[HN Gopher] Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims
        
       Author : Doolwind
       Score  : 67 points
       Date   : 2022-11-24 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (proton.me)
 (TXT) w3m dump (proton.me)
        
       | yarg wrote:
       | It's the carcinisation of the modern corporation.
        
       | jcadam wrote:
       | I wish they would spin off their hardware business. Or at least
       | their Mac business.
        
       | secretprocess wrote:
       | Funny, if you make it to the end of the article the entire thing
       | is an ad for Proton.
        
       | ViceCitySage wrote:
       | Apple's "privacy" is really just data protection from other
       | competing companies. It was just another marketing campaign to
       | maintain their positive image.
        
       | andreysolsty wrote:
       | You can be an ad company and respect your users privacy. They're
       | not mutually exclusive as the headline seems to suggest.
        
         | pifm_guy wrote:
         | > be an ad company and respect your users privacy
         | 
         | As an ad _broker_ , you usually cannot. If you respect the
         | users privacy, and another competing ad broker does not, then
         | the competitor will make better ad placement decisions, get a
         | higher click through rate, and give advertisers better ROI.
         | Therefore, the ad broker that respects privacy will get less
         | and less business and die.
         | 
         | The _only_ way an ad broker can respect privacy is if they can
         | prevent any other ad broker operating in the same marketplace.
         | Ie. You need to be a monopoly in your niche.
         | 
         | Apple can do this by hobbling any other ad provider operating
         | on iPhones or targeting iPhone user through their app store
         | rules.
        
           | account-5 wrote:
           | I've always wondered how apple gets away with its monopolies
           | when other companies don't/can't.
        
         | alexbeloi wrote:
         | They aren't mutually exclusive, but their incentives are
         | opposed, usually the incentives bringing in the money win.
        
         | smoldesu wrote:
         | Can you be an ad company and respect your users, though? Google
         | and Microsoft failed to do this, not because they didn't
         | protect their user's identity but because they kept squeezing
         | for more and more cash when the UX was already hurting. I'm not
         | confident that Apple can resist those temptations (judging by
         | the way they treat their own native advertising).
        
           | Someone wrote:
           | Adding advertising likely will cost them hardware sales. if
           | so, their hardware branch _might_ have enough clout to keep
           | their advertising branch under control.
           | 
           | Phrased another way: adding a few billions of advertising
           | revenue wouldn't make Apple an advertising company, just as
           | selling smartphones hasn't made Google a hardware company
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | smoldesu wrote:
             | They already have advertising, at least in MacOS. Every
             | time I put on my headphones I get a pop-up ad for Apple
             | Music, and I can't hide iCloud or Safari's constant nagging
             | to get me to use them.
             | 
             | Everyone has their own limits, but I left the ecosystem
             | after Mojave (with this being one reason).
        
         | colordrops wrote:
         | Unsubstantiated claims can be responded to with unsubstantiated
         | replies.
         | 
         | Being an ad company and respecting user privacy are completely
         | at odds. The incentives are misaligned.
        
           | noizejoy wrote:
           | How about companies that purely advertise via:
           | 
           | * bill boards and similar
           | 
           | * printed media ads
           | 
           | * ads that respond to keyword searches - without relying on
           | any other user data
           | 
           | * display ads on topical websites (e.g. guitar ads on guitar
           | related websites) - without relying on any other user data
        
             | colordrops wrote:
             | The first two do not have low latency high bandwidth
             | connections (or often any connection at all) to the user to
             | collect data, so it's not a reasonable comparison. As for
             | the third, I understand that duck.com claims this, but I
             | don't buy their claims, considering their behavior. None of
             | these sites that claim to not collect user data should be
             | trusted until they submit to a transparent audit that
             | exposes all their infrastructure. As for the fourth, this
             | is a tiny exception to the rule held up by some individual
             | with standards.
             | 
             | Apple doesn't fit the pattern of any of your examples.
        
           | UncleEntity wrote:
           | Had anyone actually substantiated the claim about the
           | unconfirmed non-disabling device ID beyond a single packet
           | and theorizing about encrypted packets?
           | 
           | Because the whole article is based on this evidence and
           | peoples' desire to dog pile on apple.
        
         | uoaei wrote:
         | Are there any examples of this being done?
        
           | fullshark wrote:
           | Duck Duck Go?
        
             | uoaei wrote:
             | Is DDG generally considered "an ad company"?
        
               | rPlayer6554 wrote:
               | That is the primary product they sell.
        
               | nl wrote:
               | Yes
        
             | DoktorDelta wrote:
             | https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/duckduckgo-is-
             | track...
        
               | someNameIG wrote:
               | That wasn't for their ads on their search engine, but
               | their browser. Even that link says the ads from their
               | search engine are private.
               | 
               | And iirc they have stopped doing that with the browser
               | also.
        
           | kccqzy wrote:
           | It's all a matter of definitions. For example, Google doesn't
           | sell user data to third parties, does that make Google
           | respect user privacy a lot better than other ad companies?
           | Sure yes. But Google often takes user data from one product
           | and uses it for targeting in a different product, and it
           | doesn't respect user privacy as much as a non-ad company.
        
             | _aavaa_ wrote:
             | > Google doesn't sell user data to third parties
             | 
             | Ad companies generally don't. Data brokers will set user
             | data, but advertisement based companies do not sell user
             | data.
             | 
             | > does that make Google respect user privacy a lot better
             | than other ad companies?
             | 
             | "better" is the operative word in that statement. Just
             | because Google spies on me and is slightly less _worse_
             | about how they use that data, does not mean that they
             | respect my privacy.
        
             | noizejoy wrote:
             | Google collects massive amounts of user data from visits to
             | non-Google properties via Google Analytics and AdSense.
        
       | nawgz wrote:
       | Ads are taking over the world because they're actually just a
       | propaganda vehicle and control is the only thing worth money
       | 
       | Regulation is too toothless to do anything about it so I think
       | we'll naturally see all corporations evolve this way
        
         | sfe22 wrote:
         | And why would government fix it if ads are propaganda tool?
         | Shouldn't it start using it to advance its interest and fix
         | bigger issues?
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | ogsalmanxx wrote:
         | This makes sense...
        
         | medion wrote:
         | Sad and true. Attention and value extraction from every aspect
         | of human life is the only goal in corporatism. It's never
         | enough for these companies, endless growth is all that matters.
        
         | uoaei wrote:
         | > control is the only thing worth money
         | 
         | Indeed. Look at anything you or anyone spends money on. It all
         | comes down to controlling your environment. The environment
         | that corporations inhabit is structured in such a way as to
         | demand user attention and data exploitation in order to
         | survive.
        
       | noizejoy wrote:
       | Lovely free advertising for Proton. Very smart blog post, since
       | numerous employees and fans of Apple competitors, as well as
       | anyone who dislikes Apple for whatever reason, has plenty
       | motivation to upvote this post.
       | 
       | Also: Calling someone an ad company when approximately 1% of
       | revenue seems to be generated by ads would seem quite a stretch.
       | 
       | Also: Being tracked while on someone's property isn't exactly the
       | same as tracking someone across unrelated properties.
       | 
       | Also: Every company with a decent CRM system and culture has been
       | tracking all kinds of (often personal) details about their
       | (potential) customers gathered from their interactions and
       | whatever sources they could get their hands on. This has been
       | going on since before the Internet was widely used.
       | 
       | But while this blog post (attack ad?) doesn't seem to have that
       | much meaningful substance, it's also kind of just doing the same
       | to Apple as Apple often does to others.
        
         | politelemon wrote:
         | Also: Yet I see many comments rushing to perform mental
         | gymnastics on their behalf.
         | 
         | There are several attributes here that match up exactly with
         | other companies that are somehow vilified. The blog post is on
         | point, the user have been in denial for a long time and will
         | continue to be.
        
       | UltraViolence wrote:
       | You know Apple's mantra: "Don't leave money on the table."
       | 
       | I'm totally not surprised about this, although it will hurt their
       | privacy USP (unique selling point).
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | denkmoon wrote:
       | Please no. There is no refuge from the ads. Not for all the money
       | in the world, apparently. This is the worst timeline.
       | 
       | Can I pay 2x to get an ad-free iPhone? 3x? Surely there is some
       | point where it makes sense to sell an ad free phone for those who
       | _need_ to not see ads. They won't even take my money ;_;
        
         | rapind wrote:
         | Nope. You become an edge case which now has to be supported
         | which likely costs more than you're paying (except to a smaller
         | efficient business). If you pay more and more you just become
         | more and more of an outlier.
        
         | shrimp_emoji wrote:
         | The only way out is buying devices on which you can flash and
         | use OS/software that was built without profit as a goal (e.g.,
         | free software).
         | 
         | Anything short of that and you're just sitting under the Sword
         | of Damocles of value extraction, ripe to be used and abused
         | (within personal tolerance or otherwise).
        
       | stephc_int13 wrote:
       | With an accountant at the head of the company, what would you
       | expect?
       | 
       | They also have too much power, too much money, not enough
       | competition and a deteriorating company culture.
       | 
       | But aside from their dominance, they also have a few gems, their
       | bet on ARM is paying off big time.
        
         | ml_basics wrote:
         | > a deteriorating company culture
         | 
         | Could you elaborate on this? Genuine question, because how
         | Apple is so successful is a complete mystery to me.
         | 
         | I worked there during the pandemic and my experience was that
         | there is no company culture, it's just a bunch of totally
         | siloed small teams. Culture grows as a result of people
         | speaking to each other, which I didn't really see happening.
         | 
         | Could be that I was in a particularly siloed part though.
        
       | jiripospisil wrote:
       | Who is clicking on these ads? Or do companies pay for the ad to
       | just show up? I have never in my life intentionally clicked on an
       | ad.
        
         | seaal wrote:
         | I just recently clicked on an App Store ad for the first time.
         | It was on a desperate search for an IPTV that didn't suck.
         | 
         | I was hoping it might be good considering the dev was paying
         | for ads, it was not.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-24 23:02 UTC)