Another example of the effluent enpoopification of civilisation in full, pungent flow.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hit With Supersized Fine in Italy Over an iPhone Privacy Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Incorrect. We paid for our phones and apps.
Wow, the neverending EU nightmare party just keeps on going. I think we all know this is way out of hand and just ridiculous at this point. Does the EU realize that the rest of the world is beginning, well not even anymore as this is nothing new anymore, but basically starting to extremely dislike the EU over policies like these?
And what business in their right mind do they think they're attracting with these insane, all over the place rules that come out of thin air, when needed, and are ignored when needed but just not used the pressure the right company? Even better, how they think and do try to use their rules on companies based outside the EU, no company or website is safe from them, even if you don't do direct business within the EU (I wouldn't), they can still come after your US-based (or anywhere else) company if your website doesn't just basically fully block the EU region from accessing it. Even with cookie consents, and so on, it's not even enough.
Sorry for the people in the EU, but your region's power is getting fairly out of control, and out of your hands.
And what business in their right mind do they think they're attracting with these insane, all over the place rules that come out of thin air, when needed, and are ignored when needed but just not used the pressure the right company? Even better, how they think and do try to use their rules on companies based outside the EU, no company or website is safe from them, even if you don't do direct business within the EU (I wouldn't), they can still come after your US-based (or anywhere else) company if your website doesn't just basically fully block the EU region from accessing it. Even with cookie consents, and so on, it's not even enough.
Sorry for the people in the EU, but your region's power is getting fairly out of control, and out of your hands.
I know AI-generated things are generally discouraged here (consider an exception mods because the original story isn't particularly clear about the issues), but since the ruling was in Italian, I had ChatGPT help translate and pull out key points (rather than just basing this on the executive summary).
"AGCM investigated Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) rules on iOS (introduced in April 2021) and concluded Apple used its control of the iOS/App Store ecosystem to impose unfair conditions on third-party app developers.
The core problem, as AGCM frames it, is forced duplication of consent prompts:
They also argue this setup predictably lowers consent rates for third parties and harms ad-funded businesses (especially smaller ones), while Apple can benefit economically (including via App Store revenues and the growth of Apple’s own advertising business)."
Personally, I don't see how having to make another prompt is some sort of huge burden that should result in a large fine.
The real issue is the double consent process and the fact that advertising revenue dropped after Apple implemented ATT. The first is maybe an awkward technical issue but why is requiring a double consent about privacy intrusion a bad thing? The second thing (lower advertising revenue) sounds like progress to many people.
"AGCM investigated Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) rules on iOS (introduced in April 2021) and concluded Apple used its control of the iOS/App Store ecosystem to impose unfair conditions on third-party app developers.
The core problem, as AGCM frames it, is forced duplication of consent prompts:
- Apple’s ATT pop-up is not enough (in AGCM’s view) to satisfy privacy-law consent requirements for developers, so developers still need their own consent prompt (a CMP prompt).
- But Apple also requires the ATT prompt on top of that—so developers end up having to ask users twice for essentially the same advertising/tracking permission.
- AGCM says this duplication is unilaterally imposed, harmful to Apple’s commercial partners, and not proportionate to any legitimate privacy objective because privacy could be protected in less competition-restrictive ways (including enabling a single, compliant consent flow).
They also argue this setup predictably lowers consent rates for third parties and harms ad-funded businesses (especially smaller ones), while Apple can benefit economically (including via App Store revenues and the growth of Apple’s own advertising business)."
Personally, I don't see how having to make another prompt is some sort of huge burden that should result in a large fine.
The real issue is the double consent process and the fact that advertising revenue dropped after Apple implemented ATT. The first is maybe an awkward technical issue but why is requiring a double consent about privacy intrusion a bad thing? The second thing (lower advertising revenue) sounds like progress to many people.
Last edited:
Reward these devs
Not these
Vote with your wallet
Not these
Vote with your wallet
I prefer reasonably priced subscriptions to intrusive ads. I subscribe to a lot of things in order to avoid seeing ads (especially video ads): news, apps, streaming services, YouTube, etc.
If I don't notice an ad, it's fine. Pop-ups. Ads that cover content. Video ads. With very few exceptions I don't use services, apps, or sites that serve me any of those.
Usually I can understand when Apple is hit with these types of fines or lawsuits, but in this case I’m 100% on Apple’s side here. Developers can track you all they want, but they need the user’s consent about it. And that’s a good thing.
Day-um, Europe. Y'all can't have it both ways. Now they want Apple to take on the burden of implementing Tracking Transparency, but throw a hissy fit because that would make Apple an advertising gatekeeper. Let developers be responsible then it's a burden on developers. Well 💩. Apple can't win.
I never get people who love advertising and giving up on privacy. I guess they have 'nothing to hide'...
'They' do not want everything for free. 'They' just want transparency and a stop to hidden and blatant invasion of privacy.
On topic: I don't understand the Italian court decision. It makes no sense to me. I like Apple's solution. It's better than EU's insistence on cookie approval pop up windows on every frikking website. That just drives me nuts.
It always irked me, that that Apple's ATT prompt strongly suggested that users could completely opt out of tracking by app vendors. Yes, hiding the unique Ad-ID from apps makes tracking more difficult for ad companies like Meta, it does not really prevent it though.
Another dubious design decision by Apple is that you can't prevent apps from the same vendor from sharing each other's state on the same device. For example all Google apps will always know about each other by using shared storage on the phone. The same applies to Meta apps (FB, IG, WA).
Another dubious design decision by Apple is that you can't prevent apps from the same vendor from sharing each other's state on the same device. For example all Google apps will always know about each other by using shared storage on the phone. The same applies to Meta apps (FB, IG, WA).
Last edited:
Is the EU owned by corporations. It’s time to leave these socialist countries
And they’re now working to roll back the GDPR because, as ineffective as it is, it’s seen as too burdensome to the emboldened ad companies in the EU. This is enshi**ification at a region wide scale. And the only products they’ll be able to purchase in the future in the EU are ad laden ones.
That, I have NO doubt in saying, will still be sold mostly by companies not based in the EU.
Maybe it's time for Apple to start informing users when their governments force anti-consumer policies.
If/when Apple is forced to change or remove this functionality in the affected territories, they should do so with a modal dialog that pops up on every affected device that states, "your government required Apple to remove this privacy protection. If you disagree with this decision, contact your [insert representative/legislative body] at this URL/email/phone number."
Once thousands of calls and emails start pouring in every day, this nonsense will stop.
If/when Apple is forced to change or remove this functionality in the affected territories, they should do so with a modal dialog that pops up on every affected device that states, "your government required Apple to remove this privacy protection. If you disagree with this decision, contact your [insert representative/legislative body] at this URL/email/phone number."
Once thousands of calls and emails start pouring in every day, this nonsense will stop.
Does anyone getting outraged about this here even live in Italy?
(Ducks from incoming tomatoes)
I swear the Internet has just turned us all into rage bait victims
(Ducks from incoming tomatoes)
I swear the Internet has just turned us all into rage bait victims
The consent appears to be about the double-consent, rather than tracking prevention existing. Not sure how Apple could better go about this. System API for the GDPR notice that would take precedence over the tracking prevention?
As it stands, having 2 pop ups for privacy does seem to be bad UX.
As it stands, having 2 pop ups for privacy does seem to be bad UX.
Apple’s apps have an advantage because they’re not tracking users across apps and websites. If you’re in favor of companies tracking users across apps and websites without being informed it’s happening, then I understand your point, I just disagree with it.
Might as well also ask why corporations suck up to governments, including Apple here domestically.
No white knights exist.