4 ms·
That'd be the IDFV [1], no? The problem is that the customer is supposed to be able to reset that by deleting all of a vendor's apps from their device. If ther
by BryantD 10y ago
That'd be the IDFV [1], no? The problem is that the customer is supposed to be able to reset that by deleting all of a vendor's apps from their device.
If there's a fraud problem, I think it's reasonable to require the developer to handle it in their account system. Yes, this makes it somewhat harder to detect fraud because you lose one important piece of information, but privacy is worth it.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/reference/uikit/uidevice/1620059-identifierforvendor https://developer.apple.com/reference/uikit/uidevice/1620059...
- lend000 10y agoDidn't know about that, thanks! Curious why they invented their own system (maybe jailbreaking was still a problem, because people knew about it). But yes, a strong account system is the best way to go. For a company this mature, it should be feasible to require phone number/email/payment authentication for new users prior to providing services.
- BryantD 10y agoApple removed access to the UDID because it was being used to target advertising and correlate users across different publishers -- basically privacy issues. For a while there was a slew of third party solutions which involved hashes of MAC addresses. Some time thereafter Apple created IDFV and the companion, IDFA (For Advertiser) and really cracked down on cross-vendor correlation.