Apple Hit With $162 Million Fine Over App Tracking Transparency

[I7guy]

With how secretive Apple is, we as consumers don't really know.

Given how Apple has been wearing down their good-will reputation recently, I'm starting to doubt them instead of believing their marketing material at face value as before.

This is an excellent point

They've managed to really erode their "benefit of the doubt" trust factor.

I'm personally to the point of leaning towards not fully trusting what Apple say anymore, which would not have been the case for me say a decade ago.

Perhaps I was wrong then .... but it feels like it has shifted in the last few years in particular.

I mean ... we have Gruber, of all people, roasting them at times now.
Times have changed for sure.

I havent seen this erosion that’s being spoken of, except for a vocal minority on Macrumors. But ymmv.

 

[Dr McKay]

the uk economy is suffering badly. Brexit was a big mistake. so Apple is an easy target for much needed money.

How do the Argentinians feel about this American company being targeted?

 

[Stuwil]

Those users are lucky that the majority of the tech world isn’t like them, or they wouldn’t have that device they’re typing on to post on this forum! It’d be some older worse device that the government decided was “good enough”.

That might be the case however things move on & companies practices change all the time so just because something is ok on one country then another might view it differently

 

[Stuwil]

It’s an abuse of market dominance, but give us a hundred million or so and it’s an abuse of market dominance we can live with.

Are you sure Apple is the most popular OS in France?

 

[mansplains]

France is big on competition, just ask Marine Le Pen

 

[turbineseaplane]

France is big on competition, just ask Marine Le Pen

She was found guilty of embezzlement

Kudos to France for prosecuting criminals

 

[needsomecoffee]

"...Apple's own advertising services are integrated directly into iOS and were not subject to the same user journey, raising concerns that Apple had leveraged its platform control to favor its own interests."

This is a key point most, if not all, Apple-stans miss. It was good that Apple kneecapped providers like FBook, etc. However, Apple has the built-in means to track you without any opt-outs. Apple tracks you insanely, and justifies its "...privacy..." claim because it does not sell your info to third parties. Instead Apple uses your massive load of tracking/fingerprinting data to -- very succesfully -- enhance Apple's own ad system.

This was shown quite quickly after ATT was deployed.

Go ahead a flame away re: How Apple is the only company you can trust.

I do not trust a single thing Tim, Craig, et. al. say. They only want to increase shareholder value, and you and I are simply the tools to do this, and I have been an Apple advocate for decades.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple tracks you insanely, and justifies its "...privacy..." claim because it does not sell your info to third parties. Instead Apple uses your massive load of tracking/fingerprinting data to -- very succesfully -- enhance Apple's own ad system.

This is an absolutely essential point to understand

Excellent post

As with all of these types of topics, insert Samsung or Google or Microsoft in place of “Apple” and see if ones opinion changes

 

[subjonas]

Maybe Apple is the problem as opposed to everyone else around the world who tries to hold them to account?

At some point one has to look around and take note of all the jurisdictions that have issues with how they conduct themselves….

The problem from whose point of view? Consumers have already voted for their interests with their wallets. Now governments/lobbyists are using their power against Apple to benefit their own interests. Their interests often don’t coincide with consumers. This is a prime example.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@dredlew

I see you are disagreeing with various posts, but I haven’t seen you post what you think on this topic.

Please do share!

 

[DougieS]

Apple lets you turn off personalization for its ads also. If Apple made ATT a setting like this, even more people would turn off third-party ad tracking because you would not have to choose for each app.

View attachment 2497521

There already is an option to automatically say no to all apps, like Personalised Ads, without choosing for each app. Just disable this switch.

 

[turbineseaplane]

There already is an option to automatically say no to all apps, like Personalised Ads, without choosing for each choose. Just disable this switch.

It should be disabled by default

Did I pay for my own phone or did the advertisers pay for it and I just get to use it?

 

[surferfb]

This is an absolutely essential point to understand

Excellent post

As with all of these types of topics, insert Samsung or Google or Microsoft in place of “Apple” and see if ones opinion changes

Except it isn't true. Apple does not track across Apps, which is what ATT prevents.

 

[surferfb]

"...Apple's own advertising services are integrated directly into iOS and were not subject to the same user journey, raising concerns that Apple had leveraged its platform control to favor its own interests."

This is a key point most, if not all, Apple-stans miss. It was good that Apple kneecapped providers like FBook, etc. However, Apple has the built-in means to track you without any opt-outs. Apple tracks you insanely, and justifies its "...privacy..." claim because it does not sell your info to third parties. Instead Apple uses your massive load of tracking/fingerprinting data to -- very succesfully -- enhance Apple's own ad system.

This was shown quite quickly after ATT was deployed.

Go ahead a flame away re: How Apple is the only company you can trust.

I do not trust a single thing Tim, Craig, et. al. say. They only want to increase shareholder value, and you and I are simply the tools to do this, and I have been an Apple advocate for decades.

Please provide a source showing that Apple tracks users for advertising purposes across its apps, and therefore is breaking ATT rules.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Please provide a source showing that Apple tracks users for advertising purposes across its apps, and therefore is breaking ATT rules.

How do we know they are or aren't?

You and I may disagree on this point, but I don't trust Apple any further than the line where their own business interests come into play.

They've lost my trust over the last few years.

It doesn't mean I believe nothing they say, but I view it all with skepticism now.

When their main goal used to be getting me to buy a new hardware product, the incentives were much easier to understand. It's all become very muddy now that they play in the AD, Subscription and "cut of 3rd party revenue" spaces.

 

[eXan]

There used to be a way to reset the advertising identifier in iPhone, but I cant seem to find it anymore. Does anyone have an idea?

 

[surferfb]

How do we know they are or aren't?

You and I may disagree on this point, but I don't trust Apple any further than the lien where their own business interests come into play.

They've lost my trust over the last few years.

I mean, they've said repeatedly that they aren't, and that ATT would apply to them if they did. Also the fact that they don't is a competitive advantage that they use to market their products.

I don't think it's in their business interest to lie about that, because if it was shown that they were they'd lose the trust of a significant amount of their users (I certainly wouldn't buy another Apple product again, and I suspect I'm not alone), as well as open them up to all sorts of government action for things like false advertising. And you'd have to assume that no one inside of Apple would feel icky about it and leak that they were.

Lying about it wouldn't be worth it when they could just admit they do it and follow the rules when you consider the consequences of lying.

 

[DougieS]

It should be disabled by default

Did I pay for my own phone or did the advertisers pay for it and I just get to use it?

I agree with it should be disabled. But that wasn’t the point with replying to the other message.

However at least by default it asks per app.

Also, yes you paid for your phone - but this is about apps tracking you which are you free to not install/use, not the phone itself.

Whilst I do detest tracking and block as many ads as I can, advertisers do pay to keep the free apps going that you install on your paid phone.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I mean, they've said repeatedly that they aren't, and that ATT would apply to them if they did. Also the fact that they don't is a competitive advantage that they use to market their products.

I guess what I'm getting at is....

How much can you trust what a company says, when that company just did what did w/ Apple Intelligence and the marketing around that and all the retconning behavior around devices "built for Apple Intelligence"?

Can you see how some of us are simply not willing to believe them right now?

Right or wrong, that's what happens to them when they break the trust, even just a little bit.

We are in an era where lying and deceptive practices are being normalized -- especially for business interests. It's awful. I hate it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Also, yes you paid for your phone - but this is about apps tracking you which are you free to not install/use, not the phone itself.

That's not really an functional option for a working member of society -- given what the "options" actually are.

(multiple versions of "bad" on this front)

 

[subjonas]

I don't know what it will take for people to realize that the world does not bend to, nor revolve around, "desired business practices of X corporation"

The real world is full of different jurisdictions with varying interests reflected through their unique laws and proclivities.

The onus is always going to be on Apple to understand and adapt to those laws and jurisdictional desires if they want to continue operating in those regions.

It's also on Apple to operate in good faith or they will get pushback.

The "good faith" part has started to become a real problem for Apple in recent years.

Laws are good and fair when they’re clearly set up for everyone beforehand. Not when countries change them to essentially target one company for having a satisfied customer base too large for their liking. Or when they have laws that are set up to be so incredibly vague that they are basically like blank arrest warrants legally allowing them to go after any large company (and by association their customer base) subject to their whims.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Laws are good and fair when they’re clearly set up for everyone beforehand. Not when countries change them to essentially target one company for having a satisfied customer base too large for their liking. Or when they have laws that are set up to be so incredibly vague that they are basically like blank arrest warrants legally allowing them to go after any large company (and by association their customer base) subject to their whims.

There are no laws that are forever, and them getting changed due to singular behavior is EXACTLY how many laws get changed (or written in the first place)

Same for rules in sports ... usually there is something undesirable that they directly target to remedy.

That's --- exactly how it works.

The reality here is that anytime rules change, someone will be upset.
All rules, all laws --- anywhere you look in the world or time in history.

 

[yabeweb]

“Siri, how do I kill an international company?”

I am sorry I can't answer that, here's what i found on the web

 

[subjonas]

There are no laws that are forever, and them getting changed due to singular behavior is EXACTLY how many laws get changed (or written in the first place)

Same for rules in sports ... usually there is something undesirable that they directly target to remedy.

That's --- exactly how it works.

The reality here is that anytime rules change, someone will be upset.
All rules, all laws --- anywhere you look in the world or time in history.

True that laws change legitimately, but we have to look at the specific circumstances provoking the change, because changing laws is also how corrupt and inept governments operate.

 

[siddavis]

No. If you read the second paragraph, you would really know the real reason. It states that the authority does not consider ATT itself as a problem, but rather the way Apple is implementing it. The way Apple implements is creates friction for third party app publishers whereas it does not do the same for Apple's apps. That is the reason for the fine. I am surprised that you did not even make it till the second para

IF we take Apple's word for it, their apps are already designed to not track across apps from other companies. Therefore, the pop up is already not necessary for Apple's apps. Is this not correct?