Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, your current understanding, that every app is sandboxed and cannot access other apps is completely correct.

This feature is all about identifying users across apps. By default, iOS creates and stores an unique identifier (IDFA) which, currently, can be accessed by every app. This IDFA can be used to identify you across apps.

Let’s say you use Facebook and the Facebook app on your device. The Facebook app can get the IDFA and ‚attach' it to your profile. Now you use another app (that is not from Facebook) which implements the Facebook SDK to access things like Facebook Login. The SDK also collects the IDFA and sends the information to the Facebook servers. Now Facebook knows that you use app xy without them being the developers of that app. Therefore they were able to identify you across apps. Now every information that the SDK gets can also be attached to your Facebook account.

The new feature / permission limits the access to the IDFA, so Facebook (Their app and sdks) cannot use the IDFA to identify you anymore (except you grant permission to).
Thanks for your explanation
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
Very mixed feelings on this.

As a small business owner and part time Google / Facebook advertiser, the ability to track a users journey from advert through to customer, and optimise for people similar to my customers, is a huge benefit and greatly helps to understand the kind of people who are interested in our products and find more people like them.

I fear there is a lot of scaremongering about “tracking” from people who largely don’t understand the process. When a user clicks an ad on Facebook/Google that sends them through to a website, for example a clothing website, if the user accepts cookies on that website (which the vast majority of people do), data is fed back to Facebook to tell them when that user has carried out an action on the site. For example Added To Cart or Purchased. At no point does the advertiser get to see details of the person, they are entirely anonymous . But the “tracking” is incredibly useful because it tells an advertiser what demographic of people are purchasing from them, and allows the ad platforms to optimise for people similar to those who are responding. Without any tracking, the ad platforms become fairly useless. If you don’t know which adverts are working and which demographics are responding, it will lead to a lot of wasted ad spend for millions of companies.

And as a consumer, I don’t have an issue with being “tracked”. My personal details are not shared with anyone (just the digital footprint of my trail through a website). And I’m going to be advertised to forever more...I’d prefer those ads to be relevant to me and my interests.

I dunno, I just think it’s pretty “cool” at the moment to hate on Facebook/Google etc and moan about Privacy when personal details are not shared with advertisers, but then people are happily posting every detail of their lives online for their friends and the public to see.
 
Very mixed feelings on this.

As a small business owner and part time Google / Facebook advertiser, the ability to track a users journey from advert through to customer, and optimise for people similar to my customers, is a huge benefit and greatly helps to understand the kind of people who are interested in our products and find more people like them.

I fear there is a lot of scaremongering about “tracking” from people who largely don’t understand the process. When a user clicks an ad on Facebook/Google that sends them through to a website, for example a clothing website, if the user accepts cookies on that website (which the vast majority of people do), data is fed back to Facebook to tell them when that user has carried out an action on the site. For example Added To Cart or Purchased. At no point does the advertiser get to see details of the person, they are entirely anonymous . But the “tracking” is incredibly useful because it tells an advertiser what demographic of people are purchasing from them, and allows the ad platforms to optimise for people similar to those who are responding. Without any tracking, the ad platforms become fairly useless. If you don’t know which adverts are working and which demographics are responding, it will lead to a lot of wasted ad spend for millions of companies.

And as a consumer, I don’t have an issue with being “tracked”. My personal details are not shared with anyone (just the digital footprint of my trail through a website). And I’m going to be advertised to forever more...I’d prefer those ads to be relevant to me and my interests.

I dunno, I just think it’s pretty “cool” at the moment to hate on Facebook/Google etc and moan about Privacy when personal details are not shared with advertisers, but then people are happily posting every detail of their lives online for their friends and the public to see.


If people end up sharing details about themselves online, that’s called a choice, because they chose to upload a photo of themselves at the zoo or eating at some restaurant.

The point as always is not whether tracking is good, bad or benign but that users are not being given an option to opt out.

That’s really all this boils down to - giving some measure of control back to the user, where Facebook previously gave us none.
 
If people end up sharing details about themselves online, that’s called a choice, because they chose to upload a photo of themselves at the zoo or eating at some restaurant.

The point as always is not whether tracking is good, bad or benign but that users are not being given an option to opt out.

That’s really all this boils down to - giving some measure of control back to the user, where Facebook previously gave us none.

People choose to accept cookies, choose to accept Privacy Policies etc all the time. It’s part of Facebook’s privacy policy that if you click on an ad, non identifying information is tracked from it. It doesn’t tell anyone who you are, it doesn’t tell anyone where you live.
If people end up sharing details about themselves online, that’s called a choice, because they chose to upload a photo of themselves at the zoo or eating at some restaurant.

The point as always is not whether tracking is good, bad or benign but that users are not being given an option to opt out.

That’s really all this boils down to - giving some measure of control back to the user, where Facebook previously gave us none.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Facebook have a comprehensive Privacy Settings section, and one of those settings is to Allow or Deny Facebook ad pixel tracking.

Apple are doing this as nothing more than a PR stunt to try to show that they’re pro privacy, when in fact Facebook and Google will already allow you to switch off tracking if you so desired.

The problem here is it is going to make Facebook, Google, YouTube advertising much less effective as marketing platforms, which will lead to lawsuits and a lot of money wasted from small through to large companies. As things stand, Facebook ads in particular are incredibly effective BECAUSE you can track when a user takes the action you hope they will. If that goes away, so does the platform, so do the advertisers, so does the money, and at that point social media platforms will start charging monthly fees to users.

All because of a tiny bit of tracking code that helps advertisers see when their ads are working or not, with zero personal data shared with them.

Apple have picked a very problematic fight here.
 
People choose to accept cookies, choose to accept Privacy Policies etc all the time. It’s part of Facebook’s privacy policy that if you click on an ad, non identifying information is tracked from it. It doesn’t tell anyone who you are, it doesn’t tell anyone where you live.
I don't use Facebook and I really couldn't care less what their privacy policy is, because I sure didn't don't recall consenting to anything.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Facebook have a comprehensive Privacy Settings section, and one of those settings is to Allow or Deny Facebook ad pixel tracking.
So what's my option if I don't use Facebook?
Apple are doing this as nothing more than a PR stunt to try to show that they’re pro privacy, when in fact Facebook and Google will already allow you to switch off tracking if you so desired.
Actually, my main grouse with Apple is that I don't feel they are going far enough to safeguard my privacy. I have on numerous occasions shared screenshots about how the iOS lockdown app is routinely blocking thousands of trackers a day that are being administered via the apps I use (mostly Facebook and google trackers), and how I wish Apple would acquire said app and ship it preinstalled on every iOS device, to enable the blocking of all trackers on a system level.

Sadly, this will probably draw even more antirust scrutiny to Apple, so I will just seek some small solace in the knowledge that the 10+k trackers my iPhone and iPad block every day is that much less my online behaviour is being monitored.
The problem here is it is going to make Facebook, Google, YouTube advertising much less effective as marketing platforms, which will lead to lawsuits and a lot of money wasted from small through to large companies. As things stand, Facebook ads in particular are incredibly effective BECAUSE you can track when a user takes the action you hope they will. If that goes away, so does the platform, so do the advertisers, so does the money, and at that point social media platforms will start charging monthly fees to users.
Like I said, I don't use Facebook. Where's my option to tell Facebook not to track me, much less maintain a shadow profile of me?

I would gladly pay a monthly fee to not see ads, and not be tracked were I on a social media platform. I am already paying for YouTube premium and Macrumours.
All because of a tiny bit of tracking code that helps advertisers see when their ads are working or not, with zero personal data shared with them.
Which can still be the case, if consumers consent to being tracked.

And if I say no, it will be because I don't think the value proposition provided by customised ads is worth my browsing behaviour being tracked. The onus will be on Facebook and these companies to convince me otherwise. Perhaps users should be paid to use Facebook instead?

This is why Facebook wants to see the App Store broken up, and why I am so vehemently opposed to third party app stores. Because I know that companies like Facebook can't be trusted.
Apple have picked a very problematic fight here.
Facebook dug this hole for themselves, from Cambridge Analytica (where they were found exchanging data they had with other entities for data they lacked), to the Onavo VPN fiasco (where they were using a VPN app to track app usage on iOS devices) to getting teenagers to side load apps via TestFlight in order to track their usage habits (which led to Apple suspending their developer rights, causing quite the chaos back at Facebook headquarters IIRC).

Their ads are not helping their case either. If anything, it just helps draw more attention to what Apple is trying to do, and winning Apple more brownie points.

At this point, Facebook should be repenting and seeking our forgiveness, not acting like a petulant brat who is unhappy that he isn't getting his way.

Facebook deserves to burn.
 
People choose to accept cookies, choose to accept Privacy Policies etc all the time. It’s part of Facebook’s privacy policy that if you click on an ad, non identifying information is tracked from it. It doesn’t tell anyone who you are, it doesn’t tell anyone where you live.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Facebook have a comprehensive Privacy Settings section, and one of those settings is to Allow or Deny Facebook ad pixel tracking.

Apple are doing this as nothing more than a PR stunt to try to show that they’re pro privacy, when in fact Facebook and Google will already allow you to switch off tracking if you so desired.

The problem here is it is going to make Facebook, Google, YouTube advertising much less effective as marketing platforms, which will lead to lawsuits and a lot of money wasted from small through to large companies. As things stand, Facebook ads in particular are incredibly effective BECAUSE you can track when a user takes the action you hope they will. If that goes away, so does the platform, so do the advertisers, so does the money, and at that point social media platforms will start charging monthly fees to users.

All because of a tiny bit of tracking code that helps advertisers see when their ads are working or not, with zero personal data shared with them.

Apple have picked a very problematic fight here.

PR stunt huh ? Email the same ? There are many email companies on a wider-scale that supersedes PR stunts, that do pixel tracking..... to the point, how can't you call it a "stunt" anymore?

When does something that get so large change to "a standard"?

Ya, who thought people would flip out over a tiny thing... .:/
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
People choose to accept cookies, choose to accept Privacy Policies etc all the time. It’s part of Facebook’s privacy policy that if you click on an ad, non identifying information is tracked from it. It doesn’t tell anyone who you are, it doesn’t tell anyone where you live.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Facebook have a comprehensive Privacy Settings section, and one of those settings is to Allow or Deny Facebook ad pixel tracking.

Apple are doing this as nothing more than a PR stunt to try to show that they’re pro privacy, when in fact Facebook and Google will already allow you to switch off tracking if you so desired.

The problem here is it is going to make Facebook, Google, YouTube advertising much less effective as marketing platforms, which will lead to lawsuits and a lot of money wasted from small through to large companies. As things stand, Facebook ads in particular are incredibly effective BECAUSE you can track when a user takes the action you hope they will. If that goes away, so does the platform, so do the advertisers, so does the money, and at that point social media platforms will start charging monthly fees to users.

All because of a tiny bit of tracking code that helps advertisers see when their ads are working or not, with zero personal data shared with them.

Apple have picked a very problematic fight here.

Ya, who thought people would flip out over a tiny thing... .:/
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Babygotfont
I am not comfortable with the wording.
"Allow 'x' to track you across other apps and websites"

This means an app can see all my other apps and browsing history in all other browsers and all their data. Why is this an option!? Even if I only tracking it should be within that app only.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
I don't use Facebook and I really couldn't care less what their privacy policy is, because I sure didn't don't recall consenting to anything.

So what's my option if I don't use Facebook?

Actually, my main grouse with Apple is that I don't feel they are going far enough to safeguard my privacy. I have on numerous occasions shared screenshots about how the iOS lockdown app is routinely blocking thousands of trackers a day that are being administered via the apps I use (mostly Facebook and google trackers), and how I wish Apple would acquire said app and ship it preinstalled on every iOS device, to enable the blocking of all trackers on a system level.

Sadly, this will probably draw even more antirust scrutiny to Apple, so I will just seek some small solace in the knowledge that the 10+k trackers my iPhone and iPad block every day is that much less my online behaviour is being monitored.

Like I said, I don't use Facebook. Where's my option to tell Facebook not to track me, much less maintain a shadow profile of me?

I would gladly pay a monthly fee to not see ads, and not be tracked were I on a social media platform. I am already paying for YouTube premium and Macrumours.

Which can still be the case, if consumers consent to being tracked.

And if I say no, it will be because I don't think the value proposition provided by customised ads is worth my browsing behaviour being tracked. The onus will be on Facebook and these companies to convince me otherwise. Perhaps users should be paid to use Facebook instead?

This is why Facebook wants to see the App Store broken up, and why I am so vehemently opposed to third party app stores. Because I know that companies like Facebook can't be trusted.

Facebook dug this hole for themselves, from Cambridge Analytica (where they were found exchanging data they had with other entities for data they lacked), to the Onavo VPN fiasco (where they were using a VPN app to track app usage on iOS devices) to getting teenagers to side load apps via TestFlight in order to track their usage habits (which led to Apple suspending their developer rights, causing quite the chaos back at Facebook headquarters IIRC).

Their ads are not helping their case either. If anything, it just helps draw more attention to what Apple is trying to do, and winning Apple more brownie points.

At this point, Facebook should be repenting and seeking our forgiveness, not acting like a petulant brat who is unhappy that he isn't getting his way.

Facebook deserves to burn.
I completely understand why there is mistrust there with Facebook (re Cambridge Analytica), absolutely. But the “tracking” that you are seemingly so fearful of is nothing more than a tick mark if you complete a specific action that is then saved against your profile.

If you don’t have a Facebook profile, nothing is tracked as it is tied to your individual user ID.

And if you did have a Facebook account it would only serve as a “flag” to help Facebook understand the kind of thing you might be interested in seeing more of. No personal info or credit card info is tracked / stored and none of this information is shared with advertisers. The only info shared with advertisers is that “someone” has purchased a product for example, allowing advertisers to know which ads and which demographics are responding to their ads.

And if you ever did sign up to Facebook / YouTube etc, you are absolutely asked to agree to their terms / privacy policies, in which this info is contained.

As far as I can tell / as far as I care, users already have the option to opt out of tracking in privacy settings on both FB and Google, and there are plenty of third party tools available to block tracking too. The user has plenty of choice.

I just think that, as one myself, Apple are throwing millions of small business owners under the bus by putting a blanket yes/no statement like this on sites/apps. If you have ever tried to build a business you’d understand. The ability to target advertising at the right kind of people is critical to grow, and pulling that away from millions of businesses...well that’s a damn shame.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
I completely understand why there is mistrust there with Facebook (re Cambridge Analytica), absolutely. But the “tracking” that you are seemingly so fearful of is nothing more than a tick mark if you complete a specific action that is then saved against your profile.

If you don’t have a Facebook profile, nothing is tracked as it is tied to your individual user ID.

And if you did have a Facebook account it would only serve as a “flag” to help Facebook understand the kind of thing you might be interested in seeing more of. No personal info or credit card info is tracked / stored and none of this information is shared with advertisers. The only info shared with advertisers is that “someone” has purchased a product for example, allowing advertisers to know which ads and which demographics are responding to their ads.

And if you ever did sign up to Facebook / YouTube etc, you are absolutely asked to agree to their terms / privacy policies, in which this info is contained.

As far as I can tell / as far as I care, users already have the option to opt out of tracking in privacy settings on both FB and Google, and there are plenty of third party tools available to block tracking too. The user has plenty of choice.

I just think that, as one myself, Apple are throwing millions of small business owners under the bus by putting a blanket yes/no statement like this on sites/apps. If you have ever tried to build a business you’d understand. The ability to target advertising at the right kind of people is critical to grow, and pulling that away from millions of businesses...well that’s a damn shame.

Another point I didn’t mention earlier was that after installing the lockdown app, I noticed that the apps on my iphone and ipad ran noticeably faster and more smoothly, perhaps because they didn’t have all those extra trackers to load.

So privacy concerns aside, there is also a price on the user’s end in the form of compromised performance. Who compensates me for this?

While there are third party options, they are by no means mainstream. I think the number of people who would use such ad-blocking tools are still in the minority, and personally, I would like to see their adoption grow. Not because I want to see Facebook or small business owners suffer, but because I see this as the only way that entities like facebook will have any incentive to change for the better.

The rubicon has been crossed, and I guess the consolation I have for you is that while it probably will suck in the short run, my hope is that this will be worth it for everyone in the future in the form of less invasive tracking practices and a lighter, smoother browsing experience for everyone.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Babygotfont
Very mixed feelings on this.

As a small business owner and part time Google / Facebook advertiser, the ability to track a users journey from advert through to customer, and optimise for people similar to my customers, is a huge benefit and greatly helps to understand the kind of people who are interested in our products and find more people like them.

I fear there is a lot of scaremongering about “tracking” from people who largely don’t understand the process. When a user clicks an ad on Facebook/Google that sends them through to a website, for example a clothing website, if the user accepts cookies on that website (which the vast majority of people do), data is fed back to Facebook to tell them when that user has carried out an action on the site. For example Added To Cart or Purchased. At no point does the advertiser get to see details of the person, they are entirely anonymous . But the “tracking” is incredibly useful because it tells an advertiser what demographic of people are purchasing from them, and allows the ad platforms to optimise for people similar to those who are responding. Without any tracking, the ad platforms become fairly useless. If you don’t know which adverts are working and which demographics are responding, it will lead to a lot of wasted ad spend for millions of companies.

And as a consumer, I don’t have an issue with being “tracked”. My personal details are not shared with anyone (just the digital footprint of my trail through a website). And I’m going to be advertised to forever more...I’d prefer those ads to be relevant to me and my interests.

I dunno, I just think it’s pretty “cool” at the moment to hate on Facebook/Google etc and moan about Privacy when personal details are not shared with advertisers, but then people are happily posting every detail of their lives online for their friends and the public to see.


You're right of course but good luck getting the vast majority on here to take anything like a balanced point of view.

It's funny because their is no question that Smartphone sales have benefitted enormously from social media and vice versa yet Apple seem to be on some kind of crusade against Facebook in particular. To the non blinkered amongst us it seems like a pretty transparent attempt from Apple to play to the gallery at a time when Facebooks stock isn't particularly high.

Still in the long term I think Apple might find that people care about this a lot less than they think..

Facebook 1.8 billion daily active users
Instagram - 1 billion daily active users

Billions of people a day choosing to use Facebooks platforms (without mentioning the 2 billion using WhatsApp).

The most important thing to note, if you have any interest in balance rather than shilling for big tech, is that Apple positions itself as a champion for privacy but still pockets Googles money and serves them up as the default search option on iOS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Babygotfont
No, your current understanding, that every app is sandboxed and cannot access other apps is completely correct.

This feature is all about identifying users across apps. By default, iOS creates and stores an unique identifier (IDFA) which, currently, can be accessed by every app. This IDFA can be used to identify you across apps.

Let’s say you use Facebook and the Facebook app on your device. The Facebook app can get the IDFA and ‚attach' it to your profile. Now you use another app (that is not from Facebook) which implements the Facebook SDK to access things like Facebook Login. The SDK also collects the IDFA and sends the information to the Facebook servers. Now Facebook knows that you use app xy without them being the developers of that app. Therefore they were able to identify you across apps. Now every information that the SDK gets can also be attached to your Facebook account.

The new feature / permission limits the access to the IDFA's , so Facebook (Their app and sdks) cannot use the IDFA to identify you anymore (except you grant permission to).

Seems Apple introduced the problem in the first place by allowing IFDA's.Without IDFA's you would solve te problem, no need to warn people of anything because nothing ever could cross

While it gives convenience, give me privacy anyway over.

It's good to know an app can request info from another app, and i guess people are willing to give some of that up.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
Why is it gross? It’s the equivalent of a CCTV camera seeing you walk into a shop and purchase something. No one knows who you are.

Hating on Facebook and hating on tracking pixels etc seems to be flavour of the month / year at the moment, mainly by people who have zero idea how it works, why it’s beneficial, how it IMPROVES the user experience, and the ramifications of removing it.

The biggest ramification being that without tracking, Facebook and Google’s advertising platforms become useless, which leads to advertisers pulling out, which leads eventually (my bet being within 3 years) all social media platforms requiring a monthly subscription.

All because of something so minor as a pixel that logs if you bought something from an advert you decided to click on.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Babygotfont
Another point I didn’t mention earlier was that after installing the lockdown app, I noticed that the apps on my iphone and ipad ran noticeably faster and more smoothly, perhaps because they didn’t have all those extra trackers to load.

So privacy concerns aside, there is also a price on the user’s end in the form of compromised performance. Who compensates me for this?

While there are third party options, they are by no means mainstream. I think the number of people who would use such ad-blocking tools are still in the minority, and personally, I would like to see their adoption grow. Not because I want to see Facebook or small business owners suffer, but because I see this as the only way that entities like facebook will have any incentive to change for the better.

The rubicon has been crossed, and I guess the consolation I have for you is that while it probably will suck in the short run, my hope is that this will be worth it for everyone in the future in the form of less invasive tracking practices and a lighter, smoother browsing experience for everyone.
I appreciate you are overly concerned about all of this, but I don’t see how there could be “a less invasive tracking practice”. To repeat, the Facebook and Google tracking is in no way invasive. Firstly, it is optional for the user, holds and shares no personal data about the user, and is designed to improve the experience for both users and advertisers. What could be less invasive?

Apple are creating a storm in a teacup, throwing Facebook, Google and other ad platforms under the bus along with millions of small business owners, for PR purposes and to fix a problem that isn’t really a problem / that the media are trying to turn into a problem.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
I appreciate you are overly concerned about all of this, but I don’t see how there could be “a less invasive tracking practice”. To repeat, the Facebook and Google tracking is in no way invasive. Firstly, it is optional for the user, holds and shares no personal data about the user, and is designed to improve the experience for both users and advertisers. What could be less invasive?

A world with zero tracking.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
Why is it gross? It’s the equivalent of a CCTV camera seeing you walk into a shop and purchase something.

First of all: also a little gross.

But second, no, it isn't. The one big difference is that areas that has CCTV will typically warn you about it. Apps that do the equivalent should have a scary icon, too. Which is precisely what Apple is doing here.

No one knows who you are.

No one on looking at a camera feed knows who I am? 😐

Hating on Facebook and hating on tracking pixels etc seems to be flavour of the month / year at the moment, mainly by people who have zero idea how it works, why it’s beneficial, how it IMPROVES the user experience, and the ramifications of removing it.

It improves the experience? This really isn't a hill you should die on.

You're either trolling or haven't spent half a second reading up about privacy risks that come with tracking. What happens if Facebook has a security breach? What happens if a government mandates access to the data? What happens when banks start refusing to lend money based on the profile?

The biggest ramification being that without tracking, Facebook and Google’s advertising platforms become useless,

No they don't. Advertisements in magazines weren't "useless". They worked just fine. They may not have been quite as effective as precision-targeted ads, but they worked. This idea that it's either tracking or nothing is bollocks.

which leads to advertisers pulling out, which leads eventually (my bet being within 3 years) all social media platforms requiring a monthly subscription.

I'd love to pay an annual subscription to Twitter in return for zero tracking, actually.

All because of something so minor as a pixel that logs if you bought something from an advert you decided to click on.

Well, I hope you're either trolling or simply haven't thought about the ramifications at all. Hope you enjoy your first identity theft! Those are pretty fun for the entire family.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Babygotfont
Very mixed feelings on this.

As a small business owner and part time Google / Facebook advertiser, the ability to track a users journey from advert through to customer, and optimise for people similar to my customers, is a huge benefit and greatly helps to understand the kind of people who are interested in our products and find more people like them.

I fear there is a lot of scaremongering about “tracking” from people who largely don’t understand the process. When a user clicks an ad on Facebook/Google that sends them through to a website, for example a clothing website, if the user accepts cookies on that website (which the vast majority of people do), data is fed back to Facebook to tell them when that user has carried out an action on the site.


For example Added To Cart or Purchased. At no point does the advertiser get to see details of the person, they are entirely anonymous . But the “tracking” is incredibly useful because it tells an advertiser what demographic of people are purchasing from them, and allows the ad platforms to optimise for people similar to those who are responding. Without any tracking, the ad platforms become fairly useless.

Ok, so advertisers don't get the full profile, but Facebook sure as hell knows EVERYTHING you do.

If you don’t know which adverts are working and which demographics are responding, it will lead to a lot of wasted ad spend for millions of companies.

Oh doom and gloom - sorry, but advertising companies have become lazy since targeting with the majority of "ads" being non-engaging or simply static images. Relying on targeted advertising means you are not doing a very good job as a creative.

And as a consumer, I don’t have an issue with being “tracked”. My personal details are not shared with anyone (just the digital footprint of my trail through a website). And I’m going to be advertised to forever more...I’d prefer those ads to be relevant to me and my interests.

I dunno, I just think it’s pretty “cool” at the moment to hate on Facebook/Google etc and moan about Privacy when personal details are not shared with advertisers, but then people are happily posting every detail of their lives online for their friends and the public to see.
Advert tracking is akin to some guy following you home every night for no good reason ... you see him out of the corner of your eye, hiding behind lamp posts and garbage bins, you never get a good look, but you know he's there.

Would that make you uneasy ? Would that make you want to confront him ? Would that make you want to take out a restraining order ? Probably all of the above.

It's called stalking and there are laws against it - the difference with digital stalking for money is that it's been made completely legal and you cannot sue the stalker (yet).

As regards to people posting every detail of their lives - thats a choice, and you can choose not to post or lock down your profiles (yeah I know everyone wants to be famous but thats on them).
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Babygotfont
First of all: also a little gross.

But second, no, it isn't. The one big difference is that areas that has CCTV will typically warn you about it. Apps that do the equivalent should have a scary icon, too. Which is precisely what Apple is doing here.



No one on looking at a camera feed knows who I am? 😐



It improves the experience? This really isn't a hill you should die on.

You're either trolling or haven't spent half a second reading up about privacy risks that come with tracking. What happens if Facebook has a security breach? What happens if a government mandates access to the data? What happens when banks start refusing to lend money based on the profile?



No they don't. Advertisements in magazines weren't "useless". They worked just fine. They may not have been quite as effective as precision-targeted ads, but they worked. This idea that it's either tracking or nothing is bollocks.



I'd love to pay an annual subscription to Twitter in return for zero tracking, actually.



Well, I hope you're either trolling or simply haven't thought about the ramifications at all. Hope you enjoy your first identity theft! Those are pretty fun for the entire family.
There’s a lot to unpack here. Firstly, I am absolutely not a troll...just someone who is very concerned by this for businesses.

Firstly, yes...it absolutely does improve user experience. Without ad tracking (or any tracking) you would be bombarded with completely irrelevant adverts all day and all night. Ad tracking allows advertisers to target by geography, demographic and interests. That is a good thing. I know I would hate to bombarded with adverts for completely irrelevant products, services or people. It’s not perfect, but it’s hugely preferable to the alternative.

Secondly, I’m sure you’d be willing to pay for Twitter. I’d guess that there’d be hundreds of millions of people who wouldn’t be prepared to though.

Thirdly, I think you’re grossly over egging what exactly is being tracked by Facebook or Google on external sites and apps, and for how long. The tracking is in place to understand a users behaviour on a website, but there is ZERO personal tracking involved. No names, no addresses, no credit card details. The only details that are being tracked are whether there is a matching user ID on Facebook and what behaviour happens on the site...whether someone added a specific type of product to a cart, purchased something etc.

If you don’t have a Facebook account, nothing is stored anywhere. If you do, the incredibly minor details of your user journey are stored for 120 days to make the advertising platform more relevant and useful.

Lastly, identity theft. Absolutely...it’s a concern. It’s a concern if you have a Facebook profile or any profile on any website / social media platform. Without “tracking” you have already given the bulk of your info to the platforms. If you’ve ever shopped online you’ve given your details, addresses, credit card details. The “tracking” that websites do is far more inconsequential to any identity theft worries than any of your general day to day internet usage. What is a criminal going to do with the knowledge that you viewed a blue T Shirt on a website 86 days ago.

And that’s before you get into encryption. Facebook, Google, Apple etc have some of the most advanced, secure encryption in the world. By far. That data, as inconsequential as it is, is far far far less likely to be compromised than giving your credit details on a third party website. And considerably less so since the Cambridge Analytica issue.

And I’ll say it one more time because it doesn’t appear to matter to you...I feel you’re probably a super paranoid person. You ALREADY have the option to stop tracking if you so desire. I personally wouldn’t... I don’t have even the slightest problem with it. But the option is there for you already. I don’t see why a purposefully negative, scaremongering, message should be thrust in people’s faces by Apple.

Lastly, you are clearly highlighting your lack of knowledge if you believe magazine advertising was in any way comparable to social media advertising. Zero targeting, huge costs, no tracking to see if your advertising is working.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Babygotfont
Ok, so advertisers don't get the full profile, but Facebook sure as hell knows EVERYTHING you do.



Oh doom and gloom - sorry, but advertising companies have become lazy since targeting with the majority of "ads" being non-engaging or simply static images. Relying on targeted advertising means you are not doing a very good job as a creative.


Advert tracking is akin to some guy following you home every night for no good reason ... you see him out of the corner of your eye, hiding behind lamp posts and garbage bins, you never get a good look, but you know he's there.

Would that make you uneasy ? Would that make you want to confront him ? Would that make you want to take out a restraining order ? Probably all of the above.

It's called stalking and there are laws against it - the difference with digital stalking for money is that it's been made completely legal and you cannot sue the stalker (yet).

As regards to people posting every detail of their lives - thats a choice, and you can choose not to post or lock down your profiles (yeah I know everyone wants to be famous but thats on them).
This is about as pathetic a post as I’ve ever read on MacRumors. Congratulations.

I will say it again...if you don’t want your activity on websites / adverts tracked, switch it off in your privacy settings. It’s as simple as that.

The rest of your post is just pathetic and not worth responding to. You’re just displaying an incredible lack of understanding on the subject.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Babygotfont
There’s a lot to unpack here. Firstly, I am absolutely not a troll...just someone who is very concerned by this for businesses.

Then you should be very concerned with Facebook. They are not your friend, and will lie to you about ad metrics.

Firstly, yes...it absolutely does improve user experience. Without ad tracking (or any tracking) you would be bombarded with completely irrelevant adverts all day and all night.

I understand the theory behind this, but in practice, "oh gosh, those ads are highly relevant and definitely my area of interest!" is rarely something I've found to be true.

Secondly, I’m sure you’d be willing to pay for Twitter. I’d guess that there’d be hundreds of millions of people who wouldn’t be prepared to though.

Yes, absolutely, but that's neither here nor there.

Here's what you said: "which leads eventually (my bet being within 3 years) all social media platforms requiring a monthly subscription." And here's how I personally feel about that: good! Because it's a far more honest business model where the cost is clear.

Thirdly, I think you’re grossly over egging what exactly is being tracked by Facebook or Google on external sites and apps, and for how long. The tracking is in place to understand a users behaviour on a website, but there is ZERO personal tracking involved. No names, no addresses, no credit card details.

I think you're conflating "I, as a client to their ad services, don't get personal information" with "they don't collect that information".

If you don’t have a Facebook account, nothing is stored anywhere.

This is flat-out false.


Lastly, identity theft. Absolutely...it’s a concern. It’s a concern if you have a Facebook profile or any profile on any website / social media platform. Without “tracking” you have already given the bulk of your info to the platforms. If you’ve ever shopped online you’ve given your details, addresses, credit card details.

"There's already a risk of PII loss anyway" isn't a valid argument.


And that’s before you get into encryption. Facebook, Google, Apple etc have some of the most advanced, secure encryption in the world.

That only protects the data from breaches, and only when it works. It doesn't protect me from the company.

(And yes, those companies have skilled software engineers. That's neither here nor there.)

And I’ll say it one more time because it doesn’t appear to matter to you...I feel you’re probably a super paranoid person.

No, I'm a software engineer.

Maybe that's the same thing?

Lastly, you are clearly highlighting your lack of knowledge if you believe magazine advertising was in any way comparable to social media advertising. Zero targeting, huge costs, no tracking to see if your advertising is working.

And yet, it worked. Funny, that.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Babygotfont
Honestly I really appreciate this effort by Apple. I'm sure a lot of companies are going to be steamed though! Especially Google - I see that it blocks analytics running in some instances.
 
I completely understand why there is mistrust there with Facebook (re Cambridge Analytica), absolutely. But the “tracking” that you are seemingly so fearful of is nothing more than a tick mark if you complete a specific action that is then saved against your profile.

If you don’t have a Facebook profile, nothing is tracked as it is tied to your individual user ID.

And if you did have a Facebook account it would only serve as a “flag” to help Facebook understand the kind of thing you might be interested in seeing more of. No personal info or credit card info is tracked / stored and none of this information is shared with advertisers. The only info shared with advertisers is that “someone” has purchased a product for example, allowing advertisers to know which ads and which demographics are responding to their ads.

And if you ever did sign up to Facebook / YouTube etc, you are absolutely asked to agree to their terms / privacy policies, in which this info is contained.

As far as I can tell / as far as I care, users already have the option to opt out of tracking in privacy settings on both FB and Google, and there are plenty of third party tools available to block tracking too. The user has plenty of choice.

I just think that, as one myself, Apple are throwing millions of small business owners under the bus by putting a blanket yes/no statement like this on sites/apps. If you have ever tried to build a business you’d understand. The ability to target advertising at the right kind of people is critical to grow, and pulling that away from millions of businesses...well that’s a damn shame.
Its not JUST Facebook though, it's across virtually any website or app that uses a third party advertiser or analytics provider.

Screen Shot 2020-12-28 at 11.43.33 PM.png
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.