There is immense variation in programmatic ad pricing by publisher. Drawing conclusions about the market as a whole, or about publishers not exactly like the one studied, would be a mistake.
Agree that tfa is clueless. However even second price auctions cannot explain the data they claim to see. Any ad exchange these days has data showing publisher revenue delta of far more than 4% for cookie-able browsers.
It's not just oba... much of the non-oba demand running through programmatic requires a "cookie" for frequency capping or just basic anti-fraud.
Well the data here is also small and suspect. They need to separate mobile browsers and GDPR/EU regions that aren't available for OBA targeting anyway.
That's why I said scale (reach + cookies) is the fundamental problem.
Apologies, I'm conflating two slightly different things there.
There's the identifierForVendor [0] which is unique to the publisher. This is pretty safe to use however you see fit (within reason).
Then there's the advertisingIdentifier [1], which is not unique, but can easily be permanently zeroed out by the user. Apple also have some fairly stringent rules about how it can be used [2], not to mention further rules about not identifying people surreptitiously [3]:
> 5.1.2 Data Use and Sharing
> (iii) Apps should not attempt to surreptitiously build a user profile based on collected data and may not attempt, facilitate, or encourage others to identify anonymous users or reconstruct user profiles based on data collected from Apple-provided APIs or any data that you say has been collected in an “anonymized,” “aggregated,” or otherwise non-identifiable way.
They ask you to explicitly confirm that you're following the advertising identifier rules in particular every single time you submit to the App Store.
Cannot these restrictions be lifted if you write that the user agrees to sharing all of their data for any purposes somewhere between the lines of a 20-page Privacy Policy?
I imagine Apple has the final word on how to define the word surreptitiously. I would like to think Apple could interpret somewhere in 20 page privacy policy is surreptitious.
Yes it is highly offensive to many English speaking individuals in the US. It has historically been used as a highly derogatory term for disabled individuals.
It'll be another word, perhaps in a more ambigious context, next time. Which brings up another point: I just don't want to have to worry about what will become this politically incorrect in the future when I'm writing code and documentation.
> I just don't want to have to worry about what will become this politically incorrect in the future when I'm writing code and documentation.
Then don't say/write bigotted things. Honestly, it's like asking people not to write spelling or grammar mistakes in documentation. It's not that hard.
Do you not know that words can have more than one meaning? From the context you can tell the meaning. When airbus use "retard" they're using it to mean "to slow down".
It's not "these 6 letters in this combination is banned", it's "stop insulting people based on mental illnesses".
That requires people to understand context and nuance.
We live in a world where a guy wants to ban Mel Brooks' The Producers because he doesn't realize it's a satire of Hitler, not an homage. Lots of people don't or won't appreciate context.
The context of the original repo was very clearly that of an insulting word.
re: The Producers, with any topic you'll get one or two extremists of any varity. You should judge it not by "did someone want to stop this", but instead by "did someone(s) in power to stop it, want to stop it". One crank protesting outside a cinema is very different from the CEO of a movie studio deciding not to make the film.
The whole argument hangs on that point. I don't know where your optimism comes from. Seeing a lot of human behaviour on the net in this area, I have pretty much zero confidence that the right decision would always be made.
"Mental retardation" has been a medical term since relatively recently. The "retardation" means nothing more than "being held back". But people did pick it up as a derogatory term, and so it was replaced with "intellectual disability". A classic euphemism treadmill.
In the context of medication, "retard" is still in use: it describes medication that is released steadily and continuously into the bloodstream.
Let's nip this trend in the butt. Outside the organization in question we really have no idea what's going on and who is or is not responsible for a particular poor outcome. It's not fair to the individual - or to the real executives who fucked up - to call out one person in this way.
As a college athlete turned i-banker right out of school, you are spot on. I never had so many productive days in college when I had little / no time to do work vs. never had so many unproductive days in finance working 100+ hour weeks. I love Jason Fried's quote on this topic: "Workaholics aren’t heroes. They don’t save the day, they just use it up. The real hero is already home because she figured out a faster way to get things done."
