Apple app transparency changes bring in the ad bucks... for Apple Although Apple's sales pitch for the idea was protecting users' privacy, it appears the company's App Tracking Transparency (ATT) initiative has been kind to its wallet as well, pushing it to the top of the mobile app advertising market in the past year. That's the major finding from Appsumer's look at the state of mobile …
"Unfortunately, that means ATT, which seemed like a consumer-focused way to improve user privacy, now appears to have actually been the opening move in Apple's latest revenue gambit."
Did it seem that way? I certainly never thought so, and I'm sure Register scribes and readers alike had similarly cynical views.
If there's anyone here that doesn't understand that every company will do almost anything to boost the bottom line, then I have an NFT of a bridge to sell you.
Like everybody else, Apple is trying to find more revenue, especially with other revenue streams being attacked by regulators (e.g. exclusivity of repair, app store restrictions and fees, proprietary cables). Ad sales are often a target.
Apple can. Apple has its own operating system and its owns computers-phones too. Consequently Apple has access to the user-generated texts and can make lexical clones of them, as their individual AS. Then it can get the correct expansions on the search queries from these clones, tens and hundreds, even thousands weighted phrases. The only question is where to look for information? Apple needs a database of lexical clones created on the basis of a similar method for the content of all items of the internet. Thus Apple should give the owner of the internet items, like web pages, documents, posts, pictures, etc, an opportunity to profile.
I feel dumber than usual here. If there is causality between ATT being introduced and the higher adoption (and crucially revenue) of ASA, does it mean that advertisers can be forced into spending their money into "slightly more ethical" advertising?
As in, advertising not targeted using data I was never willing to share? This would mean that this data is not strictly necessary for a healthy competitive marketplace?
But that would then mean that regulators around the world had been paddled lies from the industry for decades (shock! surprise!). They actually may finally do their job and take action to protect my data.
I'm certainly wrong somewhere. Somebody please explain.
"Google and Apple both had 94.8 percent channel adoption among major app store advertisers (defined as spending more than $100k/month on paid media) using their service in Q2 2022"
Can anyone explain what this actually means, and how it's relevant to anything? It almost sounds as though it's talking about something along the lines of "Out of companies that spend at least $100k on advertising, 94.8% of them spend some of that money on Google". But the last part says it's among companies using their service, so that should mean it's 100% by definition. So I have absolutely no idea what this article is talking about. Some percentage of somethings are doing something related to advertising. Apple's number has gone up, and that means Apple is now one of the big advertisers. But later on it's said that Apple's actual advertising income is still at best maybe 1% that of Google and Facebook which doesn't make them sound particularly comparable, even if they are a little bit bigger than before.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
