Apple Agrees to Make 'App Tracking Transparency' Changes in Germany

[Unregistered 4U]

You will have to explain that one for me, please.

Do you like and want to be tracked? If you do, then nothing to explain.

Why? Do you think Europeans are so stupid that they'll fall for this? We've had cookie banners for years. We're conditioned to decline everything by default.

The advertisers are, quite literally, COUNTING on it. The way it’s currently worded, users are choosing not to be tracked. Advertisers are hoping that by NOT clearly communicating that to users, more users will choose otherwise.

Or, are you under the assumption that they want this change made because they the advertisers feel it will REDUCE the number of users being tracked? I guess that’s one way to look at it, but there’s not an advertiser in the world that’s working to make LESS money. 🙂

Sometimes I feel like it is just a matter of always taking the most anti-European position possible...

Advertisers DON’T want to let people know that they’re being tracked. I don’t know how anyone can understand that’s the case here and still be in favor of the advertisers that want to track people.

 

[MrSnirf]

Ban all targeted advertisement. Problem solved.

 

[tonmischa]

Do you like and want to be tracked? If you do, then nothing to explain.

I don't.
But i still don't get, why tricking people into ENABLING tracking, is a WIN for privacy?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

The advertisers are, quite literally, COUNTING on it. The way it’s currently worded, users are choosing not to be tracked. Advertisers are hoping that by NOT clearly communicating that to users, more users will choose otherwise.

From the press release:
"Under the commitments that have now been declared binding, Apple will align the consent prompts for its own offerings and for third-party apps much more closely. This involves removing possibly discouraging symbols and wording in Apple’s predefined requests for third-party providers. The design of the consent prompts will be neutral in terms of content, wording and layout. In addition, app publishers and content providers, such as media publishers, will be given more scope to explain to users what significance personalised advertising has for their offering and their business model."

"It is expressly not our aim to help achieve the highest possible levels of consent to personalised advertising. We want to ensure that users can make a free and informed decision. Users who do not wish to allow their data to be used for personalised advertising must be able to make an equally free and informed decision as users who intend to consent to such data use. The new consent requests are aimed at better enabling users to make this decision."


What you fail to address is, that Apple was always COUNTING on people agreeing to be tracked, because they were able to present themselves as the "good guys" and by pretending that everybody else were the "bad guys". And they did that by creating a double standard.

So instead of bashing the Bundeskartellamt for allegedly making it "easier" to trick people into consent, you should be bashing Apple for doing this exact same thing for years.

 

[SpotOnT]

Why? Do you think Europeans are so stupid that they'll fall for this? We've had cookie banners for years. We're conditioned to decline everything by default.

You will have to define “Europeans” and if “Europeans” includes citizens of the United Kingdom 🤣

Again, I suggest you look into the motivation that started this court complaint. It has been several years now, so I don’t remember the exact source, but I do remember reading a studying showing that iOS advertiser tracking has decreased significantly in the Europe since the introduction of the popup messages in iOS.

If Europeans are stupid or not doesn’t really matter (you could just as easily say iOS was stupid for not making tracking by advertisers harder in the first place). What we know is that device tracking became harder on the iPhone and then giant corporations that profit greatly from tracking brought this complaint to the courts.

 

[tonmischa]

I suggest you look into the motivation that started this court complaint.

I will take an educated guess: It was money, wasn't it?

Advertisers felt treated unfairly. Now it was decided that they were indeed bering treated unfairly.
Because Apple created an unfair advantage for themselves. This has been remedied now.
Which has created a fairer marketplace. (according to Bundeskartellamt)

Just because we all hate personalized ads doesn't mean we should tolerate Apple taking advantage of its monopoly position.
And we all know, how much Apple's promises re privacy are worth (remember "hide your mail"?)

 

[BaldiMac]

The Bundeskartellamt says:
When Apple asks for consent for tracking in their own apps, it has to be the same popup, then when a non-Apple App asks for consent for tracking.

Bundeskartellamt does not care about which company / ad agency actually does the tracking.
Bundeskartellamt does not care about cross-app.
Bundeskartellamt does not care about WHAT the popup says.
The popup just has to be same for Apple Apps and for non-Apple Apps.

Repeating what they said doesn't change that what they said is wrong. Again, it was the same for both Apple and non-Apple apps. No app had to display the popup if they don't share user data with a third party for tracking purposes.

 

[SpotOnT]

I will take an educated guess: It was money, wasn't it?

Advertisers felt treated unfairly. Now it was decided that they were indeed bering treated unfairly.
Because Apple created an unfair advantage for themselves. This has been remedied now.
Which has created a fairer marketplace. (according to Bundeskartellamt)

Just because we all hate personalized ads doesn't mean we should tolerate Apple taking advantage of its monopoly position.
And we all know, how much Apple's promises re privacy are worth (remember "hide your mail"?)

No….that is not it at all….

Apple doesn’t compete with Google, Meta and Amazon in the ad space. Apple doesn’t try to create a complete profile of individuals so it can sell targeted ads to data brokers at a premium price. Apple doesn’t even sell user profiles to data brokers at all.

Plus you can already turn off Apple’s targeted advertising system (which is only used in-house) on a system wide level in your settings (or on your Apple ID webpage).

There is no possible way advertiser were upset they were being treated unfairly, because they don’t compete in the same market. They don’t do the same thing.

This is about advertisers being upset Apple increased iPhone privacy and trying to find a way to decrease privacy on the iPhone.

We both agree that personal privacy is good. You think this court ruling will increase privacy because now more people will stop Apple collecting data for ads. I think this court ruling will decrease privacy because now more people will allow all the other data brokers to collect more data for ads.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Ban all targeted advertisement. Problem solved.

Not a government in the world (and by government I mean the businesses they serve) would be on board with that. 🙂

 

[BaldiMac]

Advertisers felt treated unfairly. Now it was decided that they were indeed bering treated unfairly.
Because Apple created an unfair advantage for themselves. This has been remedied now.
Which has created a fairer marketplace. (according to Bundeskartellamt)

Apple ads only appear in Apple apps. There has been no change in the "marketplace" other than language to make more people opt in to privacy-invasive tracking.

Just because we all hate personalized ads doesn't mean we should tolerate Apple taking advantage of its monopoly position.
And we all know, how much Apple's promises re privacy are worth (remember "hide your mail"?)

30% share in the EU is not a monopoly position.

 

[BaldiMac]

The design of the consent prompts will be neutral in terms of content, wording and layout. In addition, app publishers and content providers, such as media publishers, will be given more scope to explain to users what significance personalised advertising has for their offering and their business model."

The bold is a lie, since it's directly contradicted by the rest of the paragraph.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But i still don't get, why tricking people into ENABLING tracking, is a WIN for privacy?

It’s not, you just think it is, and that’s fine!

What you fail to address is, that Apple was always COUNTING on people agreeing to be tracked, because they were able to present themselves as the "good guys" and by pretending that everybody else were the "bad guys". And they did that by creating a double standard.

What you fail to address is the rather stark difference between 100% voluntary 1st party tracking and secretive third-party tracking by way of external code elements being loaded on web pages and apps that allow vendors to track users that have not intended on being tracked BY those vendors. And, they’re mapping their behavior across multiple independent sites and apps in order to build targeted profiles for advertising. I know that you believe that to be a right that every company should have, regardless of if the user knows or not, and that’s fine!

You can be pro-advertisers and others can be against advertisers and the world continues to go around.

So instead of bashing the Bundeskartellamt for allegedly making it "easier" to trick people into consent, you should be bashing Apple for doing this exact same thing for years.

Apple has never, does not currently and, because they’re not an ad network, highly unlikely to have any need to trick people into consenting to third-party tracking. That’s only something that advertisers and their vast network of third-parties want, and that’s fine for you to want them to be successful with that!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Repeating what they said doesn't change that what they said is wrong. Again, it was the same for both Apple and non-Apple apps. No app had to display the popup if they don't share user data with a third party for tracking purposes.

And if they don’t care about cross-app, they really haven’t been paying attention to the most egregious goings-on with ad businesses building profile data and selling it to the highest bidder. But, I expect a strong position of ignorance is required when what you’re trying to do is create a situation where the folks that fund you end up with more money to continue funding you. Bringing integrity of any kind into the proceedings would have it halted before it started.

 

[eifelbube]

So much for German regulations protecting your privacy. It's always about who pays the regulators.

Yup, that's what the DMA was all about, too.

Is it correct to assume then, you both are suggesting GER/EU regulators are being bribed?

 

[eifelbube]

There will be some people in this thread that are in favor of companies not having to be transparent about their intent to track you. And that's WILD!

(I just started reading the thread up to your comment, sorted by post date.)

That would be wild, I agree.

 

[tonmischa]

I know that you believe that to be a right that every company should have, regardless of if the user knows or not, and that’s fine!

I never said that.

Apple has never, does not currently and, because they’re not an ad network, highly unlikely to have any need to trick people into consenting to third-party tracking. That’s only something that advertisers and their vast network of third-parties want, and that’s fine for you to want them to be successful with that!

Again: I never said that.
Personally I strongly disagree with any kind of tracking.
Tracking without consent is - under EU law - illegal and imho rightfully so.

But I also disagree when a big company uses their monopoly status to gain an unfair advantage.
That is the point that I am so desperately trying to make.

It’s not, you just think it is, and that’s fine!

Then why not explain it? Let me learn!

 

[eifelbube]

They likely want Apple to change it to something that does not clearly state, "Don't track me" so that they've got a gray area which would allow them to return to tracking users if they so desire.

Definitely will be interesting to see how the final & approved version will be worded. Hopefully better than the existing original and not ambiguously (i.e. no gray area).

 

[SpotOnT]

But I also disagree when a big company uses their monopoly status to gain an unfair advantage.
That is the point that I am so desperately trying to make.

We all understand your point. It is the same point the courts argued.

We just don’t think the point is valid/reasonable/real.

 

[SpotOnT]

Is it correct to assume then, you both are suggesting GER/EU regulators are being bribed?

That is a very probable scenario. Remember though, bribes aren’t necessarily a cash gift or giving your relative a nice job. Bribes include favors…you support my power structures and I will support yours.

 

[tonmischa]

We all understand your point.
We just don’t think the point is valid/reasonable/real.

So you are the official forum spokesperson now.
Congratulations!

 

[eifelbube]

So much for German regulations protecting your privacy. It's always about who pays the regulators.

I just finished reading the German Kartellamt;s press release, German original and English version side by side. The document proves that your comment is jumping to a conclusions for which there is absolutely no basis.

 

[eifelbube]

That is a very probable scenario. Remember though, bribes aren’t necessarily a cash gift or giving your relative a nice job. Bribes include favors…you support my power structures and I will support yours.

This is wildly speculative, to put it mildly.

 

[SpotOnT]

I just finished reading the German Kartellamt;s press release, German original and English version side by side. The document proves that your comment is jumping to a conclusions for which there is absolutely no basis.

So what are your thoughts?

 

[SpotOnT]

So you are the official forum spokesperson now.
Congratulations!

Just tying to help!

You seemed “desperate” to be heard. We hear you.

 

[eifelbube]

There will be some people in this thread that are in favor of companies not having to be transparent about their intent to track you. And that's WILD!

There are some people in this thread already who are speculating —obviously without having read the original press release and before AATF wording changes are finalized— that German regulators will favor industry interests over user data protection. And this is
b efore
i mplementation
a ctually
s tarts

And that’s even WILDER!

 

[eifelbube]

So what are your thoughts?

My thoughts are as i wrote: The document proves that poster #3 is jumping to conclusions for which there is absolutely no basis.

Be patient and wait until the changes are finalized in 4 months, then compare them against this excerpt*** from today’s GER Federal Competition Regulatory Office document quoting the agency”s president:

Andreas Mundt: “It is expressly not our aim to help achieve the highest possible levels of consent to personalised advertising. We want to ensure that users can make a free and informed decision. Users who do not wish to allow their data to be used for personalised advertising must be able to make an equally free and informed decision as users who intend to consent to such data use. The new consent requests are aimed at better enabling users to make this decision.”

*** Third paragraph in section Apple will modify consent prompt and simplify consent requests