61–70 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do these SDKs ‘need the data to make money for their owners’?
The owners provide the SDKs for free, the only value they get from them is the analytics data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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."
It's a red herring. In addition to the IDFA, Apple has something called the IDFV (identifierForVendor). This ID is unique to a publisher, i.e. if a user has 3 of your apps installed, all three will share the same IDFV, so you can even do cross-app or cross-selling analytics. What you cannot do by design is use IDFV to build a cross-publisher dossier on users, or target users based on that ID other than on your own ap…
Yes, but – Apple's documentation says that the upcoming opt-in requirement is for more than for IDFA-based tracking. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-... According to Apple, the opt-in API is also required for other activities, including: > Placing a third-party SDK in your app that combines user data from your app with user data from other developers’ apps to target advertising or measure…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owners provide the SDKs for free, the only value they get from them is the analytics data.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 a…
This is a bit of a stretch - the gist is that Apple is requiring opt-in consent to 3rd party tracking, and will start failing review for people apps that don't provide an opt in. This isn't a ban on Free analyics SDKs at all.
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 o…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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.
Yes this makes some business models harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a…
Then why are you complaining about them implementing privacy controls?
This whole argument seems like a variation of "Guns don't kill people, [X] does." If Apple puts a (metaphorical) gun in every user's hand and points them at the analytics SDKs, it seems ludicrous to claim that Apple has nothing to do with the analytics SDKs getting killed. Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be killed. At the very least, it's passive-aggressive, if not incitement to "violence".
Now, the article says, "Apple did not – and from a legal perspective likely can’t – explicitly ban the Google Analytics, Flurry, Facebook, and Firebase SDKs." I'm not clear on what legal perspective the author means. Antitrust? In any case, from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? There are plenty of things that Apple does ban in the App Store, without giving the user a choice. I still don't get why you think "ban" is a dirty word.