Cookies have nothing to do with it? Cookies were created to do just that: remember history. Logins, viewed pages, watched episodes, the lot. And yes, that is also data collection, because the data in the cookie gets saved by that very same website/app/developer.
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.
Germany Considering Apple's App Tracking Transparency Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s the opposite of:
1. Apple is always wrong and guilty.
2. All complaints towards Apple MUST be investigated because of point 1.
3. The US legal body are composed of idiots while nations such as Japan, EU etc understand the situation to a “t” and the laws originating from these nations are fair as could be.
MR publishes these articles to show the world what is really going on. We should continue to discuss these points ad-nauseum and hopefully people understand the issues.
To clarify, cookies have nothing to do with my point. The method of collection /sharing of my data doesn’t change anything.
Nice straw man. I don’t think anyone believes any of those three points. I certainly don’t, and I’m a frequent critic of the EU and defender of Apple.
Point 1: Apple is not always right, and is not always innocent. I complain about stuff Apple does. And even in this thread I literally said:
Point 2: No one is saying legal complaints shouldn't be investigated. I've even said some are legitimate and worth looking into.
But in a lot of cases, like this one, the complaints are being brought by bad actors and for bad reasons, and instead of the EU regulators saying "sorry data miners and ad companies" they take the bad-faith complaints at face value and assume Apple is acting anticompetitively when it isn't.
Point 3: No, not any legal body, but the ones regulating Apple in the EU really seem to be. The EU tried to mandate Micro-USB on all phones two years after Lightening had been released. That's idiotic. This German regulatory body either doesn't understand the difference between first party tracking and third party tracking, or thinks they're equivalent. That's idiotic. A French regulator fined Apple hundreds of millions of dollars for ATT because in their opinion "ATT is not necessary" because French/EU regulations exist, despite the fact that ATT works and the EU/French regulations don't. To quote Gruber:
That's idiotic.
I'll close by noting that if these articles and the associated debate bother you, it’s easy enough to skip the articles and ignore the discussion.
Yeah, I mean “little hard proof” that advertisers track users across apps and websites? The ONLY reason why people are wishy-washy about this is because they have a strong knee-jerk opinion when it comes to Apple.
“If anyone is saying that ATT is unfair, then it must be because it’s unfair. And, certainly, NOT because the speaker represents third party companies, that have been found to misuse consumers’ data before and that are trying to ensure a long future of continuing to track individuals without their knowledge and potentially misuse that data. I can’t conceive of any reason why any advertiser should be forced to let individuals know they’re being tracked! I don’t know if I’m being tracked across the internet and I’d like to keep it that way!” /s
Apple is NOT always right, but Apple’s ad efforts are ALWAYS first party. If a user doesn’t use their Apple ID to log into Apple’s servers, they are NEVER exposed to Apple’s ad network. And, there is “hard proof” that first party networks operate differently from third party networks (or, they’d just call them both first party networks).
I mean, as long as people vehemently refuse to comprehend the difference between first party and third party…
All because Apple ended some favorite product or service of theirs and they just cannot wait for Apple to receive their comeuppance! They shall rue the day they discontinued iWeb!
It does matter that Apple's apps aren't sharing data with FB or something. If they were, ATT better be set to true. If they are not sharing data then there is nothing to approve.
The fact is Apple needs to ask for consent in the same manner as ATT is applied to 3rd party tracking. I don’t want Apple to track any of that data about me outside what’s strictly necessary to function or cashed locally and never touched a server to be stored.
This will be great because now Apple can enforce ATT for meta and Google while they simultaneously say: sorry it’s the rules according to EU 🤷♂️
The fact is Apple already asks for consent in the exact same manner aa it requires other apps to. In fact, they even provide an easy off button that most apps don’t, so I’d say they’re going above and beyond.
What Apple also does is ask for additional consent if the app would like to track you in apps and on websites not owned by the app owner. If Apple did that, then yes ATT should (and would) apply and the same way to Apple’s apps as it does to other developers’ apps. If it didn’t apply, or the wording was different for Apple apps, then yes that would be anticompetitive and governments should get involved. But that isn’t the case.
This shouldn’t be controversial. It’s not complicated. Right now everyone is treated equally. But ad companies and data brokers are throwing up complaint after complaint screaming “ATT doesn’t apply to Apple - anticompetitive!1!111!!” while ignoring the fact that the reason it doesn’t apply is Apple doesn’t perform the behavior in question to have it apply. But the “Apple is always wrong” brigade of falls for it hook, line, and sinker.
Why do you think they have a problem with ATT and not EU regulations limiting tracking? Because Apple’s method works, and the convoluted mess designed by a committee of bureaucrats doesn’t. Shocking!
Considering they are targeting national legislation under anticompetitive laws they might have a case and they do seem to have that under German law.
Now the issue for the advertising industry is that they are doing a potentially high risk high reward gamble that Apple will comply by either removing ATT and effectively lowering the advertising threshold. But Apple can with full legal certainty do the opposite and implement much harsher restrictions and putting the blame on EU/germany in this case.
The fact Apple can track what apps you use and purchases, while if Google would want to do that despite all the apps using googles addservice they can’t use this data legally without consent.
And don’t get me wrong, I would rather Apple had a more aggressive approach towards advertising and tracking but have to balance it with the interest of the app developers themselves in some sort of way, and this in my view allows Apple to crack down heavily with the opportunity to shift the blame 100% on EU, and I would support that fully.
The fact something is or isn’t 3rd party isn’t of relevance, but what data is accessible and what barriers that Apple and others need to overcome for the same type of data.
EU privacy law cares more about the data and access than the behavior being the same.
Now the issue for the advertising industry is that they are doing a potentially high risk high reward gamble that Apple will comply by either removing ATT and effectively lowering the advertising threshold. But Apple can with full legal certainty do the opposite and implement much harsher restrictions and putting the blame on EU/germany in this case.
Vad in point here if not mistaken Google and Meta must comply with DMA in regards to how they use data for adds, something Apple doesn’t need to as their addservice isn’t large enough it seems to count as a CPS.
The fact Apple can track what apps you use and purchases, while if Google would want to do that despite all the apps using googles addservice they can’t use this data legally without consent.
And don’t get me wrong, I would rather Apple had a more aggressive approach towards advertising and tracking but have to balance it with the interest of the app developers themselves in some sort of way, and this in my view allows Apple to crack down heavily with the opportunity to shift the blame 100% on EU, and I would support that fully.
And no everyone isn’t treated equally Apple can use the same advertising data to benefit themself that competing options can’t use. If any other app and/or advertising company wants to access the exact same data that Apple has access to they need explicit consent for its use. If the same restrictions where universally applied then they would have no standing. It being arbitrarily enforced just for cross application
The fact something is or isn’t 3rd party isn’t of relevance, but what data is accessible and what barriers that Apple and others need to overcome for the same type of data.
EU privacy law cares more about the data and access than the behavior being the same.
They are, and google, meta etc have billions of fines for failing to comply. Then the national governments themselves have their own cases.
I’m fully aware of everyone gathering data (or trying to) and the motivation behind it.
But if there is something (e.g. Firewall) or someone (e.g. Apple) preventing them from doing so, they can’t cry foul and demand that any preventative measure has to be taken down, so they can continue snooping around as they wish.
I secure my home with locks and other measures and no one could complain and demand that I have to stop protecting my property.
On the internet, Apple is helping to secure my user data and now gets called out for that by greedy marketing people, with them demanding to have more or less free access to my user data.
Thats the same as burglars complaining that my locks make it more difficult for them to pursue their „business“.
My philosophy is never use apps if you can avoid it. Always go to a website where you can more easily block and obscure. Of course that isn’t always possible as companies are incentivised to push you to using apps.
Well because they want access to the same data as as Apple under the same restrictions as apple.
So apple just needs to be more strict with first party tracking and treat it as third party. Then it will be fixed
This part I’m actually disappointed with Apple. But would want to actually see what apples proposals are. Wish apple also attribution to not be tracked.
Why should they treat different things as the same? A todo list remembering the tasks that I entered should not be treated the same as a todo list selling or sharing the tasks that I enter with a third party.
Apple didn’t bury the “we will show your personalized ads” in a TOS like every other company on the planet; they present a “turn off personalized ads” upon device setup and leave it as an option in settings. And Apple doesn’t track you across apps and websites not owned by Apple.
And that’s before you take into account that Apple’s form of “tracking” is so much less invasive than the rest of the industry’s that calling it the same thing is laughable. “Because you bought angry birds one, you might want to download the sequel” is so much less invasive than “Your girlfriend visited a forum thread entitled “my period is late, am I pregnant?” on a website we pay to let users log in with Facebook/Google and then googled her OB's phone number, so we are going to show you ads for the book “Everything They Don’t Tell You About Being a Dad!”
But, to EU governments they are one and the same! And it’s yet another fantastic example of the fact that EU regulators don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to regulating tech.
This is, as far as I’m aware, incorrect. The only thing Apple restricts is tracking across apps and websites not owned by the developer. The rules are exactly the same for Apple and developers. If you have evidence that I’m wrong I will happily retract the statement. Apple also allows users to opt out during device setup, which apparently ~80% of users do.
I think you’re getting confused about first party vs third party. Meta’s iOS apps are first party for the purposes of ATT. For the 500th time, the rules apply equally.
If EU privacy law treats Apple's "tracking" as equivalent to the rest of the industry's, then they're even worse at their jobs than I thought.