I genuine question I don’t know the answer to, what’s better, seeing completely random ads that are questionably relevant, and wasting my attention and time (and meaning specialized small businesses can’t compete, ads are for things like detergent that everyone needs), or seeing ads that I might actually be interested at some point (some cool gadget that actually could be relevant to my life, sold by a specialist small manufacturer).
I don’t know the answer.
But Apple is picking for me, that’s for sure.
Edit: good replies, fair point on the choice, from a personal perspective. We all know though that 90% will opt out or more. Without knowing they are making this very choice.
You missed out the third option, which is ads relevent to the content they’re embedded in. This metaphor worked from 300 years ago through to 15 years ago with no problems.
I think this is an interesting option. However, people who write newspaper articles, etc.. still need to get paid. I think we all say "I'd like to be able to pay just for the articles I want to read", but just like a la carte TV, I think we'd find out that is much more expensive than we know.
My theory is that, collectively, our privacy and attention is worth far more to other people that to us. Making up numbers, a company may pay $1 to show a targeted ad to you while you are reading an article. But there is no way that you'd ever pay $1 to read that article. And, furthermore, you probably see viewing that ad as a minor annoyance, not $1 worth of value.
I think if most folks had to replace ad money out of their own pocket in order to consume the content they like, they'd never do it.
people who write newspaper articles, etc.. still need to get paid
They sure do. But seeing the majority out there does want to see ads or doesn't care about seing them, it's not like they won't get paid at all.
And indeed that majority won't pay for content but there are others who do, and it's not impossible to make a living out of it: there are proper independent online-only news channels out there with no ads and paid by their subscribers (plus a bunch of government subsidies usually).
just like a la carte TV, I think we'd find out that is much more expensive than we know.
Assuming you mean Netflix and the likes: that is actually way cheaper now than what 'a la carte' used to be for me. 20 years ago when I wanted to choose what I looked at on a screen, I'd be looking at DVD rental because there wasn't much of an alternative here. Or maybe even not an alternative at all, don't remember exactly, but there was just cable TV and apart from standard channels you could get some extra (a porn channel, a sports channel), but that's still not 'a la carte'. Anyway: I easily paid twice what Netflix costs me now per month, every week.
I think they literally mean a la carte TV, like paying for the Showtime package, the sports package, the premium sports package, etc. on top of your subscription, or paying to watch a movie on Prime
I've succumbed a while ago and started using Youtube Premium. Yesterday, when youtube was only working when you were logged out I, seeing an ad was jarring experience.
> Now, with the option to opt-out of tracking at the point-of-use, consumers won’t have to sift through their phone’s settings to protect their privacy.
On most devices these settings are buried so deep that almost no one knows that they exist. Android used to go as far as only allow you to _reset_ your token, instead of removing it completely, IIRC.
> We all know though that 90% will opt out or more. Without knowing they are making this very choice.
This doesn’t make sense. We’re going from a situation where users are completely blind to what’s going on, to one where they are informed and given a choice - and your framing is that somehow, this makes them less informed?
If what you describe could be achieved in a privacy respecting fashion and on device (using opt-in instead of opt-out) why not (for instance let the server send 50 add propositions with a one time token and ip obfuscation and let the on device IA choose).
What actually happen is that I got vaccum cleaner adds all over youtube & friend for weeks AFTER I ordered one online from a (so far) trusted brick and mortar shop.
This is both creepily invasive and very inefficient targeted add.
You don’t collect vacuum cleaners? That’s funny, I don’t collect headphones but get put in the “suspected headphone collector” bin every couple years or so when I buy a pair.
Relevant ads are obviously better than irrelevant ads. But that's not the point here.
What this is about is that the advertisers collect your habits and build a profile based on your behaviour which can be sold to further third parties, among which can be banks, government institutions... which can consequently affect your life.
> Now, with the option to opt-out of tracking at the point-of-use, consumers won’t have to sift through their phone’s settings to protect their privacy.
I don’t know the answer.
But Apple is picking for me, that’s for sure.
Edit: good replies, fair point on the choice, from a personal perspective. We all know though that 90% will opt out or more. Without knowing they are making this very choice.