It should be pretty high if the target audience is US only and mainly the higher income brackets, however.

It's just a question of percentages, do you really want to implement something that increases the brightness of your advertisement on 2-5% of your global impressions?

Entirely different story if your advertisement is a high margin product sold on the american market, especially if it's appealing to teenagers/young adults. That'd probably be over 50% of impressions, though that's just me guessing the number.

However worldwide Safari accounts for over 30%+ of mobile device impressions. That is an absolutely enormous market. It tends to be the market with the most cash in almost all markets (I'm not trying to be a booster or start some mobile platform war, and yes Samsung devices are super expensive as well, but demographically you can go to almost any country -- Japan, Russia, India, Brazil, just about everywhere, and the top n% are dominated by iPhones).

If advertisers aren't exploiting it it's either ignorance, or more likely that the dominant ad networks know it will get the ads flagged as abusive and Apple will drop the hammer.

Why are you suddenly quoting exaggerated mobile phone market share numbers in such a context?

Among all browser users, Safari accounts for a 20%+ marketshare (again, easily verified. I assume your metrics were either made up or you're just trolling?). Again almost entirely the people with the most money. Your hysterical claim that this is too small to bother with is a howler, but please keep on.

It just depends on your target audience. Some demographics have miniscule apple presence, others have them as a majority. So, depending on your target audience, it might not be worth it. Especially because we're taking about a feature that will merely increase the brightness of the ad.

Don't interpret some idiotic agenda into a simple cost/reward speculation.

Fwiw, this comment was written on an iPhone whilst procrastinating from work. Which is coding on a MacBook pro whilst checking the resulting website on an iPad Air today. I'm even using AirPods Pro to listen to music...

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-ma...

Further as an advertiser I’m more interested in impressions weighted by free potential spend. A knock off device in Nigeria doesn’t factor into my calculations vs a top of the line iPhone in Norway. The latter just has more money to spend.

I have BTT and can't figure this out. Can you say how? Thanks.

Some people will worry about battery and display longevity in the comments so I'll also leave some notes I wrote on this: https://lunar.fyi/faq#xdr-safe

TLDR: yes, battery and LED lifetime will take a hit.

It's a normal consequence of driving the LEDs to a higher voltage which uses more battery power and creates more LED heat.

macOS has an ABL (automatic brightness limiter) internally that will forcefully limit the voltage based on the amount of white pixels on the screen, and based on the generated heat. That ABL works at a lower level and cannot be bypassed by apps like Lunar or Vivid.

Also for the people wondering about BTT, look for the "Toggle super brightness" action.

If they unlocked it then Apple couldn't claim the same battery life, and would be subject to heavy penalties from the FTC for misleading advertising.

The CPU is also underclocked for both absolute power savings and better compute per watt efficiency.

I don't know what you mean by the CPU being "underclocked", these machines don't have Intel CPUs with a base clock you can compare against. But the MacBook Pro machines are certainly capable of draining their batteries very quickly if you try, and they get quite hot in the process. Because having a whole lot of CPU and GPU compute is the very point of the MacBook Pro line. The battery life while spinning all GPU and CPU cores at 100% is certainly not a core differentiator which is highlighted in their marketing.