4 ms·
> Of course this all ignores the possibility of creating user accounts or generating a unique identifier whenever the use installs the app Which is exactly wha
by __david__ 13y ago
> Of course this all ignores the possibility of creating user accounts or generating a unique identifier whenever the use installs the app
Which is exactly what Apple recommended when they stopped letting apps get a hold of the UDID.
I can't think of a really good legit reason for wanting a cross-app unique ID.
- benjaminfox 13y ago> I can't think of a really good legit reason for wanting a cross-app unique ID. The use case that's affected the most by this change is that of advertisers who want to track the performance of ads they buy from publishers, which I think is a legitimate need. The fact that the IDFA uniquely identifies an iOS device (unless the user resets it) is a side effect of Apple's implementation of it; all app advertisers really want is the same kind of first-party conversion tracking for their apps that's standard everywhere else on the web.
- interg12 13y agoAgreed - app advertisers are playing a performance marketing game with their install ads. This change is going to make user acquisition more tedious in several ways: - some networks will become straight CPC, which will be a pain in the ass to arbitrage to a CPI - there will be a lot of campaign monitoring required - other methods of install attribution simply aren't as reliable. This will affect the eCPMs of in-app advertising that consisted of app-install demand.