[JensRex]

How about Apple bring down the hammer on apps that are abusing notifications right now (or you just uninstall them), instead of allowing ways to shove more ads into peoples eyeballs.

There is no scenario where this is a benefit to the consumer.

[ChrisRR]

While I mostly agree that this would be abused, I disagree that there's no scenario where this is beneficial.

It's like email updates from online retailers. I unsubscribe from the majority of them, but I allow a couple of retailers I like to send me promotions.

[JimDabell]

> It's like email updates from online retailers. I unsubscribe from the majority of them, but I allow a couple of retailers I like to send me promotions.

Notifications are for when you need to know about something immediately and it's okay to interrupt you for it. How many of these retailers do you want that from? What's the benefit for the end-user over an email?

[PaulRobinson]

It's Friday, it's 4pm, I'm about to wind down for the weekend.

In London the biggest private hire cab firm that isn't Uber is Addison Lee. They sometimes send out a notification along the lines of "It's the weekend, enjoy it with us: £5 off your next 4 trips". Perfect. In the past I've changed my plans around that sort of advertising.

In an email, I'd miss it. It's timely, context aware advertising from a brand I'm happy to use and hear from, particularly in that moment.

The key here is that I can opt out of them, not that they appear everywhere no matter what: I can tell companies if I want to hear more from them in this manner.

[MrGilbert]

I'm not an expert in ad affairs. With this information on the table, consider the following:

I subscribe to a "price alert" for a product in my sellers app. The price gets triggered, and because there's a lot of demand for this item, I have to be fast.

This, for me, would justify the "push notification".

But, would this also be considered an "ad"? From the definition of the word "advertisement"[1], which says it's "a notice, picture or film telling people about a product, job or service", it would qualify as an ad.

[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

[normalnorm]

If there is no way to harass people with notifications for "price alerts", there will also be no incentive to create artificial pricing systems with sudden "promotions", meant to hijack users' attention and cognitive sovereignty.

Don't fall for the tricks. Think about the systems your are engaging with all the way to the end, and consider if you are being manipulated. This is an environment where it pays to be paranoid, because big companies are devoting a huge amount of resources to trick you.

I would say, treat this stuff as one should treat nutrition. Simple is better for your health. If you don't understand how something is made, or what its purpose is, you should probably avoid it.

[jamespo]

artificial pricing systems existed before notifications

[normalnorm]

Sure, and cancer existed before cigarettes. Doesn't mean one should smoke cigarettes.

[pdpi]

That’s not an ad, it’s the core functionality of a product you use.

[Hamuko]

I don't see the drawback compared to email considering my email has push notifications.

[Angostura]

> There is no scenario where this is a benefit to the consumer.

From what I can see, you will have to opt in to see these alerts, so that's pretty beneficial if companies start separating junk alerts out.

[bayindirh]

Elaborating further:

If apple forces ad-notifications to its own category and limits their rate and volume?

Furthermore, if apple enables users to disallow ad-notifications via permissions system?

I'd love to block promotional notifications of some applications which I have to use at the end of the day (e.g. airlines, network carrier, etc.)

This can be a Very Good Thing (TM) in the end.

[samatman]

Sure there is. Walk into a grocery store, get a push notification for some sale items.

There are also plenty of annoying things developers can do with it. I'll turn those off, or more likely uninstall the app.

[tcd]

That's....Not beneficial, at least in terms of what is going on behind the scenes.

1: App knows your location - most likely is profiting from that

2: App can see how often you visit $place, all for the cost of a few 'sale' items.

3: More extensive profiling can possibly occur, depending on what data the OS allows you to access.

As apposed to:

1: Walk to shop, no smartphone, see discounts inside shop.

There's 0 reason this information needs to be presented via any form of 'notification'. It could literally be done by $shop.com/discounteditems.txt.

[jw1224]

Of course it's beneficial! Can you not put yourself in the shoes of a normal consumer and recognise that?

They probably don't care if the app is tracking their location to tell how often they visit the shop.

In exchange for this inconsequential sacrifice to their privacy they get easy and convenient discounts, tailored to them, when they go about their daily routine.

I'm privacy-conscious and technologically literate, and even I wouldn't have much issue with this example if it would save me some money.

[cloverich]

You see geo location data that can (and is) re-sold throughout the industry and aggregated by political parties as inconsequential? (Intentionally extreme example, but this is not hyperbole)

[jasonlotito]

Not the person you were asking, but no, I don't see that as significant. There are other far more significant things in my life. Data being aggregated about me isn't a significant issue in my life. It seems like most people are this way.

[samatman]

Exactly. My mother is a dedicated coupon-clipper on a fixed income, and she would be delighted if a grocery store offered her a couple customized chances to save money every time she walked in.

Also, let's not ignore that the headline is backwards: Apps can send ads via notifications right now, what Apple has done is made it a separate permission, so that users can turn off ads and keep other notifications.

This is a strict improvement.

[aguyfromnb]

>Sure there is. Walk into a grocery store, get a push notification for some sale items.

Or: walk into the store, open the app of your own volition, and peruse the sale items.

[Cthulhu_]

They wouldn't, because they earn millions off of apps like Uber and co. It's why Youtube is more tolerant of bad behaviour of high-profile (read: high-viewer, high-income) channels, and Twitter hasn't banned Trump and his bots yet - they make too much money off of it, both directly and indirectly ('engagement', network effects, etc).

[KarlKemp]

Apple forced Uber to stop their location-tracking shenanigans when they were found out.

I agree that such large apps are treated somewhat differently than smaller ones—anyone smaller than Uber would have been banned outright. That’s due to demand from Apple’s customers, though, and not Uber directly paying Apple.

But Uber still had to rush and submit a new version of its app. They didn’t seem to believe Apple was making hollow threats, nor do Facebook and Google and all the other big players adhering to Apple’s policies.

Even if Apple wanted to allow larger apps breaking the rules, they couldn’t. It would be very obvious if some apps were allowed to send ads and others weren’t, and it would lead to all kinds of problems in the court of public opinion and possibly a real one.

[saagarjha]

As far as I am ware, Uber has to date been the only third-party application ever granted a com.apple.private entitlement.

[lotsofpulp]

How does Apple make money off of Uber and co?

[GlitchMr]

Directly from Uber? They don't make much money - Uber pretty much pays just for the Apple computers as well as Apple Developer Program.

However, this doesn't mean there is no gain for Apple in it as Apple is investing in Uber. That, and not having Uber could make users move to Android devices.