Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why doesn't Apple COMPLETELY disable ad tracking?
- Thread starter -BigMac-
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone's blaming the companies selling the advertising space/time. It's the advertisers who really want this. "Efficient" targeting of advertising. By reaching only the "best" prospects, no money is wasted on the bad prospects. This has been going on since the invention of advertising. Content is created to attract targets with specific interests, therefore improving the "quality" of the audience to an advertiser and reducing the cost of delivering advertising to the desired prospects.
So now the technology has moved beyond simply delivering targeted content, but to targeting specific individuals. A general-interest site like FaceBook doesn't have to hone its content to attract certain interests, it can rope in all interests and still offer precise targeting to specific users. That sort of genie can't be put back into the bottle.
From my perspective, the more Apple does to reduce tracking, the more pressure will be placed on governments by the likes of FaceBook to "break Apple's monopoly." It's the same with sideloading, bypassing Apple's "tax" in iTunes/App Store - while all these efforts to "open up" Apple's platforms may occasionally have consumer benefit (usually nothing more than a perceived sense of "freedom"), more typically it will simply enrich the businesses that are pushing the hardest to get in. Does anyone seriously think that Epic Games will cut the prices of its games, or Spotify its streaming music, if they get to sell direct-to-consumer on Apple's platform?
So now the technology has moved beyond simply delivering targeted content, but to targeting specific individuals. A general-interest site like FaceBook doesn't have to hone its content to attract certain interests, it can rope in all interests and still offer precise targeting to specific users. That sort of genie can't be put back into the bottle.
From my perspective, the more Apple does to reduce tracking, the more pressure will be placed on governments by the likes of FaceBook to "break Apple's monopoly." It's the same with sideloading, bypassing Apple's "tax" in iTunes/App Store - while all these efforts to "open up" Apple's platforms may occasionally have consumer benefit (usually nothing more than a perceived sense of "freedom"), more typically it will simply enrich the businesses that are pushing the hardest to get in. Does anyone seriously think that Epic Games will cut the prices of its games, or Spotify its streaming music, if they get to sell direct-to-consumer on Apple's platform?
I didn't agree that tracking should be ok - I was saying why I thought some people might let it happen
I feel that ads is neither good nor bad inherently. They help pay the bills for some developers but the problem is the data collection that goes on behind the scenes to make targeted ads work. It's simply too invasive these days. What Apple is trying to do is offer ads themselves in a way that does not go against its privacy culture (i.e. no personalised profiles being created with the intent of delivering ads or changing behavior).Hey peeps.
Fresh off todays news that Facebook is making a loss because it can't track customers in iOS as accurately anymore.. makes me wonder..
Why doesn't Apple COMPLETELY disable all Ad tracking (within their control)?
Is there people who actually WANT to be tracked by ads?
Does Apple benefit in any way, shape, or form by allowing Ad tracking?
Am curious
Cheers
As such, what ATT is designed to address is the problem of how the data powering ad delivery is often gathered. Apple has made it clear that they do not send user data to third parties, they do not buy user data from third parties, and they do not use data from Apple Pay, Health or HomeKit for ads.
Apple further defines tracking as an app following you across apps and websites from other companies with the goal of creating a personalised profile. This is why ATT was born - to prevent companies like Facebook from gathering data from you via multiple third party apps, many of which have nothing to do with Facebook itself. Each of these apps still has your data, Facebook is still able to track you within their app, it just has a much harder time aggregating all these different pools of data together to form a more complete profile of you. This results in ads being less effective in reaching their desired audience, which means that Facebook can no longer afford to charge as much for them, hence the lower revenue.
And if people consent to being track because they think they might benefit from better targeted ads, nothing is stopping them from enabling this in the app. The onus is now on these ad companies to convince us why we should let them track us, rather than the original "free for all" arrangement.
That's the list for all sites. You need to tap MacRumors above it to see. See attached.
www.macrumors.com
iOS 14: How to Use the Privacy Report Feature in Safari
In iOS 14, Apple has added a new Privacy Report feature to its Safari browser that's designed to prevent websites from tracking your internet...
www.macrumors.com
Attachments
That's the list for all sites. You need to tap MacRumors above it to see. See attached.
iOS 14: How to Use the Privacy Report Feature in Safari
In iOS 14, Apple has added a new Privacy Report feature to its Safari browser that's designed to prevent websites from tracking your internet...
There you go
There are some situations in which I do want to be advertised to.
• I do like some companies' values and products, and sign up for their e-mail newsletters.
• I do want eBay to suggest some items similar to those I've searched for.
While I can't think of any, maybe there are situations like that where I'd actually want to be tracked between apps or sites.
What I find contrastingly obnoxious and "instantly switch-offable" is advertisers who are trying to continuously promote to me in ways I never opted into, doubly so if I'm not even aware of them. If advertising and tracking on the maturing web had been based around the establishment of trust and transparency between browsers and advertisers, then I think more people would happily be saying "sure, this has actually worked out for me – I'll opt into this."
I think what Apple's doing serves at least to set an example: "here's how tracking users should always have looked." Even if practically no one chooses it now (understandable in this climate where so much obnoxious tracking and privacy violation has entered public awareness), it might help equalize the climate over upcoming years.
• I do like some companies' values and products, and sign up for their e-mail newsletters.
• I do want eBay to suggest some items similar to those I've searched for.
While I can't think of any, maybe there are situations like that where I'd actually want to be tracked between apps or sites.
What I find contrastingly obnoxious and "instantly switch-offable" is advertisers who are trying to continuously promote to me in ways I never opted into, doubly so if I'm not even aware of them. If advertising and tracking on the maturing web had been based around the establishment of trust and transparency between browsers and advertisers, then I think more people would happily be saying "sure, this has actually worked out for me – I'll opt into this."
I think what Apple's doing serves at least to set an example: "here's how tracking users should always have looked." Even if practically no one chooses it now (understandable in this climate where so much obnoxious tracking and privacy violation has entered public awareness), it might help equalize the climate over upcoming years.
Apple sells itunes customer data
Apple Sold Its Customers' iTunes Data Without Consent, Lawsuit Says
Suit says that third-parties could buy music habits and user home addresses from tech giant for $136 per 1,000 people
www.thewrap.com
Apple pays Google to collect user data from Safari browser
Why doesn't Apple COMPLETELY disable ad tracking?
Do you have a source for this statement?
forums.macrumors.com
These maybe old news stories but it does show that Apple will sell it's users data at some point and to some degree. Therefore my statement stands regardless of how much you want try to say how non-relevant the news articles are.
The first quote is interesting as it does refer to Apple selling bulk data to 3rd parties. However it is a lawsuit. As such it is a supposition until it is resolved. No way to know if it is true.
The website isn't the greatest, rated with medium credibility on the media bias website:
"We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to occasional poor sources, sensationalism, and a failed fact check."
My initial impression is that it is an article written to generate web traffic. Certainly will keep eyes open for references to it on more factually based websites.
As for google, yes Apple does get a lot of money from them to promote their search engine. Seems anti-competitive, but we'll see how those lawsuits pan out - a separate issue.
Don't understand your comment
Yes, google does sell your data. But it is google doing it, not apple. If you use their browser then it's on you since it is public knowledge. As you said it is a hit against Apple for encouraging people to use a website that collects and uses personal data. As it is, however, the best and most ubiquitous browser I suspect if a vote were taken users would prefer it to be the default. Google search would not be that good without all that income paying for the engineers working on it.
Are people willing to pay a monthly fee for a google search which maintains their privacy? Doubt it. Time and again when it is a question of paying for a service or getting it free with ads or whatever the former seems to be case. Just look at all of the posts complaining about having to pay for software subscriptions. Do I want a streaming service with ads or one without that costs more? The numbers seem to say that the first is the general preference.
The website isn't the greatest, rated with medium credibility on the media bias website:
"We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to occasional poor sources, sensationalism, and a failed fact check."
My initial impression is that it is an article written to generate web traffic. Certainly will keep eyes open for references to it on more factually based websites.
As for google, yes Apple does get a lot of money from them to promote their search engine. Seems anti-competitive, but we'll see how those lawsuits pan out - a separate issue.
Don't understand your comment
Yes, google does sell your data. But it is google doing it, not apple. If you use their browser then it's on you since it is public knowledge. As you said it is a hit against Apple for encouraging people to use a website that collects and uses personal data. As it is, however, the best and most ubiquitous browser I suspect if a vote were taken users would prefer it to be the default. Google search would not be that good without all that income paying for the engineers working on it.
Are people willing to pay a monthly fee for a google search which maintains their privacy? Doubt it. Time and again when it is a question of paying for a service or getting it free with ads or whatever the former seems to be case. Just look at all of the posts complaining about having to pay for software subscriptions. Do I want a streaming service with ads or one without that costs more? The numbers seem to say that the first is the general preference.
The first lawsuit has already been thrown out rather quickly, in just 6 months. Such a quick dismissal and the details given indicate that it was a frivilous suit.
Judge dismisses class action involving iTunes and Apple Music data privacy | AppleInsider
Apple on Monday won final judgment to dismiss a class action complaint claiming the company unjustly profits from the aggregation and sale of iTunes and Apple Music user data.
appleinsider.com
Apple might be exposing your data to third parties due to incompetence but they’ve made it clear that they don’t deliberately sell your data.
It's an interesting thing and not many posts here regarding Safari tracking and Facebook, I searched and was about to start a thread specifically.Hey peeps.
Fresh off todays news that Facebook is making a loss because it can't track customers in iOS as accurately anymore.. makes me wonder..
Why doesn't Apple COMPLETELY disable all Ad tracking (within their control)?
Is there people who actually WANT to be tracked by ads?
Does Apple benefit in any way, shape, or form by allowing Ad tracking?
Am curious
Cheers
I've been using Firefox, Facebook Purity, Privacy Badger and U Block extensions dedicated mainly for FB. So recently I was finally able to update to Safari 15.5 and looked forward to its advertised Cross-Site and Intelligent Tracking Prevention. The reporting activity showed pretty much all tracking prevention of sites visited except..Facebook!
Not one mention actually and probably the worst offender of data collection, next to Google off course.
The odd thing is, that I'm also (and concurrently) running the stand alone App Lockdown and it also fails to mention FB tracking. It's worrying and I cannot explain it. So has FB managed to totally circumvent tracking? With all these FB enabled extensions using FF I mentioned previously, there was a considerable slow down loading pages and to be expected really. Overall I do much prefer Safari (current incarnation) but what exactly is the deal with FB tracking and this browser?
Edit: Subjectively starting fresh FF sessions with above mentioned FB related privacy-extensions, things do seem to travel speedily along. Just once cache starts swelling things begin to crawl.
Edit No.2: Only now realised I responded to an iOS thread..sigh
Last edited:
my 1.6 mill+ lines of dns blocking at the router level also works wonders for every device on top of any ad/tracking disable options and content filtering addons etc..
the hell with the spies, tracking, and bombarding of ads. never again.
the hell with the spies, tracking, and bombarding of ads. never again.