oh but they do. All of the apps you purchase, stocks you own, news stories you read, location of your phone/mac based on precise geolocation, your name, address, age, gender, oh and this too:
> We may also use local, on-device processing to select which ad to display, using > information stored on your device, such as the apps you frequently open.
Your reference or comment doesn’t disprove my point, but with the way you wrote it, it seems like you think it does? When they say unrelated, they mean offered by different providers, not of different purposes.
It’s not a pretty loose or arbitrary standard. For example, it’s a key basis on which data sharing is regulated. The claim that it’s a weak enough definition that it doesn’t matter is inconsistent with criticism that it’s a definition which has materially impacted Facebook’s revenue.
I just don’t agree that financial data and health data are “related” simply because they were both generated on a single platform. It’s pretty easy to link any type of data at that point. All you need is for Apple to develop two apps and literally any type of data can be “related”. At that point the word “related” loses all meaning.
I think you made a poor choice of words. You probably meant 3rd party apps not related.
Regardless - I also don’t think it’s meaningfully better that Apple links financial and health data to sell Ads vs. Google or Facebook linking the same data from two external sources.
Revenue and regulations are not relevant factors in this argument.
Tbh if you are charging $1000+ for handsets.. why are you trying to scrape my data as-well or show me ads ?
Forget personalized vs. non-personalized. I paid a premium, I want an ad-free experience.
But summary is they use a bunch of stuff about the device (past purchases, location, fingerprinting-like data such as carrier and so on) and your usage of a bunch of apps like apple news and stocks.
If you set brand image aside and just think about the huge amounts of money at stake, it becomes obvious that the whole app tracking transparency thing is just Apple taking over the ad market on iOS. They invented the term “cross app tracking” and defined it to not include their own conversion tracking through their various apps to purchases of their advertisers’ products via Apple Pay. Then they forced their ad-sales competitors to send all their conversion data to Apple, while providing separate APIs with richer data to their own advertisers.
Apple is also selling app install ads in the News and Stocks apps. Tens of billions of dollars are spent on app install ads on iOS each year, so this is a very lucrative market for Apple if they can corner it (and probably necessary if they are going to achieve expected Services revenue growth in the years to come). It remains to be seen whether they’ll take another crack at the rest of the ad market, after the failure of iAd. They seem to be laying the groundwork for it.
one funny limitation for US only is the Jones Act from 1920, it requires that the vessels that install these offshore wind turbines to be built, owned, crewed and registered in US. And there aren't many boats that can install turbines the size of modern offshore wind turbines.
So I don't believe the Jones Act would come into play in this situation. The Jone Act controls shipping between US ports, so if all you are doing is taking the pieces of the turbines out to be installed and coming back to the same port you haven't shipped anything between ports. It would fall under the same loop hole that cruise ships use, which is since they drop of passengers at the same port they picked them up at nothing has been "shipped between ports".
It's really not alright to step on the pulpit to point fingers left and right when your house is also not in order, it makes it seem more like you're trying to move forward your business agenda rather than really caring about the issue.
>It's really not alright to step on the pulpit to point fingers left and right when your house is also not in order, it makes it seem more like you're trying to move forward your business agenda rather than really caring about the issue.
What does this mean? Are you speaking to the author of the parent comment or in general? What is this un-orderliness you've alluded to?
I'm speaking to the author of the comment I replied to who basically states that the article was purely good because of the topic, without having any critical eye towards it. And the un-orderliness is in the title of the article commented on, nyt has dark patterns on their site as well.
The author of the NYT piece is a member of the editorial board so he should be held to a higher standard than employees of a business that protest its practices, while probably having no power over setting them. A member of the editorial board is certainly in a more powerful position, relatively speaking, to make changes in their newspaper and surely he could have talked about the example set by the business he works for. If Google came out with PR that pointed at Apple tracking users of its phones, something that is factually true, they would be rightfully laughed at because they are the last ones that can complain that someone tracks people.
Fwiw I don’t think it’s purely good, I both judge and applaud the article, hence the “zen” language. I think it’s good to criticize the hypocrisy. But also much better that the article exists than not. You’d see basically no journalism if journalists were constrained by the behavior of their owners to never be such hypocrites by association.
what is there to be disappointed about? Did you really think Apple actually cares about privacy the way you intend privacy? Or do you think it's more likely for them to care about it with the definition that gives them the biggest market power?
There's nothing surprising with Apple doing this, what's surprising is that they are applying different standards to everyone else and most people still fail to see this, and are surprised or disappointed by the behavior, when it's all been in plain sight.
