Mikey Campbell
MoPub notes that because mobile advertisers use unique device identifier (UDID) data to track an ad's effectiveness to create pricing models, the removal of such a tool would likely result in app developers losing nearly a quarter of all ad revenue, according to a Wednesday report from MacWorld UK.
In the traditional mobile ad system, iOS app publishers use UDID data as both a means of performance measurement and monetization while advertisers rely on the data to see how well an ad converts into an action like downloads or click-throughs. The ad companies are basically testing an advertisement's effectiveness and value to decide how much to pay app publishers for ad space.
“The move away from UDIDs threatens advertising revenue that many publishers depend on in order to support their content creation and businesses," said MoPub CEO and co-founder Jim Payne. "Here, we see a direct correlation between the money paid for an ad and the ability to track an ad. It’s clear that Apple needs to address this issue with an appropriate alternative, because the damage to a publisher’s bottom line will likely be material if UDID data actually disappears.â€
MoPub's three month study found that the disparity between publishers which use UDIDs and those that do not is an eCPM (effective cost per mille) average of 0.18 cents with app makers pulling in 0.76 cents and 0.58 cents, respectively.
Example of an iPad UDID found in the iTunes device summary tab.
UDID data usage has been a hot-button topic as mobile privacy issues have come under the scrutiny of consumers and lawmakers alike. Other means of transmitting sensitive personal information without the knowledge or consent of users raised enough attention that Congress members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a series of letters to Apple CEO Tim Cook asking about what the company was doing to ensure the security of iPhone and iPad owners. The subcommittee went as far as requesting that an Apple representative be dispatched to Washington for a briefing on the company's app developer policies and practices.
An example of unauthorized data transmission is social networking app Path's back-end "feature" that copied a user's contacts and sent the information to off-site servers in the name of streamlining the process in which the service connects users. Path ultimately apologized and implemented an opt-in system for uploading address data.
Apple first addressed the UDID issue in August 2011 when it announced plans to remove app publishers' access to the data in iOS 5, though the functionality has yet to be eschewed and remains in the latest version 5.1.
It was reported in late March that Apple was gearing up to initiate blanket rejections of apps using UDID data in an effort to deprecate all third-party UDID access, though there has been no official word that this is the case.
Amber Neely
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
32 Comments
If you can't monetize your app on iOS you can't monetize it anywhere. I don't think Apple is going to lift a finger to help the ad-supported model track its users. The whole point is that what the advertisers were tracking already was inappropriate and didn't serve the user at all. If anything, Apple will encourage and assist the developers to move to a purchase/subscription model. After all, where else are the app writers going to go?
I have no sympathy for the ad people in this case. Just because it will affect their bottom line doesn't mean that we consumers have to be ok with the practice. Screw 'em. If ad revenues go down and more apps have to charge 0.99 or 1.99 instead of being free to compensate, I'm ok with that. I'd much rather pay for an app I want to use than put up with a bunch of ads inside an app to save 99 cents. There's a glut of crappy free apps trying to get by on ad revenue anyway, so if this cuts down on that, all the better.
At $0.78 per thousand ad impressions, my time is being wasted disproportionately to a developer's compensation. They have to display over 1,300 ads to earn $0.99. I value my time at a much higher rate... Apple has the right model for their store.
Would you be surprised to know that Apple considers UDID to be non-personal and non-identifiable? Apple also states that sharing, transferring, or even selling information associated with a specific UDID to any company, partner, marketer and anyone else for any reason they wish is perfectly permissible. They consider it non-personal info.
From Apple's Privacy Policy:
"We also collect non-personal information ? data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual...
We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose.
We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising."
If Apple considers sharing information associated with a UDID as acceptable use of data gathered from it's users it seems a bit disingenuous to hold the developers to a different standard IMO. If it's OK for Apple why shouldn't it be OK for the developers?
[B][I] A study conducted by mobile ad server MoPub claims [/I][/B] I stopped reading right there.