That'd heavily depend on the target audience, safari's market share is tiny if it's global.

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

2+ billion devices is not nothing.

Nobody said it's numerically few devices.

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.

In the US (and many other countries) the iPhone dominates every demographic except I guess the very poor? The whole "teenagers" thing has never been true. Grandma has an iPhone.

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.

The discussion was about global ad impressions, which include desktop use and exclude devices with working adblockers.

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

All apologies for being direct, but you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Your defensiveness about easily verified mobile metrics betrays your real intentions here.

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.

What are you even on about, I'm able to access the web metrics for my current employers consumer facing site which has single digit safari user agents, and I'm betting at least half of them will have enabled content blockers, though I don't have any metric for that.

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...

We pixel push ads around and deal with single browser fixes so I’d say yes, advertisers do care and will spend the dev time if they think there’s any% rev increase.

I think your numbers are off by an order of magnitude :

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.