Apps not using UDID data willl see 24% less ad revenue, study says

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,446member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post


    Couldn't Apple just provide a function that only gives the Ad people an encrypted ID that e.g. is the MD5 encryption of the developer's or Ad company's ID combined with the UDID?


     


    That way the modified IDs couldn't be sold to other companies, the Ad people would be pleased, and our privacy would only be compromised in lesser and more acceptable manner.



     


    This.... and they DO! I'm so upset with the media spreading this crap without actually researching. Quote out of the UIDevice Class:


     


     


     


    Quote:


    Special Considerations


    Do not use the uniqueIdentifier property. To create a unique identifier specific to your app, you can call the <a href="http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/CoreFoundation/Reference/CFUUIDRef/Reference/reference.html#//apple_ref/c/func/CFUUIDCreate" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); text-decoration: none; " target="_self">CFUUIDCreate</a> function to create a UUID, and write it to the defaults database using the <a href="http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSUserDefaults_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSUserDefaults" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); text-decoration: none; " target="_self">NSUserDefaults</a> class.




     

  • Reply 22 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,360member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post


     


     


    Lie by omission:


     


    "If we do combine non-personal information with personal information the combined information will be treated as personal information for as long as it remains combined."


     


    UDID as used by app devs to tie your account information (aka you) to a specific device is treated by Apple as "personal information", not as non-personal.  


     


    Access to MAC address is likely the next thing to go.



     


    I'm not sure what you mean by "lie by omission". ??


     


    Apple doesn't consider your UDID to be personally identifiable data, and therefor your quote wouldn't affect whether it's combined with location and other supposed non-personal information sent to 3rd party marketers or whoever.

  • Reply 23 of 32
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


     


     


    I'm not sure what you mean by "lie by omission". ??


     


    Apple doesn't consider your UDID to be personally identifiable data, and therefor your quote wouldn't affect whether it's combined with location and other supposed non-personal information sent to 3rd party marketers or whoever.



     


    And yet, GG hasn't provided any evidence to support his assertion that Apple is providing the UDID to 3rd parties. He's even playing fast and loose with language to make the claim that they don't consider it to be "personally identifiable data", then to use it to prop up his assertion.


     


    I kind of think that sort of thing is what was meant by lie of omission. But we're all used to GG's misleading rhetorical techniques by now. Next, he'll claim he never said Apple was providing it to 3rd parties, just "raising the possibility", that they could, if they wanted... if they were a sleazy company like Google, that is.

  • Reply 24 of 32
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


     


     


    I'm not sure what you mean by "lie by omission". ??


     


    Apple doesn't consider your UDID to be personally identifiable data, and therefor your quote wouldn't affect whether it's combined with location and other supposed non-personal information sent to 3rd party marketers or whoever.



     


    A UDID IS not personally identifiable unless you can associate it with some kind of account.  Therefore location + UDID is non-personal.


     


    UDID + my GMail info or UDID + Facebook info etc IS personally identifiable data.


     


    If only Apple and Verizon can associate UDID with me (via my account info) then it doesn't matter if they treat that like all of my other personal information.  They aren't selling the data that UDID belongs to nht.  Well, Apple isn't anyway.  I assume neither is Verizon.


     


    The problem is that apps often also have account information and they can make that same association and sell it to a 3rd party.  Then everyone knows that when they see UDID that it's me.  THIS is what they are stopping. 


     


    So yes, a lie by omission.  When the UDID is combined with my AppleID THEN it is personal information and treated as such.


     


    But why the heck am I answering?  I could swear I had you on ignore, that's easy enough to fix.

  • Reply 25 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,360member


    Since we both said the same thing I don't see what your disagreement is with what I wrote..

  • Reply 26 of 32


    We have Adblock on our computers :)

  • Reply 27 of 32


    Apple is just getting out in front of the inevitable.  There WILL be legislation that makes using the UUID for tracking purposes illegal.  By telling developers in advance, Apple is doing them a service.  Otherwise, when the legislation does pass there would be a mad scramble by developers and ad networks to comply with the law.  Do it now, on your own schedule, and avoid the fire-drill.


     

  • Reply 28 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,360member


    BTW, as a slightly related aside, if you're truly paranoid and want to browse without anyone knowing who you are take a look at the OnionBrowser in the AppStore. For .99 you can cruise along anonymously via the Tor network.


     


    http://www.gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/technology/gadgetbox/onion-browser-iphone-promises-total-web-anonymity-737554

  • Reply 29 of 32
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


     


    And yet, GG hasn't provided any evidence to support his assertion that Apple is providing the UDID to 3rd parties. He's even playing fast and loose with language to make the claim that they don't consider it to be "personally identifiable data", then to use it to prop up his assertion.


     


    I kind of think that sort of thing is what was meant by lie of omission. But we're all used to GG's misleading rhetorical techniques by now. Next, he'll claim he never said Apple was providing it to 3rd parties, just "raising the possibility", that they could, if they wanted... if they were a sleazy company like Google, that is.



     


    I notice GG still hasn't respond to your first post about the "quotes" he "cited."


     


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post





    Except, unsurprisingly, none of those "quotes" are found in that article. How many times have we seen this with GG. Does he just think no one will check his links and we'll just assume they support the stuff he makes up?

    Even his apparently fake quotes don't support his assertion. We all know that Google's business model is to sell us to advertisers, just as we know that it's in Apple's best interest not to. Never trust a shill.


     


     

  • Reply 30 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,360member


    He apparently isn't reading the article carefully. Did you visit the linK? The quotes are there if you take the time to read the entire thing..


     


    The reason I don't respond to Anonymouse is he the only one on my "blocked" list so I don't see what he writes unless someone quotes him as you did. I don't think he's ever made a reasoned reply to me, mostly claims of shill and such, so there's really nothing of value to discuss with him.

  • Reply 31 of 32
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    He apparently isn't reading the article carefully. Did you visit the linK? The quotes are there if you take the time to read the entire thing..


     


    The reason I don't respond to Anonymouse is he the only one on my "blocked" list so I don't see what he writes unless someone quotes him as you did. I don't think he's ever made a reasoned reply to me, mostly claims of shill and such, so there's really nothing of value to discuss with him.



     




    Well, I read the "entire thing" and they aren't. The reason I'm on your ignore list is that you got tired of me calling you out on your deceptions, and now you have an excuse to pretend we aren't on to you.


     


    But, you're right, I don't bother with point by point rebuttals of your nonsense. I save that for discussions where the posters are honest.

  • Reply 32 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,360member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Apple can sell that UDID-associated data to advertisers whenever they wish and remain in line with their privacy policies. They clearly say they may do whatever they wish with it for any reason they like...


     


    and apparently they do.


     


    "Christophe Cauvy, head of digital, EMEA, at McCann-Erickson suggested iAd's appeal is obvious, while consumer insights provided by Apple strengthened such an offering further.



    "The sheer number and profile of iPod touch and iPhone users is valuable," said Cauvy.



    "The targeting aspect, using iTunes data in addition to demographics and location, is a great tool for advertisers. It's a rich experience for users."


    http://www.warc.com/LatestNews/News/ArchiveNews.news?ID=27524


    Apple does sell you to advertisers, but keeps it low-profile and "unmentionable". It's certainly not now a primary focus like it would be to a Google or Facebook. 



     


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


     




    Well, I read the "entire thing" and they aren't. The reason I'm on your ignore list is that you got tired of me calling you out on your deceptions, and now you have an excuse to pretend we aren't on to you.


     


    But, you're right, I don't bother with point by point rebuttals of your nonsense. I save that for discussions where the posters are honest.



    I'll make a one-time exception for you. You're either NOT reading the entire article or purposely making the claim they don't exist for some other reason. Beginning paragraph 11 the quotes I posted are plainly readable. Apparently you only see what you want to see with the truth not terribly important to you either way.


     


    How many times have we seen this from you? ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.