Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Software Chief Craig Federighi Defends App Tracking Transparency Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lots of people don't understand that Apple's own advertising (in Weather, Stock, News, etc.) IS NOT included in the app level LAT settings, and does not pop the ATT modal.
If Apple wants to do this, they need to abide by their own rules.
If Apple wants to do this, they need to abide by their own rules.
Oh, Facebook doesn't like it? Who gives a @#$@?
Following Apple's confirmation that it still plans to introduce a new App Tracking Transparency feature that will let users know when companies want to track them across apps and websites, which has attracted criticism from companies such as Facebook, Craig Federighi has explained more about the rationale behind the change to The Independent.
The App Tracking Transparency feature allows users to opt-out of data collection and choose whether advertisers can track their activity. While it was originally supposed to arrive with iOS 14 earlier this year, Apple postponed the feature until early 2021 to give developers more time to accommodate it.
Federighi told The Independent that the new feature can be put down to Apple's support for privacy as a "core value" that has been present "since the beginning of the company," citing how Steve Jobs highlighted the Apple II's ability to allow users to secure their own information on floppy disks and have control over their data.
He said that the feature would ultimately be "better for even the people that are currently, at times protesting those moves," because it increases trust between users, developers, and advertisers. Federighi also said that similar concerns had been raised in the past about new privacy features, but they did not result in long-term issues, and eventually became widespread across the industry:
Federighi also noted that Apple is not the largest manufacturer in most markets and implied that customers can choose whether or not they want to buy an Apple device:
Federighi confirmed that Apple's decision to postpone the feature was singularly due to the concerns of some developers who feared that opting out of ad tracking would impact how their apps work, rather than disputes with the ad industry.
Although Apple has not announced any further privacy protection features that could affect the ad industry, Federighi said "we're going to watch and see what happens and try to make sure that we can keep the ecosystem healthy," hinting that more changes could be made in the future.
Finally, Federighi pointed to some of Apple's privacy features that have benefited users in the past, while still preserving the needs of the ad industry. He specifically mentioned the SKAdNetwork tool, which allows developers to track when an ad had led to a sale of a product, which has become a key metric for many advertisers, saying "we created a framework for doing that in a privacy-protecting way."
Future updates, he said, could bring more ways for the ad industry to "improve their ability to do effective advertising while preserving privacy, and we want to work technically on solutions to make that more and more effective."
Read the full interview at The Independent.
Article Link: Apple Software Chief Craig Federighi Defends App Tracking Transparency Feature I am happy this feature is coming. I think it needs to be released sooner rather than later!
I would not mind Facebook doing their data harvesting on users, if I was being paid by them to provide info on my life. Being the source of revenue for them with no compensation? That’s a big no.
Same as Google: the only service of theirs I cannot find an alternative is YouTube - because the content creators are still there. Other than that, I make no use of anything Alphabet related.
Same as Google: the only service of theirs I cannot find an alternative is YouTube - because the content creators are still there. Other than that, I make no use of anything Alphabet related.
So, I assume you consume zero free content? No websites that are ad supported (including ... um this one), no Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok? None of that? No Reddit? No forums of any kind?
You're being PAID with the free content and service. That's how ad supported sites work. Paying users to sell their data means... nothing? It's a stupid argument that ignored the product they produce for users in the first place.
“Facebook is against it” is the biggest endorsement you can get.
Apple should be touting that.
Apple should be touting that.
Oh Facebook. To quote Seinfeld: "You know, the very fact that you oppose this makes me think I'm on to something!"
I agree with you, although they would argue their services are what you get in return. It’s up to opinion as to how much each (their service or your privacy) is worth... it’s hard to say.
Ha love all the self righteous comments in here. 99.9% of all people commenting here have Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, TikTok. You are the problem, not these companies. If you are using any of these free aps without paying for the service, then guess what----YOU ARE THE PAYMENT, YOUR PRIVACY IS THE PAYMENT. You can't act all self righteous and say yea my privacy wah wah facebook and then continue to use "free" social media apps. I don't have a single social media app and never will. I don't use Gmail or Chrome or any other free service where they use my privacy as the payment. Love the people saying if Facebook hates it then I love it. Then they immediately open up the Facebook app to look through their feed all while thinking they're sticking it to these companies.
It sounds like you're assuming non-tracked advertising has either zero or minimized value. If so, you're very much wrong. It has tons of value.
I personally don't give two doodies about Facebook showing me ads. What I very much do care about is them following my habits without my knowledge. THAT is an invasion of privacy. Facebook would be perfectly solvent even if forced to totally randomize which ad goes to which person.
Because he's being interviewed by a journalist? And the Independent's audience is wider than people only in tech. With many not understanding the difference between privacy and security.
Not a single person is forcing anyone here to use Facebook. Love the people who are so virtuous about privacy. I hope those that love to preach from their soap box realize that without targeted ads....your favorite website disappears for good...including this one.
We live in a world where any action is twisted into a nefarious conspiracy theory. Apple is busy sowing the fields so that when they do this their message about why they did it will already have saturated a bit into a braindead populace.
Or websites could charge customers, or present untargeted ads.
40 years ago, if your hometown newspaper went through your trash to figure and listened in to your hardwired phone calls and over-the-fence chats with your neighbors, and then, after characterizing you as falling into the category "promiscuous bird watcher who likes easy listening music and sympathizes with anti-semitic viewpoints," delivered a paper to your doorstep with ads - and stories - customized just for you, you'd be rightfully freaked out about it.
That's not that different than what's going on right now.
The difference is you had to pay for the newspaper so that was their income stream. Everyone expects everything on the internet to be free and all social media to be free AND not target them with ads. I guess they expect facebook et al to operate as non-profit charities. I don't like being spied on so I don't use the services. Can't use the free services then complain about your privacy.
I would rather have them address something Apple does. Like Big Sur contacting Apple servers every time user runs an app. Bypassing all firewalls, network monitoring and VPNs.
sigpipe.macromates.com
macOS 10.15: Slow by Design
Yet you're posting on MacRumors and paying for it with targeted ads. Or you're blocking the ads, denying the site of that little bit of income.
Here, I'll make you an offer - we both sign up to be MacRumors Contributors for a year and I won't think badly of you. How about it? You in? 😏
How do you know I haven't contributed to MacRumors? I pay for a few services I enjoy online. For the other sites I have about four levels of tracking prevention and adblocking on my home network so I'm not too concerned. If a site does target me, I don't act self righteous and complain about it because I used the service and didn't pay for it. That's the opposite of what everyone on here is doing.
Monetarily? I'll know for sure when I see you displaying one of the optional Contributor user titles under your user name. Prove me wrong 😏
Good. I happy they haven't postponed it like AirPower.
Also, Facebook is against it, what a surprise.
Also, Facebook is against it, what a surprise.
I haven't contributed in the last year. I haven't commented on a post in years now. I just couldn't help it when i saw all the self righteous commenters on this thread. I've donated $20 few times over the years. Just like I have to a handful of other website I enjoy. I don't know anything about the contributor tag on my profile. I haven't been on this site actually logged in for quite a while. I browse most websites logged out anonymously.
If that was their income stream, there would not have been ads.
But if you want to be pedantic, replace “newspaper” with “broadcast television station.” Same thing.
Yea, but once again. Everyone who reads newspapers knows that there are ads in the newspaper. I have never heard one person complain about newspaper ads. Just like I have the ad-supported version of Hulu. I don't particularly like watching the ads, but I know that the ads subsidize my having Hulu for $24 for the entire year so I don't complain about it. There's not a single person alive who doesn't know that Facebook targets them to pay for the service, but yet everyone complains about it and loves to put on their self righteous hat and act like it's my human right to use Facebook for free and not be targeted for ads. This is simple, Facebook is a choice people make--it is not forced on anyone by the government to use it. Anyone who makes the choice to use Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, TikTok should not be complaining about ads lest they want to be called a hypocrite.
The problem isn’t ads. The problem is the privacy-violations that go into TARGETTED ads.
And if Facebook came clean with everyone who signs up for the service - “if you sign up, we will look at everything you do on the web, whatever pages you go to, what you buy, etc., to the extent we can gather that information, and we will use all that to lump you into dozens of narrowly-define categories, based on demographics, purchases, health, predilections, hobbies, interests, etc., and then allow anyone willing to pay us to target ads specifically at you,” it is unlikely that they’d have nearly as many users as they do.
People do not generally understand this sort of stuff is going on.