This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that "users don't mind being tracked." They absolutely do.
This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that "users don't mind being tracked." They absolutely do.
It seems that in the United States, at least, app developers and advertisers who rely on targeted mobile advertising for revenue are seeing their worst fears realized: Analytics data published this week suggests that US users choose to opt out of tracking 96 percent of the time in the wake of iOS 14.5.
The global number is significantly higher at 12 percent, but that's still below some advertising companies' estimates.
Hmm, interesting. Good to know, thanks. I have noticed a difference between cookie prompts when browsing from the US and when using a VPN on a European server. That might explain what I think I've...
Hmm, interesting. Good to know, thanks. I have noticed a difference between cookie prompts when browsing from the US and when using a VPN on a European server. That might explain what I think I've experienced.
In case anyone else wondered if there was some way to skirt around the policy - Source Interesting to note, Google advised devs it was going to avoid using IDFA altogether, so they wouldn't show a...
In case anyone else wondered if there was some way to skirt around the policy -
... the policy prevents tracking across multiple third-party apps if a user opts out, but both Apple and any other company can still track users across multiple apps if all the apps in question are operated by the same company.
Apple clarifies that a developer "is also required to respect your choice beyond the advertising identifier." This means that once a user has opted out of IDFA tracking, the developer must also not track the user through any other method that generates a similar result, like device fingerprinting.
Interesting to note, Google advised devs it was going to avoid using IDFA altogether, so they wouldn't show a privacy prompt at all. This makes me question how well and/or for how long this privacy protection will be effective, because they surely won't abide less accurate tracking on iOS for long.
I tend to assume the worst and that devs will just used the afore-mentioned fingerprinting on Android in those cases. I also assume that iOS devs will do it even though Apple says not to. I...
This makes me question how well and/or for how long this privacy protection will be effective, because they surely won't abide less accurate tracking on iOS for long.
I tend to assume the worst and that devs will just used the afore-mentioned fingerprinting on Android in those cases. I also assume that iOS devs will do it even though Apple says not to. I predict in 6 to 12 months we'll hear about Apple rejecting any app that uses some random XYZ library because it turns out that library does device fingerprinting.
Yeah, I just assume that if devs want to fingerprint you and are technically competent (or are willing to farm it out to a 3rd party library) they are doing so and will continue to. The question...
Yeah, I just assume that if devs want to fingerprint you and are technically competent (or are willing to farm it out to a 3rd party library) they are doing so and will continue to. The question then becomes, what is a formal definition of fingerprinting vs. simply aggregating other generally useful information that devs could be collecting in good faith to improve their apps or just make them function? And for platforms like Apple's app stores, how can they reliably make a distinction? We all should be aware by now that browsers have enormous fingerprinting surfaces, and most of that info is available because it was determined to be useful (at least historically). It's just that the combination of all those bits is, more than likely, uniquely identifying (or sufficiently close enough to be valuable).
This pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that "users don't mind being tracked." They absolutely do.
That's actually against the GDPR. It should be opt out. However most pages always require two clicks to decline and one big green button to accept
Hmm, interesting. Good to know, thanks. I have noticed a difference between cookie prompts when browsing from the US and when using a VPN on a European server. That might explain what I think I've experienced.
In case anyone else wondered if there was some way to skirt around the policy -
Source
Interesting to note, Google advised devs it was going to avoid using IDFA altogether, so they wouldn't show a privacy prompt at all. This makes me question how well and/or for how long this privacy protection will be effective, because they surely won't abide less accurate tracking on iOS for long.
I tend to assume the worst and that devs will just used the afore-mentioned fingerprinting on Android in those cases. I also assume that iOS devs will do it even though Apple says not to. I predict in 6 to 12 months we'll hear about Apple rejecting any app that uses some random XYZ library because it turns out that library does device fingerprinting.
Yeah, I just assume that if devs want to fingerprint you and are technically competent (or are willing to farm it out to a 3rd party library) they are doing so and will continue to. The question then becomes, what is a formal definition of fingerprinting vs. simply aggregating other generally useful information that devs could be collecting in good faith to improve their apps or just make them function? And for platforms like Apple's app stores, how can they reliably make a distinction? We all should be aware by now that browsers have enormous fingerprinting surfaces, and most of that info is available because it was determined to be useful (at least historically). It's just that the combination of all those bits is, more than likely, uniquely identifying (or sufficiently close enough to be valuable).