Replace AppsFlyer: open-source

▸Example AppsFlyer call (the "before")

swift Respectlytics

import AppsFlyerLib
// ATT prompt path — required before AppsFlyer reads IDFA:
ATTrackingManager.requestTrackingAuthorization { _ in
 AppsFlyerLib.shared().start()
 AppsFlyerLib.shared().logEvent("af_purchase", withValues: [
 AFEventParamRevenue: price,
 AFEventParamCurrency: "USD",
 AFEventParamContentId: sku,
 ])
}

Closed-source analytics SDKs require you to trust vendor claims about behaviour. Open-source SDKs let your security team verify those claims from source. For regulated industries this is often a procurement-gating requirement. Respectlytics's SDKs are MIT-licensed and fully open; the server is AGPL-3.0.

☑Remove AppsFlyer cleanly

1
Remove the AppsFlyer SDK from your build (AppsFlyerFramework / af-android-sdk / react-native-appsflyer / appsflyer_sdk)
2
Remove AppsFlyerLib.shared().start() and logEvent(...) call sites
3
Re-check your Info.plist for NSUserTrackingUsageDescription — if no other SDK needs ATT, remove it (Apple flags apps that ship the key without code that calls ATTrackingManager)
4
Re-check your Android merged manifest for com.google.android.gms.permission.AD_ID and remove the corresponding <uses-permission> if no other SDK contributes it
5
Plan how you'll attribute installs without AppsFlyer — Apple SKAdNetwork + Google Play Install Referrer (both first-party, no SDK needed) cover most cases

⇋AppsFlyer vs Respectlytics — open-source sdk + server

AppsFlyer	Respectlytics
SDK source publicly available	— see tool note above	Yes (MIT)
Server source publicly available	— typically no	Yes (AGPL-3.0)
Reproducible builds from source	— varies	Yes (CI publishes from same commit)
Fork-and-modify allowed	— varies by license	Yes
Public commit history	— typically no	Yes (GitHub)

❓Frequently asked questions

Where can we audit the source?

GitHub: github.com/respectlytics. Each SDK has its own repository with source, tests, CI configuration, and release tags. The server lives in a separate repo with the same conventions.

Are the published binaries reproducible from source?

Yes — CI builds use deterministic build commands. The artifacts published to CocoaPods / SPM / Maven Central / npm / pub.dev are produced by the same pipeline that runs against each commit. Reproducible builds are a goal we test against; report any discrepancy as an issue.

Can we modify the SDK and ship our fork?

Yes — MIT permits modification and redistribution with attribution. Many enterprises fork to adjust logging, add internal tracing, or vendor the SDK into their build.

Why MIT for SDK and AGPL for server?

Standard split for source-available SaaS (GitLab, Sentry, MinIO, Plausible). MIT on the SDK maximises consumer freedom — your app picks up the dependency without obligation. AGPL on the server prevents competing closed-source SaaS forks while allowing internal self-hosting freely.

⇢Related migration guides

Replace AppsFlyer with an open-source analytics stack