Device type: phone vs tablet

[Sam Tingleff]

The 2.2 spec has added new values to device.devicetype, notably
differentiating phone and tablet.

Which begs the question: how would one differentiate the two? How is
this data expected to be used, and what would make a device a "tablet"
vs a "phone"?

Is it the ability to make phone calls? Or the expected screen real
estate for ads? There are some ridiculously high resolution phones
available now. We are calling these "phablets" at the moment and we're
struggling to define the line between such devices.

[Willard Simmons]

Hi Sam,

I believe some other providers are using bigger than 7” screen to put things in the tablet category and less than 7” screen to put it in the phone category.

it may not be a perfect standard, but it’s reasonable.

-bill



--
Willard Simmons, Ph.D.
CTO/Co-Founder
DataXu
O: +1-617.752.1123 | 281 Summer Street, Boston, MA, 02210
DataXu.com | Follow us @DataXu

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openrtb-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openrtb-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Sam Tingleff]

Thanks Bill. Do we have guidance on how to migrate this field from 2.1
to 2.2? This looks like a backwards incompatible change (though
minor).

[Neal Richter]

How is it backwards incompatible? The old version's values stoped at 3.   Are you suggesting we have a note on #1 that's it either ambiguous or deprecated?

Value	Description
1	Mobile/Tablet
2	Personal Computer
3	Connected TV
4	Phone
5	Tablet
6	Connected Device
7	Set Top Box[NR1]

[Jim Butler]

It is backward compatible by design.  Also we left “1” as is for when the distinction between phone and tablet is unknown; only that it is a mobile device.

 

:JB

[Sam Tingleff]

2.1 had these device types

1 Mobile/Tablet
2 Personal Computer
3 Connected TV

2.2 has these

1 Mobile/Tablet
2 Personal Computer
3 Connected TV
4 Phone
5 Tablet
6 Connected Device
7 Set Top Box

Imagine a campaign targeted to device.devicetype=1 on a 2.1 bidder.
One day the exchange switches to 2.2 and begins assigning Phones to
(4) and Tablets to (5). What happens to that campaign?

[Jim Butler]

Good example. If the campaign were targeted at "1", then the implication is that the campaign wants mobile phones or tablets and is not particular. Such campaigns in preparation for the upcoming switch to 2.2 could start targeting on device type in the set {1, 4, 5}. Under 2.2, {1, 4, 5} means the same thing as {1} under 2.1 and 2.1 compliant exchanges should not be using values 4 or 5 for any other meaning. This would seem to provide a smooth migration path for campaign managers since they can make this change anytime (i.e., now) well ahead of any exchanges making such a switch.

:JB

[Sam Tingleff]

Right, so effectively every bidder needs to be 2.2-aware before an
(any?) exchange can upgrade.

I don't really know how widely used this field is but I would guess
this change is not a huge deal. I do think this is an upgrade model we
should try to avoid between minor versions.

[Neal Richter]

How about I stick in a note for implementers such that they should
treat them as logical aliases and use the user-agent to break ties for
non-app impressions.

Specifically for an exchange they should ensure that bidders are 2.2
aware and utilize a aliases-conversion table on these values.

I'll take a whack and circulate this evening..

-Neal

[Jim Butler]

Agreed, but this minor version is coming about a year after the last minor version and it's a scenario with a clear and safe path, as opposed to for example removing values or changing types or formats, etc. (e.g., like a recent thread on possibly changing the way keywords are represented). So while I understand the concern, my question on general procedure would be - after a year since the last release, when would be the right time to add list values?

[Neal Richter]

How about this as a note to the reader in Table 6.16?

·       Version 2.2 of the spec added distinct values for Mobile and Tablet.  It is recommended that any bidder adding support for v2.2 treat a value of 1 as an acceptable alias of 4 & 5.  It is recommended that any exchange implementing v2.2 coordinate with bidders to ensure support for values 4 & 5 before ceasing the use of value 1.

[Neal Richter]

I am far less familiar with the Connected TV (value 3) versus the newer Connected Device (value 6) and Set Top Box (value 7).... can someone help me craft guidance note there?  Optically value 3 looks related in the new value 7.

Is a "set top box" connected to a TV without networking support logically equivalent to a "connected TV" for targeting purposes?

[Jim Butler]

Looks good.

[Brent Halliburton]

Conversely, it would be easy for exchanges concerned about losing liquidity to pass both values {1,4} to bidders for some period.

Brent W. Halliburton

215.439.0163

@bhalliburton