How long is Apple going to wait with this feature. It's now like halfway thru iOS14 cycle.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google to Stop Collecting Advertising Identifiers in iOS Apps in Response to iOS 14's Upcoming Tracking Prompt
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
SKAdnetwork is something Apple came up with as a solution to the need to ask to use the IDFA. It allows an ad network to attribute installs of an app from a AD that was shown even when the user does not allow the IDFA to be used.
Well, for actual Google apps, one catch is that if you're signed into your Google account, Google knows who you are anyway.
Correct! No Google = more better!!
But another option for those of us forced to use one for work.... open your Google stuff in a private window. I believe this prevents another instances of the same browser from auto logging you in. I believe you can also use separate private windows for gmail, YouTube, etc so they can't see eachother.
Last edited:
Google’s name should be changed to better reflect their business. “Gaslight” would better suit their businesses, especially their so called search engine.
Apple will soon require iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV app developers to request permission from users to collect their random advertising identifier (known as the "Identifier for Advertisers" or "IDFA"), which advertisers use to deliver personalized ads and track how effective their ad campaigns were. Specifically, users will be presented with a prompt to allow or deny tracking as necessary when opening apps on iOS 14, iPadOS 14, and tvOS 14, as part of Apple's App Tracking Transparency ("ATT") policy.
In response to this upcoming change, Google today announced that it will stop collecting IDFAs for the "handful" of its iOS apps that currently use it for advertising purposes once Apple's new policy goes into effect. As a result, Google said it will not need to show Apple's tracking permission prompt in its iOS apps.
In a blog post, Google said that app developers may see a "significant impact" to their Google ad revenue on iOS after Apple's new policy takes effect:Google has a support document with more information on how developers can prepare.
Apple has also required developers to fill out a privacy label when submitting new apps and app updates to the App Store since December 8. Google added that it is "working hard to understand and comply with Apple's guidelines" for all of its apps in the App Store, and ensured that its iOS apps will be updated with privacy label information as necessary when new features or bug fixes are introduced. Many of Google's most prominent iOS apps have yet to display this privacy information, including the main Google app, YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, and others.
Facebook has criticized Apple's new policy, claiming that it will hurt small businesses who benefit from personalized advertising. In response, Apple said users deserve transparency and control. "We believe that this is a simple matter of standing up for our users," said Apple, adding that "users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites — and they should have the choice to allow that or not."
Article Link: Google to Stop Collecting Advertising Identifiers in iOS Apps in Response to iOS 14's Upcoming Tracking Prompt
Yes...... slimy google. Meanwhile saint Apple manufactures their products with near slave labor, so much so they need suicide nets outside of the factories.
Yes, Apple is just so much better than google.
/S
You mean like Apple? You should take a look at Apple's manufacturing process, it's much worse than Google's lack of privacy.
But an annual subscription of $1 or 50 cents a month generates long-term revenue, especially if people keep forgetting to cancel it.
How many people will keep forgetting to cancel a 50 cent recurring subscription?
Thank you, Apple.
I don't believe anything Google says. And many here will continue to use Google.
I don't believe anything Google says. And many here will continue to use Google.
Whilst I am not against Apple on this I do feel that it is the end-users that will suffer. If the developers that rely on the advertising revenue as their income drops enough then they may start charging a subscription fee, the amount of complaining threads about all the subscription-based services shows that is unpopular. Alternatively, developers could let good apps go or leave them to rot.
Yay for privacy, but like it or not, many would rather be tracked than have to pay for something.
Yay for privacy, but like it or not, many would rather be tracked than have to pay for something.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
I did have an idea: App developers could display a message stating "You can't use this app without accepting the prompt to enable the collection of advertising identifiers. or paying for the full-paid version."
That technically should be possible and maybe that is where Google is going with this.
But you still can choose to get tracked, if you wish so. Why don't you guys understand that?
Apple doesn't forbid tracking - just doing so without letting the user know.
yes, we know that, but most users will go with the flow without actually knowing what it really means other than 'being tracked'. So when it appears people will in the main just click 'do not track'.
See that is a good solution, but too much common sense for big companies to implement.
And that’s bad exactly how?
If you offer sufficient argumentation for the benefits of tracking users will allow it. The problem might just be that there are no convincing arguments.
Do someone know if we have to refuse or it will have a nice little switch to refuse all once or that will be the same sh*t as cookies pop ups?
some tidbits from the report linked at the bottom:
As users of Google's apps are typically logged in, it has a tracking alternative to IDFA and as such its core ad business would likely not be affected by Apple's changes.
But it warned in its blog post that publishers and advertisers that rely on its mobile ad software will experience weaker results without IDFA access.
Google said it is developing alternatives for clients but these may not be ready immediately.
finance.yahoo.com
As users of Google's apps are typically logged in, it has a tracking alternative to IDFA and as such its core ad business would likely not be affected by Apple's changes.
But it warned in its blog post that publishers and advertisers that rely on its mobile ad software will experience weaker results without IDFA access.
Google said it is developing alternatives for clients but these may not be ready immediately.
Google to stop using Apple tool to track iPhone users, avoiding new pop-up warning
Google's iPhone apps such as Maps and YouTube will stop using a tool from Apple Inc that allows them to personalize ads, avoiding a new Apple warning that informs users their browsing is being tracked. The announcement in a Wednesday blog post by the Alphabet Inc unit comes shortly before Apple...
That would count as incentivizing opt-in, or gating content behind an opt-in, which would be a violation of Apple's Developer Terms of Service currently.
This should be a change developers demand: You can't make your add purely ad-supported and lock people out of they don't opt in, but you can demand either an IAP/subscription OR opting-in.
Other than YouTube, there aren't really a ton of ads in Google apps though?
Assuming we all agree that the one thing that needs to change is companies need to be completely transparent about user data, I think that leaves companies with 3 profitable options for their apps:
- continue with a free ad-based version that allows tracking, with complete transparency (for customers who want free and don’t care about privacy).
- a one-time paid version priced for actual profit (for customers who care about privacy and are willing to pay money for value). Note- the cost of minor updates for a period of time should be built into the one-time price, and there should be reasonable upgrade pricing for major updates, with minor updates built into those prices.
- a subscription version. (Obviously this makes sense for services like Netflix or Dropbox, but for non-service apps it’s only equally beneficial if the app for some reason requires very frequent updates to remain functional, or if the customer requires a lower barrier to entry or only intends to use the app for a short period.)
As to which version or versions of apps that companies will offer will I imagine mostly depend on the size of the market for each version. I hope the second market, those willing to pay up front for value, is sizable as I fit squarely in that market, but I have a feeling the vast majority will still fall into the first market, free ad-supported apps. There may even be more people who would prefer a smaller ongoing subscription price over a higher priced one-time payment, and companies would definitely be more willing to cater to that group and force as many people into that group as possible since it will be steadier revenue and probably overall much more profitable for them.
Whatever happens, the important thing is that companies and customers enter into clear and, as much as possible, equally beneficial relationships.
True transparency has been the missing key to that in the app industry, but hopefully that will continue changing. It’s going to be a shake up for both opportunistic companies and oblivious customers, so it might be rough for a time. But when the dust settles, we’ll find out one or both of two things—how much customers actually care about privacy, and how valuable these apps actually are.
I would say it's better than that. It's more like they are allowing users to stand up for themselves.
This argument that it's hurting business is asinine. Im sorry but the ad gathering process is like milking cows. Cows don't have a choice, they are milked whether they like it or not, but you put food in front of them and they let it happen.
People are not livestock and should have the right to know when they are being monetized or someone else's gain.