7 ms·

It's not a ban, but since all these 3rd party tracking platforms use the user's data to power ads, you have to show the opt in, which of course people will say

It's not a ban, but since all these 3rd party tracking platforms use the user's data to power ads, you have to show the opt in, which of course people will say no to, leading to the SDKs being mostly useless in your binary. Compare that to Mixpanel for example, where they don't power ads, you can skip showing the opt in and have a useful analytics SDK. Effectively the free SDKs need the data to make money for their owners, the opt in kills that and it might as well be a ban.

cassianoleal 6y ago
> Compare that to Mixpanel for example, where they don't power ads, you can skip showing the opt in Is this really the only criterion for requiring an opt-in? Tracking is bad for many other reasons other than selling targeted ads.
simonh 6y ago
It really isn’t a ban though, not in any sense. It’s simply a requirement to ask for opt-in. Apple is making no decision about the use of IDFA, they are simply allowing users to make that decision. The truth is users are against this behaviour, but Facebook, Google, and the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this not the people actually making the decision to cut them out - users.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this Could you please quote the relevant section of the article you're referring to? If it's just "the article title", that seems to be quite a stretch to me.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Sure, fourth paragraph: "Apple is also enacting a de-facto ban on these free analytics SDKs. The setup looks like this:"
    - _qulr 6y ago
      Is it accurate to say that your only evidence that this article constitutes "Apple bashing" is the word "ban"? If so, that seems hypersensitive and defensive IMO. A "de facto ban" is not a "de jure ban", so it's already a pretty weak statement.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        It's not a de-facto ban either. In fact it's not a ban. Period. Advertisers could invest time and money in explaining to users what their data is being used for and the benefits it brings. Making it seem like Apple is preventing analytics by simply asking users what they want is disingenuous at best.
        _qulr 6y ago
        Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."
        Spivak 6y ago
        I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around, write down everything they do, and then use it to send them ads. Guess that means the new rule isn't toothless after all.
        _qulr 6y ago
        > I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously believe I'm defending the "death" option? But if we continue with this analogy, it's important to remember that Apple has been allowing "death" in its App Store for 12 years and is only now getting around to asking users whether they want death. Moreover, the App Store "race to the bottom" intentionally undermined the previous business model of selling upfront paid software. App Store devalued software and propped up the alternative of making everything free and turning customers into products. Apple has a lot of "blood" on its hands in this matter. I personally install Little Snitch on my Mac to block apps from phoning home. Yet Apple doesn't allow a similar tool on iOS. So I don't buy Apple's "privacy" BS for one second, because they don't allow me to protect my own privacy.
Pet_Ant 6y ago
> Effectively the free SDKs need the data to make money for their owners, the opt in kills that and it might as well be a ban. It's not a ban on the usage of SDKs, what it is, is a "ban" on their business model, and if you don't provide enough value to users for them to pay for then it's a "ban" on your business model. Basically, it just means that your service is asking too high a price (the user's privacy) for the market bear. This is only giving user's agency and insight and after that the market functioning as intended.
- laurent92 6y ago
  But he’s not allowed to withdraw the service if customers don’t agree. Therefore his business model, which was an exchange (not even taking users’ data, only displaying relevant ads), is required to become a donation from him to a good share of his customers, if he wants to keep the other ones who agree to advertising tracking.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Who is "he"? I lost who we are talking about here...
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    The goal is to shift the ad industry away from intrusive tracking, not to ban ads as a business model. The answer will be to show ads that are made relevant using signals other than collecting personal data. I get that the digital ad industry is not set up well to do that now, but the idea is to force them to adapt. They will have to eventually if major applications of personal data are closed to them by changes like Apple’s.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      And also moving to everything being explicit. Many of us are actually okay with first-party data collection. But it is ridiculous how user data is being packaged and sold to so many faceless third parties whose you don't know and whose policies are not clear.
tinus_hn 6y ago
Why do these SDKs ‘need the data to make money for their owners’?
- simonh 6y ago
  The owners provide the SDKs for free, the only value they get from them is the analytics data.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    That depends on how creative you are. They could sell support for their SDK, exploit network effects, gain exposure and developer mindshare, or, you know, just provide something to the community for free with no strings attached.
    - simonh 6y ago
      None of that changes the fact of how they use these SDKs are intended to get value at the moment.
      - tinus_hn 6y ago
        Let me predict Apples answer to that for you. They don’t care. They don’t have to care. They don’t care. If you are hurt by this decision, you can either change or give up. You can complain on web forums and try to convince other developers but the fact is that you are a force against one of Apples core values, user privacy. They have barely anything to gain from you and one of their core values to lose. You’d need some serious leverage to make them care and you don’t have it. And even if you had, Apple would simply build their own framework and use their control over the platform, the tools, the stores and the rules to completely crush you. And if you imagine you have an antitrust case, it will take years and you will probably lose.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> you have to show the opt in, which of course people will say no to Oh no, people are allowed to decide what their computers do, instead of being spied on without knowing. The horror! What's next, people being allowed to uninstall the app? Seriously, if your business model depends on doing things the user is not aware of and wouldn't agree with, you deserve to fail.

cassianoleal 6y ago

> Compare that to Mixpanel for example, where they don't power ads, you can skip showing the opt in Is this really the only criterion for requiring an opt-in? Tracking is bad for many other reasons other than selling targeted ads.

simonh 6y ago

It really isn’t a ban though, not in any sense. It’s simply a requirement to ask for opt-in. Apple is making no decision about the use of IDFA, they are simply allowing users to make that decision. The truth is users are against this behaviour, but Facebook, Google, and the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this not the people actually making the decision to cut them out - users.

_qulr 6y ago
> the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this Could you please quote the relevant section of the article you're referring to? If it's just "the article title", that seems to be quite a stretch to me.
- simonh 6y ago
  Sure, fourth paragraph: "Apple is also enacting a de-facto ban on these free analytics SDKs. The setup looks like this:"
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Is it accurate to say that your only evidence that this article constitutes "Apple bashing" is the word "ban"? If so, that seems hypersensitive and defensive IMO. A "de facto ban" is not a "de jure ban", so it's already a pretty weak statement.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      It's not a de-facto ban either. In fact it's not a ban. Period. Advertisers could invest time and money in explaining to users what their data is being used for and the benefits it brings. Making it seem like Apple is preventing analytics by simply asking users what they want is disingenuous at best.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."
        Spivak 6y ago
        I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around, write down everything they do, and then use it to send them ads. Guess that means the new rule isn't toothless after all.
        _qulr 6y ago
        > I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously believe I'm defending the "death" option? But if we continue with this analogy, it's important to remember that Apple has been allowing "death" in its App Store for 12 years and is only now getting around to asking users whether they want death. Moreover, the App Store "race to the bottom" intentionally undermined the previous business model of selling upfront paid software. App Store devalued software and propped up the alternative of making everything free and turning customers into products. Apple has a lot of "blood" on its hands in this matter. I personally install Little Snitch on my Mac to block apps from phoning home. Yet Apple doesn't allow a similar tool on iOS. So I don't buy Apple's "privacy" BS for one second, because they don't allow me to protect my own privacy.

Pet_Ant 6y ago

> Effectively the free SDKs need the data to make money for their owners, the opt in kills that and it might as well be a ban. It's not a ban on the usage of SDKs, what it is, is a "ban" on their business model, and if you don't provide enough value to users for them to pay for then it's a "ban" on your business model. Basically, it just means that your service is asking too high a price (the user's privacy) for the market bear. This is only giving user's agency and insight and after that the market functioning as intended.

laurent92 6y ago
But he’s not allowed to withdraw the service if customers don’t agree. Therefore his business model, which was an exchange (not even taking users’ data, only displaying relevant ads), is required to become a donation from him to a good share of his customers, if he wants to keep the other ones who agree to advertising tracking.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Who is "he"? I lost who we are talking about here...
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  The goal is to shift the ad industry away from intrusive tracking, not to ban ads as a business model. The answer will be to show ads that are made relevant using signals other than collecting personal data. I get that the digital ad industry is not set up well to do that now, but the idea is to force them to adapt. They will have to eventually if major applications of personal data are closed to them by changes like Apple’s.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    And also moving to everything being explicit. Many of us are actually okay with first-party data collection. But it is ridiculous how user data is being packaged and sold to so many faceless third parties whose you don't know and whose policies are not clear.

tinus_hn 6y ago

Why do these SDKs ‘need the data to make money for their owners’?

simonh 6y ago
The owners provide the SDKs for free, the only value they get from them is the analytics data.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  That depends on how creative you are. They could sell support for their SDK, exploit network effects, gain exposure and developer mindshare, or, you know, just provide something to the community for free with no strings attached.
  - simonh 6y ago
    None of that changes the fact of how they use these SDKs are intended to get value at the moment.
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      Let me predict Apples answer to that for you. They don’t care. They don’t have to care. They don’t care. If you are hurt by this decision, you can either change or give up. You can complain on web forums and try to convince other developers but the fact is that you are a force against one of Apples core values, user privacy. They have barely anything to gain from you and one of their core values to lose. You’d need some serious leverage to make them care and you don’t have it. And even if you had, Apple would simply build their own framework and use their control over the platform, the tools, the stores and the rules to completely crush you. And if you imagine you have an antitrust case, it will take years and you will probably lose.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> you have to show the opt in, which of course people will say no to Oh no, people are allowed to decide what their computers do, instead of being spied on without knowing. The horror! What's next, people being allowed to uninstall the app? Seriously, if your business model depends on doing things the user is not aware of and wouldn't agree with, you deserve to fail.