4 ms·

It's weird that former Apple engineers don't explain how IDFA which is blocked by answering "ask app not to track" works. It is the only thing that's prevented

It's weird that former Apple engineers don't explain how IDFA which is blocked by answering "ask app not to track" works. It is the only thing that's prevented by Apple, and the rest lies on the developer. Try to circumvent it, and risk ban (of course some apps are still trying, driven by their risk/reward calculations but bans aren't unheard of). Another thing, the "ask app not to track" doesn't mean that data won't be collected. It means that this particular user must not be identifiable across different apps / web sites, even if personally identifiable data is being sent. Authors completely ignore this point.

reaperducer 5y ago
It is the only thing that's prevented by Apple, and the rest lies on the developer. It is the major visible prevention method. App developers who track anyway live in fear of Apple finding out and executing its nuclear option: banning them from the App Store. Smart companies don't risk $10,000,000 in app revenue in order to sell $10,000 in user data.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  When your company makes Apple $3m, you cease to become someone casually banned by Apple, and rather a quasi-partner with some leverage. Epic’s ban from the App Store was deliberately engineered by that company’s leadership to force a legal challenge and to garner public attention; most companies of that size with apps on the App Store are met with more kid glove treatment by reviewers.
  - jenny91 5y ago
    I'd imagine the threshold is a lot higher. Remember that Apple is in the end a hardware company and it makes sense to give up revenue/pay a fair bit for the legwork of their privacy marketing.
  - BbzzbB 5y ago
    You're not much of a partner at 0.0008% of yearly revenue. Now if a Netflix or Spotify was caught with a hand in the forbidden cookie jar, I'd expect the solution to be more diplomatic than straightforward perma-ban. If not for directly financial reasons, because their iOS user base would feel the void of these apps missing, unlike "Casino Slots 3D - Dolphin Edition".
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Fine, the numbers should be inflated a bit, but the original post was most likely referring to Netflix and Spotify anyway, as opposed to whatever mid-tier companies make $10m annual app revenue somewhere in the vast gap between FANG and Casino Slots 3D.
      - BbzzbB 5y ago
        Sorry I was just being snarky with the trash app mentioned, I could've done without it I just had a talk [0, fun one] in the back of my head when writing. There must indeed be hundreds (dozens?) of companies which fall in a grey area that Apple wouldn't be inclined to ban straight up at first offense. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Lhqri8tZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Lhqri8tZk
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Nah, I quite appreciated it. It amuses me quite a bit how bizarrely specialized a lot of trash software are, which mobile platforms tend to heighten. From blatantly fraudulent ads that depict bogus gameplay, to Dr. Phil shilling Solitaire Grand Harvest on his show, the plain tawdriness of the trash app game ecosystem is fascinating. And who even wants to play slots on their phone anyway?
        BbzzbB 5y ago
        Those Dr. Phil 4 minute sponsors for Solitaire Grand Harvest kill me just thinking of it with those "live demos". I find it absolutely hilarious, yet simultaneously depressing to think how many people watching him will fall into a trap like and proceed to burn their money on - which is assuredly an unfathomable amount given his show's size and the duration of the ads. I also have no clue why those apps work (aside from the vague notion it triggers our lizard brains to gamble even with fake money), but I'd sure recommend you listening to the linked talk if the subject entertains you, I had found it really interesting and the speaker is a great story teller (IMO anyway).

reaperducer 5y ago

It is the only thing that's prevented by Apple, and the rest lies on the developer. It is the major visible prevention method. App developers who track anyway live in fear of Apple finding out and executing its nuclear option: banning them from the App Store. Smart companies don't risk $10,000,000 in app revenue in order to sell $10,000 in user data.

Apocryphon 5y ago
When your company makes Apple $3m, you cease to become someone casually banned by Apple, and rather a quasi-partner with some leverage. Epic’s ban from the App Store was deliberately engineered by that company’s leadership to force a legal challenge and to garner public attention; most companies of that size with apps on the App Store are met with more kid glove treatment by reviewers.
- jenny91 5y ago
  I'd imagine the threshold is a lot higher. Remember that Apple is in the end a hardware company and it makes sense to give up revenue/pay a fair bit for the legwork of their privacy marketing.
- BbzzbB 5y ago
  You're not much of a partner at 0.0008% of yearly revenue. Now if a Netflix or Spotify was caught with a hand in the forbidden cookie jar, I'd expect the solution to be more diplomatic than straightforward perma-ban. If not for directly financial reasons, because their iOS user base would feel the void of these apps missing, unlike "Casino Slots 3D - Dolphin Edition".
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Fine, the numbers should be inflated a bit, but the original post was most likely referring to Netflix and Spotify anyway, as opposed to whatever mid-tier companies make $10m annual app revenue somewhere in the vast gap between FANG and Casino Slots 3D.
    - BbzzbB 5y ago
      Sorry I was just being snarky with the trash app mentioned, I could've done without it I just had a talk [0, fun one] in the back of my head when writing. There must indeed be hundreds (dozens?) of companies which fall in a grey area that Apple wouldn't be inclined to ban straight up at first offense. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Lhqri8tZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Lhqri8tZk
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        Nah, I quite appreciated it. It amuses me quite a bit how bizarrely specialized a lot of trash software are, which mobile platforms tend to heighten. From blatantly fraudulent ads that depict bogus gameplay, to Dr. Phil shilling Solitaire Grand Harvest on his show, the plain tawdriness of the trash app game ecosystem is fascinating. And who even wants to play slots on their phone anyway?
        BbzzbB 5y ago
        Those Dr. Phil 4 minute sponsors for Solitaire Grand Harvest kill me just thinking of it with those "live demos". I find it absolutely hilarious, yet simultaneously depressing to think how many people watching him will fall into a trap like and proceed to burn their money on - which is assuredly an unfathomable amount given his show's size and the duration of the ads. I also have no clue why those apps work (aside from the vague notion it triggers our lizard brains to gamble even with fake money), but I'd sure recommend you listening to the linked talk if the subject entertains you, I had found it really interesting and the speaker is a great story teller (IMO anyway).