Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate.

But I suspect at high-end they only really care about the performance of a few dozen professional apps e.g. Logic or Final Cut. And at the low-end it's likely just efficiency.

A 95% opt-in rate is INSANELY high for any type of usage-stat opt-in, everything above 50% is usually outstanding.

What is known about "similar defaults"?

So there are people who were opted-in that change their minds. My friends and family opt-in rate is <50%. And most of them are non-technical.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

> 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

And I've never heard people complain?

Genuinely surprised as it seems to be quite a commonly controversial thing amongst devs.

This calls out some soft spots that were exposed during the Hong Kong riots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ9LR8homt4

It's not like it's enabled by default and you have to know to go and find the setting to turn it off or anything..

IMO that’s quite different to something that’s just silently on by default, and requires you to set an environment variable or run a command to opt out.

so you like them enough to pay them thousands for the premium product, but not enough to tell them how much CPU you use?

Could be “how much CPU does this user use?” but could also be “when prompted with a notification that a user’s iCloud backup storage is low, how long did they hesitate on the prompt before dismissing? How can we increase their odds of upgrading?”

Also, my willingness to provide information does not correlate to how much I “like” a company’s products. If I buy a sandwich from a deli, and they ask for my email for their newsletter or something, I won’t give it. That doesn’t mean I don’t like their company or their sandwich. Could be the best sandwich in the world, they don’t need my email.