This is what greets me when I go to the site from here in Germany: So you can see it too, wherever you are,. All look the same except for Brave, which shows a blank page. Note that last item in the Premium EU Subscription column: “No on-site advertising or third-party tracking.” Ponder for a moment how the Sunday (or any) edition of the Post‘s print edition would look with no on-paper advertising.

• Krk On Twitter I Found Someone Selling Microsoft For Mac

It would be woefully thin and kind of worthless-looking. Two more value-adds for advertising in the print edition:. It doesn’t track readers, which is the sad and broken norm for newspapers and magazines in the online world—a norm now essentially outlawed by the GDPR, and surely the reason the Post is running this offer. It sponsors the Post.

Tracking-based advertising, known in the trade as adtech, doesn’t sponsor anything. Instead it hunts down eyeballs its spyware already knows about, no matter where they go.

In other words, if adtech can shoot a Washington Post reader between the eyes at the Skeevy Lake Tribune, and the Skeevy is cheaper, it might rather hit the reader over there. So here’s the message I want the Post to hear from me, and from every reader who values what they do: That’s what I get from the print edition, and that’s what I want from the online edition as well. So I want two things here. One is an answer to this question: Are ANY publishers in the online world selling old-fashioned ads that aren’t based on tracking and therefore worth more than the tracking kind? (And are GDPR-compliant as well, since the ads aren’t aimed by collected personal data.) The other is to subscribe to the Post as soon as they show me they’re willing to do what I ask: give me those real ads again. And stop assuming that all ads need to be the tracking-based kind. Thanks in advance. Update on 3 January 2016:, ending the conflict I detail below.

And Apple confirms the decision,. For a look at what I am sure is behind that, scroll down to “Sacrificing its adtech business”. A couple weeks ago, I posted, contrasting privacy-respecting brand advertising (the wheat) with privacy-offending tracking-based advertising (the chaff), better known in the industry as “adtech.” Apple pushes both, through its own advertising business, called. The company is also taking sides against both — especially adtech — by supporting in a new breed of mobile phone apps we can expect to see in, Apple’s next mobile operating system, due next month. In, which I posted a few days ago, I visited the likely effects of content blocking.

Since then a number of readers have pointed to posts about iAd and the opt-out choices Apple provides for advertising on iPhones and iPads. Both iAd and the opt-outs reveal that Apple is as much in the adtech business as any other company that tracks people around the Net and blasts personalized advertising at them. Apple is clearly taking sides against adtech with its privacy policy, which has lately become more public and positioned sharply against the big tracking-based advertising companies (notably Google and Facebook). In September of last year, for example, Apple — — that contained this paragraph: Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud.

And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple. What we have here, then, is Apple’s massive B2C business in conflict with one of its B2B businesses. Since there is a lot of history here, let’s review it. On 8 July 2010, Engadget published.

It begins, before, but now that it’s up and running, this is probably worth a revisit. Apple’s iAds system actually uses lots of your information, including your iTunes purchasing history, location data, and any other download or library information it can suss out about you, to determine what ads you see. So say now buying and selling iAds. A recent series of ads for soap was able to target “married men who are in their late 30s and have children.” That’s very specific, and when Apple rolls out the full program, it’ll even be able to use things like iBooks purchases and iTunes movie and TV downloads to target you with advertising.

On 15 October 2014, Digiday published. It begins, Apple’s release of its new mobile operating system last month came with an overlooked gift for marketers: the ability to retarget ads based on users’ in-app browsing behaviors.

According to ad agencies, Apple is actively pitching the new capability as a way to effectively solve the mobile cookie problem. Say, for example, a visitor to a retailer’s iPhone app adds a pair of shoes to his cart but ultimately decide not to buy it. In this scenario, the retailer will now be able to retarget that user with an ad for that exact pair — even in another app on his iPad. When tapped, the ad would direct him back to his abandoned checkout page and automatically add the shoes to his online shopping cart. That was when iAd was new. Since then it has come to be regarded, at least by the online press, as something of a failure. On 16 Ocbober 2014, Business Insider published.

The gist: Several sources have confirmed to Business Insider that Apple is currently visiting mobile specialists at the top media agencies in New York City to push the new function. (Cross-device retargeting.) Cross-device retargeting is of most use to retailers: if a customer spends some time looking at a dress on their iPad app but decides not to buy it, that same retailer can “retarget” them with an ad displaying an image of that dress, options to buy, or directions to the store when they next pick up their iPhone. On 19 November 2014, AdExchanger published, and explains how it works: iAd has more than 400 targeting options for advertisers.

Its audience is also validated, since users must create an iTunes account in order to download apps. With the release of iOS 8, Apple announced that those Apple IDs could be used by iAds advertisers to retarget users across their devices. Those capabilities make it a good fit for advertisers doing audience-based targeting, who often prefer transacting in programmatic channels.

IAd has scale: “Apple iAd’s sell-side SDK is one of the most penetrated SDKs in the industry,” said Michael Oiknine, CEO of Apsalar. “They now have added iTunes radio inventory, so it’s a smart yield maximization strategy for Apple and is akin to Facebook strategy, which maximizes inventory sales via FBX and PMDs.” On 21 November 2014, Venturebeat published. It begins, In a significant move for the mobile advertising industry, Apple and retargeting leader have announced a partnership that will see AdRoll providing its retargeting and programmatic buying capability for iAd. In addition, Apple will enable advertisers to target potential customers via access to its proprietary data sets from iTunes and the app store. On 21 November 2014, AdWeek published. The gist: Today, Apple is unveiling partnerships with companies like AdRoll, which will flip a switch and start serving iAds through its automated marketing platforms.

This turn toward programmatic mobile advertising has been in the works for at least a year. For only the top brands with Apple wanted to build a self-serve mobile advertising system in house, and it Wireless to help. Sources said that effort faltered, and Apple decided to partner with ad tech companies like AdRoll and The Rubicon Project to compete with mobile ad giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter. AdRoll is a retargeting specialty firm that lets marketers use their own consumer data profiles to deliver ads across such platforms. And earlier this week that it was partnering with Apple. On 22 January 2015, ExchangeWire asked They say, Apple’s renewed designs on the advertising business were revealed when it was announced it was to start selling its iAd inventory on a programmatic basis, with several firms including MediaMath, Rubicon Project, among others, over four years after its iAd unit was initially launched, asking advertisers for (the then audacious sum of) $1m per campaign on its iOS devices. Since launch, Apple’s presence in the advertising business has been largely underwhelming (apart from its own spend).

But the revelation it had chosen several supply-side platforms (SSP) to sell programmatic guaranteed opportunities on behalf of the 250,000-plus App Store developers indicated its renewed designs on the sector. The announcement itself made waves, not least because of the which itself raises a number of issues to debated about Apple’s influence in the ad tech sector (more on that later). The initial announcement read: “Apple’s iAd provides 400-plus targeting options to advertisers, based on hundreds of millions of validated iTunes accounts worldwide. This rich first-party data asset makes it easy for buyers to target the specific mobile audiences of their choice.” The move represented, for the first time, that Apple is willing to loosen control over its first-party iTunes data with advertisers expected to be willing to pay top dollar for the access. They add, Apple has since started to, requesting applications for UK candidates to join its iAd Marketplace Sales Organisation. Among the skills requested are: “Apple’s customers on the various products iAd has to offer as well as how to leverage iAd’s self service buying platform,.” In addition: “Third-party tags familiarity a plus.” What is clear, from all these pieces and many others like them, is that Apple’s adtech business is little if any different from the rest of them — meaning just as creepy and privacy-abusing — and notable as well for failing to live up to its original ambitions, which were both huge and (via ) outlined by Saint Steve himself: At launch,. Apple marketed iAd as a best-in-class solution for advertisers because it owns both the hardware and operating system the ads ride on and gains valuable data when people sign up for Apple ID to register for iTunes accounts.

Krk On Twitter I Found Someone Selling Microsoft For Mac

That means it can target ads by age, gender, home address, iTunes purchases and App Store downloads. However, it’s still somewhat behind that lofty 50% target. IAd made up just 2.5% of the mobile ad revenue booked in the US last year, according to eMarketer, behind Google which takes the lion’s share (37.7%) and Facebook (17.9%).

The most recent data from IDC states Apple generated $125 million in mobile ad sales in 2012., or 1000x its mobile ad sales that year. Put another way, iAd contributed 0.01% to Apple’s sales. Meanwhile, does any Apple customer want advertising on their iPhone or iPad? Apple knows the answer to that question, which is why for you to “limit ad tracking on your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch” and “ads based on your interests.”.

(Just go to Settings Privacy Advertising to “Limit Ad Tracking,” and to Settings Privacy Location Services System Services. To turn off “Location Based iAds.”) And soon we’ll have Content Blocking as well.

Sacrificing its adtech business would position Apple in full alignment with three things:. Tim Cook’s privacy statement. It would take the loopholes out of that thing. Market demand. People are fed up with losing their privacy online — almost all of it to the tracking-based advertising business. (Sources:,.).

The moral high ground called simple human decency. Most people don’t want to be tracked in the online world any more than they want to be tracked in the physical one. Nor do they want information about them known by first parties to be sold to third parties, or to anybody, with our without their knowledge, no matter how normative that practice has become. Dropping adtech would also be good for iAd, which could then concentrate on placing non-tracking-based brand ads, which are anyway: to brands, to publishers and to the marketplace. Also to Apple itself, because they would be selling.

Until then, the loopholes persist in Tim Cook’s privacy statement, and Apple retains major conflicts between its massive B2C businesses and its struggling B2B adtech business. It will be interesting to see what the company does once the Content Blocking chemo hits the App Store bloodstream. “Based on your interests” (aka ““) is a delusional conceit by both adtech (examples, and ) and online retailing (prime example: Amazon). Neither visiting sites nor buying are measures of interests. All they show are actions that could mean anything — or nothing. The interest-based advertisers say our interests are “inferred” by what we do (and they like to observe, constantly and everywhere). And yet those inferences are weakened by another assumption that is flat-out wrong, nearly all the time: that we are always in a shopping mode.

In fact we are not. We are, in fact, always in an owning mode, which is why I think that’s. If companies shifted a third of what they spend on adtech over to customer service, they would vastly increase both customer loyalty and brand value. By the way, Apple knows this, possibly better than any other technology company. That’s one more reason why I think their B2C smarts will correct the adtech crowd-following errors of their B2B ways. Later, iOS 9 content blocking is in Safari. IAds appear in apps—not web pages: iAds not blocked.

Good to know. Doesn’t make that clear (to me, at least). What this tells me is that iAd is in the chaff business while Content Blocking encourages wheat on Safari. Doesn’t change the point of this post, or the earlier ones. The 20th comes at a critical inflection point in the history of, the only business movement working toward giving you both.

independence from the silos and walled gardens of the world; and. better means for engaging with every business in the world — your way, rather than theirs. If you’re looking for a point of leverage on the future of customer liberation, and empowerment, IIW is it. Wall Street-sized companies around the world are what Main Street ones have always known: customers aren’t just “targets” to be “acquired,” “managed,” “controlled” and “locked in.” In other words, was right when it said this, in 1999: if you only have time for one clue this year, this is the one to get Now it is finally becoming clear that free customers are more valuable than captive ones: to themselves, to the companies they deal with, and to the marketplace. But how, exactly? That’s what we’ll be working on at IIW, which runs from April 7 to 9 at the Computer History Museum, in the heart of Silicon Valley: the best venue ever created for a get-stuff-done unconference.

Focusing our work is a VRM maturity framework that gives every company, analyst and journalist a list of VRM competencies, and every VRM developer a context in which to show which of those competencies they provide, and how far along they are along the maturity path. This will start paving the paths along which individuals, tool and service providers and corporate systems (e.g. CRM) can finally begin to fit their pieces together. It will also help legitimize VRM as a category.

If you have a VRM or related company, now is the time to jump in and participate in the conversation. Here are some of the VRM topics and technology categories that we’ll be talking about, and placing in context in the VRM maturity framework:. (aka, and ).

tech of all kinds (and privacy characteristics, such as )., including independence, (especially around ). and, including, blockchain and.

and/or the (rather than ). Legal, including that individuals proffer.

and experience. Surmounting bureaucracy (guidance: David Graeber’s amazing), by both individuals and institutions. Tech, standards and protocols. In no particular order, /, / and other -based protocols.

Verticals, including, /,., including personal ones. Trust frameworks, such as. Allied organizations, such as and Note: Another version of this post appeared first on the. I’m doing a rare cross-posting here because it that important. (.) For as long as we’ve had economies, demand and supply have been attracted to each other like a pair of magnets.

Ideally, they should match up evenly and produce good outcomes. But sometimes one side comes to dominate the other, with bad effects along with good ones. Such has been the case on the Web ever since it went commercial with the invention of the cookie in 1995, resulting in a in which the demand side — that’s you and me — plays the submissive role of mere “users,” who pretty much have to put up with whatever rules websites set on the supply side. Consistent with (“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”) the near absolute power of website cows over user calves has resulted in near-absolute corruption of website ethics in respect to personal privacy.

This has been a subject of productive obsession by and her team of reporters at, which have been producing the series (shortcut: ) since July 30, 2010, when Julia by-lined. The next day I. And I still believe that. Today came another one, again in the Journal, in Julia’s latest, titled.

She begins, A coalition of Internet giants including Inc. Has agreed to support a do-not-track button to be embedded in most Web browsers—a move that the industry had been resisting for more than a year. The reversal is being announced as part of the call for Congress to pass a “privacy bill of rights,” that will give people greater control over the personal data collected about them. The long headline reads, We Can’t Wait: Obama Administration Unveils Blueprint for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” to Protect Consumers Online Internet Advertising Networks Announces Commitment to “Do-Not-Track” Technology to Allow Consumers to Control Online Tracking Obviously, government and industry have been working together on this one. Which is good, as far as it goes. Toward that point, Julia adds, The new do-not-track button isn’t going to stop all Web tracking.

The companies have agreed to stop using the data about people’s Web browsing habits to customize ads, and have agreed not to use the data for employment, credit, health-care or insurance purposes. But the data can still be used for some purposes such as “market research” and “product development” and can still be obtained by law enforcement officers. The do-not-track button also wouldn’t block companies such as Facebook Inc.

From tracking their members through “Like” buttons and other functions. “It’s a good start,” said Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “But we want you to be able to not be tracked at all if you so choose.” In the New York Times’ Edward Wyatt writes, The framework for a new privacy code moves electronic commerce closer to a one-click, one-touch process by which users can tell Internet companies whether they want their online activity tracked.

Much remains to be done before consumers can click on a button in their Web browser to set their privacy standards. Congress will probably have to write legislation governing the collection and use of personal data, officials said, something that is unlikely to occur this year. And the companies that make browsers — Google, Microsoft, Apple and others — will have to agree to the new standards. No they won’t. Buttons can be plug-ins to existing browsers. And work has already been done. Are on the case, and their ranks are growing.

We have dozens of developers (at that last link) working on equipping both the demand and the supply side with tools for engaging as independent and respectful parties. In fact we already have a button that can say “Don’t track me,” plus much more — for both sides.

Its calle the R-button, and it looks like this: ⊂ ⊃. (And yes, those symbols are real characters. Took a long time to find them, but they do exist.) Yours — the user’s — is on the left. The website’s is on the right. On a browser it might look like this: Underneath both those buttons can go many things, including preferences, policies, terms, offers, or anything else — on both sides. One of those terms can be “do not track me.” It might point to a fourth party (see explanations and ) which, on behalf of the user or customer, maintains settings that control sharing of personal data, including the conditions that must be met. A number of development projects and companies are already on this case.

Some have personal data stores (PDSes), also called “lockers” or “vaults.” These include:. /. Three of those are in the U.S., one in Austria, one in France, one in South Africa, and three in the U.K. (All helping drive, by the way.) And those are just companies with PDSes. There are many others working on allied technologies, standards, protocols and much more.

They’re all just flying below media radar because media like to look at what big suppliers and governments are doing. Speaking of which 🙂 Here’s Julia again: Google is expected to enable do-not-track in its Chrome Web browser by the end of this year. It just occurred to me that everything being worked on at is meaningful to. I had been thinking that only the stuff was meaningful, but I realize now that all the IIW stuff is, because — from a CRM perspective — it’s all about customer empowerment. And empowered customers are entities that CRM will welcome, sooner or later. Here’s the list of IIW topics on the IIW home page:. Open Standards that have been born and developed at IIW – OpenID, OAuth, Activity Streams, Portable Contacts, UMA.

The Federated Social Web. Personal – collection, storage and value generation. Anonymity Pseudonymity and Reputation Online (think google+ controversy). Legal Innovation including, Information Sharing Agreements, Data Ownership Agreements and the development of “trust” frameworks.

NSTIC – the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (it uses the term “user-centric identity” 4 times & “citizen-centric identity” once). Cloud Identity and the intersection of enterprise ID and people (consumer) ID With this in mind we (a bunch of and IIW people) decided that Wednesday afternoon is when we’ll have the VRM+CRM session, although we can have CRM sessions anytime, because the whole workshop is an unconference and participants choose the topics. But if you’re into the future of CRM, that afternoon session will be a good one to hit. There is also the whole next day, currently thus described: Thursday is Yukon Day: One of the longtime themes of IIW is how identity and personal data intersect. Many important discussions about have also taken place at IIW.

In recognition of how personal data and identity are intertwined, the third day of the IIW, will be designated “IIW + Yukon” and will stress the emerging personal data economy. The primary theme will be personal data control and leverage, where the individual controls and drives the use of their own data, and data about them held by other parties. This isn’t social. It’s personal. This day you can expext open-space style discuss ions of personal data stores (PDS), PDS ecosystems, and VRM.

One purpose of Yukon is to start to focus on business models and value propositions, so we will specifically be reaching out to angels and VC’s who are interested in personal data economy plays and inviting them to attend. “ Yukon” is a play on “You Control.” So, if CRM is your thing, IIW would be a good place to see what’s coming in CRM’s direction. Look forward to se.