Programmatic Advertising: “Privacy. That’s iPhone.” — Really?

By Max Legrand · GreyFox Ads · A French perspective on AdTech

Apple says privacy is one of the iPhone's defining features. And Safari certainly makes third-party-cookie targeting harder. But does that mean advertisers cannot reach Safari users at all? Not quite. 🔒🔓

Apple's privacy message: an effective campaign 🍎

Apple's privacy advertising campaign takes a playful swipe at Android and Google Chrome. The message is unmistakable: Safari is presented as the more privacy-conscious choice, with a visual joke about the size of competing phones that recalls the classic I'm a Mac, I'm a PC era.

There is substance behind the marketing. Safari's Intelligent Tracking Prevention and related protections have made traditional third-party-cookie-based tracking considerably more difficult. But “harder to track through third-party cookies” is not the same as “impossible to address with advertising”.

The Safari advertising gap in France 📱💸

Here in France, the gap between Safari usage and programmatic investment is striking. The figures cited in the original analysis put Safari at 28% of mobile web sessions (Statcounter), yet under 10% of programmatic advertising spend (Alliance Digitale's 2025 Open Web barometer).

Those are different measurements and should not be treated as a directly comparable market-share calculation (one concerns browser usage, the other the reported allocation of advertising spend). Even so, they illustrate an important commercial question: are advertisers under-reaching Safari users?

For publishers, reduced addressability can translate into weaker demand, lower fill rates or CPMs in some situations. For advertisers, the cost is potentially missed incremental reach, including among valuable iPhone audiences (the purchasing-power profile of Safari users varies by market and campaign).

Why did programmatic advertising become so dependent on third-party cookies? 🍪

Third-party cookies were a convenient foundation for audience buying: widely supported across much of the AdTech ecosystem, relatively easy to synchronise between companies and generally available without a separate data licensing charge.

With Chrome accounting for a large share of mobile browsing in the cited French figures — around 63% — many buying strategies historically concentrated on the easier-to-address inventory. That habit can create a vicious circle: less targeting on Safari means less demand, making Safari appear less attractive in reporting.

Of course, Chrome's own cookie settings, browser changes, user choices and privacy regulations complicate the picture. No browser should be treated as a permanently uniform identity environment.

Which alternative identifiers can help reach Safari audiences?

Several identity approaches are available to buyers and publishers operating in the French market. They differ substantially in how identity is established, where they can be activated and what permissions are required.

These are different technologies, not interchangeable cookie substitutes. In particular, fingerprinting and other techniques intended to bypass browser restrictions can raise significant legal and platform-policy issues. The availability of a technical signal does not establish that it may lawfully be used for tracking.

Does alternative identity defeat Safari's privacy protections? 🔐

Not automatically. Safari can block or restrict certain browser-level tracking mechanisms while a user may still choose to identify themselves to a publisher or consent to a separate identity service. The two propositions are not contradictory.

But this is precisely where the distinction matters: an alternative identifier is not a licence to circumvent a user's privacy choice. GDPR, French CNIL guidance, ePrivacy rules, publisher disclosures and the technical requirements of each solution must be considered before activation.

My point is commercial rather than a recommendation to evade protections: advertisers who rely exclusively on third-party-cookie-based activation risk ignoring substantial parts of the French Open Web. The challenge is to build privacy-respecting addressability, not invisible tracking.

What should agencies, advertisers and publishers do next?

• Audit delivery by browser: compare Safari, Chrome and Firefox reach, spend, CPM, viewability and outcomes in your DSP.
• Test alternative IDs responsibly: check consent coverage, activation paths, match rates and incremental reach, not just the theoretical ID scale.
• Keep contextual targeting in the mix: it can complement authenticated and consented identity without requiring cross-site user recognition.
• Improve publisher supply paths: prioritise direct, transparent access to quality inventory and understand where data and intermediary fees are applied.
• Measure incrementality: evaluate whether new Safari reach actually improves campaign results rather than merely shifting impressions between browsers.

For related reading, see why Safari programmatic buying remains difficult, how to reach Safari inventory and the role of programmatic curation.

Conclusion: Safari is more private — but not commercially unreachable

Apple has made conventional cross-site tracking much harder. That is a meaningful privacy difference. Yet the industry also has first-party, authenticated, telecom-based and contextual ways to engage audiences that do not depend on third-party cookies.

The opportunity for the French Open Web is to reconnect buyers with those audiences without treating privacy as an obstacle to be secretly bypassed. Safari is not an advertising desert. The question is whether the industry can reach its users transparently, effectively and with their choices respected. 😉

Based on the original LinkedIn post by Max Legrand. Browser and spending figures reflect the cited market snapshot, not a real-time estimate.