Google Plans Privacy Changes, but Promises To Not Be Disruptive (nytimes.com) 9
Google said on Wednesday that it was working on privacy measures meant to limit the sharing of data on smartphones running its Android software. But the company promised those changes would not be as disruptive as a similar move by Apple last year. From a report: Apple's changes to its iOS software on iPhones asked users for permission before allowing advertisers to track them. Apple's permission controls -- and, ultimately, the decision by users to block tracking -- have had a profound impact on internet companies that built businesses on so-called targeted advertising. Google did not provide an exact timeline for its changes, but said it would support existing technologies for at least two more years.
This month, Meta, the company founded as Facebook, said Apple's privacy changes would cost it $10 billion this year in lost advertising revenue. The revelation weighed on Meta's stock price and led to concerns about other companies reliant on digital advertising. Anthony Chavez, a vice president at Google's Android division, said in an interview before the announcement that it was too early to gauge the potential impact from Google's changes, which are meant to limit the sharing of data across apps and with third parties. But he emphasized that the company's goal was to find a more private option for users while also allowing developers to continue to make advertising revenue.
This month, Meta, the company founded as Facebook, said Apple's privacy changes would cost it $10 billion this year in lost advertising revenue. The revelation weighed on Meta's stock price and led to concerns about other companies reliant on digital advertising. Anthony Chavez, a vice president at Google's Android division, said in an interview before the announcement that it was too early to gauge the potential impact from Google's changes, which are meant to limit the sharing of data across apps and with third parties. But he emphasized that the company's goal was to find a more private option for users while also allowing developers to continue to make advertising revenue.
Because ad revenue on Android is tiny? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are degrees of tracking. For example, newer Android versions have been limiting app's ability to see what else is installed on the device, access data from other apps and so forth.
Sometimes it has negative consequences for privacy, like when they took away the ability for VPN apps to see which app traffic originated from. That was handy for stopping individual apps accessing the internet, but also a security and privacy risk in itself.
Disruptive to whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
The spyware? The ad men? Google itself? Or the users?
The distinction would seem to be important here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! It shows they're total disingenuous about privacy. FLoC proved that too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Knowing Google, what they probably mean is "Not distruptive to us and our products but seriously limiting our competitors."
Of course they want to be less disruptive! (Score:2)
Google....and changes (Score:1)
I can't wait for that to become the newest occupant in the Google Graveyard.
The relevant portion of the article (Score:4, Interesting)
As part of the changes, Google said, it plans to phase out Advertising ID, a tracking feature within Android that helps advertisers know whether users clicked on an ad or bought a product as well as keep tabs on their interests and activities. Google said it already allowed users to opt out of personalized ads by removing the tracking identifier.
The company said it planned to eliminate identifiers used in advertising on Android for everyone — including Google. Mr. Chavez said Google’s own apps would not have special or privileged access to Android data or features without specifying how that would work. This echoes a pledge Google made to regulators in Britain that it would not give preferential treatment to its own products.
Now, for once, I actually believe Google on this...kind of. Google allowing its own apps to have access to an advertising ID while blocking others is ripe for an antitrust case. It's in their best interest to do this legitimately.
The reason I also believe this is that the number of Android phones that aren't tied to a Google account is basically a rounding error. Google can legitimately claim "we're depreciating the advertising ID for everyone, including us" because they can just use the Google Account or IMEI number and tie it to that instead.
Of course, the real test is whether that's going to be something they roll out in the Play Services API that goes to basically-everyone, or if it's going to be a function of Android 14. Being as the combination of all versions prior to 10 still outweigh the number of users that are on 11 (to say nothing of 12), tying it to 14 means that it'll be 2-4 years before this nudges the needle anyway.
what Capitalism giveth (Score:2)