Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

blog.tapstream.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#11

Post by lstamour »

FireBeyond wrote: post #2

I’m not sure my understanding of this is correct. It seems to be crying about the problems this will cause. Ostensibly, it’s saying that there’s a problem with the identifier for ads being requested in apps that don’t have ads (i.e. being used as a surrogate identifier). But, more nefariously (again, if my understanding is correct) it’s saying that many ad networks rely on this info being passed to advertisers (despi…

The issue is that many libraries still used this function to uniquely identify devices for analytics (e.g. content-based advertising?) or for legitimate functionality (TestFlight, cross app communication). Many people might drag-and-drop a library into their app, it all works, and then suddenly their next update is now rejected and it wasn't "their fault". Some, as on stackoverflow, don't even know where to begin to address the issue.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#12

Post by __david__ »

JangoSteve wrote: post #10
FireBeyond wrote: post #2

I’m not sure my understanding of this is correct. It seems to be crying about the problems this will cause. Ostensibly, it’s saying that there’s a problem with the identifier for ads being requested in apps that don’t have ads (i.e. being used as a surrogate identifier). But, more nefariously (again, if my understanding is correct) it’s saying that many ad networks rely on this info being passed to advertisers (despi…

I think what they're saying is that for something as simple as analytics (just an example), apps need some sort of unique identifier for the user, but that the only unique identifier iOS provides is the advertising ID of the user. Of course the correct answer is to stop doing any sort of analytics, or anything else that requires a unique identifier. But the point I think the author is making is that that is a bad sol…

> 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.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#13

Post by jkrems »

benjaminfox wrote: post #5
sneak wrote: post #4

No, Apple is rejecting apps for pulling the advertising unique identifier and not using it for ads, but instead to spy. Stop it.

Allowing the use of the IDFA by publishers and not by advertisers renders it useless, since it can no longer be used for attribution. I don't think conversion tracking - measuring the performance of ads you bought to promote your app - counts as spying.

Yes, it does. And it allows for shady "install this app to continue"-campaigns to artificially boost downloads of apps so they appear in top sellers - even if nobody is actually using them.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#14

Post by benjaminfox »

__david__ wrote: post #12
JangoSteve wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they're saying is that for something as simple as analytics (just an example), apps need some sort of unique identifier for the user, but that the only unique identifier iOS provides is the advertising ID of the user. Of course the correct answer is to stop doing any sort of analytics, or anything else that requires a unique identifier. But the point I think the author is making is that that is a bad sol…

> 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.

> 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.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#15

Post by msh »

benjaminfox wrote: post #5
sneak wrote: post #4

No, Apple is rejecting apps for pulling the advertising unique identifier and not using it for ads, but instead to spy. Stop it.

Allowing the use of the IDFA by publishers and not by advertisers renders it useless, since it can no longer be used for attribution. I don't think conversion tracking - measuring the performance of ads you bought to promote your app - counts as spying.

BUT the advertisers can aggregate the data between apps to spy on users.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#16

Post by hahainternet »

slaven wrote: post #6
AugustusLongeye wrote: post #3

Hang on, you think Apple are worried about the privacy of end users? I call shenanigans! There are likely many reasons they're doing this, that is firmly at the bottom of the list three rooms over entitled "things Apple don't care about".

Well, if you see what happened with UDID and how much kerfuffle there was to get from there to IDFA it's pretty obvious Apple wants to protect the user. For a contrast to Android you just need to read this article: http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140130170002-11...

> Well, if you see what happened with UDID and how much kerfuffle there was to get from there to IDFA it's pretty obvious Apple wants to protect the user.

From my perspective it seems that Apple wants to have access to this data for iAds, but doesn't want any competition. It's been their normal behaviour recently, trying to eliminate any possibility of anyone competing with them in their markets. From wide device bans to price fixing conspiracies.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#18

Post by egb »

I got rejected, but I _do_ show ads. My guess is Apple is targeting particular SDKs/libraries, and so that even apps that are showing ads are getting flagged. Not sure what the resolution is going to be - still waiting on an Apple response.

I've got a whole bunch of libs included, several of which use AdSupport. Arg.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#19

Post by interg12 »

sneak wrote: post #4

No, Apple is rejecting apps for pulling the advertising unique identifier and not using it for ads, but instead to spy. Stop it.

Whats wrong with using the highly reliable IDFA for install attribution? 1) Allows the advertiser to know exactly which publisher provided the install, thus allowing for fair billing. 2) Allows advertisers to study users on a app-level to see which sources provide the high quality users. 3) Ultimately helps ad networks target more relevant ads to users, providing a better user experience and higher eCPMs for publishers.

You won't see any ad units that you don't like disappear - the transaction point for the advertiser will just be the click rather than the install.

This is only going to push the industry away from the heavily favored CPI pricing to CPC pricing.

Re: Apple Rejecting Apps For Not Showing Ads

#20

Post by interg12 »

benjaminfox wrote: post #14
__david__ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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 reall…

Agreed - 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.
Post reply on HN