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 Warns App Tracking Transparency Could Be Disabled in Europe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Users should be able to deny tracking as easy as allowing it. With ATT I can easily deny tracking which is great but for Apple's own applications and services I still have to go into their settings and disable it (personal recommendations or measurement of ad effectiveness), enabling ATT is not enough.
"Apple said today that it might be "forced" to disable a key anti-ad tracking feature in the European Union"
Fake news?
Every webpage and app must have the user's specific permission in the EU, at least in my country. We can refuse all permissions and still read the webpage and use the app. That's the law, and breaking it brings harsh punishing for the app, or web site, or whatever.
Fake news?
Every webpage and app must have the user's specific permission in the EU, at least in my country. We can refuse all permissions and still read the webpage and use the app. That's the law, and breaking it brings harsh punishing for the app, or web site, or whatever.
Just remember — if you’ve paid nothing for the app, you are the product!
(Anti) Social Apps just love their data generators (Customers). Free money for the company supplying the “free” app.
What prompt in Apple apps?! Can you show this supposed promp? There is no prompt. Apple apps don't need a prompt because the don't do cross-site tracking. Just like any other app that doesn't do cross-site tracking.
It is hard to understand the judgments that have been made in EU member State courts, but it does seem as if another American business has been pushing this "Blue on Blue" attack so I do not think that the EU itself can be held to account in this instance.
pray tell, why is siri enabled in all apps by default the moment you install them, even though siri itself is disabled?
if privacy crusader Apple is so concerned about my privacy, all its tracking advertising etc settings should be off and left to opt-in at user's discretion.
I cannot show any prompt as I have disabled the ability for apps to request tracking altogether long ago and I'm not even sure the prompt issues discussed by the regulators are relevant to my country as some seems specific to their regulations.
The original press release from the French authorities (link to the English version) provides a summary of their findings:
And further:
I'm not sure whether the German and Italian regulators have similar issues as I haven't looked into it yet.
Gruber already destroyed this. Just go read it:
France Fines Apple $162M for App Tracking Transparency, Taking the Side of Surveillance Advertisers Over Users
It’s like a consortium of sketchy pawn shops complaining to the authorities after a retailer successfully cracked down on an organized shoplifting/pickpocketing ring, and the authorities then fining the retailer for the damage to the pawnbrokers’ business fencing stolen goods — and for exposing...
daringfireball.net
Why, pray tell, are you asking me a question that has nothing to do with the question that you responded to?
That's the dumbest logic I've seen yet. Right up there with cookie banners. France is saying that Apple shouldn't get user preferences at an OS level because they require each app to get permission on its own. What consumer unfriendly nonsense.
Again, you're repeating what they said, but ignoring the problem. Again, ATT only applies when an app "collects data about end users and shares it with other companies for purposes of tracking across apps and web sites." Apple apps do not share data with other companies, so they do not need to display an ATT prompt.
I actually agree that ATT in its current form is better than nothing, but I also believe it's fair to say that its' "first-party" exclusion does raise some concerns.
The issue IMHO is that Apple designed ATT so that first-party tracking is excluded, which gives a provider like Apple with its whole ecosystem of apps and services a big advantage. Apple does not need as much third-party tracking when they can rely on first-party tracking across their whole ecosystem, so by penalizing third-party tracking they are effectively giving themselves an advantage.
I am against tracking, so I think Apple is doing a good thing in "limiting" it, but it's also fair to say that they do have a conflict of interest that makes regulator take actions. That's is IMHO what ultimately the regulators are having issues with.
The exact same rules apply to Apple and Meta. Just because Apple doesn't want to track what you do in non-Apple apps and the web and Meta wants to track what you do in third-party apps and the web doesn't mean Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage. Meta wants that data to serve you ads. Apple doesn't.
My understanding is that the consent obtained through the "OS level" prompt was not legally valid, so it could not be used, causing apps to require an additional, legally compliant prompt. I think French's regulators would have been fine with an OS level legally compliant prompt that could replace the individual ones.
I have no idea why it was determined not legally compliant though.
As I posted above, I suspect the first-party exclusion in ATT is actually what the regulators see as a fundamental problem.
Whereby "first party tracking" you mean tracking user preferences and purchases? That's how apps work. Not sure what you are getting at here.
The French regulators explicitly mention how "small publishers" are disproportionately affected by ATT. I doubt Meta is considered a "small publisher" in this context.
BUT THERE IS NO EXCLUSION. Apple does not track across third party apps and devices
It's like saying my local grocery store, that doesn't sell alcohol, should be required to ask me for ID when buying groceries because it's unfair the liquor store next door has to ask me for ID when I buy products there, and that "discourages" sales at the liquor store, even though the grocery store made a conscious decision not to sell alcohol. It's nonsense.
Regulators making this argument are either completely incompetent or completely bought and sold by ad companies. Pick which one makes the most sense to you, but it's one of those two.
My understanding is that ATT prevents tracking only between different vendors. Apps from a single vendor are not affected by ATT. Is that incorrect?
That's correct. Are you saying that it's unfair or a privacy issue that Apple knows what I purchased from Apple and doesn't share that info with any other companies?!?
ATT says "you have to ask users' permission before tracking users OUTSIDE of your own apps/websites." Meta is able to track users across its own apps and websites (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) without permission because they all belong to Meta, but if they want to also track what users do inside your local newspaper's app, they have to get the user's permission."
Apple doesn't track users across third party apps and websites. They don't track what you do in your local newspaper's app. If they did track you what you were doing in your local newspaper's app, then ATT would apply to them.
Think of it like a mall rule: “Stores must get permission before sharing customer data with other stores in the mall.” France is saying that rule is unfair because the mall owner’s own store doesn’t ask for permission, even though that store doesn’t share data with anyone. It's nonsense.
IMHO that's actually what regulators are concerned with.
Apple offers a very broad palette of apps and services. Since they designed ATT to exclude first-party apps, their whole ecosystem can effectively cross-track user activities without being affected by ATT much at all. The result is that ATT is basically not hurting Apple at all, whereas it's hurting vendors that do not or cannot provide that kind of apps and services' footprint or ecosystem.
Now, part of me says "that's those third-party vendors' fault for relying on third-party vendors for user data" and Apple's integration is undeniably part of their appeal, but Apple does gain an advantage by the way ATT is designed. I think ATT is a net positive, but I do believe the regulators' concern is not unreasonable either.
It's worse than that. France seems to be saying that Apple can't enforce ATT (which has been proven to work) because each app already needs to obtain permission on its own anyway (which doesn't work) under French law.
Germany is the one complaining that Apple does have to ask permission to do the thing that Apple doesn't do.
Appreciate the correction. And people honestly wonder why many think there is too much regulation in Europe.
Taking your mall example, here the owner of the mall also has their own newspaper, restaurants, movie theater etc... and they can share data across all these businesses. Do they really need third-party businesses' data that much when they have a significant footprint in the mall already with their multiple first-party venues and can use the data from all these sources?
On the other side you, local newspaper, have a much more limited access to data unless you access third-party data, since your footprint is much smaller and much more specific.
Basically the rules are the same, but due to how the rules are designed the local newspaper is disproportionately affected much more severely than the large mall + multiple businesses' owner.
I hope this helps to clarify what I believe is the main regulator's beef.