8 ms·

Apple’s New Ad Conversion Tracking Will Benefit User Privacy

130 points by robmaceachern 8y ago

ugh123 8y ago
>The new APIs are part of the StoreKit framework and include a new class called SKAdNetwork. >With the new set of APIs, Apple will become the intermediary between the app and advertising network for conversion tracking, eliminating the need for apps to install third-party ad SDKs which potentially expose sensitive user data. Am I missing something or is this not really any different than the 3rd party ad SDK problem the author portends? Whether the app uses a 3rd party sdk from Google/FB or built-in lib functionality via the class SKAdNetwork - it doesn't seem any different.
- ec109685 8y ago
  You can’t track users from advertising click through opening the app after downloading the app from the App Store. So networks have to do all kinds of tricks like try to fingerprint the user to associate the advertising click and the app open. This should make it much cleaner.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Plus after this has been around for a while Apple can add a policy banning other ad networks from using other means to track users.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      Apple can just change Safari so it doesn't automatically open the App Store on redirects or from javascript. That way you'd have to direct the user to a tracking page and then he'd have to click another link to open the App Store. I doubt their tracking would be worth enough to put up hoops like that for the user to jump through.
- Someone 8y ago
  The way I understand this: doing this in your application requires you to have network access, which means you have to convince your user to give it to you. This gives you a way to count installs (and almost nothing else; you probably can assume arrival times correlate with time of installation and learn something about your global user base from that, but that’s all I can think of) without getting any permission from the user. Applications can still use the old approach, but that’s more work and won’t produce accurate install counts. Apple thinks the end result will be that fewer apps will do it, making the dialog asking for network access rarer, and users more wary of giving the permission.
  - traek 8y ago
    Apps on iOS don’t need to ask for network access.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Its proponents will tell you this doesn't have any tracking in it. Fully anonymous. Only the advert's ID gets passed along to track conversion. Who knows who could have clicked this advert, with the ID "Advert-presented-to-ugh123"? Could have been anyone. We've successfully masked out any tracking, hooray for Apple. Also I don't know enough about in-app and app-to-app advertising, but I'm surprised if the mechanisms described are sufficient to keep everybody honest.
  - jtbayly 8y ago
    My thoughts exactly! So, I programmatically name my campaigns per person, and I’ve still got perfect tracking.
- gcb0 8y ago
  the difference is: with facebook sdk, facebook has all the user data. with google sdk, google has all the user data. with apple new sdk, apple has all the data. besides that, with the 2 previous sdk, advertisers know if the install was from a good user vs a abandoned user/bot that installed it once and vanished. the new apple sdk conveniently will not let advertisers make that distinction.
IBM 8y ago
>I can’t see Google and Facebook being thrilled about implementing support for this, but given the recent scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, Apple should have extra leverage to push them in this direction. If Apple makes it an App Store policy, what choice do they have?
- setr 8y ago
  PR wars I imagine. "We can't do requested feature X because Apple blocks Y".
  - IBM 8y ago
    I think Apple would care about the trials and tribulations of the ad-tech industry about as much they did when they added Intelligent Tracking Prevention to Safari (or blocked third-party cookies by default).
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    To which Apple would basically go "...yeah, because we respect users privacy" and shrug. Google would look pretty bad if it continued to complain at that point.
- lev99 8y ago
  Google and Facebook both interact with Apple in a lot of ways. If Apple makes it an App Store policy they will have options in how to attack back.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I think the poster 'IBM' was implying that in the current climate, Google and Facebook have to be a lot more careful in the "weapons of war" they use than Apple does. Not that Apple would be this evil, but in the current climate, Apple might even invite opportunity to provoke a response by Google or Facebook.
- RKearney 8y ago
  It's also App Store policy to not lock built-in iOS features behind in-app purchases or subscriptions, yet Google gets away with it on the YouTube.app by only allowing background audio if you subscribe to YouTube Red.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
us0r 8y ago
Apples fake privacy concerns. They allow apps like gas buddy to wholesale sell your real time location to governments by using vague language in their privacy policies (which I cannot even find a link to on their homepage).
- CharlesW 8y ago
  > They allow apps like gas buddy to wholesale sell your real time location… You control this. I don't recall whether this app supports "Never" as a Privacy > Location Services choice, but you can choose "While Using" instead of "Always".
  - Skunkleton 8y ago
    You _really_ control this. If you don't like Gas Buddy's privacy policy just don't install it.
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      My thoughts exactly. When I don't like something an app is doing I don't install it. I remember when I'd try free games on Android that requested every permission under the sun I would not install those apps. I've even seen some apps share in the description "Removed the crazy permissions due to complaints, sorry guys did not mean to upset you" or something along those lines. So sometimes it's not malicious, but it is scary that an offline only game needs so much access to your phone.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    The developer doesn't get to choose not to support 'Never' and with iOS 11 doesn't get to choose not to support 'While using' either. It maybe though that the app can't work without knowing your location, which sounds likely for an app that is supposed to tell you something related to your location.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    "Never" is always an option from my experience. I have never seen an app that doesn't allow to completely deny location access.
jwegan 8y ago
This new SDK doesn't help advertisers or users. Being able to assess the quality of users coming from different ad networks is crucial for any advertiser to assess the quality of their spend. Some ad networks might generate high quality legitimate users, while others are fraught with click fraud, or low quality users. Since an advertiser isn't able to tell which users came from an ad, no advertiser will adopt it. If Apple really wanted to protect user privacy, they would provide something similar to the iAd Framework they provide for their own Apple App Store Ads, where the app can ping the iAd Framework to tell if the user installed the app from an Apple App Store ad and monitor the users long term engagement, while Apple handles all the attribution on their end. If Apple took the same approach they use for their own App Store Ads it would be a big step forward in helping protect user privacy and eliminate the need for all the fingerprinting, etc that some ad networks do. The fact they didn't, I feel this is nothing more than a fluff PR move by Apple and does not seem genuine.
- marricks 8y ago
  I see why advertisers wouldn't like it, but how the heck isn't it good for users? You don't even have an explicit argument for that point, just the implicit "it might not be adopted." You're a bit disingenuous with your claim. As for your proposed system, it could work, but the advertiser might be able to deduce a bit as they track them through engagement. A black box seems like the best system for users, and if Apple can force that on to developers more power to them.
  - esturk 8y ago
    Look at the OP's profile. Manager at Pinterest. Theres no doubt the attack is disgenuous because said individual have skin in the game. I usually don't mind if they disclose it upfront. But to hide it and present an argument as neutral is dishonest.
    - jack9 8y ago
      What attack? The Adtech Ecosystem is incestuous, corrupt and penultimately complicated. jwegan is technically correct and savvy enough to understand one of many problems with this kind of fluff announcement. The least of these problems is a strawman reaction that anyone who dismissed it, is a bad actor. New SDKs are born every day. Apple CANNOT PRESENT a new technology that isn't a variant of what already survives in the ecosystem (i.e. insufficient other than to add another paid product that doesn't work any better). If Apple wants to go outside the IAB standards, it's another attempt to "take over" or can only be used as an Apple "internal" tool. Here's a disclaimer: I worked at multiple Adtech companies in senior engineering positions.

130 points by robmaceachern 8y ago

>The new APIs are part of the StoreKit framework and include a new class called SKAdNetwork. >With the new set of APIs, Apple will become the intermediary between the app and advertising network for conversion tracking, eliminating the need for apps to install third-party ad SDKs which potentially expose sensitive user data. Am I missing something or is this not really any different than the 3rd party ad SDK problem the author portends? Whether the app uses a 3rd party sdk from Google/FB or built-in lib functionality via the class SKAdNetwork - it doesn't seem any different.

ec109685 8y ago
You can’t track users from advertising click through opening the app after downloading the app from the App Store. So networks have to do all kinds of tricks like try to fingerprint the user to associate the advertising click and the app open. This should make it much cleaner.
- MBCook 8y ago
  Plus after this has been around for a while Apple can add a policy banning other ad networks from using other means to track users.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    Apple can just change Safari so it doesn't automatically open the App Store on redirects or from javascript. That way you'd have to direct the user to a tracking page and then he'd have to click another link to open the App Store. I doubt their tracking would be worth enough to put up hoops like that for the user to jump through.
Someone 8y ago
The way I understand this: doing this in your application requires you to have network access, which means you have to convince your user to give it to you. This gives you a way to count installs (and almost nothing else; you probably can assume arrival times correlate with time of installation and learn something about your global user base from that, but that’s all I can think of) without getting any permission from the user. Applications can still use the old approach, but that’s more work and won’t produce accurate install counts. Apple thinks the end result will be that fewer apps will do it, making the dialog asking for network access rarer, and users more wary of giving the permission.
- traek 8y ago
  Apps on iOS don’t need to ask for network access.
tialaramex 8y ago
Its proponents will tell you this doesn't have any tracking in it. Fully anonymous. Only the advert's ID gets passed along to track conversion. Who knows who could have clicked this advert, with the ID "Advert-presented-to-ugh123"? Could have been anyone. We've successfully masked out any tracking, hooray for Apple. Also I don't know enough about in-app and app-to-app advertising, but I'm surprised if the mechanisms described are sufficient to keep everybody honest.
- jtbayly 8y ago
  My thoughts exactly! So, I programmatically name my campaigns per person, and I’ve still got perfect tracking.
gcb0 8y ago
the difference is: with facebook sdk, facebook has all the user data. with google sdk, google has all the user data. with apple new sdk, apple has all the data. besides that, with the 2 previous sdk, advertisers know if the install was from a good user vs a abandoned user/bot that installed it once and vanished. the new apple sdk conveniently will not let advertisers make that distinction.

IBM 8y ago

>I can’t see Google and Facebook being thrilled about implementing support for this, but given the recent scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, Apple should have extra leverage to push them in this direction. If Apple makes it an App Store policy, what choice do they have?

setr 8y ago
PR wars I imagine. "We can't do requested feature X because Apple blocks Y".
- IBM 8y ago
  I think Apple would care about the trials and tribulations of the ad-tech industry about as much they did when they added Intelligent Tracking Prevention to Safari (or blocked third-party cookies by default).
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  To which Apple would basically go "...yeah, because we respect users privacy" and shrug. Google would look pretty bad if it continued to complain at that point.
lev99 8y ago
Google and Facebook both interact with Apple in a lot of ways. If Apple makes it an App Store policy they will have options in how to attack back.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I think the poster 'IBM' was implying that in the current climate, Google and Facebook have to be a lot more careful in the "weapons of war" they use than Apple does. Not that Apple would be this evil, but in the current climate, Apple might even invite opportunity to provoke a response by Google or Facebook.
RKearney 8y ago
It's also App Store policy to not lock built-in iOS features behind in-app purchases or subscriptions, yet Google gets away with it on the YouTube.app by only allowing background audio if you subscribe to YouTube Red.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

us0r 8y ago

Apples fake privacy concerns. They allow apps like gas buddy to wholesale sell your real time location to governments by using vague language in their privacy policies (which I cannot even find a link to on their homepage).

CharlesW 8y ago
> They allow apps like gas buddy to wholesale sell your real time location… You control this. I don't recall whether this app supports "Never" as a Privacy > Location Services choice, but you can choose "While Using" instead of "Always".
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  You _really_ control this. If you don't like Gas Buddy's privacy policy just don't install it.
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    My thoughts exactly. When I don't like something an app is doing I don't install it. I remember when I'd try free games on Android that requested every permission under the sun I would not install those apps. I've even seen some apps share in the description "Removed the crazy permissions due to complaints, sorry guys did not mean to upset you" or something along those lines. So sometimes it's not malicious, but it is scary that an offline only game needs so much access to your phone.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  The developer doesn't get to choose not to support 'Never' and with iOS 11 doesn't get to choose not to support 'While using' either. It maybe though that the app can't work without knowing your location, which sounds likely for an app that is supposed to tell you something related to your location.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  "Never" is always an option from my experience. I have never seen an app that doesn't allow to completely deny location access.

jwegan 8y ago

This new SDK doesn't help advertisers or users. Being able to assess the quality of users coming from different ad networks is crucial for any advertiser to assess the quality of their spend. Some ad networks might generate high quality legitimate users, while others are fraught with click fraud, or low quality users. Since an advertiser isn't able to tell which users came from an ad, no advertiser will adopt it. If Apple really wanted to protect user privacy, they would provide something similar to the iAd Framework they provide for their own Apple App Store Ads, where the app can ping the iAd Framework to tell if the user installed the app from an Apple App Store ad and monitor the users long term engagement, while Apple handles all the attribution on their end. If Apple took the same approach they use for their own App Store Ads it would be a big step forward in helping protect user privacy and eliminate the need for all the fingerprinting, etc that some ad networks do. The fact they didn't, I feel this is nothing more than a fluff PR move by Apple and does not seem genuine.

marricks 8y ago
I see why advertisers wouldn't like it, but how the heck isn't it good for users? You don't even have an explicit argument for that point, just the implicit "it might not be adopted." You're a bit disingenuous with your claim. As for your proposed system, it could work, but the advertiser might be able to deduce a bit as they track them through engagement. A black box seems like the best system for users, and if Apple can force that on to developers more power to them.
- esturk 8y ago
  Look at the OP's profile. Manager at Pinterest. Theres no doubt the attack is disgenuous because said individual have skin in the game. I usually don't mind if they disclose it upfront. But to hide it and present an argument as neutral is dishonest.
  - jack9 8y ago
    What attack? The Adtech Ecosystem is incestuous, corrupt and penultimately complicated. jwegan is technically correct and savvy enough to understand one of many problems with this kind of fluff announcement. The least of these problems is a strawman reaction that anyone who dismissed it, is a bad actor. New SDKs are born every day. Apple CANNOT PRESENT a new technology that isn't a variant of what already survives in the ecosystem (i.e. insufficient other than to add another paid product that doesn't work any better). If Apple wants to go outside the IAB standards, it's another attempt to "take over" or can only be used as an Apple "internal" tool. Here's a disclaimer: I worked at multiple Adtech companies in senior engineering positions.