Tonmischa does not refer to tracking, I believe. They refer to the pro’s and con’s of the revised wordings as they will be drafted in the coming four months. That is how I read it.
Speculation at best. Wait four months until the final version is done. Then compare with today’s words by the president of the GER federal Kartellamt office:
You’re repeating yourself. No speculation. I’m going by what they said. Apple’s text must be neutral and the developer can add a pro-tracking message.
Bribery isn’t necessary. Funding a person’s campaign doesn’t mean that the politician will vote the funder’s interest.
Oh, it absoLUTEly will be ambiguous. And, for users, worse than GDPR. Their goal is “track more people” and there’s no honest rewriting of the facts of what’s being done that will yield more people being tracked.
You were writing like you were in favor of the wording being changed such that more users will be more likely to be tricked or confused into choosing to be tracked instead of the current process where most people see the text, decide they don’t want to be tracked by third parties, then click no. Apologies if I misunderstood.
You’re against tracking, a company has a system in place that effectively prevents mass tracking of users by third-parties. And, it’s SO effective that profits from their third-party tracking schemes is down. And you want the process that is REDUCING tracking to be curtailed? That runs counter to your “Personally I strongly disagree with any kind of tracking,” statement. Just because I like to be consistent in my thoughts and writings, I can’t expect everyone else to feel as I do about that. And that’s totally fine.
German regulators (and the advertisers they support) don’t like that the wording is scary even though it just clearly indicates when a company has configured their application to track the user with third-party tracking tools. (And to reiterate, there are plenty of companies that do NOT track users via third-party tracking and, for those applications, no popup is required nor is one shown) In the data protection side of this, the data is being effectively protected by users saying no. If they do ANYTHING that means more users click yes (which is the goal of the advertisers they support), then they will have chosen industry interests over user protection. And this is How Advertisers Do Business. They did business like that for YEARS on the App Store before ATT was implemented and their fortunes dropped due to losing the ability to track users with no input from the user.
And, it doesn’t change that Apple effectively and dramatically reduced third-party tracking via third-party tracking in apps. Of the parties involved in this case, only ONE has proven that they have a high regard for customer privacy and will take steps to give users choice.
Tonmischa is referring to the wording having “pro’s” for being tracked by third-party tools across apps and websites. We all know the con’s, just wondering how they would try to define the “pro’s” of something most are not in favor of.
Absolutely wild. Otherwise, Apple could just do away with dialogues completely. “Ask Not to Track” should be hard-coded amongst all Apple & 3rd party apps.
They HAVE done away with dialogues. There’s a setting in iOS/iPadOS that automatically says no to tracking. You never see the popup anymore because it automatically chooses “No” for you every time. That’s not defaulted on for obvious reasons. 🙂 These companies are getting their governments engaged just for ASKING if folks want to be tracked. If they defaulted that on, so that those that want to be tracked have to choose it, they’d probably have the devices banned until Apple made the change opt-out the way it is now!
Then shouldn’t Apple disclose to the end user that they cannot guarantee 100% privacy protection? They have a tendency to misrepresent the degree of protection they can offer. For example, Block All Cookies in the Privacy section of Safari advanced settings in reality is often ignored when active. Why pretend 100% = All when it should say Block Most Cookies? Why should I believe their claims such as “Our advertising platform doesn’t share personal data with third parties.”?
The bad news about the good news is that that user will no longer be able to install updates for their devices not associated with an Apple ID.
We’ll see if that theory will have proven ABSOLUTELY true when the dust has settled in Germany in 4 months from now …
What exactly in the MR article or the referenced GER federal agency’s press release of today prompts your claim?
You didn’t read all of the GER press release then. 🙂 Which is par for the course for relentless Apple advocates …
You still don't get it. And that's fine.
I honestly don't know how to make myself any clearer?
You still don’t get it and that’s fine. Apple’s apps already followed the same rules as other apps.
They do. That’s why it says “Ask not to track” instead of “Deny”.
On the contrary. I absolutely get that you think of Apple as one big company which is able to do its own tracking. So they should not be subjected to a pop-up about third party tracking. Correct?
Every app that maintains user data “is able to do its own tracking.” It’s not unique to Apple.
Again, they can disagree all they want. Your fallacy is an appeal to authority. It doesn’t make those two things the same. And therefore they shouldn’t be described the same. I do believe this decision is incompetent based on the lies that they push to justify it.
