/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Report: since Apple debuted Intelligent Tracking Prevention, the cost for advertisers to reach Safari users has dropped 60%+, as such ads are less desirable

In the two years since Apple released Safari's Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature that keeps websites from tracking users around the web …

9to5Mac Michael Potuck

Context & Ripple Effects

When Apple shipped Intelligent Tracking Prevention in 2017, it insisted the feature would only block re-targeting while leaving first-party cookies intact — after ad trade groups like the IAB had already asked Apple to rethink the rules. Two years on, the measurable result is that ads aimed at Safari users cost over 60% less: without cross-site identifiers, those impressions simply carry less commercial value.

That outcome lands right where skeptics predicted it would. Coverage at the feature's announcement argued the blocker would entrench Google and Facebook in web advertising, since their logged-in, first-party data doesn't depend on the cookies Apple killed — and Apple itself later moved to fill the measurement gap with Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution.

First-order effects

  • Advertisers can reach Safari users at a steep discount, while publishers see the monetization of their Safari traffic fall accordingly — same audience, repriced by browser.
  • Apple has effectively demonstrated that a single browser vendor can reset ad-market pricing unilaterally, without a regulator involved.

Second-order effects

  • Budgets migrate toward properties whose targeting survives ITP — the Google/Facebook entrenchment flagged when the feature shipped — squeezing independent ad-tech middlemen whose value depended on third-party identifiers.
  • Apple's own Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution positions it as the arbiter of post-cookie measurement, converting a privacy stance into influence over how ad effectiveness gets counted.

Third-order effects

  • If browsers keep setting de facto privacy policy, audience value fragments by browser rather than converging on market-wide CPMs, and standards bodies like the IAB lose pricing power to platform vendors.
  • The pattern points toward web advertising consolidating around first-party-data owners, with privacy features functioning as competitive weapons rather than neutral protections.

The trend: Browser-level privacy engineering is quietly repricing web audiences, shifting ad economics from open-market tracking toward platforms that own their users' first-party data.

Discussion

  • @carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
    Apple's been cracking down on cookies to prevent targeted ads for 2 years. Result is users seeing less relevant ads & ad tech companies like Criteo losing revenue. However big tech companies with large viewerships & data advantage unscathed. GDPR redux. https://www.theinformation…
  • @jbenton Joshua Benton on x
    Given that iPhone users are the most attractive targets for mobile advertising, this is some truly large-scale Adbusters shit Apple has done https://9to5mac.com/...