coul
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it does not have to be; so stupid.
They could for example see that I purchased size N diapers and recognize that marketing age appropriate childrens toys to me 6mo, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years out would probably be very effective.
You could see that I bought a largish television and rather than spamming me with more ads for televisions you could market AV receivers, and speakers to me. After all now that I have big 4k set maybe i need to upgrade my other equipment or at least might soon.
The simple fa
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. We don't need to know that you like TVs. We'll just make assumptions about you like we used to.
Are you interested in our penis enlarging herbs?
Sidenote: Advertising is a useless piece of shit on the internet for exactly the reasons you list, but I still remember the internet of old. The choice was punching the monkey, or pills to improve your enjoyment when spanking your monkey.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need more TV ads after I bought one.
I'm reminded of something I read years ago (it might have been Dave Barry) on how useless advertising TVs on TV is.
If I don't own a TV, I can't see the advertisements.
If I own a black-and-white TV (remember those?), I can't see the colors of the new TV.
If I own a color TV but not your color TV, I can't see how much better the picture is.
And if I own your color TV, I don't need to see the advertisements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And if I don't want to side with either extremist leftie, I can do so... just because it has gone out of fashion to look at individual actions and judge those on a case by case basis doesn't mean I can't do it.
Sure, I won't be hip and modern but I think I will live with that quite comfortably.
Apple sucks. But on this, I'm all for giving people the finger who base their business on advertisement.
Re: (Score:1)
I find myself curious - how would you even have discovered Apple computers/phones/etc without advertising? Hell, how would you have heard about PC's without some form of advertising?
Or does advertising not count if it's not targeted?
Re: (Score:2)
how would you even have discovered Apple computers/phones/etc without advertising? Hell, how would you have heard about PC's without some form of advertising?
How would I have seen said personalised ads without a PC / mac / phone?
Or does advertising not count if it's not targeted?
No, not it the way you seem to want to take this... The "personalised" part is the issue here, exactly, it's the part many people don't want, and Apple is giving us the option to successfully opt out of it...
Re:Bull business model (Score:4, Interesting)
> "Or does advertising not count if it's not targeted?"
Correct. Context ads is fine. It's the tracking that needs to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Context ads is fine. It's the tracking that needs to stop.
First, because it's my privacy. And second, because targetted ads are so awfully badly targetted most of the time. I'll get offers to buy stuff that I bought ten minutes ago. For four years I got recommendations for restaurants near Sidney because I was there _once_ for two weeks. Four years! Or stuff that I'm absolutely not interested in because I bought them as a Christmas present for something.
Most targetted advertisement is nothing but annoying.
the same way we did decades ago (Score:4, Insightful)
The same way we did decades ago : by going to a specialized shop, and gathering all models name and specs, then deciding by check how happy were other owner among our acquaintance. HOW do you the fuck think this worked before the internet ?
advertising and targeted advertising in particular only favor impulse buying, not gathering info and making informed buying and today in some domain it increases prices far higher than doing the product itself does (e.g. some software have advertising budget identical to their total development budget). Death to advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe you're asking too much of advertisers, who in the end are just people who want you to know they offer a product/service you might want to pay them for. For one, you can hardly expect them to gear their ads towards making sure you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or better still, the manufacturer gives out review models to a wide variety of review sites and YouTubers.
That's basically how OnePlus got started, for example. Instead of trying to ram their phone sideways up your arse they just made a decent product and let the reviews and word of mouth speak for them.
The only flaw in this scheme is that many products are not very good and need hype to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
The materials that you gather the specifications from are produced by the marketing department. They are a form of advertising, one that you just admitted that you are susceptible to.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, whatever idiots modded me 'troll' (apparently you think what I said is untrue). Here is a link to an issue of Byte Magazine from 1977 https://vintageapple.org/byte/... [vintageapple.org].
You will notice that pages 14 and 15 are a two-page ad 'Introducing the Apple ||'. Page 16 is an ordering form for the Apple II. No 'specialized shop' required.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - because someone I know told me about the shop
2 - because I walked down the high street and saw it. Of course window dressing is a form of advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - because someone I know told me about the shop 2 - because I walked down the high street and saw it. Of course window dressing is a form of advertising.
Word-of-mouth advertising is advertising, too — the best kind of advertising, in fact. It's just not paid advertising. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads in magazine are not targetted - at least per the web ads definition. They are contextual ads.
On the web, the advertiser knows you are on a car website but it also knows you spend 15 minutes on a lawn mower product page 10 minutes ago. Guess which ad it's going to show? So yes, it does favor impulsive buying.
Retargetting is the most profitable form of advertisement on the web right now, by far. It's about to end though. I should know I used to work for an ad company up until last month.
Re:Bull business model (Score:5, Interesting)
I find myself curious - how would you even have discovered Apple computers/phones/etc without advertising? Hell, how would you have heard about PC's without some form of advertising?
Or does advertising not count if it's not targeted?
Let's examine this. Imagine there is a difference between passive and active advertising. Placing an "ad" in the yellow pages is passive. Having a web page, indexed by Google is passive. You've made yourself discoverable to those who wish to discover you.
Active advertising is more like TV commercials where a viewer is busy watching Ross & Rachel circle the romance drain and suddenly they're presented with psychologically-manipulative footage trying to entice them to buy a pickup truck. Even if the TV station knew you were interested in a new truck, this is still intrusive because the consumer hasn't asked for it.
If manufacturers were limited to passive advertising, people would buy less crap they don't need, or in many cases want. Sure, that would lower sales. Sure, that would reduce consumption. Sure, that would reduce jobs. Granted. But people would still get the things they need and want. Just not MORE. Which sounds ideal to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a web page, indexed by Google is passive.
I would argue that this is marketing and not advertising. There is a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
If manufacturers were limited to passive advertising, people would buy less crap they don't need, or in many cases want.
You just promoted a reduction in sales, a reduction in jobs, a reduction in resulting GDP, and a tanking economy. That sounds "ideal" to you?
Maybe a bit of a drop in Amazon's or other sellers stock price and shave a few thousand dollars off your 401K, still ideal?
Only really weak minded people go out and buy things they don't want. How do you know what you want if you don't know what to seek out? That was the GP's point. If you're a PC fan, how do you discover an Apple if you're wholly reliant on passive ad
Re: (Score:3)
You just promoted a reduction in sales, a reduction in jobs, a reduction in resulting GDP, and a tanking economy. That sounds "ideal" to you?
Honestly, yes. I understand it's not a popular view, but yes. Too much of what we produce as a species is excess crap. I'm not even talking about luxury items. Think about it objectively... virtually every individual, as their income increases, they just... spend more. At some early point, basic needs are met. Then comes comfort and entertainment. Then comes excess. Got to get the latest iPhone even if your old one works. TV has two dead pixels? Trash it. There's a massive amount of waste and it'
Re: (Score:2)
All I really want, is to forbid advertising from doing things that are out of character with the content it's embedded in. If I'm reading (or trying to read) text, I don't want advertising that features animations or audio. If I'm watching a video of a violinist playing Bach, I don't want advertising that turns the volume up 500% and s
Re: (Score:2)
a viewer is busy watching Ross & Rachel circle the romance drain and suddenly they're presented with psychologically-manipulative footage trying to entice them to buy a pickup truck. Even if the TV station knew you were interested in a new truck, this is still intrusive because the consumer hasn't asked for it.
Still, I can't imagine the episode would be anything but improved from such a scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that he meant, if people have to see ads, they'd prefer them to be relevant to their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't enjoy ads. People tolerate ads because ads are less bad than dozens of monthly subscriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
I just hate any and all advertising. It's why I ditched cable, installed a pi-hole on my network, listen to public radio in the car, and have various adblockers installed on all my browsers. The more a company tries to advertise something to me, the less likely I am to purchase it.
Re: (Score:2)
Public radio is nearly as bad as commercial radio. Eliminating "Call to action" doesn't stop "brought to you by XYZ Corp, where it's easy to accomplish ABC in the context of PDQ. XYZCorp dot com." from being an ad in all but name.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with advertising in general. It serves a necessary commercial function and made TV and radio broadcasting a viable enterprise long before targeting and tracking was possible. I'm decidedly less okay with the targeting and tracking, and while I understand why the industry loves it, nobody else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't discover it without marketing but would easily discover without advertising. Walk into a store and there it is. Read the side of the box and decide I want that. Sure, advertising accelerates things, but it's not like you need advertising for flour to go and buy flour. You go to the store and buy whatever brand they have. Or maybe compare the products in-person.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, hell, I don't mind manufacturers having decent websites, describing their wares, with good datasheets and preferably manuals and documentation online. If I'm looking for a vacuum cleaner, I'll google "portable vacuum cleaners" and see what happens. If I get advertising related to that, that tells me the brands to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a good thing: then manufacturers would be forced to compete on the quality of their product, not on the quality of their advertising.
Think of how many people wanted that "Intel Inside" stuff, even though they had no clue if it was better.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple computers/phones/etc are sold by advertising. You have a small point there.
But 90% of app developers do not make money from their apps by advertising their apps so people buy their app. They make money by letting OTHER companies advertise OTHER things (like other apps). This is not similar to Apple selling computers by running television ads; it is similar to NBC making money by letting Apple run television ads.
That is a different business model, and one which Koyuko and I agree is undesireable in the
Re: Bull business model (Score:2)
I will not say never, because I know I must have at some point. But I cannot remember ever buying something because of an ad. In fact, I only remember NOT buying things because of ads.
Re: Bull business model (Score:2)
If I refuse to buy things because of ads, are not advertisers just ripping off clients by showing me ads? Publishers are always complaining about my ad blocker ripping them off, but their clients likely do not want me to see their ads since their return on them will be zero. In essence, the publisher only cares about themselves and will gladly rip off the client for their own benefit. Although, really, since my non-engagement eventually drives ad prices down, at least for CPC ads, does not showing me ads
Re: (Score:2)
And if I don't want to side with either extremist leftie, I can do so... just because it has gone out of fashion to look at individual actions and judge those on a case by case basis doesn't mean I can't do it.
Sure, I won't be hip and modern but I think I will live with that quite comfortably.
Apple sucks. But on this, I'm all for giving people the finger who base their business on advertisement.
What does 'extreme leftism' have to do with any of this and why are you dragging it into this discussion? Why can't you fascists types ever shut up about leftism? You buffoons would find a way to drag an angry tirade about 'extreme leftism' into a discussion on how to fix a folding chair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any authoritarian movement favors the expansion of government authority. That is, authority over more aspects of society, not whether or not existing formal authority is applied in a way that makes everyone happy. It is not political authoritarianism to say people need to follow the rules we have established through a formal democratic process. A good example of political authoritarianism would be if say
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, tracking is tracking, advertising is advertising. Advertising can and did exist fine without tracking. As long as they keep associating two then it's a totally bull business model.
Re: (Score:3)
Theres nothing unfair about it. Advertising is a toxic industry that destroyed mobile gaming by flooding out the $10 well constructed games with $0 ad supportd shovelware from sweatshop publishers. The faster in-app purchases and advertising die as an entire industry the better we'll all be off. And I say that as an app developer. If you cant survive without advertising, maybe its good if you go under.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also "That is like deciding whether to side with Hitler against against Stalin or Stalin against Hitler."
You side with Stalin, just like the entire civilized world did when a genocidal fascist madman attempted to murder half of europe. "Oh hey Hitlers bit of a cunt, but so is Stalin, LETS NOT TAKE SIDES, also who are these people dragging away the Rosenburgs next door?"
Thats gotta be the worst "but both sides are bad" equivocation I've read on this site and oh boy have I read some dumb equivocations.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP was saying that if we didn't take sides, then *both* Hitler and Stalin would have murdered everybody they could. Taking a side saves half at least.
Re: (Score:2)
unfairly victimise developers who based their entire business model on advertising
Generally a.k.a. shovelware. Something that doesn't even meet the threshold of convincing consumers to pay $0.99 for. I wish there were more paid content on the app store. I want to get an app and be left alone forever. And I won't even bring up buying an app or game only to have further in-app purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
"worry it will break personalized advertising" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the point.
Exactly. I see collecting data for personal profiles as a blatant invasion of my privacy that should be treated the same as stalking: punishable with jail time for all perpetrators.
I don't mind context targeted advertising: ads for TVs when I'm searching for one. Search engines like DuckDuckGo do this (and make a profit doing so). But I very much dislike ads based on a personal profile. People collecting that data are scum IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
should be treated the same as stalking
It's not the same as stalking at all. The advertiser doesn't know your name or your home address. It just know you're the ID 123456789 and has seen a product page for a refrigerator yesterday. The potential consequences for you are completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the same as stalking at all. The advertiser doesn't know your name or your home address. It just know you're the ID 123456789 and has seen a product page for a refrigerator yesterday. The potential consequences for you are completely different.
It's wrong to assume the advertisers don't know my name. In fact, in their dataset 123456789 IS my name. It uniquely identifies me, as much as a SSN or name + address would. That is sufficient to target me personally.
And yes, the consequences for real-life stalking are visible and include physical harm. The consequences of being targeted by digital stalkers don't include physical harm but are still very real, and far more insidious:
* They influence my subconscious decisions: that's what marketing is about
Seems like a best case scenario for the industry (Score:5, Interesting)
20% loss of revenue due to 80% of the users not opting in to personalized ads.
Sound like they got of lightly.
Good rddance (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a personality thing. I've seen plenty of microtransactions but find none of them appealing, much less "addictive"
How much would you pay to use your apps w/o ads? (Score:2, Insightful)
90% of games and apps that rely on targeted ads for survival are cancer. I have yet to find a f2p mobile game that is not fueled by addictive microtransactions and shitty ads.
Take away their ability to target you and the ads get shittier. I can see ads for my actual hobbies, like camera gear or video games, or things I am not interested in, like celebrity-vodka/gin/tequila like I see on TV...or fast food chains which don't even have locations in my state.
While I don't want my profile associated with identifiable info, I don't care if ads are tuned to my interest. The only thing more insufferable than a targeted ad is a random one. I can see ads from B&H about camera ge
Re: (Score:2)
90% of games and apps that rely on targeted ads for survival are cancer. I have yet to find a f2p mobile game that is not fueled by addictive microtransactions and shitty ads.
While I don't want my profile associated with identifiable info, I don't care if ads are tuned to my interest.
But that involves tracking you.
Your defense of tracking, extended to the material world, approves of you driving to Best Buy, going inside to look at something, and while you are in there, they plant a GPS on your car and then follow you around stopping you at every place you go to yell about stuff they are selling.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a non-intrusive ad than be nickled and dimed for every story I read or video clip I watch.
Then opt in to being tracked and targeted.
How much would you pay per month to use:
youtube?
facebook?
instagram?
gmail?
your favorite news site?
your favorite review site?
your favorite porn site?
slashdot?
Zero. Do you really think they have something special there? The "content" on most of these sites consists of ads anyway. My favorite review site? You mean the site where people who don't get paid review stuff? Because I can't imagine why I would trust any other kind of review. You think there are free porn sites that aren't ads for paid porn? Slashdot? Why would I pay for Slashdot? Who does the work here? News sites? The stuff they want me to "know"? Someone famous
If you don't use FB/IG, you're sad & friendles (Score:2)
Zero. Do you really think they have something special there? The "content" on most of these sites consists of ads anyway. My favorite review site? You mean the site where people who don't get paid review stuff? Because I can't imagine why I would trust any other kind of review. You think there are free porn sites that aren't ads for paid porn? Slashdot? Why would I pay for Slashdot? Who does the work here? News sites? The stuff they want me to "know"? Someone famously called the kind of journalism that you'd typically find on ad-supported sites "public relations". Facebook and Instagram? I hope you're joking. They need to start paying me for looking at that garbage. I wouldn't use Gmail if they paid me. Youtube is only at the top until it starts charging for its services, ads or no ads. The replacements are waiting for Google to drop the ball. The simple fact of the matter is that when people wise up to the fact that the most expensive companies in the world are a couple of glorified scripts running on a pile of cheap hardware, the perceived value will leave some very deep dollar shaped holes in the ground.
It's fun to be cynical, but you either depend on these services or are a sad, sad person without friends. Facebook? I don't use it for the main purpose, but yes, this is how community organizations post events...kids' sports, birthday parties, fun in community, donating old stuff, community announcements. If you don't use facebook or instagram, you have no friends or interests involving other human beings. To be clear, I spend as little time as I can get by with, but yes, I do need to get on facebook o
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very lame attempt at an ad hominem. If you think that's cynicism, you haven't understood a word I wrote. I know how much servers cost. I have several. I couldn't start a smoking habit on so little money. It's sad that you need Facebook to stay in touch with friends, but I hope you realize that it doesn't entitle Facebook to anything. The thing that Facebook does for you is so cheap and easy that any number of nerds could provide the same service in their sleep, and in fact many do and do it for fr
Then replicate FB and make a fortune, you hipster (Score:2)
That is a very lame attempt at an ad hominem. If you think that's cynicism, you haven't understood a word I wrote. I know how much servers cost. I have several. I couldn't start a smoking habit on so little money. It's sad that you need Facebook to stay in touch with friends, but I hope you realize that it doesn't entitle Facebook to anything. The thing that Facebook does for you is so cheap and easy that any number of nerds could provide the same service in their sleep, and in fact many do and do it for free. You just choose streamlined commerce over the choices inherent to freedom. I pay money for email, not because I strictly have to but because it comes with my domains. Ad-supported email addresses expose you to the whims of the domain owner and are maximally unprofessional. Apparently you have no idea how little ad-free email accounts cost.
While Facebook fundamentally is no feat of engineering, running a popular website that stays up, is. You really underestimate how much work it is. If it was so easy, how come every right wing social media site ends up in the news for data theft? Surely there are nerds who are either sympathetic to the cause or willing to take the money of right wing investors to make Gab, Parler, etc secure and scalable?
Installing forum software or wordpress is pretty easy. Keeping it running, scaling, secure, and pr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, this is all complicated stuff and mere mortals should leave it to trained professionals working for multi-billion-dollar companies, and that's why we need ads, lots of ads. You look worried about the impact that anti-tracking has on your business. This means it's working. Also, those ad hominems again: Can you really not interact with other people without trying to disparage them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love the choice, personally.
I'd love the choice too. Unfortunately, there is no option to buy anymore. Or, at least, it's not discoverable because it's buried under shovelware. If you'd pay $5 for a coloring book app when that would get you multiple physical ones with probably more content and even licensed recognizable characters, you overpaid. Imagine an app that's little more than a flood-fill algorithm and cut-rate drawings by fiver designers going for $5.
I don't choose the books, my kids do (Score:2)
I'd love the choice, personally.
I'd love the choice too. Unfortunately, there is no option to buy anymore. Or, at least, it's not discoverable because it's buried under shovelware. If you'd pay $5 for a coloring book app when that would get you multiple physical ones with probably more content and even licensed recognizable characters, you overpaid. Imagine an app that's little more than a flood-fill algorithm and cut-rate drawings by fiver designers going for $5.
OK, so the app is not up to your standards, but your kids are the audience, not you. Try telling that to a 6 yo who sees unlicensed Batman fighting the Hulk and thinks AWESOME, I WANT THIS! And then I have to fight with them to maintain the line.
Have kids ever had good taste? When I was a kid, my eyes lit up for stupid cartoons that were thinly veiled toy commercials...most of which failed grandly. I tried watching a few recently and cringed at how awful they were.
Most of the apps ever installe
Re: (Score:2)
Try telling that to a 6 yo who sees unlicensed Batman fighting the Hulk and thinks AWESOME, I WANT THIS!
I will not have the app store accessible on any device where parental controls allow it.
I do pick shows for my kid since she's 3 and shows aren't discoverable by flipping "channels." We disallow a lot of the worst pandery junk at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Try telling that to a 6 yo who sees unlicensed Batman fighting the Hulk and thinks AWESOME, I WANT THIS!
I will not have the app store accessible on any device where parental controls allow it.
I do pick shows for my kid since she's 3 and shows aren't discoverable by flipping "channels." We disallow a lot of the worst pandery junk at home.
I didn't either when mine was 3 :). Wait until they get in school. My 7yo is already asking me daily about fortnite, including "well ***'s dad lets him play it, why can't I?" We have a rule of nothing where they can't play anything where people get killed and I also rely on ESRB as my "excuse" so they stop asking. The app store is off ours, but the kids search google and ask anyway.
Just because they ask doesn't mean I give in. No parent is stupid enough to fall for that "well, ***'s mom let's me" c
Re: (Score:2)
Take away their ability to target you and the ads get shittier.
That's good. Ads distort the internet in extremely negative ways. People try to grab your eyeballs for their website, not because they have something to say, but because they want to make money. Thus you have tons of "review" sites that don't review anything, they just exist to sound good and grab your attention.
Advertising is what created Buzzfeed. It distorts the world in many ways, in the same way that f2p ruins games.
Also, advertisers allow malware on their ad networks, so from a practical perspective y
Re: (Score:2)
I can see ads for my actual hobbies, like camera gear or video games
It seems likely then that you will look at web pages that discuss camera gear or video games. And they can put ads for camera gear and video games on those web pages, even putting the camera ones only on the pages you look at when you are interested in cameras, and the video game ones on the pages you look at when you think about video games. Seems like a big win for the advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see ads for my actual hobbies, like camera gear or video games
It seems likely then that you will look at web pages that discuss camera gear or video games. And they can put ads for camera gear and video games on those web pages, even putting the camera ones only on the pages you look at when you are interested in cameras, and the video game ones on the pages you look at when you think about video games. Seems like a big win for the advertisers.
You're solving a different problem, though. Apps need revenue to fund development. I have to view ads in order to get things like gmail for free. Do I want to view some actor's booze brand?...no...do I give a shit about cars?...no. So I can either view ads for a Lexus or ads for a Canon sale at Adorama....or pay money for services, most of which rely on a community and putting a paywall would discourage their use...also, I just don't want to pay for things that I can get for "free."
The question was
Well (Score:2)
IDFA can die in a fire, along with advertisers.
For the iOS developers... (Score:2)
... that put out "free" applications.
I'm too poor to afford free apps anyway, so I'm totally unimpressed.
I guess... (Score:2)
How sad; I'm really upset... (Score:2)
Another scammy business model falls apart. Sadly noone has worked out how to destroy the business model of congress creatures yet.
Is my experience unusual? (Score:2)
"means they will enable apps to personalize ads by tracking their personal data"
For me, this means getting a month of ads about the last thing I googled. For instance, when I looked up the tire size of our Forester, 1 in 4 ads I saw for the next month was about Subaru sales or service. Then once that "burns out", its back to *completely* random crap again. Apple News has been running gutter cleaning ads for the last four months.
Is this your experience as well?
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is that the web has no ads, but very often it doesn't work as well as it used to. My conclusion is that the market capitalizations of Google and Facebook are built on hot air and web weenies are losing IQ points every year, because it appears nobody can keep a web site running smoothly any more. Maybe it has something to do with script files increasing in size all the time. I'm not sure what's cause and what's effect there though. Does Javascript rot the brain or do rotting brains produce bigg
Anybody outside of marketing unhappy? (Score:2)
The alternative is paying for your apps. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot more difficult to know the cost you are paying when you aren't paying directly - I'd rather pay that known $30-$50 per app for apps I truly want/need, rather than the unknown cost (which may very well be much higher).
A bit like health care in the US - patients have almost no ability to provide pricing pressure on health care because they don't pay for care, they pay for insurance. And often patients don't have a choice in their health care (or only have a limited choice), it's often whatever thei
Re: (Score:2)
I remember buying most of my software for my PC at $30-$50 per license.
And those were either large programs with a lot of functionality or niche software with a limited market. They're still worth that price. Very few ad-supported apps have ever risen to that quality level. And most have such limited functionality, that a price above $5 would be too high. But they could easily sell millions. Quality takes time. Some people tolerate crap shovelware if they don't have to pay - I'm generally not one of them. Ad-supported software has eroded the quality of software altogeth
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What steps would each developer then take to answer the question "Which app should I give up to afford your app?"
They should use IDKFA instead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you beat me to it!
You are not entitled to make money (Score:2)
You are not entitled to make money in your business of stalking people on the Internet. Apple is not required to help you make money in your business of stalking people across the Internet. Apple is not required to help you make money at all.
You need to find a business that makes money. Good luck!
20%!?! (Score:2)
Who are the guys saying yes to this? Can they not read? Are they just pushing anything to make the dialog box go away? I can't imagine saying yes to that box.
The other 80% (Score:4, Interesting)
So I guess that shows when given the choice, end users DONT want to be tracked, that they DO value their privacy.
I pay for Netflix and Disney, they have ZERO adverts. The free channels full of crap ads are rarely watched.
If your product is worth paying for, you don't need adverts. And THAT is what terrifies Facebook , their product is NOT worth paying for.
Re: (Score:2)
> whereas harm to advertising business is much less so, IMHO
A statistic that is lacking. Are the products at the other ends of these ads also seeing a drop in revenue? If not, why are they paying for the premium service?
It seems that targetting can be extremely effective for political views and anti-science BS, but it's difficult to find metrics on its effects on actual advertizing.
Re: (Score:2)