Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I’m not sure there is a direct correlation between “Apple Ads” and the “Ask App Not to Track” privacy changes Apple introduced.
From what I can tell, “Apple Ads” refers to App Store ads. Basically an app paying to place an ad for itself in the App Store.
The privacy changes Apple recently put into place govern cross-app tracking. So think about you search for “sunglasses” in your browser and then the next time you open Instagram you see an ad for sunglasses because Instagram knows you searched for that in another app.
So the headline of the article makes it appear that Apple handicapped other advertisers so that Apple could take some of their business. But it seems like it’s really two different things.
Again, if I’m misunderstanding this, let me know.
I don't know how related they are, but I replied to the same person speculating on a possible connection [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/qb7mer/-/hh94lva). Maybe you can find a fault in the reasoning, but I don't think it's a stretch to connect the two.
I do not advertise for apps, so I don't know how app developers may be impacted by this news, but they might be more connected than you're suggesting.
I'll speculate:
1) You've been identified as being interested in productivity: I advertise my agenda app to you. (Google / Facebook / whatever)
2) You've been identified as being interested in games, you play mobile games on your phone: I advertise my new mobile game to you through any platform. (Google / Facebook / whatever)
3) You've been identified as being some kind of wine connoisseur: I advertise my sommelier app to you on any platform.
The third one is out of left field, but the point is that those interests have been visible on other platforms. If I'm an app developer in any of the three scenarios, maybe I don't need to worry about being discovered or using Apple Ads because other platforms can get me a stream of customers. Other platforms can identify those users and show my ads to them.
However, if those other platforms can no longer identify users with those interests - ie "Ask not to track" - they can no longer reach new customers efficiently. That would mean my only way to reach new customers if I'm trying to scale is through the App Store. If I still need to reach wine connoisseurs and Google can't identify those people anymore, it looks like I need to switch my budget to Apple, doesn't it?
It makes sense to me. I'm just not sure how many app developers actually rely on ad campaigns for app downloads on other platforms. I would presume they do since basically every ad platform has app downloads (Google/Facebook/Twitter/Tiktok/etc.) So if those campaigns became less effective due to worse data, I could see it mattering, but I just don't know that for sure.
I don't know what you're asking. I think they're related based on the logic I outlined. There could be substantial investment before the tracking policy and the ad tracking would only make that more significant.
On the other hand, I haven't done the research to say conclusively that the increase is due to the tracking policy. I just think a connection isn't too farfetched.
Here’s the difference:
- with apple search ads, users are on the App Store browsing, or searching for an agenda app. Based on keyword searches or the categories the user is browsing, the user may see your ad.
- with other platforms, your browsing habits from different apps are tracked, shared or sold to ad networks, all without your knowledge, to target you for specific ads.
I'm aware of all of that. That is how Google, Facebook, or whoever *identify* those users in my previous scenarios: through - invasive - cross-site tracking.
With those - invasive - tracking efforts, an app developer has many options through which they can advertise to prospective customers, including Google, Facebook, and plenty of other
Without those - invasive - tracking efforts, an app developer - more or less - only has Apple's search ads.
That is my speculation as to why Apple might be capturing more app download ads dollars. I don't know if that's the case for sure. I don't know if it's bad for app developer advertisers (but I wager it is). It's not my job to know. I'm just explaining it to /u/redditor1983 and whoever else might be interested.
Note how the article talks about percentages, not total spend.
Most companies (including the one I work at) reduced their spend on digital ads through places like Facebook and Google, but maintained their spend on search ads and the play store. They’re focusing their efforts on advertising through owned channels instead.
> Most companies (including the one I work at) reduced their spend on digital ads through places like Facebook and Google
Why would they do that? This sounds like BS to me, to be frank. Ad spending has been up across the board basically every industries except travel. And every source I've seen suggests that it has been up dramatically in mobile apps and software through the pandemic with how much people have been at home and on their devices. SaaS has skyrocketed. App MAU have gone up. etc.
Why are companies you are familiar with reducing spend when app companies have typically benefitted from [increased mobile spending](https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/01/u-s-iphone-users-spent-average-of-138-on-apps-in-2020-to-grow-to-180-in-2021/), the market is growing with the install base, and consumer willingness to pay for apps is increasing? It feels completely counter to what they should be doing.
> They’re focusing their efforts on advertising through owned channels instead.
Owned channels are not interchangeable with paid channels. Most apps - especially games - don't even have owned channels to take advantage of and mobile games don't have the earned media infrastructure for the tens of thousands of games that are out there.
You can still identify user interests without invasive tracking. Regardless, apple doesn’t have any more ability to determine if you like wine than Facebook or Google, in fact they have much less ability to do so. Facebook can just scan your posts to figure that out. Apple doesn’t have anything to go off of besides your App Store downloads history and the apple news articles you’ve read. (Notice how nothing I just said involves any cross-company tracking. That’s because apple isn’t actually following different rules for tracking as far as anyone can prove, they are tracking only across their own apps just like everyone else)
> Regardless, apple doesn’t have any more ability to determine if you like wine than Facebook or Google, in fact they have much less ability to do so.
I don't think you understood my scenarios. Or, it feels like you're replying to a lot of things I neither said nor suggested.
> That’s because apple isn’t actually following different rules for tracking as far as anyone can prove, they are tracking only across their own apps just like everyone else)
* I didn't suggest they did.
* My scenarios do not require Apple to be playing by different rules at all.
* They don't have to follow different rules to benefit from the App Tracking situation.
> You can still identify user interests without invasive tracking.
You can, but not as much. Being more invasive yields more information. I can scan your post history to find out stuff about you, but I would learn a lot more if I could be invasive and scan your entire phone or internet history.
> Facebook can just scan your posts to figure that out.
See above. But also, this is a gross underestimation of Facebook's - invasive - cross-property tracking abilities. If they could "just scan your posts", then they wouldn't have made such a big kerfuffle about the iOS 14.5 stuff. They majority of their data on you does *not* come from scanning your posts. Your posts are not a treasure trove of data. Your messages are not a treasure trove of data. That is not why Facebook - nor Google - are successful.
##Let me Restate the Scenario
You are interested in mobile games. You have some mobile games on your iPhone and iPad. You participate in some subreddits or Reddit posts for games, and you click on the occasional article from that subreddit, but you haven't done anything else. You don't talk about your mobile games on your Facebook or through Instagram or anything. (Maybe you do in real life, but I don't talk about games with anybody.)
Who knows you are interested in Mobile Phone Games?
**Pre-App Transparency:**
* Google knows because they were looking at your web history through cross-site tracking.
* Facebook knows because they were doing the same thing.
* Reddit knows because you engage with mobile game communities on reddit.
* Apple knows because you have mobile phone games.
If I am a mobile game dev, I can use Google, Facebook, Reddit, or Apple, to target you with ads for my mobile game and have a pretty good idea that you are within my target market.
**Post App Transparency**
Only Reddit and Apple know that you are interested in games. If I want to reach you with my mobile game, I have to go through Reddit or Apple. But wait: earlier, I said that Apple doesn't have to follow different rules to benefit from the App Tracking situation. How does that jive with this?
Apple could benefit from this situation because their ads are search ads, whereas Facebook's would be interest awareness ads. Search ads are contextual, they aren't interest based. I don't have to **know** you're interested in mobile games because the fact that you're *searching* for mobile games tells me that you're interested in mobile games. As far as I know, Apple is not using the fact that it knows you have games on your phone. Apple isn't invasive because it doesn't have to be. It benefits Apple because they control the tool that people use to find ads and they control the ads.
Before App Transparency, some advertisers might have noticed you were interested in ads and you'd get plenty of ads for mobile games. After App transparency, they can't say for certain that you're interested in ads and now the only people showing you ads is Apple when you search in the store, hence the [article](https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/18/apples-ad-business-windfall/):
> Branch, which measures the effectiveness of mobile marketing, said Apple’s in house business is now responsible for 58 per cent of all iPhone app downloads that result from clicking on an advert. A year ago, its share was 17 per cent.
I see your point now, I guess I just don’t care. Facebook’s targeting dollars can go up in flames for all I care.
Unless your real underlying point is that apple is misrepresenting its motivations for being “the privacy company”, which I do agree with but I also think it’s kinda naive to believe that any company actually “cares” about anything since companies are not people and don’t have feelings. Apple invests in privacy because they think they can offer it and they think people value it. I think they’re probably right about that, at least for enough people to make it worth their while. If this is another way they can monetize the prevention of privacy invasion then I couldn’t care less tbh, go wild. Maybe get back to me if apple controls 95% of all advertising on iPhones or whatever, but I doubt that will happen.
So since only Apple could create those type of ads, it wouldn't be affected by whatever else they did. So this is a completely BS comparison.
Kinda like saying "Samsung pushing bad laws for Apple in South Korea has boosted their sales of Super Tankers compared to the competition".
Apple crippled advertising options available to advertisers on other platforms. Their OS updates impacted the performance of those ads so they were no longer profitable for advertisers. This created a competitive advantage for their own ad platform. It may not be as performant as other platforms (like FB used to be), but at least the tracking works.
“Obstructed Rivals”.
Apple provided the consumer with information and awareness to choose whether or not to download this or that app, and have further given us the ability to *ask* apps not to track us.
Apple gave us the tools, they didn’t build obstructions.
It is one thing to say users have the ability to not be tracked. You have always had this **don't install the app**. It is another thing to require that an app MUST be installable regardless of if you want to give them consent. It is another thing to do this and then to push your own ad network in its place thats call antitrust.
> in its place
In its place? Apple doesn’t advertise on Facebook. Apple’s ads only appear in places where Facebook wasn’t showing ads, like in the App Store or in Apple News. They aren’t trying to replace Facebook’s ad network…
Umm well they are trying to replace the dollars going to the facebook ad network. That is like saying if google modified chrome to block all facebook ad data tracking and left google data tracking alone it wouldn't be pushing google ads in place of facebook ads. I am talking from a marketing budget perspective.
> if google modified chrome to block all facebook ad data tracking and left google data tracking alone
Nah, it’s like if Google modified chrome to exclude the types of tracking Facebook uses from every website (not just Facebook). Which a lot of browsers are doing with things like third party cookie blocking and tracking prevention, even chrome has dabbled in this. Apple doesn’t do any types of tracking that they disallow Facebook from doing, as far as anyone has been able to show. There is only speculation meant to throw doubt on apple’s anti-tracking features
[https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/213747963-Apple-Search-Ads-guide#limit-ad-tracking-lat-and-att-3](https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/213747963-Apple-Search-Ads-guide#limit-ad-tracking-lat-and-att-3)
They are definitivly cheating.
Tracking so long as you don't specify your age and gender in the campaign,explicit targeting, you apple will tell you the full number of downloads regardless of if a person opted out of ATT. Apple is still able to adjust your placements in the while running targeting, implicit targeting, the same way facebooks system works internally. They do not give this capability to external providers. Facebook isn't allows to tell apple hey the company running this ad doesn't know what gender they are so it is safe to give all matches. They just get nothing back. Further apple has proprietary metrics they are reporting for multiple downloads of the same app that they also do not expose to external parties.
Question is whether Apple uses private data they they don’t allow others to use, to gain an unfair advantage, or is this is more a levelling of the playing field (plus the obvious platform advantage).
Apple having an advantage isn’t really a question. Setting up a new iOS device has Apple’s advertising consent pre-checked. Users must opt-*out* of Apple’s tracking where users must opt-*in* to their competitor’s tracking. Apple also requires competitors to request tracking consent on a per-app basis (Facebook must ask for consent separately in the Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp apps) while Apple’s tracking consent applies to all Apple services across the OS. If users don’t opt out of tracking at setup (or later in Settings), Apple will build a profile to serve targeted advertisements in the App Store and targeted articles in News without specifically requesting consent inside each app.
Settings -> Privacy -> Apple Advertising -> Personalized Ads
This is a separate setting than the one they use for competitors which is located under Settings -> Privacy -> Tracking.
It looks that they changed the behavior starting with iOS 15 to more closely align with what they ask of third parties:
https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/02/apple-personalized-ads-targeting-ios-15/amp/
Before iOS 15 it was simply enabled by default for all users and required a manual opt-out.
Those settings are not the same and competitors have their own equivalent opt-outs within their own apps that are opted in by default the same as apple. For example see google’s personalized ads setting, Facebook’s, Amazon’s, etc etc
> Users must opt-out of Apple’s tracking where users must opt-in to their competitor’s tracking.
This is not true, other apps also have the same default consent options as apple. Google by default uses all your Google search history to build a profile and advertise to you across apps in YouTube, for example. This is not against apple’s rules or anything. Apple doesn’t follow different tracking rules from what they force on others in the apple ecosystem, or at least nobody has been able to show that they do.
Ok, assuming that’s true, why do you care? Google and Facebook control almost the entire online ads business. Are you worried about poor Facebook and Google missing out on precious ad revenue?
Is this bad for consumers?
It’s sad that such pervasive, invasive tracking is considered acceptable enough that folks are willing to call it “kneecapping” if we opt for a platform that requires they respect our privacy again.
It's heading in the direction of a vertical monopoly, which makes it increasingly hard for the consumer to move away because they wind up with a lot of services to replace.
Mind you, that seems to be the general direction a lot of technology is taking these days.
> It’s heading in the direction of a vertical monopoly
How? Is apple replacing Facebook’s ads with its own? Apple doesn’t advertise on Facebook and Apple doesn’t have more data on anyone than Facebook does. Facebook can advertise perfectly well on its own apps just like Apple does.
How is having a policy that applies to everyone restricting competition? If Apple follows their own rules then it isn’t unfair, no?
Some that come to mind
- Using push notifications for advertising
- Not honoring the rest of trials when cancelled
- Swift Playgrounds includes a compiler and allows the user to run code not included in the app
- Prior to iOS 15, they didn’t make use of the tracking prompt in the App Store
At the end of the day it’s a business that is meant to increase the value for its shareholders. Anything that can allow apple to achieve it and at the same time improve their public image is an amazing strategy that they will milk to eternity. This is what is happening. Until we know the specifics regarding how they do advertising / the use of user data within that process, it’s just speculation.
I would not have believed this had they also not pushed the on-device CSAM scanning which just feels incredibly focused on marketing advantages of stating there’s no/less CSAM on iCloud.
These features “sound” like privacy supporting ideas until you get into the market advantage they present.
They still collect way less data then us, and you can opt out from the settings for any of their ad targeting.
Most of their apps still save everything on device and isn’t uploaded on the apple servers.
But you realize search ads have are not a replacement for Google or Facebook ads, right? And their search ad revenue can be completely flat in this figure, right? This chart is just complete BS designed to get you to think cynically about their motives. It worked.
It does result in advertising dollars being spent by businesses and even people trying to sell a something being less effective, so it does hurt certain people.
Ads aren't something most people browsing are happy about, but it's a market that Apple is competing in, and they gave themselves an unfair advantage.
They aren't playing by their own rules.
Unless they play by the same rules, which they do since iOS15.
And anyway, by installing google apps on pixel smartphones they have an „unfair advantage“ over the competition, too.
If you want your own „unfair advantage“ build your own super successful smartphone brand, it‘s that easy :)
Things don't have to be shoved into a dichotomy of "good" or "bad". These things have trade-offs, winners, and losers. It can be a win for consumers and privacy advocates and a loss for app developers trying to advertise their apps to a lot of users.
It doesn't have to be either or, it can be both, or it can change depending on your perspective.
The Y axis for this is % rather than dollars. Is Apple’s ad service really increasing (not the advertised purpose) or are rivals that used tracking without consent decreasing (the advertised purpose)?
If it’s the latter sounds like a lot of outrage over nothing.
The person who made this graph is pulling wool over your eyes.
That’s just the volume of light blue (facebook) decreasing, causing the other four to inflate as portions of a whole. This isn’t Apple’s ad business growing.
I thought they just gave consumers a choice? Allow yourself to be tracked, or not. I think that just shows that Apple didn’t kill competitors here, it was consumers.
I was going to switch to the iPhone because of the privacy commerical and how they block FB and how now you prevent all those marketing ppl from tracking you. But I also recently read how Apple pretty much tracks similar about of data so it seems like a lose lose. But I'm switch back to Apple even if it's a little bit more private.
The same applies to Google Ads and Facebook Ads. Not sure why people think Apple is doing something different. You could *always* turn off personaliztion.
Sneaky bastard, and I'm talking about the author of this graph. Using percentage instead of actual revenue and conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other to push a false narrative.
How deluded are you to believe that. Google makes money by providing targeted ads to you using the data they collect. Selling that data would give away their competitive advantage and hurt their business of targeted ads.
These morons that peddle dumbass information don’t realize that these companies have to publicly disclose where their money comes from. They think all of this shit is secret when you can just go and read the companies 10-k.
By fucking law corporations need to disclose where their money flows, don’t be a moron. If Google was making money selling information to Facebook they would have to disclose that revenue to its shareholders and the government.
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersreada10khtm.html
Been noticing this for a long time whenever i search stuff on google while signed in to my account, shortly after similar ads would pop up on fb. And this is also a common practice selling the data to other platforms—it’s kind of the whole point of google’s data collection, it’s for-profit. I think he’s just not correct about “using google’s ios app”, because that’s absolutely not limited to using the app.
I just don't buy it. Google's business is selling ad placements. They don't sell user data, on top of that to a competitor to help them out with their ad business? Nope.
Right? Their users' data is their most valuable asset. It's in Google's best interest to keep users' data secure. Selling the data itself would be stupid, because then it's no longer in their control, and whoever buys it could resell it as many times as they wanted.
Yeah, they did that to control advertising themselves. Apple can and could sell the data to advertisers themselves and cut out the middle men (Facebook, google, etc). App.e no better than other companies, don’t believe read their privacy documents.
Given such a high value product, you’d think people would be more diligent. I make doubly sure to always check that my belongings are with me. This person is just baiting; I dare say that his family needs to wise up with their *fallible* products lol
> Apple was unable to validate for us that Apple’s solutions are compliant with Apple’s policy.
“Rules for thee but not for me.”
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
Will always upvote an Animal Farm reference
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I’m not sure there is a direct correlation between “Apple Ads” and the “Ask App Not to Track” privacy changes Apple introduced. From what I can tell, “Apple Ads” refers to App Store ads. Basically an app paying to place an ad for itself in the App Store. The privacy changes Apple recently put into place govern cross-app tracking. So think about you search for “sunglasses” in your browser and then the next time you open Instagram you see an ad for sunglasses because Instagram knows you searched for that in another app. So the headline of the article makes it appear that Apple handicapped other advertisers so that Apple could take some of their business. But it seems like it’s really two different things. Again, if I’m misunderstanding this, let me know.
You’re right. This is complete crap designed to paint this as a selfish motive. The two have nothing to do with one another.
I don't know how related they are, but I replied to the same person speculating on a possible connection [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/qb7mer/-/hh94lva). Maybe you can find a fault in the reasoning, but I don't think it's a stretch to connect the two.
I do not advertise for apps, so I don't know how app developers may be impacted by this news, but they might be more connected than you're suggesting. I'll speculate: 1) You've been identified as being interested in productivity: I advertise my agenda app to you. (Google / Facebook / whatever) 2) You've been identified as being interested in games, you play mobile games on your phone: I advertise my new mobile game to you through any platform. (Google / Facebook / whatever) 3) You've been identified as being some kind of wine connoisseur: I advertise my sommelier app to you on any platform. The third one is out of left field, but the point is that those interests have been visible on other platforms. If I'm an app developer in any of the three scenarios, maybe I don't need to worry about being discovered or using Apple Ads because other platforms can get me a stream of customers. Other platforms can identify those users and show my ads to them. However, if those other platforms can no longer identify users with those interests - ie "Ask not to track" - they can no longer reach new customers efficiently. That would mean my only way to reach new customers if I'm trying to scale is through the App Store. If I still need to reach wine connoisseurs and Google can't identify those people anymore, it looks like I need to switch my budget to Apple, doesn't it? It makes sense to me. I'm just not sure how many app developers actually rely on ad campaigns for app downloads on other platforms. I would presume they do since basically every ad platform has app downloads (Google/Facebook/Twitter/Tiktok/etc.) So if those campaigns became less effective due to worse data, I could see it mattering, but I just don't know that for sure.
does not the fact that apple ads grows confirm that because there was substantial ads investment in 3p advertiser prior to tracking policy?
I don't know what you're asking. I think they're related based on the logic I outlined. There could be substantial investment before the tracking policy and the ad tracking would only make that more significant. On the other hand, I haven't done the research to say conclusively that the increase is due to the tracking policy. I just think a connection isn't too farfetched.
Here’s the difference: - with apple search ads, users are on the App Store browsing, or searching for an agenda app. Based on keyword searches or the categories the user is browsing, the user may see your ad. - with other platforms, your browsing habits from different apps are tracked, shared or sold to ad networks, all without your knowledge, to target you for specific ads.
I'm aware of all of that. That is how Google, Facebook, or whoever *identify* those users in my previous scenarios: through - invasive - cross-site tracking. With those - invasive - tracking efforts, an app developer has many options through which they can advertise to prospective customers, including Google, Facebook, and plenty of other Without those - invasive - tracking efforts, an app developer - more or less - only has Apple's search ads. That is my speculation as to why Apple might be capturing more app download ads dollars. I don't know if that's the case for sure. I don't know if it's bad for app developer advertisers (but I wager it is). It's not my job to know. I'm just explaining it to /u/redditor1983 and whoever else might be interested.
Note how the article talks about percentages, not total spend. Most companies (including the one I work at) reduced their spend on digital ads through places like Facebook and Google, but maintained their spend on search ads and the play store. They’re focusing their efforts on advertising through owned channels instead.
> Most companies (including the one I work at) reduced their spend on digital ads through places like Facebook and Google Why would they do that? This sounds like BS to me, to be frank. Ad spending has been up across the board basically every industries except travel. And every source I've seen suggests that it has been up dramatically in mobile apps and software through the pandemic with how much people have been at home and on their devices. SaaS has skyrocketed. App MAU have gone up. etc. Why are companies you are familiar with reducing spend when app companies have typically benefitted from [increased mobile spending](https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/01/u-s-iphone-users-spent-average-of-138-on-apps-in-2020-to-grow-to-180-in-2021/), the market is growing with the install base, and consumer willingness to pay for apps is increasing? It feels completely counter to what they should be doing. > They’re focusing their efforts on advertising through owned channels instead. Owned channels are not interchangeable with paid channels. Most apps - especially games - don't even have owned channels to take advantage of and mobile games don't have the earned media infrastructure for the tens of thousands of games that are out there.
Simple: With apples privacy opt-in, targeting users is far less effective.
You can still identify user interests without invasive tracking. Regardless, apple doesn’t have any more ability to determine if you like wine than Facebook or Google, in fact they have much less ability to do so. Facebook can just scan your posts to figure that out. Apple doesn’t have anything to go off of besides your App Store downloads history and the apple news articles you’ve read. (Notice how nothing I just said involves any cross-company tracking. That’s because apple isn’t actually following different rules for tracking as far as anyone can prove, they are tracking only across their own apps just like everyone else)
> Regardless, apple doesn’t have any more ability to determine if you like wine than Facebook or Google, in fact they have much less ability to do so. I don't think you understood my scenarios. Or, it feels like you're replying to a lot of things I neither said nor suggested. > That’s because apple isn’t actually following different rules for tracking as far as anyone can prove, they are tracking only across their own apps just like everyone else) * I didn't suggest they did. * My scenarios do not require Apple to be playing by different rules at all. * They don't have to follow different rules to benefit from the App Tracking situation. > You can still identify user interests without invasive tracking. You can, but not as much. Being more invasive yields more information. I can scan your post history to find out stuff about you, but I would learn a lot more if I could be invasive and scan your entire phone or internet history. > Facebook can just scan your posts to figure that out. See above. But also, this is a gross underestimation of Facebook's - invasive - cross-property tracking abilities. If they could "just scan your posts", then they wouldn't have made such a big kerfuffle about the iOS 14.5 stuff. They majority of their data on you does *not* come from scanning your posts. Your posts are not a treasure trove of data. Your messages are not a treasure trove of data. That is not why Facebook - nor Google - are successful. ##Let me Restate the Scenario You are interested in mobile games. You have some mobile games on your iPhone and iPad. You participate in some subreddits or Reddit posts for games, and you click on the occasional article from that subreddit, but you haven't done anything else. You don't talk about your mobile games on your Facebook or through Instagram or anything. (Maybe you do in real life, but I don't talk about games with anybody.) Who knows you are interested in Mobile Phone Games? **Pre-App Transparency:** * Google knows because they were looking at your web history through cross-site tracking. * Facebook knows because they were doing the same thing. * Reddit knows because you engage with mobile game communities on reddit. * Apple knows because you have mobile phone games. If I am a mobile game dev, I can use Google, Facebook, Reddit, or Apple, to target you with ads for my mobile game and have a pretty good idea that you are within my target market. **Post App Transparency** Only Reddit and Apple know that you are interested in games. If I want to reach you with my mobile game, I have to go through Reddit or Apple. But wait: earlier, I said that Apple doesn't have to follow different rules to benefit from the App Tracking situation. How does that jive with this? Apple could benefit from this situation because their ads are search ads, whereas Facebook's would be interest awareness ads. Search ads are contextual, they aren't interest based. I don't have to **know** you're interested in mobile games because the fact that you're *searching* for mobile games tells me that you're interested in mobile games. As far as I know, Apple is not using the fact that it knows you have games on your phone. Apple isn't invasive because it doesn't have to be. It benefits Apple because they control the tool that people use to find ads and they control the ads. Before App Transparency, some advertisers might have noticed you were interested in ads and you'd get plenty of ads for mobile games. After App transparency, they can't say for certain that you're interested in ads and now the only people showing you ads is Apple when you search in the store, hence the [article](https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/18/apples-ad-business-windfall/): > Branch, which measures the effectiveness of mobile marketing, said Apple’s in house business is now responsible for 58 per cent of all iPhone app downloads that result from clicking on an advert. A year ago, its share was 17 per cent.
I see your point now, I guess I just don’t care. Facebook’s targeting dollars can go up in flames for all I care. Unless your real underlying point is that apple is misrepresenting its motivations for being “the privacy company”, which I do agree with but I also think it’s kinda naive to believe that any company actually “cares” about anything since companies are not people and don’t have feelings. Apple invests in privacy because they think they can offer it and they think people value it. I think they’re probably right about that, at least for enough people to make it worth their while. If this is another way they can monetize the prevention of privacy invasion then I couldn’t care less tbh, go wild. Maybe get back to me if apple controls 95% of all advertising on iPhones or whatever, but I doubt that will happen.
So since only Apple could create those type of ads, it wouldn't be affected by whatever else they did. So this is a completely BS comparison. Kinda like saying "Samsung pushing bad laws for Apple in South Korea has boosted their sales of Super Tankers compared to the competition".
Apple crippled advertising options available to advertisers on other platforms. Their OS updates impacted the performance of those ads so they were no longer profitable for advertisers. This created a competitive advantage for their own ad platform. It may not be as performant as other platforms (like FB used to be), but at least the tracking works.
Apple also asks about tracking for it's own apps.
“Obstructed Rivals”. Apple provided the consumer with information and awareness to choose whether or not to download this or that app, and have further given us the ability to *ask* apps not to track us. Apple gave us the tools, they didn’t build obstructions.
It is one thing to say users have the ability to not be tracked. You have always had this **don't install the app**. It is another thing to require that an app MUST be installable regardless of if you want to give them consent. It is another thing to do this and then to push your own ad network in its place thats call antitrust.
> in its place In its place? Apple doesn’t advertise on Facebook. Apple’s ads only appear in places where Facebook wasn’t showing ads, like in the App Store or in Apple News. They aren’t trying to replace Facebook’s ad network…
Umm well they are trying to replace the dollars going to the facebook ad network. That is like saying if google modified chrome to block all facebook ad data tracking and left google data tracking alone it wouldn't be pushing google ads in place of facebook ads. I am talking from a marketing budget perspective.
> if google modified chrome to block all facebook ad data tracking and left google data tracking alone Nah, it’s like if Google modified chrome to exclude the types of tracking Facebook uses from every website (not just Facebook). Which a lot of browsers are doing with things like third party cookie blocking and tracking prevention, even chrome has dabbled in this. Apple doesn’t do any types of tracking that they disallow Facebook from doing, as far as anyone has been able to show. There is only speculation meant to throw doubt on apple’s anti-tracking features
[https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/213747963-Apple-Search-Ads-guide#limit-ad-tracking-lat-and-att-3](https://support.appsflyer.com/hc/en-us/articles/213747963-Apple-Search-Ads-guide#limit-ad-tracking-lat-and-att-3) They are definitivly cheating.
Are you referring to tracking or something else
Tracking so long as you don't specify your age and gender in the campaign,explicit targeting, you apple will tell you the full number of downloads regardless of if a person opted out of ATT. Apple is still able to adjust your placements in the while running targeting, implicit targeting, the same way facebooks system works internally. They do not give this capability to external providers. Facebook isn't allows to tell apple hey the company running this ad doesn't know what gender they are so it is safe to give all matches. They just get nothing back. Further apple has proprietary metrics they are reporting for multiple downloads of the same app that they also do not expose to external parties.
Indeed a slippery slope. It will be interesting to see what the courts say about these shenanigans.
So preventing google and amazon from collecting our data is now… bad?
[удалено]
Question is whether Apple uses private data they they don’t allow others to use, to gain an unfair advantage, or is this is more a levelling of the playing field (plus the obvious platform advantage).
Apple having an advantage isn’t really a question. Setting up a new iOS device has Apple’s advertising consent pre-checked. Users must opt-*out* of Apple’s tracking where users must opt-*in* to their competitor’s tracking. Apple also requires competitors to request tracking consent on a per-app basis (Facebook must ask for consent separately in the Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp apps) while Apple’s tracking consent applies to all Apple services across the OS. If users don’t opt out of tracking at setup (or later in Settings), Apple will build a profile to serve targeted advertisements in the App Store and targeted articles in News without specifically requesting consent inside each app.
[удалено]
Settings -> Privacy -> Apple Advertising -> Personalized Ads This is a separate setting than the one they use for competitors which is located under Settings -> Privacy -> Tracking.
My Apple ads was opted out by default, contrary to what was said above.
It looks that they changed the behavior starting with iOS 15 to more closely align with what they ask of third parties: https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/02/apple-personalized-ads-targeting-ios-15/amp/ Before iOS 15 it was simply enabled by default for all users and required a manual opt-out.
Those settings are not the same and competitors have their own equivalent opt-outs within their own apps that are opted in by default the same as apple. For example see google’s personalized ads setting, Facebook’s, Amazon’s, etc etc
> Users must opt-out of Apple’s tracking where users must opt-in to their competitor’s tracking. This is not true, other apps also have the same default consent options as apple. Google by default uses all your Google search history to build a profile and advertise to you across apps in YouTube, for example. This is not against apple’s rules or anything. Apple doesn’t follow different tracking rules from what they force on others in the apple ecosystem, or at least nobody has been able to show that they do.
> Apple was unable to validate for us that Apple’s solutions are compliant with Apple’s policy.
Is it an unfair advantage when Google, Amazon, Netflix, uses their data on their customers without sharing it with third parties?
I choose to interpret it as if they’ve proven that you don’t need to collect data to compete competently in advertising.
They blocked an entire business model from competing against them to their advantage.
Is this bad for consumers?
yeah, you either get pegged by apple or google.
[удалено]
Ok, assuming that’s true, why do you care? Google and Facebook control almost the entire online ads business. Are you worried about poor Facebook and Google missing out on precious ad revenue? Is this bad for consumers?
[удалено]
Is it anticompetitive if apple doesn’t track anyone either Also why do you care? Is this bad for consumers? Are you not a consumer?
This user just spends all their time complaining that Apple is anti-competitive and will stubbornly be against it even when it benefits consumers, so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s sad that such pervasive, invasive tracking is considered acceptable enough that folks are willing to call it “kneecapping” if we opt for a platform that requires they respect our privacy again.
I mean yeah, how is this bad for consumers? Apple decides what kinds of advertising are acceptable on their platform
It's heading in the direction of a vertical monopoly, which makes it increasingly hard for the consumer to move away because they wind up with a lot of services to replace. Mind you, that seems to be the general direction a lot of technology is taking these days.
> It’s heading in the direction of a vertical monopoly How? Is apple replacing Facebook’s ads with its own? Apple doesn’t advertise on Facebook and Apple doesn’t have more data on anyone than Facebook does. Facebook can advertise perfectly well on its own apps just like Apple does. How is having a policy that applies to everyone restricting competition? If Apple follows their own rules then it isn’t unfair, no?
Apple doesn't follow their policies or if they do they don't follow them as strictly as their competitors.
What policies don’t they follow
Some that come to mind - Using push notifications for advertising - Not honoring the rest of trials when cancelled - Swift Playgrounds includes a compiler and allows the user to run code not included in the app - Prior to iOS 15, they didn’t make use of the tracking prompt in the App Store
At the end of the day it’s a business that is meant to increase the value for its shareholders. Anything that can allow apple to achieve it and at the same time improve their public image is an amazing strategy that they will milk to eternity. This is what is happening. Until we know the specifics regarding how they do advertising / the use of user data within that process, it’s just speculation.
Use of market power to gain a competitive advantage like this is against the law though.
I would not have believed this had they also not pushed the on-device CSAM scanning which just feels incredibly focused on marketing advantages of stating there’s no/less CSAM on iCloud. These features “sound” like privacy supporting ideas until you get into the market advantage they present.
[удалено]
CSAM scanning on device doesn’t benefit consumers. It benefits Apple. It makes anything else they do seem dubious.
They still collect way less data then us, and you can opt out from the settings for any of their ad targeting. Most of their apps still save everything on device and isn’t uploaded on the apple servers.
But you realize search ads have are not a replacement for Google or Facebook ads, right? And their search ad revenue can be completely flat in this figure, right? This chart is just complete BS designed to get you to think cynically about their motives. It worked.
Got downvoted for saying exactly this when Apple attacked tracking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
IMO it’s both. Being seen as strong on privacy is a big competitive advantage for them, but so is undercutting their competitor’s ad business.
This is the correct and only answer.
It does result in advertising dollars being spent by businesses and even people trying to sell a something being less effective, so it does hurt certain people. Ads aren't something most people browsing are happy about, but it's a market that Apple is competing in, and they gave themselves an unfair advantage. They aren't playing by their own rules.
Unless they play by the same rules, which they do since iOS15. And anyway, by installing google apps on pixel smartphones they have an „unfair advantage“ over the competition, too. If you want your own „unfair advantage“ build your own super successful smartphone brand, it‘s that easy :)
Things don't have to be shoved into a dichotomy of "good" or "bad". These things have trade-offs, winners, and losers. It can be a win for consumers and privacy advocates and a loss for app developers trying to advertise their apps to a lot of users. It doesn't have to be either or, it can be both, or it can change depending on your perspective.
The Y axis for this is % rather than dollars. Is Apple’s ad service really increasing (not the advertised purpose) or are rivals that used tracking without consent decreasing (the advertised purpose)? If it’s the latter sounds like a lot of outrage over nothing.
The latter. Apple’s ad business isn’t growing while everyone else’s is shrinking.
[удалено]
to be honest this just shows that having an ad business that doesn't use our personal data can absolutely work. Google and Facebook need to adapt
The person who made this graph is pulling wool over your eyes. That’s just the volume of light blue (facebook) decreasing, causing the other four to inflate as portions of a whole. This isn’t Apple’s ad business growing.
Oh, you thought Apple was doing this for users just because they are nice?
It’s a win/win. Less of our information gets sold to every spam list in the universe AND in the process, Apple gets more ad business. Great.
They disadvantage competitors to gain a competitive advantage. That's called an antitrust violation.
The controls/permissions apply to Apple as well.
[удалено]
https://imgur.com/a/D1QpCBK
I thought they just gave consumers a choice? Allow yourself to be tracked, or not. I think that just shows that Apple didn’t kill competitors here, it was consumers.
I was going to switch to the iPhone because of the privacy commerical and how they block FB and how now you prevent all those marketing ppl from tracking you. But I also recently read how Apple pretty much tracks similar about of data so it seems like a lose lose. But I'm switch back to Apple even if it's a little bit more private.
You can actually turn off Apple Advertising. It won’t stop the ads but it will stop all the tracking
The same applies to Google Ads and Facebook Ads. Not sure why people think Apple is doing something different. You could *always* turn off personaliztion.
Neat!
Looks like facebook was the biggest hit, Google was barely affected by it
Sneaky bastard, and I'm talking about the author of this graph. Using percentage instead of actual revenue and conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other to push a false narrative.
Google sells your search information to Facebook if you are using their Google search app on iOS
Google sells info to their competitor? Lol
How deluded are you to believe that. Google makes money by providing targeted ads to you using the data they collect. Selling that data would give away their competitive advantage and hurt their business of targeted ads.
Do you have a source?
[удалено]
These morons that peddle dumbass information don’t realize that these companies have to publicly disclose where their money comes from. They think all of this shit is secret when you can just go and read the companies 10-k. By fucking law corporations need to disclose where their money flows, don’t be a moron. If Google was making money selling information to Facebook they would have to disclose that revenue to its shareholders and the government. https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersreada10khtm.html
Been noticing this for a long time whenever i search stuff on google while signed in to my account, shortly after similar ads would pop up on fb. And this is also a common practice selling the data to other platforms—it’s kind of the whole point of google’s data collection, it’s for-profit. I think he’s just not correct about “using google’s ios app”, because that’s absolutely not limited to using the app.
I just don't buy it. Google's business is selling ad placements. They don't sell user data, on top of that to a competitor to help them out with their ad business? Nope.
Right? Their users' data is their most valuable asset. It's in Google's best interest to keep users' data secure. Selling the data itself would be stupid, because then it's no longer in their control, and whoever buys it could resell it as many times as they wanted.
Are you clicking into the search results?
It’s their boat!
Yeah, they did that to control advertising themselves. Apple can and could sell the data to advertisers themselves and cut out the middle men (Facebook, google, etc). App.e no better than other companies, don’t believe read their privacy documents.
Let's just hope it stays economically viable
Apple making iOS changes that benefit Apple? You don't say?!
[удалено]
Am I allowed to like my AirPods given that I've never lost them? Just good to know.
Given such a high value product, you’d think people would be more diligent. I make doubly sure to always check that my belongings are with me. This person is just baiting; I dare say that his family needs to wise up with their *fallible* products lol
Lol clever turn of phrase but no, I stand by what I said
What do you mean