6 ms·

In response to: how did Apple do this? Mobile app advertising on iOS has long relied on Apple's IDFA - Identifier for Advertisers - a random, device-unique, re

In response to: how did Apple do this? Mobile app advertising on iOS has long relied on Apple's IDFA - Identifier for Advertisers - a random, device-unique, resettable identifier that was available to all apps. An app like Candy Crush would tell ad networks like FB that "IDFA 123456 just installed the app" or "IDFA 654321 just made a $5 in-app purchase." FB could then recognize that IDFA as a user who installed the FB app, and they could use that data to target, optimize via ML, and measure the audience and results of Candy Crush's marketing campaign. Apple's recent iOS update made IDFA an app-level opt-in, so in order for this existing advertising mechanism to work, you needed to opt-in to tracking on FB (so they could associate your IDFA to a FB user) AND to opt-in to tracking on the other apps (so they could send ad networks data with your IDFA). This double opt-in obviously has a super low rate. FB wasn't impacted nearly as much as other advertising businesses because they already have identifiers for their users (email, phone number, etc), have a ton of first-party interest/behavioral data, and they mostly run ads on their own properties. Apps who used third-party ad networks to sell and place ads in their apps had their business completely destroyed. I think this is all fair in terms of user choice and to give Apple control of their own platform, but it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry, while making their own equivalent data collection opt-out (vs their competitors' opt-in). Even then, Apple frames their data collection option as "Personalize your experience" while forcing other apps to use the phrase "Allow this app to track you." Apple's own ads product has tripled its market share since this launched. [0] [0] https://www.ft.com/content/074b881f-a931-4986-888e-2ac53e286b9d https://www.ft.com/content/074b881f-a931-4986-888e-2ac53e286...

otterley 5y ago
> but it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry There is an implicit but unsupported assumption in this statement that the advertising industry has a right to this data, and that taking it away from them is somehow wrong.
soneil 5y ago
I feel like I repeat this every time it comes up, but I think it's important to note that Apple didn't "flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry". They gave us the switch and we flipped it. If 90%+ of users opt-out, perhaps the ad industry needs some introspection beyond our ability to opt-out.
zpeti 5y ago
You mean apple isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and belief in privacy. Wow!
Retric 5y ago
> a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry I think your significantly overestimating their impact as Android is obviously not impacted. At most they reduced but not eliminate the revenue from iOS advertising.
- drcongo 5y ago
  As a massive generalisation, Android users don't spend money though - there's a massive portion of them that use Android _because_ they don't spend money and you can pick up an Android phone for nothing. They're a rounding error in the advertising world.
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s not that gig a difference. These numbers are slightly outdated, but in terms of app review iOS is 155B vs 80B for android which clearly favors iOS but Android is still very relevant. Assuming that ratio stays the same and thus dropping iOS advertising revenue in half it’s roughly a drop from 50b to 36b. Which is significant sure but hardly destroyed the industry.
mr_toad 5y ago
> they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry Fuck them. Seriously. Bunch of parasites.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  If they're the parasites, what was Facebook and co?
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    There's an argument that if enough people aren't willing to pay for a product to keep it in existence, it never deserved to exist in the first place. Ads are often a surreptitious way of monetizing users' personal info under the guise of giving them something for "free". I've seen a few honest apps that have an ad-supported free version and have a ads-removed paid-for version. Facebook and co would never offer that as their entire business model is based on exploiting uninformed users.
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      Right because the money they could get from people who'd actually pay for Facebook is a small fraction, a rounding error of a fraction, of the money they get from stealing all your data and selling your psychological profile to advertisers. Parasites.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        I wonder if this is true in the context where by international law, every social network is required to be paid for, so that there is no other option but to pay. Do people opt out? Or, do they pay a few dollars (about the value of a facebook user)?
    - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
      This is what newspapers learned. They thought the internet was a paradigm shift at first. Turns out there is a group of affluent folks willing to pay for quality journalism- as it has been the case for 400 years.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Its not like that switch was a surprise that advertisers, apps, and investors weren't aware of. Privacy and tracking has been a focal issue for a long time now
- dylan604 5y ago
  And Apple delayed the roll out of the feature much longer than any other feature announced at the same time. I create something that allows 3rd parties to build up an entire business model around it. One day, I decide to no longer offer/maintain/make viable that something. I'm supposed not be able to do that because a $50bn market built up around my work? No, I can do whatever I want because it's mine.
  - 8eye 5y ago
    you can do that but there are consequences to your actions. good and bad.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      but not to me, and that's all that matters. (just expanding the idea) those consequences are not my problem as I did not build up a business model whose core depends on a 3rd party existing. This is my key point. Someone created a business that in order for it to be relevant requires a 3rd party to do something in their favor. There's never a guarantee that will remain in effect. Not building a contigency plan because you've never done a proper what-if session is just absolutely bonkers. I get the forest through the trees aspect of the people building the thing, but this is exactly the type of thing the C suite and board members are supposed to be thinking about. All eggs in one basket has been a corporate no-no for a long long time (at least for the smart ones). Don't put your entire C suite on the same flight type of stuff.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    It’s an interesting example because with this argument Apple could just clone every app that is valuable and kick the original off their platform. They do this to some extent already, but it would be interesting to know if it is always legal.
wintermutestwin 5y ago
> Apple's own ads product has tripled its market share since this launched. Serious question: what exactly is "Apple's own ads product?" Where would I (as an Apple ecosystem user) encounter it?
- cloudwalking 5y ago
  App Store paid search placement
- leplen 5y ago
  Primarily the app store, which has a number of placements with sponsored content.
- username190 5y ago
  Apple's ad program being referenced is present in its App Store, News, and Stocks apps, as far as I know. That said, Apple also uses their platform to push advertisements for their services/credit card, via push notifications [0], as well as in the settings app[1]. [0] https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/11/IMG_0763.jpeg https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/11/IMG_0... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/poegzl/i_was_just_served_with_a_popup_ad_while_using_the/hcx2918/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/poegzl/i_was_just_...
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  It's the app store paid placement, they specifically tout their lack of cross-site tracking.
fatnoah 5y ago
Let's not forget that it also gives Apple's own App Store advertising a significant advantage, since they still have the ability to correlate ads with app installs. For Apple it's a win-win. Public gets more privacy and Apple nets a few billion dollars more in revenue in addition to anything additional generated by goodwill.
- viktorcode 5y ago
  There's an explicit opt-in request presented to the user to allow App Store collect data for targeted ads. Facebook business was damaged when Apple introduced explicit opt-in request for third-party advertisement data collection.
  - fatnoah 5y ago
    >There's an explicit opt-in request presented to the user to allow App Store collect data for targeted ads. AFAIK, targeted advertising is different than tracking ad to install information, and since it's all Apple there's no third-party sharing required.
JimDabell 5y ago
> it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry, while making their own equivalent data collection opt-out (vs their competitors' opt-in). Even then, Apple frames their data collection option as "Personalize your experience" while forcing other apps to use the phrase "Allow this app to track you." No, the phrase is “Allow AppName to track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites?” Apple’s text says: “The Apple advertising platform does not track you. It is designed to protect your privacy and does not follow you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” These are not equivalent, they are the opposite of one another; one is about tracking you across third-party apps and websites, whilst the other is about not tracking you across third-party apps and websites. Of course they need different descriptions.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  For anyone else curious about what exactly Apple means by "track" in the phrase "The Apple advertising platform does not track you": https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... > Apple’s advertising platform does not track you, meaning that it does not link user or device data collected from our apps with user or device data collected from third parties for targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes, and does not share user or device data with data brokers. What Apple's advertising platform does do is personalize ads based on your keyboard language settings, device type, OS version, mobile carrier, connection type, device location if you've enabled Location Services and you've given permission to the App Store or Apple News apps, App Store search queries, and the type of news story you read. In addition, Apple uses information "such as" the following specific features to assign you to an audience segment at least 5000 people in size: - name, address, age, gender if you've disclosed it, and devices registered to your Apple ID account. If you didn't disclose your gender, "information such as your first name in your Apple ID registration page or salutation in your Apple ID account may be used to derive your gender." - Music, movies, books, TV shows, and apps you download, as well as any in-app purchases and subscriptions. They don't allow targeting based on downloads of a specific app or purchases within a specific app (including subscriptions) from the App Store, unless the targeting is done by that app's developer, so that's nice, I guess. - publications you follow, subscribe to, or enable notifications from - How you actually interact with Apple ads (unclear if "interact" here is limited to view and click, or if they attribute downstream actions to their ads) Notably, "No Apple Pay transactions or Health app data is accessible to Apple's advertising platform, or is used for advertising purposes." --- Granted, Apple doesn't use third-party data for "targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes," and they do not share your user or device data with "data brokers." I imagine not all users would agree that their ad personalization activity doesn't count as "tracking" in the practical sense.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry Cry me a river. This industry should maybe ask itself how it pays back an additional 50b to the users it spied on, which was allowed by Apple in the first place. Apple just corrected a mistake that shouldn't have happened in the first place. This is like being sued by your tumor for nutrient deficiency. I understand that people dislike Apple basically abusing their market position to run their own data collection. Still not okay.

otterley 5y ago

> but it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry There is an implicit but unsupported assumption in this statement that the advertising industry has a right to this data, and that taking it away from them is somehow wrong.

soneil 5y ago

I feel like I repeat this every time it comes up, but I think it's important to note that Apple didn't "flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry". They gave us the switch and we flipped it. If 90%+ of users opt-out, perhaps the ad industry needs some introspection beyond our ability to opt-out.

zpeti 5y ago

You mean apple isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and belief in privacy. Wow!

Retric 5y ago

> a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry I think your significantly overestimating their impact as Android is obviously not impacted. At most they reduced but not eliminate the revenue from iOS advertising.

drcongo 5y ago
As a massive generalisation, Android users don't spend money though - there's a massive portion of them that use Android _because_ they don't spend money and you can pick up an Android phone for nothing. They're a rounding error in the advertising world.
- Retric 5y ago
  It’s not that gig a difference. These numbers are slightly outdated, but in terms of app review iOS is 155B vs 80B for android which clearly favors iOS but Android is still very relevant. Assuming that ratio stays the same and thus dropping iOS advertising revenue in half it’s roughly a drop from 50b to 36b. Which is significant sure but hardly destroyed the industry.

mr_toad 5y ago

> they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry Fuck them. Seriously. Bunch of parasites.

kaesar14 5y ago
If they're the parasites, what was Facebook and co?
- scottLobster 5y ago
  There's an argument that if enough people aren't willing to pay for a product to keep it in existence, it never deserved to exist in the first place. Ads are often a surreptitious way of monetizing users' personal info under the guise of giving them something for "free". I've seen a few honest apps that have an ad-supported free version and have a ads-removed paid-for version. Facebook and co would never offer that as their entire business model is based on exploiting uninformed users.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    Right because the money they could get from people who'd actually pay for Facebook is a small fraction, a rounding error of a fraction, of the money they get from stealing all your data and selling your psychological profile to advertisers. Parasites.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      I wonder if this is true in the context where by international law, every social network is required to be paid for, so that there is no other option but to pay. Do people opt out? Or, do they pay a few dollars (about the value of a facebook user)?
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    This is what newspapers learned. They thought the internet was a paradigm shift at first. Turns out there is a group of affluent folks willing to pay for quality journalism- as it has been the case for 400 years.

Workaccount2 5y ago

Its not like that switch was a surprise that advertisers, apps, and investors weren't aware of. Privacy and tracking has been a focal issue for a long time now

dylan604 5y ago
And Apple delayed the roll out of the feature much longer than any other feature announced at the same time. I create something that allows 3rd parties to build up an entire business model around it. One day, I decide to no longer offer/maintain/make viable that something. I'm supposed not be able to do that because a $50bn market built up around my work? No, I can do whatever I want because it's mine.
- 8eye 5y ago
  you can do that but there are consequences to your actions. good and bad.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    but not to me, and that's all that matters. (just expanding the idea) those consequences are not my problem as I did not build up a business model whose core depends on a 3rd party existing. This is my key point. Someone created a business that in order for it to be relevant requires a 3rd party to do something in their favor. There's never a guarantee that will remain in effect. Not building a contigency plan because you've never done a proper what-if session is just absolutely bonkers. I get the forest through the trees aspect of the people building the thing, but this is exactly the type of thing the C suite and board members are supposed to be thinking about. All eggs in one basket has been a corporate no-no for a long long time (at least for the smart ones). Don't put your entire C suite on the same flight type of stuff.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  It’s an interesting example because with this argument Apple could just clone every app that is valuable and kick the original off their platform. They do this to some extent already, but it would be interesting to know if it is always legal.

wintermutestwin 5y ago

> Apple's own ads product has tripled its market share since this launched. Serious question: what exactly is "Apple's own ads product?" Where would I (as an Apple ecosystem user) encounter it?

cloudwalking 5y ago
App Store paid search placement
leplen 5y ago
Primarily the app store, which has a number of placements with sponsored content.
username190 5y ago
Apple's ad program being referenced is present in its App Store, News, and Stocks apps, as far as I know. That said, Apple also uses their platform to push advertisements for their services/credit card, via push notifications [0], as well as in the settings app[1]. [0] https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/11/IMG_0763.jpeg https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/11/IMG_0... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/poegzl/i_was_just_served_with_a_popup_ad_while_using_the/hcx2918/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/poegzl/i_was_just_...
micromacrofoot 5y ago
It's the app store paid placement, they specifically tout their lack of cross-site tracking.

fatnoah 5y ago

Let's not forget that it also gives Apple's own App Store advertising a significant advantage, since they still have the ability to correlate ads with app installs. For Apple it's a win-win. Public gets more privacy and Apple nets a few billion dollars more in revenue in addition to anything additional generated by goodwill.

viktorcode 5y ago
There's an explicit opt-in request presented to the user to allow App Store collect data for targeted ads. Facebook business was damaged when Apple introduced explicit opt-in request for third-party advertisement data collection.
- fatnoah 5y ago
  >There's an explicit opt-in request presented to the user to allow App Store collect data for targeted ads. AFAIK, targeted advertising is different than tracking ad to install information, and since it's all Apple there's no third-party sharing required.

JimDabell 5y ago

> it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry, while making their own equivalent data collection opt-out (vs their competitors' opt-in). Even then, Apple frames their data collection option as "Personalize your experience" while forcing other apps to use the phrase "Allow this app to track you." No, the phrase is “Allow AppName to track your activity across other companies’ apps and websites?” Apple’s text says: “The Apple advertising platform does not track you. It is designed to protect your privacy and does not follow you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” These are not equivalent, they are the opposite of one another; one is about tracking you across third-party apps and websites, whilst the other is about not tracking you across third-party apps and websites. Of course they need different descriptions.

EForEndeavour 5y ago
For anyone else curious about what exactly Apple means by "track" in the phrase "The Apple advertising platform does not track you": https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... > Apple’s advertising platform does not track you, meaning that it does not link user or device data collected from our apps with user or device data collected from third parties for targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes, and does not share user or device data with data brokers. What Apple's advertising platform does do is personalize ads based on your keyboard language settings, device type, OS version, mobile carrier, connection type, device location if you've enabled Location Services and you've given permission to the App Store or Apple News apps, App Store search queries, and the type of news story you read. In addition, Apple uses information "such as" the following specific features to assign you to an audience segment at least 5000 people in size: - name, address, age, gender if you've disclosed it, and devices registered to your Apple ID account. If you didn't disclose your gender, "information such as your first name in your Apple ID registration page or salutation in your Apple ID account may be used to derive your gender." - Music, movies, books, TV shows, and apps you download, as well as any in-app purchases and subscriptions. They don't allow targeting based on downloads of a specific app or purchases within a specific app (including subscriptions) from the App Store, unless the targeting is done by that app's developer, so that's nice, I guess. - publications you follow, subscribe to, or enable notifications from - How you actually interact with Apple ads (unclear if "interact" here is limited to view and click, or if they attribute downstream actions to their ads) Notably, "No Apple Pay transactions or Health app data is accessible to Apple's advertising platform, or is used for advertising purposes." --- Granted, Apple doesn't use third-party data for "targeted advertising or advertising measurement purposes," and they do not share your user or device data with "data brokers." I imagine not all users would agree that their ad personalization activity doesn't count as "tracking" in the practical sense.

raxxorrax 5y ago

> it opens Apple up for a lot of regulatory scrutiny given that they were able to flip a switch that annihilated a $50b mobile advertising industry Cry me a river. This industry should maybe ask itself how it pays back an additional 50b to the users it spied on, which was allowed by Apple in the first place. Apple just corrected a mistake that shouldn't have happened in the first place. This is like being sued by your tumor for nutrient deficiency. I understand that people dislike Apple basically abusing their market position to run their own data collection. Still not okay.