[willstrafach]

1. You’re allowed to use IDFA. But users will now have to allow access, as a permission dialog will pop up first.

2. The IDFA is just a simple static UUID. It cannot do a very good job at preventing fraud. There is no way to validate anything about it or affirm that it ties to a genuine device.

[jefftk]

1: I expect this will translate to the majority of traffic will not have IDFA available, either by apps not wanting to annoy users by asking, or users saying no.

2: On a single request, yes. But users typically make very large numbers of requests over time. The pattern of requests that you'd see from a real user looks pretty different than what you'd see from a bot.

[thatcat]

>2

Of course they look different over time, isn't the problem here that same data can be used to do statistical analysis for other purposes than fraud prevention?

[jefftk]

I'm responding here to willstrafach 's claim that "The IDFA is just a simple static UUID. It cannot do a very good job at preventing fraud" and wil421's earlier "Can you explain how Apple’s anti tracking measures are going to hurt small business and make fraud easier?"

But yes, of course IDFA can be used for things other than ad fraud detection.