The problem isn't sending an Ad to Wallet. It is the fact that Apple openly attack Ads, condemns Ads, talk about privacy as fundamental human rights, and then have targeted Ads, in a place / software / services where no body expected it to appear. And not everybody has the Ad, so by HN / Reddit / Internet definition that Ad is targeted.
The thing I used to like about Apple, even if you disagree with some of its decision. It is very coherent. It act as if Apple is a single entity even when it was a hundred billion market cap company. Compared to companies like Google and Microsoft, every product and services are like their own subsidiaries. Now Apple has become just another cooperate entity but with design team holding sufficient political power.
The reason that they so often seem so is because of the massive surveillance enabling targeted ads. Ads served based on the context they appear in (eg, ads for financial services on the WSJ, or ads for diapers on a baby monitor app) do not require any surveillance or knowledge of the person they're going to be seen by in order to function.
From what I can tell, this ad was not targeted in the least: it just went out to everyone with an iPhone.
(That doesn't make it good, it just means that it doesn't specifically violate Apple's commitment to privacy.)
There was a (brief) period when website advertisements were simple, first party hosted image files. IIRC, the first text ads on metafilter (2001 ?) were just strings in the same HTML file.
You may like or dislike these things but they were not a privacy concern.
Was this a targeted ad? Apple doesn't openly attack Ads - they are actively hostile to privacy invasive technology, which I don't think this runs foul of.
The problem isn't that Apple has ads, it's that Apple pushed an ad through Wallet. And in the Settings app. And in all the other untasteful places they spam with these ads.
Some people received the ad, while others did not (I did not). I don't think we fully understand what has caused some people to receive the ad versus not; maybe its just simple probability, or maybe its something more personal like usage of the Apple TV app, active TV+ subscription, having movie theater apps installed, or search interest in F1.
Yeah, everybody is taking about the Wallet thing, but there is a giant ad for F1 in Apple TV right now that says it can only be watched in cinemas! WTF
> It is the fact that Apple openly attack Ads, condemns Ads
What? No they don’t. I wish. Where did you get that idea? Apple loves ads. They do a ton of them and sell them to you. You can’t do an App Store search without seeing an ad right at the top, and the bottom, and the sides, and under your pillow. It’s absolutely littered with them.
What Apple rails against is the tracking and invasion of privacy. Which incidentally ads do a lot of. Even Safari content blockers are ingrained in that philosophy: it’s not about blocking ads, it’s about blocking things that invade your privacy.
The App Store Search and iCloud Ads are relatively recent thing. The focus on tracking and invasion of privacy is also a refined version of it. Their whole PR campaign from 2017 to 2020 against ads. ( And it was more targeting Facebook Ads without saying it. Which Apple plan to destroy ) Somewhere between 2019 - 2022 They literally have to come out and said to say they are not against ads but only against tracking because the whole Ad industry was furious so they have calm things down.
Here is another angle. If Apple could successfully destroy the In App Ads industry, which they earn nothing from, and force those value into subscription, who will benefit most? Remember Apple tried iAds and earn a percentage of it but failed.
People should at least read PG's Submarine [1] to understand how modern PR and media works. Once you have that understanding the lens of reading anything about Apple becomes a little different.
> Their whole PR campaign from 2017 to 2020 against ads.
Could you provide specific examples? It is possible that I’m misremembering, but in that case you should be able to point me to those specific campaigns.
Everything else in your comment has nothing to do with my point, though.
It's genuinely getting depressing watching HN try to justify Tim Cook's actions ad-hoc. You can't name a single ideal Apple values more than money.
Soon (2028?) "Yes, we know Apple advertises to us and backdoors their services for the government. But *at least* my personal data isn't being sold, without Apple's privacy promise I would be helpless."
Try to understand what people are saying without injecting your own preconceived notions and maybe you won’t get as depressed. Making a correction about a point is not the same as defending it.
I am not attacking your character. This is specifically aimed at HN's cognitive dissonance surrounding Apple doing anything possibly bad. It is pointless to shield Tim Cook from ancillary flak, the hypocrisy here is exactly why this topic is so important to discuss. The comments here confirm that, everyone is saying this isn't what they expected. It isn't orthogonal.
> Making a correction about a point is not the same as defending it.
That is called astroturfing, and it is a deliberate bad-faith discussion tactic. If you genuinely don't think their comment is relevant to your point, then there would be no reason to write a reply to it. This is exactly the subliminal shit that depresses me, this site is whipped by Apple and will do anything except admit it.
Again, you’re only seeing what you want to see. Your opinion on Apple isn’t special or rare, it’s shared by tons of people on HN.
> If you genuinely don't think their comment is relevant to your point, then there would be no reason to write a reply to it.
So someone misunderstands or mischaracterises your point, and in your mind you should never correct and clarify the misconception, because doing so is bad faith? I mean, you do that if you want to, but that’s not what astroturfing is.
The thing I used to like about Apple, even if you disagree with some of its decision. It is very coherent. It act as if Apple is a single entity even when it was a hundred billion market cap company. Compared to companies like Google and Microsoft, every product and services are like their own subsidiaries. Now Apple has become just another cooperate entity but with design team holding sufficient political power.