[rickdeckard]

I would be VERY surprised.

To someone with experience in that area of UX, a 95% opt-IN rate is ridiculously high.

A 95% consent-rate would already be hard to achieve as opt-OUT.

For opt-in a 95% rate would require both attention AND consent from 95% of the audience at this stage in the setup wizard.

I highly doubt that it can achieve 95% attention, let alone 95% consent.

[Wowfunhappy]

But it's not quite opt in our opt out in this case. The user is required to opt for something. Apple literally has 100% attention, because otherwise the user can't move past the screen.

[rickdeckard]

I was actually more genuinely interested to learn about the "similar defaults" mentioned in the OP, the 95% comment was just a side-note to a huge overestimation on how easy consent is achieved.

> But it's not quite opt in our opt out in this case. The user is required to opt for something. Apple literally has 100% attention, because otherwise the user can't move past the screen.

Thing is, you don't even have 100% of the users' attention in this case. The user wants to use the device, you're just standing in the way.

The scenario is this: You force the user to take a decision between option A and B. Regardless of his decision he will achieve his immediately desired outcome (move to the next screen / use the device).

Getting 95% to vote for 'A' would require some quite aggressive dark pattern, to the point that option 'B' would need to be almost invisible and actively discouraged.

Even if the UI would be a pre-checked check-box and the user would just have to select "Next" to Continue (=opt-out), your rate of consent would not be 95%. As mentioned, everything beyond 50% is already outstanding

Or, let's rephrase: If Apple would have 95% opt-in rate, they wouldn't bother chasing for consent again on every SW-update

[BobaFloutist]

Another way of putting it: an option for a 100$ itunes gift card no strings attached, probably wouldn't hit 95%

[Wowfunhappy]

I do agree it's probably not 95%. But 60% wouldn't surprise me.

[rickdeckard]

Expect something in the ballpark of 20-25%, and that already assumes that Apple's above-average brand-reputation translates into above-average consent on data sharing with them.

[marpstar]

To add to this, it's not like a mailing list, either. Marketing opt-in is lower because it's annoying. A lot of people don't want emails.

Anonymized stats from your machine? Most normal people (who don't use computers like we do) do not care and just click the most affirmative option so that they can move forward.

[ClumsyPilot]

This is deeply misguided opinion aboit 'nornal' people. To nornal people 'Anonymous' is a lie.

My dad can't tell apart Windows and Linux, but he makes sure to uncheck any kind of data collection, tracking, and clicks 'reject all' on every cookie warning

[t-3]

Yeah, I don't think allowing telemetry etc is really a matter of technical literacy, and is more a matter of social trust. High-trusting people will see no problem, low-trusting people will say "no way!". I'd imagine this varies widely but with definite trends based on social/economic class.

[maccard]

> To nornal people 'Anonymous' is a lie.

Normal people don't even give a second of thought to this. My partner knows the difference between windows and Mac, and is perfectly content to browse the internet without an ad blocker and to read in between all the cookie dialogs. The only time she clicks on one is when it's required to proceed, and she'll click whichever one is the most obvious button.

[IggleSniggle]

I think that was kind of the OP point. "Pro" users are significantly more likely to be opt-out in this scenario, unless they are not Pro users but just want the Pro machine for conspicuous consumption, making a much more dramatic swing in the usage data that is collected.

[GenerocUsername]

The word Pro in the product name really doesn't separate consumers as well as you might think.

Every college kid has a Mac Book Pro, yet they are by definition not Pros