5 ms·

"It’s a no brainer that the search engine giant will be compelled to bring a similar anti-ad tracking feature on Android to keep the mobile ecosystem in sync."

"It’s a no brainer that the search engine giant will be compelled to bring a similar anti-ad tracking feature on Android to keep the mobile ecosystem in sync." Huh? Perhaps I'm missing something, why would Google do the same? Seems out of their interests ...

sniperjzp 6y ago
Because Android users will switch to iOS for better privacy, Google needs to develop something similar to keep the market share.
- pm90 6y ago
  Is there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? Apple has been posturing itself as the privacy-first platform and so far it doesn’t seem like Android/Google is stepping up to challenge that (afaik, would love to see evidence that they are).
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    I don’t think google will do it until users start leaving in significant numbers at least. And that’s seems unlikely.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Android updated its permission system after iOS. You had to agree to all the permissions an app needed before installing it but they changed it to be progressive like iOS and I think it's more flexible than iOS now. For example, my phone has the ability to disable network permission for single apps like wifi, vpn, data, etc from settings. > Is there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? People buying flagship android phones definitely. They cost as much as iphones. Others, I am not sure.
- bnjemian 6y ago
  It may not be as clear cut as this – if an Android user cares about privacy, then they're probably using the OS in spite of its relatively poor privacy. Maybe this will be the one thing that for a small minority of those users makes them switch to iOS, but I'd expect that number to be closer to a rounding error. From that perspective, the upside for Google integrating a similar feature into Android seems comparatively small.
- m463 6y ago
  so... compete on rhetoric?
- virtue3 6y ago
  Privacy vs walled garden is a hard bet. If I really wanted to, I'd just install a different OS on my android over going to Apple TBH.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > Privacy vs walled garden is a hard bet I don't believe this is true or even a consideration for the majority of users.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Which proof do you need? Walled garden is bad for users, even if they do not (yet) realize it.
      - peteretep 6y ago
        > Walled garden is bad for users Proof of that, specifically.
        fsflover 6y ago
        Users have less freedom and cannot do many things by definition. Granted, this may not be important for everyone, but neither is freedom of speech. In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs. Lock-in costs that create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
        peteretep 6y ago
        > this may not be important for everyone It’s of marginal importance to me, but the ability to install virtually anything on the App Store reasonably confident it’s not going to break my primary communication device or exfiltrate my data (without my permission) etc etc is of far more importance. I rely on my phone very heavily and the fact that it reliably Just Fucking Works is much much more important than being able to — for example — run Firefox on it
- simias 6y ago
  I have zero faith that a significant proportion of consumers will switch to iOS solely for privacy reasons. We've seen time and again that mainstream consumers would gladly surrender all their private info if it saves them $100.
  - nvarsj 6y ago
    Most people do care about privacy, but generally they are not even aware of how their privacy is being violated - Google and Facebook are very good at hiding the reality of these things. But you're right, the cost is the ultimate factor for most people, especially in developing countries. I guess Apple doesn't care about complete market share, but if they did, they could just release an "iPhone Lite" for 150$ and good bye to Android market share. Imagine having 90%+ mobile phone market share - Apple could destroy the Google ad business.
- fuzzy2 6y ago
  I don’t think they will. The unfortunate truth is that iPhones are just so much more expensive that this will not happen.
- Yuioup 6y ago
  No way am I going to get locked into Apple
- dspillett 6y ago
  I think it is more the other way around: feature parity to aid switching to rather than to reduce loss of shre due to people switching from. Those of us using Android who care that much about the privacy aspect have ways to implement it (a little more Heath Robinson like, but still...) using a VPN and alternative browsers. Many in the Andoid camp are likely to see this are preferable to switching platforms and paying more for their devices (unless they run with expansive flagship android units in which case cost is less of an issue in the switch). Those that don't care that much, don't care enough to make a difference. On the other hand Apple providing extra privacy protection is a significant extra bit of friction that would stop people moving away from iDevices onto Android ones, even amongst people who don't care enough to make any effort beyond not switching and/or don't really understand the issue much if at all.
kmonsen 6y ago
Yeah, I really don’t think this will happen. Google used to be really hands off with chrome and android but that stopped some time ago. Now both of them have captured markets and google is slowly making both worse for users and privacy. Saying this after having worked on and loved both products and teams.
- trickyads540 6y ago
  If Google doesn’t do this, people will move towards Apple as someone stated. Plus, Google is evil! They themselves are adopting the subscription based model now over ads
  - minot 6y ago
    My understanding is that the greedy advertisers, Rupert Murdoch empire, and WPP have been steadily forcing Google to share even more information about Google properties and used on Google properties for at least a few years now. Google needs subscribers so it can go to these unscrupulous actors and show then the middle finger. It is very interesting to see Google reaction to being forced to share even more information with advertisers. I am completely with Google. Why should advertisers on Google properties know more about Google business than Google knows itself? Now the question for everyone else is: why should Google (or Facebook) know more about your business than you know yourself? I actively discourage against using Facebook JavaScript SDK in any web project I’m involved in because most of the time all small companies really need is a sharer.php link. It is mind boggling how little people think about “let’s use their SDK”.
  - mnd999 6y ago
    Some people will. A lot of people don't know about online privacy or simply don't care. Also Apple phones are expensive.
    - aylmao 6y ago
      +1. Plus, I'd assume the people who care about online privacy enough to let that influence what phone to buy are already using iPhones. Better "privacy" has been touted by Apple for a while.
oarsinsync 6y ago
If Google did this independently of anything else, it would be viewed as anticompetitive / abuse of a monopoly position. With Apple doing it first and them simply going along with where the mobile operating system ecosystem has moved, it won’t be. They’ve already taken similar stems with Chrome too. They key thing to remember is that the platform creator doesn’t play by the same rules as other participants. Chrome blocks particular kinds of tracking for third parties, while still enabling Google to track its users. What reason is there to believe that Google will not continue to track users on Android after making it harder for others to do so, just like it has with Chrome, now that Apple has given them the perfect excuse?
bosswipe 6y ago
Yea that makes no sense. The mobile ecosystem is already out of sync in this regard since iOS allows users to disable the ad tracking ID while Android does not, you're only allowed to reset it.
ianmcgowan 6y ago
If they don't Microsoft will, with Edge - they've already shown willingness to give it more privacy options than Chrome, and they can go further if it gives them more of an, uh, edge. It's interesting that Apple and Microsoft are the original PC gang and they seem to be making a resurgence (just missing IBM) against the web upstarts. I don't think anyone has any illusions about their motives being pure, but there is something more clear cut about "sell me useful hardware and software, I give you money in return" as at least a part of the relationship, compared with Facebook/Google where the value exchanged is my attention/eyeballs to advertisers..
- phist_mcgee 6y ago
  IBM has long since been a has-been software player in the 21st century. IBM is a global consultancy, and is in no way similar to the IBM PC company in days of yore.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Microsoft's browser is worse than chrome for privacy. https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/ https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    Using Brave as a source is like asking Apple about Google's ad business..
    - ffpip 6y ago
      These are stats. And brave was the most private browser out of the box.
      - Daho0n 6y ago
        Brave was the best in Braves article? That was the point. No matter if it is true or not you don't ask Facebook how good Facebook so why use Brave as a source for how good Brave is?
vlkr 6y ago
Samsung, Sony, Xiaomi, LG will demand this feature if they sell less phones because people switch to apple. Or they will implement it by themself and gain an edge about competitors who don't have it.
ankit219 6y ago
They wont. The article is written from a very one dimensional perspective and clutching at straws in some places. (I do believe that there is some merit in FB's argument about Small businesses, while I dont think those businesses continuing to rely on FB is a good thing in the long run).

sniperjzp 6y ago

Because Android users will switch to iOS for better privacy, Google needs to develop something similar to keep the market share.

pm90 6y ago
Is there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? Apple has been posturing itself as the privacy-first platform and so far it doesn’t seem like Android/Google is stepping up to challenge that (afaik, would love to see evidence that they are).
- kmonsen 6y ago
  I don’t think google will do it until users start leaving in significant numbers at least. And that’s seems unlikely.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Android updated its permission system after iOS. You had to agree to all the permissions an app needed before installing it but they changed it to be progressive like iOS and I think it's more flexible than iOS now. For example, my phone has the ability to disable network permission for single apps like wifi, vpn, data, etc from settings. > Is there any reason to think users care about it enough to switch based solely on this feature? People buying flagship android phones definitely. They cost as much as iphones. Others, I am not sure.
bnjemian 6y ago
It may not be as clear cut as this – if an Android user cares about privacy, then they're probably using the OS in spite of its relatively poor privacy. Maybe this will be the one thing that for a small minority of those users makes them switch to iOS, but I'd expect that number to be closer to a rounding error. From that perspective, the upside for Google integrating a similar feature into Android seems comparatively small.
m463 6y ago
so... compete on rhetoric?
virtue3 6y ago
Privacy vs walled garden is a hard bet. If I really wanted to, I'd just install a different OS on my android over going to Apple TBH.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > Privacy vs walled garden is a hard bet I don't believe this is true or even a consideration for the majority of users.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Which proof do you need? Walled garden is bad for users, even if they do not (yet) realize it.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      > Walled garden is bad for users Proof of that, specifically.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        Users have less freedom and cannot do many things by definition. Granted, this may not be important for everyone, but neither is freedom of speech. In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs. Lock-in costs that create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
        peteretep 6y ago
        > this may not be important for everyone It’s of marginal importance to me, but the ability to install virtually anything on the App Store reasonably confident it’s not going to break my primary communication device or exfiltrate my data (without my permission) etc etc is of far more importance. I rely on my phone very heavily and the fact that it reliably Just Fucking Works is much much more important than being able to — for example — run Firefox on it
simias 6y ago
I have zero faith that a significant proportion of consumers will switch to iOS solely for privacy reasons. We've seen time and again that mainstream consumers would gladly surrender all their private info if it saves them $100.
- nvarsj 6y ago
  Most people do care about privacy, but generally they are not even aware of how their privacy is being violated - Google and Facebook are very good at hiding the reality of these things. But you're right, the cost is the ultimate factor for most people, especially in developing countries. I guess Apple doesn't care about complete market share, but if they did, they could just release an "iPhone Lite" for 150$ and good bye to Android market share. Imagine having 90%+ mobile phone market share - Apple could destroy the Google ad business.
fuzzy2 6y ago
I don’t think they will. The unfortunate truth is that iPhones are just so much more expensive that this will not happen.
Yuioup 6y ago
No way am I going to get locked into Apple
dspillett 6y ago
I think it is more the other way around: feature parity to aid switching to rather than to reduce loss of shre due to people switching from. Those of us using Android who care that much about the privacy aspect have ways to implement it (a little more Heath Robinson like, but still...) using a VPN and alternative browsers. Many in the Andoid camp are likely to see this are preferable to switching platforms and paying more for their devices (unless they run with expansive flagship android units in which case cost is less of an issue in the switch). Those that don't care that much, don't care enough to make a difference. On the other hand Apple providing extra privacy protection is a significant extra bit of friction that would stop people moving away from iDevices onto Android ones, even amongst people who don't care enough to make any effort beyond not switching and/or don't really understand the issue much if at all.

kmonsen 6y ago

Yeah, I really don’t think this will happen. Google used to be really hands off with chrome and android but that stopped some time ago. Now both of them have captured markets and google is slowly making both worse for users and privacy. Saying this after having worked on and loved both products and teams.

trickyads540 6y ago
If Google doesn’t do this, people will move towards Apple as someone stated. Plus, Google is evil! They themselves are adopting the subscription based model now over ads
- minot 6y ago
  My understanding is that the greedy advertisers, Rupert Murdoch empire, and WPP have been steadily forcing Google to share even more information about Google properties and used on Google properties for at least a few years now. Google needs subscribers so it can go to these unscrupulous actors and show then the middle finger. It is very interesting to see Google reaction to being forced to share even more information with advertisers. I am completely with Google. Why should advertisers on Google properties know more about Google business than Google knows itself? Now the question for everyone else is: why should Google (or Facebook) know more about your business than you know yourself? I actively discourage against using Facebook JavaScript SDK in any web project I’m involved in because most of the time all small companies really need is a sharer.php link. It is mind boggling how little people think about “let’s use their SDK”.
- mnd999 6y ago
  Some people will. A lot of people don't know about online privacy or simply don't care. Also Apple phones are expensive.
  - aylmao 6y ago
    +1. Plus, I'd assume the people who care about online privacy enough to let that influence what phone to buy are already using iPhones. Better "privacy" has been touted by Apple for a while.

oarsinsync 6y ago

If Google did this independently of anything else, it would be viewed as anticompetitive / abuse of a monopoly position. With Apple doing it first and them simply going along with where the mobile operating system ecosystem has moved, it won’t be. They’ve already taken similar stems with Chrome too. They key thing to remember is that the platform creator doesn’t play by the same rules as other participants. Chrome blocks particular kinds of tracking for third parties, while still enabling Google to track its users. What reason is there to believe that Google will not continue to track users on Android after making it harder for others to do so, just like it has with Chrome, now that Apple has given them the perfect excuse?

bosswipe 6y ago

Yea that makes no sense. The mobile ecosystem is already out of sync in this regard since iOS allows users to disable the ad tracking ID while Android does not, you're only allowed to reset it.

ianmcgowan 6y ago

If they don't Microsoft will, with Edge - they've already shown willingness to give it more privacy options than Chrome, and they can go further if it gives them more of an, uh, edge. It's interesting that Apple and Microsoft are the original PC gang and they seem to be making a resurgence (just missing IBM) against the web upstarts. I don't think anyone has any illusions about their motives being pure, but there is something more clear cut about "sell me useful hardware and software, I give you money in return" as at least a part of the relationship, compared with Facebook/Google where the value exchanged is my attention/eyeballs to advertisers..

phist_mcgee 6y ago
IBM has long since been a has-been software player in the 21st century. IBM is a global consultancy, and is in no way similar to the IBM PC company in days of yore.
ffpip 6y ago
Microsoft's browser is worse than chrome for privacy. https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/ https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Using Brave as a source is like asking Apple about Google's ad business..
  - ffpip 6y ago
    These are stats. And brave was the most private browser out of the box.
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      Brave was the best in Braves article? That was the point. No matter if it is true or not you don't ask Facebook how good Facebook so why use Brave as a source for how good Brave is?

vlkr 6y ago

Samsung, Sony, Xiaomi, LG will demand this feature if they sell less phones because people switch to apple. Or they will implement it by themself and gain an edge about competitors who don't have it.

ankit219 6y ago

They wont. The article is written from a very one dimensional perspective and clutching at straws in some places. (I do believe that there is some merit in FB's argument about Small businesses, while I dont think those businesses continuing to rely on FB is a good thing in the long run).