Germany Considering Apple's App Tracking Transparency Changes

[BaldiMac]

This is incorrect. No consent is required for either type of tracking so long as GDPR regulations are also followed.

The issue here isn’t who is doing the tracking at all, first or third party. The issue is that the first party is preventing third-parties from access to tracking while the first party retains free-reign to do all the tracking it likes. That’s anti-competitive, and that’s the issue at hand.

Apple can stop being anti-competitive by treating their own tracking exactly like they treat third party tracking and give users the same options to limit Apple’s tracking in the same way. Or they remove ATT entirely, and allow all tracking. I’d prefer the former, but so long as they treat their own apps equally, they’re okay as far as the regulations are concerned.

Again, you don’t have a basic understanding of the terms here. First party tracking doesn’t mean Apple. It refers to the app developer, whether it be Apple, Meta, or an Indy developer. Likewise, third party tracking means tracking across apps an websites other than the developer.

First party tracking is normal and doesn’t require consent. You generally want an app to remember what you do. Netflix remembers my history and suggests similar shows. That’s first party tracking.

Third party tracking is when developers share my information with advertisers and other developers. If developers want to do that, they need to ask user permission through the ATT prompt.

 

[BaldiMac]

It doesn’t matter that Apple’s apps aren’t sharing the data with Facebook or something, they’re still tracking you across multiple Apple apps.

Any developer can do that. Apple apps aren’t special in that context.

 

[surferfb]

The EU wants Apple to treat itself equally to third-parties. That’s literally it. This is an EU regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, not a regulation about privacy. GDPR is the EU regulation for that.

It already does. If you don’t want to listen to me, here’s an article from 3 years ago from Gruber:

German Regulators Open Investigation Into Apple’s App Tracking Transparency

If you want to argue that Apple engaged in this entire ATT endeavor to benefit its own Search Ads platform, that’s plausible too. But if Apple actually cared more about maximizing Search Ads revenue than it does user privacy, wouldn’t they have just engaged in actual user tracking?

daringfireball.net

Apple can choose to weaken user protections by removing ATT if it likes, and that would comply with regulations. Or it could apply ATT to itself and its own tracking, and also comply that way.

For the 500th time, ATT already applies to Apple. Meta is free to track across multiple Meta Apps without ATT consent. Google is free to track across multiple Google Apps without consent. They don’t even have to ask users not to do so for advertising purposes like Apple asks users. But if they want to track across apps not owned by Meta/Google, then ATT applies.

If Apple started tracking on third party websites and apps and didn’t display the ATT consent popup then I’d agree with you 100% they were being anticompetitive and the government should get involved. But Apple doesn’t do that. No one is forcing Meta or Google or German publishers to track across third party properties if they don’t want the ATT to show up in their apps.

Instead, this is like a regulator forcing Apple to include a “Would you like to prevent the Apple TV app from displaying graphic nudity” warning on startup even though Apple TV shows don’t have graphic nudity in a universe where Apple required streaming video apps that do have graphic nudity to allow users to opt out from having to see it.

Which would lead users to think Apple TV has graphic nudity, even though it doesn’t. Forcing the ATT popup would lead consumers to believe Apple is tracking them across the web and third party apps, which it doesn’t.

 

[Lyrics23]

Again, you don’t have a basic understanding of the terms here. First party tracking doesn’t mean Apple. It refers to the app developer, whether it be Apple, Meta, or an Indy developer. Likewise, third party tracking means tracking across apps an websites other than the developer.

First party tracking is normal and doesn’t require consent. You generally want an app to remember what you do. Netflix remembers my history and suggests similar shows. That’s first party tracking.

Third party tracking is when developers share my information with advertisers and other developers. If developers want to do that, they need to ask user permission through the ATT prompt.

I get that, but the point is that from a regulatory point of view Apple must apply the same rules to themselves.

It’s Apple who make the distinction between the first-party and third-party tracking, but from the regulatory standpoint it’s all just tracking, and Apple isn’t acting consistently.

If they don’t share their tracking data with others and provide the exact same message warning for their own apps as they do with others, that’ll meet the requirements.

 

[BaldiMac]

I get that, but the point is that from a regulatory point of view Apple must apply the same rules to themselves.

It’s Apple who make the distinction between the first-party and third-party tracking, but from the regulatory standpoint it’s all just tracking, and Apple isn’t acting consistently.

If they don’t share their tracking data with others and provide the exact same message warning for their own apps as they do with others, that’ll meet the requirements.

Again, they already do apply the same rules to themselves.

Any app can use first party tracking.

Any app that uses third party tracking requires ATT.

 

[Lyrics23]

It already does. If you don’t want to listen to me, here’s an article from 3 years ago from Gruber:

German Regulators Open Investigation Into Apple’s App Tracking Transparency

If you want to argue that Apple engaged in this entire ATT endeavor to benefit its own Search Ads platform, that’s plausible too. But if Apple actually cared more about maximizing Search Ads revenue than it does user privacy, wouldn’t they have just engaged in actual user tracking?

daringfireball.net

For the 500th time, ATT already applies to Apple. Meta is free to track across multiple
meta Apps without ATT. Google is free to track across multiple Google Apps without ATT. But if they want to track across apps not owned by Meta/Google, then ATT applies.

This is like a regulator forcing Apple to include an “Would you like to prevent the Apple TV app from displaying graphic nudity” warning on startup even though Apple TV shows don’t have graphic nudity because Apple requires streaming video apps that do have graphic nudity to allow users to opt out from having to see it.

Which would lead users to think Apple TV has graphic nudity, even though it doesn’t. Forcing the ATT popup would lead consumers to believe Apple is tracking them across the web and third party apps, which it doesn’t.

Apple might make the distinction between different kinds of tracking, yes. But from a regulatory point of view tracking is tracking, and Apple is required to ask users for consent in the same manner for itself if it chooses to ask for consent at all for anyone.

I get that there are differences in how the tracking is used and works, but the regulation isn’t about that, and treats all tracking equally.

 

[surferfb]

Apple might make the distinction between different kinds of tracking, yes. But from a regulatory point of view tracking is tracking, and Apple is required to ask users for consent in the same manner for itself if it chooses to ask for consent at all for anyone.

I get that there are differences in how the tracking is used and works, but the regulation isn’t about that, and treats all tracking equally.

That’s an incredibly stupid way to look at it and shows that the regulators have no business setting rules for this. They’re either complete idiots or pawns of the advertising industry.

Apple isn’t being anticompetitive, they’re protecting users in a way that users actually use and take advantage of, unlike the convoluted regulation the EU came up with. But sure, Apple’s being anticompetitive even though it holds its apps to a higher standard than third parties do.

This case was brought forth by advertisers and data miners. Why are the regulators on their side vs the one company doing it responsibly?

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple might make the distinction between different kinds of tracking, yes. But from a regulatory point of view tracking is tracking, and Apple is required to ask users for consent in the same manner for itself if it chooses to ask for consent at all for anyone.

I get that there are differences in how the tracking is used and works, but the regulation isn’t about that, and treats all tracking equally.

That’s simply not true. There is certainly regulatory distinction between first and third party tracking.

 

[con2apple]

Both sides are right .
It's a great feature and protects against spying by third parties.
At the same time, it doesn't protect against spying by Apple, and the company justifies this by saying that it doesn't sell the data.
But Apple does use it. To outdo competitors and raise prices.

And the company has no arguments against this. This is evident from the conspiracies that the Apple spreads. Here, "lobbying."

 

[surferfb]

Both sides are right .
It's a great feature and protects against spying by third parties.
At the same time, it doesn't protect against spying by Apple, and the company justifies this by saying that it doesn't sell the data.
But Apple does use it. To outdo competitors and raise prices.

Apple uses targeted ads only inside its own apps using first-party data. Personalization is on-device, no user-level profiles are shared with third parties, and no cross-app tracking is allowed. It’s nothing like the surveillance-style tracking networks ATT was built to stop.

This is where Apple serves ads:

• App Store (Search, Today tab, “You Might Also Like”)
• Apple News
• Apple Stocks
• Apple TV+ / Apple TV app

This is the data it uses:

• Your App Store and service usage
• Search queries in Apple services
• App categories you’ve interacted with
• Downloads/purchases
• Location (Not exact, region)
• News topics you follow (for News/Stocks only)
• Apple account demographics you provided (age band, gender, if given)

Exactly how is that used to “outdo competitors and raise prices?”

Apple is not tracking or “spying on” users under any sense of the word as it is meant in the ad industry. It’s the difference between “Amazon recommends book #3 because you bought book #1–2” vs. “Facebook followed you across every site you visited on the internet and sold a behavioral profile.”

And the company has no arguments against this. This is evident from the conspiracies that the Apple spreads. Here, "lobbying."

I mean, the argument against it is it’s blatantly not true.

 

[Hank001]

First party tracking is normal and doesn’t require consent. You generally want an app to remember what you do. Netflix remembers my history and suggests similar shows. That’s first party tracking.

Having an app or website remembering my history (search, episodes watched etc.) is tracking? I think you mean that data is stored in a cookie. Right?

 

[Hank001]

Perhaps the next time the author can add useful screenshots for its readers.

 

[BaldiMac]

Having an app or website remembering my history (search, episodes watched etc.) is tracking? I think you mean that data is stored in a cookie. Right?

Cookies have nothing to do with it, but otherwise that’s exactly my point. First party data collection is completely normal and shouldn’t be equated with third party tracking and the sale of my data.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The EU wants Apple to treat itself equally to third-parties.

Translation: The EU wants Apple to treat first parties equally to third-parties, which is against GDPR.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That’s simply not true. There is certainly regulatory distinction between first and third party tracking.

“Look, take third party, subtract two parties and you get first party! There’s only a TWO party difference between them so they’re practically the same!” /s

 

[mrochester]

It’ll be interesting to see how the wording is changed as the wording in the dialogue is already neutral.

 

[iPadified]

So many opinions and so little hard proof (from both sides)

However I find it amazing that many have the opinion that:

1. Apple is always right and innocent
2. A legal complaint towards Apple must not be investigated by default because of point 1.
3. Any legal body outside of US are populated by idiots but only if it is an American company being investigated.

MR publishes these Apple vs EU (and rest of the world) to get clicks. We should all stop discussing articles like these and hopefully they go away.

 

[mrochester]

So many opinions and so little hard proof (from both sides)

However I find it amazing that many have the opinion that:

1. Apple is always right and innocent
2. A legal complaint towards Apple must not be investigated by default because of point 1.
3. Any legal body outside of US are populated by idiots but only if it is an American company being investigated.

MR publishes these Apple vs EU (and rest of the world) to get clicks. We should all stop discussing articles like these and hopefully they go away.

Anything that stops advertisers from tracking users across the web is a good thing in my books.

Anything that reduces the effectiveness of those measures is a bad thing.

 

[vantelimus]

No crazier than Google and Facebook working together to change California law so that privacy violations are capped at something like $1500 or $2500 max, so they can just break the law and pay effectively a small, non-consequential, business fee.

This principle was explicitly advocated in my marketing class when I did my MBA at an Ivy League school. The law is just another constraint to be figured into your business model. If you cannot make your model work within the law, change the law, not the model.

 

[vantelimus]

„[…] complaints about the limited amount of user data available to app publishers.[…]

Since when do companies (or individuals) have any ‚right‘ to gather user data? Do I have to keep my blinds open in the future or even let Marketing guys enter my home to snoop around - just because I bought a fridge or a piece of furniture from their company?

Perhaps it’s just me, but this sounds ridiculous! My user data is NONE of your business!

If you bought an internet connected appliance, you should check your TOS for what information you've allowed them to collect. Yes, they collect information on you just because you bought a fridge. Yes, they likely monetize that data in ways you don't know. Were you under the misimpression that they provided the app to control your fridge out of the goodness of their hearts?

I just updated the SmartHQ app from Haier. It controls all my Monogram appliances. When I launched it, there was this message:

Welcome to Shopping Lists! To enhance your SmartHQ experience and make shopping easier, we collect and analyze your shopping list data. This information helps us understand how people use shopping lists and improve the app's functionality, as well as to assist our marketing efforts. For more information, review our Privacy Statement.

The infrastructure to support that app must be paid for somehow.

 

[Jamie0003]

Does anyone else find it insane that the EU which invented GDPR privacy protections is trying to force Apple to make it easier for advertising firms to track people?

You'd think the EU would be all in favor for limiting ad tracking. More and more it just seems like a desperate attempt to extract wealth from successful American companies because Europe cannot innovate.

I think you misunderstand the point of this?

It’s about Apple being able to ignore a user’s app tracking with first party apps, and they want a level playing field, which is fair enough. Don’t want Apple being a hypocrite

 

[mrochester]

I think you misunderstand the point of this?

It’s about Apple being able to ignore a user’s app tracking with first party apps, and they want a level playing field, which is fair enough. Don’t want Apple being a hypocrite

ATT is related to tracking across third party apps and websites, not first party.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think you misunderstand the point of this?

It’s about Apple being able to ignore a user’s app tracking with first party apps, and they want a level playing field, which is fair enough. Don’t want Apple being a hypocrite

Nope. Again, any developer can collect first party data without ATT kicking in, not just Apple. “First party” doesn’t just refer to Apple, it refers to any app developer including Apple.

 

[mrochester]

If you are Facebook, first party apps include the Facebook app, instagram, WhatsApp etc. The only permission you need to get from the user to track them across these apps is for the user to agree to the TOS.

If Facebook also wants to be able to track you in third party apps (those made another developer such as in the New York Times app) then they need to seek permission from the user with the app tracking transparency dialogue.

If you are Apple, first party apps include safari, the App Store, messages. The only permission Apple needs to get from the user to track across these apps is for the user to agree to the TOS.

Apple does not track across third party apps therefore doesn’t need users to agree to the app tracking transparency dialogue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

So many opinions and so little hard proof (from both sides)

However I find it amazing that many have the opinion that:

1. Apple is always right and innocent
2. A legal complaint towards Apple must not be investigated by default because of point 1.
3. Any legal body outside of US are populated by idiots but only if it is an American company being investigated.

MR publishes these Apple vs EU (and rest of the world) to get clicks. We should all stop discussing articles like these and hopefully they go away.

I basically agree with this entire takeaway.

This exact forum thread plays out over and over again, so it's no wonder versions of it keep getting posted as often as something pops up (or regulation or litigation is even proposed or hinted at).