Apple Faces Polish Antitrust Probe Over App Tracking Transparency

[surferfb]

No, the issue is with the same activity - tracking data, being presented as "good" if Apple does it, but "bad" if another company does it.

That's exactly the issue of the UOKiK complaint.

It’s not the same thing. And it’s also not being presented as good or bad. Apple also presents what it’s doing clearly and prominently at device setup, allowing users to turn off Apple’s personalization if they so choose.

Third party tracking is done to sell your data. Before ATT there wasn’t a way to turn it off. I understand why ad companies want to block ATT; I don’t understand why regulators get so easily bamboozled or why so many MacRumors users seem to take the side of those invading their privacy.

 

[bollman]

We don't. But we have an issue with Apple presenting their tracking as more benign than others.
There may be some truth to it, but how do we actually know? Because Apple says so? Not good enough.

 

[rorschach]

No, the issue is with the same activity - tracking data, being presented as "good" if Apple does it, but "bad" if another company does it.

That's exactly the issue of the UOKiK complaint.

The issue here is not what the company's do or don't do with the data once it has been collected, and it is not "whataboutry" - it is about how Apple presents it's tracking versus how it presents other company's tracking.

It is not about other companies' messaging, it is about Apple's. Apple changes its "message tone" when informing users about its tracking, presenting it a positive, but presenting tracking from other companies as negative. The tracking itself is still recording data about users.

Again, the language is different because the two activities are different. They are not the same. Apple does not track you across other companies’ apps or websites and that is what the ATT prompt is getting consent for.

“Collecting” and “tracking” are two different things. No company is required by Apple to collect your data within their own services.

Let’s make it easy. If I own a store, I can put cameras inside. I can have an employee follow you around and notate what you look at and recommend some other things to buy. I can store what you buy in my store. No consent needed. If I wanted to then follow you around town and essentially stalk you, that would not be the same thing.

 

[spazzcat]

how about limiting it for everyone. Isnt this what GDPR is supposed to be for

GDPR is click agree to get rid of this popup and be tracked....its a complete failure.

 

[spazzcat]

I think most people don't even understand what's going on.
I want a disclaimer that clearly says "This App wants to sell your data to other companies and that's how you're paying to use it" when that's what's happening.
I want the choice to prevent it by default on all apps, without them even asking every time so that I could allow it by mistake.
I want the App Store to be very clear when that's happening. An app that sells my data is not "free". The button should say something as clear as "Free but they resell your data". Real freeware doesn't exist on phones and that's all Apple's fault (it's for money, not safety that they force everything through their store. We are safe on Macs and we have real freeware).
I want that for cookies on browsers too.
And I want who doesn't apply this to go to jail as scammers. But that's just my dream of accountability for companies that steal from customers.

If they want to track you it is to make money off of your data.

 

[surferfb]

We don't. But we have an issue with Apple presenting their tracking as more benign than others.
There may be some truth to it, but how do we actually know? Because Apple says so? Not good enough.

I'd argue that only collecting data on how you use Apple apps and services while providing a clear, easy-to-understand mechanism to opt out (that is presented to every user upon device set up) is absolutely more benign than collecting data on everything you do on the internet and inside third-party apps, often without even informing users that it's happening or providing them a mechanism to opt out.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'd argue that only collecting data on how you use Apple apps and services while providing a clear, easy-to-understand mechanism to opt out (that is presented to every user upon device set up) is absolutely more benign than collecting data on everything you do on the internet and inside third-party apps, often without even informing users that it's happening or providing them a mechanism to opt out.

Agreed.

I do still think one should be able to easily forbid even Apple from tracking things (if a user would like), even on device, even in Apple apps with data that theoretically never goes anywhere.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Okay, I’ve read the original article on the UOKiK website, and it’s not such a big deal. It’s mainly about the terminology Apple uses
Here is a ChatGPT translation of that part of the article (so the exact texts in iOS in english can differ)

A consequence of this definition is the different messages displayed on the screens of iPhones and iPads. In the case of third-party apps, users see a prompt asking them to consent to “tracking” their activity—an action that carries a negative connotation. In contrast, for Apple’s own content the prompt concerns “personalized advertising.” Moreover, the message related to Apple differs graphically from the one shown for external entities. For example, the text on the accept/decline buttons is different. For Apple, the buttons read: “Enable personalized ads” and “Disable personalized ads,” while in the prompt for third-party apps, the order and wording of the buttons are: “Ask app not to track” and “Allow.”

That’s because what Apple offers doesn’t track users across apps where the user is not logged in. Use your Apple ID to log into an Apple service? Yes, Apple knows who you are, what you’ve bought and what you might like to see. They HAVE to, because if you buy a new device, they need to know what you already have rights to.

If all companies worked that way, fine. But, companies like Meta, Alphabet and many others track you across apps even if you don’t have a Facebook or Google login. There is no “Ask Apple not to track across third party websites and apps” because they only track you as part of what’s required as a company providing first party services. The ad companies know that Apple’s showing personalized ads based on the information they have gathered. And they know that, while they also serve personalized ads, they do so by working with third party entities that track users without permission.

The region COULD force every app to require users log into all of the services they use to track you with, that would be fair. And, actually really smart! With Apple, you’d still just be using an Apple ID, but, you’d be signing into potentially hundreds of companies with other services.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Agreed.

I do still think one should be able to easily forbid even Apple from tracking things (if a user would like), even on device, even in Apple apps with data that theoretically never goes anywhere.

You can VERY easily forbid Apple from tracking things. Don’t use an Apple ID. Anyone without an Apple ID isn’t tracked by Apple. Anyone WITH an Apple ID, well, Apple tracks what you buy and most people would like to redownload that stuff if they get a new device. (On the other hand, folks without a Meta login and has never done business with Meta are still tracked across the internet and apps.)

A person that wants to forbid Apple from tracking things is a person that, every time they sign in, wants to go through the act of purchasing everything they want to see or use all over again.

“Hey, I bought this last week, why do I have to buy it again?!”
“You asked us not to track what you do, so we didn’t track your purchases.”

I don’t doubt that there are SOME that want to do that, but there’s probably not enough people that want to do that such that it’s worth building the feature.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

we badly need an actual configurable firewall in IOS. it’s nice that apple has given us an app privacy report, but we cannot do anything about IP addresses or domains it reports to us. why can’t we restrict unknown addresses? why can’t we disable wifi access to apps like we can with cellular data? it’s more important than ever to have these capabilities in a mobile device.

I’ve no doubt that would bring FURTHER scrutiny from the enormous number of companies that really want at the data of Apple customers. They’re already unhappy about the widely availability of Private Relay.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No, the issue is with the same activity - tracking data, being presented as "good" if Apple does it, but "bad" if another company does it.

No, it’s GOOD if consent is given by having an account with the company keeping track of your data. It’s BAD if consent is NOT given by having an account with the company keeping track of the data. It just so happens that Apple’s doing the “good” thing, it’s not “good” because it’s Apple.

You’re required to sign in to an Apple service to see an Apple provided ad. If you don’t have an AppleID, you can’t see ads provided by Apple’s ad network (which only exists on Apple’s products). If you were required to sign in to Meta to see any Meta provided ads, that’d be acceptable. If you were required to sign in to each one of the hundreds of companies that are tracking and sharing your data, that’d would ALSO be acceptable.

 

[I7guy]

We don't. But we have an issue with Apple presenting their tracking as more benign than others.
There may be some truth to it, but how do we actually know? Because Apple says so? Not good enough.

Given apples privacy focus it’s good enough for us.

 

[britboyj]

possible outcomes:

• Court finds Apple no wrongdoing, no changes needed (status quo)
• Court finds Apple in the wrong. Apple changes their services to stop tracking, ATT remains the same (best for consumer privacy)
• Court finds Apple in the wrong, ATT gets permanently disabled (bad for consumer privacy)

Really all Apple needs to do is either sell off their own ad placement product in the App Store (or just become an SSP) like they already do for News and Stocks, or their own apps need to give the ATT popup as well.

The last option I presented is probably the best compromise.

 

[surferfb]

Really all Apple needs to do is either sell off their own ad placement product in the App Store (or just become an SSP) like they already do for News and Stocks, or their own apps need to give the ATT popup as well.

The last option I presented is probably the best compromise.

Why would their apps give the ATT popup when they don't track across third party apps and websites?

 

[bollman]

Given apples privacy focus it’s good enough for us.

Do we really, really know that?
Yes, the don't seem to sell the data straight up as a commodity like so many others, but Apple Ads, how do they do "contextually relevant ads" unless they track you across apps and sites you visit?
They still track you, they still keep data about you and what you do on your device, and on a level Meta could only ever dream about.

 

[I7guy]

Do we really, really know that?
Yes, the don't seem to sell the data straight up as a commodity like so many others, but Apple Ads, how do they do "contextually relevant ads" unless they track you across apps and sites you visit?
They still track you, they still keep data about you and what you do on your device, and on a level Meta could only ever dream about.

No. I do not believe Apple tracks outside of Apple. And I’m not telling anyone else how or what to believe, but I’m good with Apple tracking me. And I trust them to not distribute my days across the internet.

 

[britboyj]

Why would their apps give the ATT popup when they don't track across third party apps and websites?

Because Apple's apps DO track your data, and share that data with third-parties via their agreement with Taboola for Sock and News placed ads. What data is shared is much more tightly controlled than regular programmatic environments, but your data is still be used for ads.

Apple, again, processes data for App Store Ads. While that's not a third party itself (though the advertisers are) it is still your data being used for advertising purposes. The text on the ATT prompt would require some revising, you're right, but Apple shouldn't get away scott free here.

 

[surferfb]

Because Apple's apps DO track your data, and share that data with third-parties via their agreement with Taboola for Sock and News placed ads. What data is shared is much more tightly controlled than regular programmatic environments, but your data is still be used for ads.

Apple News and Stocks absolutely collect usage data, and use that first-party data to personalize ads if you have that setting turned on. But Apple is clear that it does not share personal data with Taboola. Apple gives them "certain non-personal data" (likely aggregated). But they absolutely don't give the user-level profiles and cross app and website tracking data that pretty much everyone else in the industry gives, and what ATT was designed to hinder. No cross-app brokers, no third-party, trackers, etc.

Apple, again, processes data for App Store Ads. While that's not a third party itself (though the advertisers are) it is still your data being used for advertising purposes. The text on the ATT prompt would require some revising, you're right, but Apple shouldn't get away scott free here.

Apple tells literally every user "if you turn this setting on, we will use the data we gather about you in certain contexts to serve ads" when devices are set up. What more should they do? You're suggesting that they should have to put up a warning saying they do something that they literally don't do.

Personally speaking, I don't like that Apple is involved in selling ads at all, and if I were in charge, I'd kill the program. I certainly don't have the personalized ad setting turned on. But, I also think they're the one company doing it in a privacy-focused way, and the fact that a bunch of regulators all over Europe are threatening to ban ATT, fine Apple, make Apple lie to its users about how it tracks, or otherwise force Apple to weaken its privacy stance because they are falling for spin from data brokers and ad companies is honestly a really good sign that they are either in the pocket of the data industry or aren't qualified to be regulators.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Because Apple's apps DO track your data, and share that data with third-parties via their agreement with Taboola for Sock and News placed ads. What data is shared is much more tightly controlled than regular programmatic environments, but your data is still be used for ads.

Apple, again, processes data for App Store Ads. While that's not a third party itself (though the advertisers are) it is still your data being used for advertising purposes. The text on the ATT prompt would require some revising, you're right, but Apple shouldn't get away scott free here.

They don’t have to share data with third-parties to work with Taboola. Taboola sells the ads for Apple because they’re already in a position to handle that job. Apple then displays the ads alongside content that the ad buy from Taboola says they should. That doesn’t require any third parties know anything about anyone’s Apple ID and what songs they’ve purchased, what Apps they’ve purchased, what the last thing they bought from the App Store was, etc.

 

[tennisproha]

These claim are total bs. ATT is to prevent advertisers from collecting data, that includes everyone

 

[bollman]

Well, if nothing else Apple has been extremely successful at making their users believe they are the second coming.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

At this rate MR should consider a pinned, locked thread to organize and track all the antitrust investigations against Apple. Seems we get a new one at least once a week.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Well, if nothing else Apple has been extremely successful at making their users believe they are the second coming.

And those with problems with Apple haven’t been as successful at convincing people that “first party tracking” is the same as “third party tracking”.