> 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
> 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 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.
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’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'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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
> 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
Havoc|3 years ago
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
kergonath|3 years ago
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).
jefftk|3 years ago
parasubvert|3 years ago
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.
MomoXenosaga|3 years ago
yieldcrv|3 years ago
tinus_hn|3 years ago
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.
greenthrow|3 years ago
kareemsabri|3 years ago
- 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.
ninepoints|3 years ago
gammarator|3 years ago
The narrative doesn’t match the numbers.
helsinkiandrew|3 years ago
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.
factorialboy|3 years ago
Are you expecting to have an official Apple press release be quoted?
mistercool|3 years ago
Do we just not report on Apple's ads because they choose not to provide us with first hand information?
parasubvert|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
justapassenger|3 years ago
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?
diminish|3 years ago
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.
s1k3s|3 years ago
karaterobot|3 years ago
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.
ftyhbhyjnjk|3 years ago
politelemon|3 years ago
FredPret|3 years ago
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.
adrr|3 years ago
ftyhbhyjnjk|3 years ago
h2odragon|3 years ago
tzs|3 years ago
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.
chillee|3 years ago
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/
ramesh31|3 years ago
sokoloff|3 years ago
bushbaba|3 years ago
ElCheapo|3 years ago
88840-8855|3 years ago
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.
kcplate|3 years ago
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.
MomoXenosaga|3 years ago
seydor|3 years ago
illwrks|3 years ago
bfrog|3 years ago
bee_rider|3 years ago
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.
stjohnswarts|3 years ago
chiefalchemist|3 years ago
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.
elforce002|3 years ago
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).
JulianaRestrepo|3 years ago
politelemon|3 years ago
stjohnswarts|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
mark_l_watson|3 years ago
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.
TakeBlaster16|3 years ago
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?
axg11|3 years ago
franczesko|3 years ago
bwb|3 years ago
ftyhbhyjnjk|3 years ago
[deleted]
teekert|3 years ago
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.
kergonath|3 years ago
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?
bombcar|3 years ago
pbz|3 years ago
isaiahg|3 years ago
alt227|3 years ago
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.
justapassenger|3 years ago
Give it some time. Ads become obtrusive because it works and it brings more revenue.
gsatic|3 years ago
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.
magwa101|3 years ago
[deleted]
daedric7|3 years ago
[deleted]