If you think incognito mode helps ... you need to research more of that.
Coders playing with semantics on this policy is really a bad move. though I agree this is screwing confidence in Apps.
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.
Report: iOS Users Who Opt-Out of App Tracking Continue to Be Tracked by Facebook and Snapchat
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Coders playing with semantics on this policy is really a bad move. though I agree this is screwing confidence in Apps.
Apple uses privacy as a marketing buzzword. It's mostly theatre. The so called App Transparency feature is nothing more than making the appearance of user privacy being a priority.
You're looking at the wrong company. Why would it be up to Facebook or Snapchat to stop tracking you? Why would that "don't track me" button rely on them?
Why doesn't iOS stop them instead by not giving them the data?
I used to work in the adtech industry and while these tactics help, many sites you're logging into are selling your information to piece together look alike data in an effort to track you. Internet service providers are no better as they will gladly sell your data to enable advertisers to reach you. You could jump on a VPN, but some of those services are also selling your information. Luckily many third party measurement companies will block popular VPN IP blocks due to the amount of fraud impacting their campaigns.
It's a very invasive industry which I'm glad to no longer part of. What I can say is there is a lot of junk data that businesses operate on because it's all they have available. I hope Apple does more to allow users to opt-out of these tactics. Using iCloud Relay/VPN and uBlock (or equivalent) is recommended.
iOS can’t stop someone posting a selfie on Snapchat showing they’re at the lake. They can’t stop someone from updating their Facebook status as “In line at the register” then taking a picture inside the WalMart. THIS is the type of probabilistic tracking they’re talking about. If you take a picture of yourself at the lake, you’re quite probably at the lake
Apple has never been against ad revenue. Their stance has always been the same - companies who wish to track consumers should get permission from their users first, rather than the current “free for all” attitude today.
1)The ad-revenue model necessitates massive data collection. In order to serve the most targeted ads, you need a lot of data on that person. So Apple might not be against ads per se but the business model runs counter to their marketing.
2) Apple's primary issue with ad-supported apps is probably not the ads, or even the data collection. It's that in the ad-supported model, Apple doesn't get a cut like they do with IAP. If they cripple advertising, more apps will switch to a subscription and give Apple a cut. I'm not saying this is the only reason for Apple's anti-tracking measures, but you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to make this connection.
3) Being that Apple is currently trying to build out an ad business, and the ad business model is incompatible with the kind of privacy Apple touts, it is possible that in the future, Apple's opinion on tracking, and ad-based apps, may change.
QUOTE="huge_apple_fangirl, post: 30683987, member: 1185943"]
but you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to make this connection.
[/QUOTE]
You kinda do, though. Because, to make the connection, one would have to start the line of thinking with “There’s a conspiracy here”, which is where a conspiracy theorist would start.
Whether it’s “Why is ocean water not like lake water” or “Why do I see a rainbow when all I’m doing is spraying some water?”
Because, if you remove the ads in ads only, non-IAP supported apps (are there any notable ones?) they wouldn’t go subscription, they’d go away. Rather than a gain, I guess that’d actually be a loss for Apple as they’d have one less developer that feels a need for the $99 a year dev account?
but you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to make this connection.
[/QUOTE]
You kinda do, though.
Because, to make the connection, one would have to start the line of thinking with “There’s a conspiracy here”, which is where a conspiracy theorist would start.Whether it’s “Why is ocean water not like lake water” or “Why do I see a rainbow when all I’m doing is spraying some water?”
Because, if you remove the ads in ads only, non-IAP supported apps (are there any notable ones?) they wouldn’t go subscription, they’d go away. Rather than a gain, I guess that’d actually be a loss for Apple as they’d have one less developer that feels a need for the $99 a year dev account?
That ad agencies need tons of my data to be effective is not my business as a consumer. I remain of the opinion that advertising is not inherently good or evil, but users should be told / informed what is being done with their data (including how it is being used to deliver ads).
If you don't, that's on you. Don't blame Apple for subsequently inserting themselves between your ads and me, the consumer. And if you want me to give permission to track, convince me why I should do it first. Make me see the value of the service you are offering before I decide whether it's worth my while to support your app with my ad revenue.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that there is often just enough "truth" to lend credence to a particular argument, even when it's not necessarily the truth of the matter.
Blaming apple for having to go subscription because ad revenue wasn't lucrative enough is like blaming the local police force for quashing your loansharking business and forcing you to have to *gasp* get a proper job and pay taxes like every other productive member of society. The problem isn't that the police have a problem with you trying to make money, it's about how that money was being made, and the harm to society that resulted.
Apple's reason for anti-tracking is very simple - I am an Apple user, it's only right that they introduce features that benefit me, the end user. And if the developer suffers as a result, maybe it's their fault for putting themselves in such a precarious position and not being respectful of my data in the first place.
My only gripe is that Apple still doesn't go far enough to stop tracking (in my opinion). Maybe one day, private relay will apply to all traffic going in and out of my device, not just safari.
I disagree. I do feel that it is possible to offer ads while still staying respectful of users' privacy. We see it in the way Apple manages their services like Maps and Siri, where they collect as little information as possible, and anonymise them when necessary. It's just that until now, companies like Facebook and google have had no reason to do so because, why should they really?
The thing is - the apple ecosystem doesn't just exist for developers, it also exists for us users. In this context, I feel that Apple is best positioned to offer a win-win solution here. Ads are important to help connect businesses with users, but there really ought to be a limit on what sort of data is being slurped up here in the name of serving targeted ads, and I still maintain that users absolutely should have a say in what data ends up being accessed by these businesses at the end of the day.
I don't think there is a conspiracy. I don't think that Apple started the anti-tracking crusade to push apps towards subscriptions. But I think if Apple made a large amount of money through in-app ads, their behavior would change. That's just incentives- there's a reason Google hasn't followed Apple on this. And I doubt fact that the move from ads to subscriptions benefits Apple has been lost on Apple either.You kinda do, though.
I don't think Apple makes money off the dev accounts. That's a perfectly reasonable amount to cover App Store infrastructure, as well as providing a small barrier to garbage apps.
This article states that Apple actually hasn't been enforcing a lot of ATT for big developers. I was suggesting that perhaps Apple's attempts to build out an ad business of their own have encouraged them to see how tracking and "privacy" can go hand in hand. That's not the only explanation, of course. Perhaps, despite all of Facebook's crying, they really do have a lot more power over Apple than they claim.
I don't think that Apple should be in the ads business but not because they can't find a way to balance it with privacy, but because it naturally creates conflicts of interest regarding privacy that a hardware company doesn't have. Sure, Apple could come up with some innovative way to track people through "disaggregated data" that's "on-device" or whatever, but why put themselves in a situation where disrespecting people's privacy could have a potential payoff? Not to mention the fact that ads, aside from the privacy concerns, are just not a great user experience. I think Apple's foray into digital services may be lucrative but is ultimately detrimental to the user experience (like my new iPad sending me notifications to sign up for Apple Arcade).
Reading the article, it doesn’t seem so much that Apple isn’t enforcing the use of ATT, but that these companies seem to have found a way around it, likely through the use of fingerprinting technology.
I suspect the reason Apple doesn’t reject apps that do this is because they are very likely doing so via SDKs that they integrate directly into the apps themselves. In a sense, it would be punishing app developers who technically have not done anything wrong, because the behaviour is coming from a third party ad SDK, not via the app itself. And if you enforce one (eg: Facebook), you have to enforce it for everyone, especially smaller developers who would be harder hit by this.
So I would say that Apple is probably working on a solution even as we speak, and I am willing to wager that this will somehow involve Apple routing all in-app traffic through its private relay filter to make this in-app fingerprinting practice much less reliable. The timeline will depend on how fast Apple can ramp up server capacity to cater to every Apple device in existence, since they already have reliability issues just working with safari currently.
Possibly. I see it as more of Apple passing the buck, and blaming companies like Facebook for using the data that Apple allows them to have.
But yeah, I can see how if Apple is wanting to revamp their ads effort, they can't lock their competitors out of data harvesting, or risk getting slapped with another anti-competitive practices suit.
It’s clear the immense political pressure laid on Apple after ATT had an effect, and Apple has decided to lay back and let things cool down. The red lines between Apple and Facebook, etc have been clearly drawn and their mutual assured destruction deterrent has been established. Apple will not push ATT any further.
Remincent of the oil barons.
Remincent of the oil barons.
Same here. I was installing a new photo manipulation app today when it hit me that it was probably just created for data mining purposes and there’s no way for me to trust it with my photos or information
Apps aren’t fun anymore
Not so much “will not”, but “can’t”. There’s not much further to go past “don’t track users by their system ID’s”. However, those that use social media heavily are ID-ing themselves constantly with their interactions and activities. It may be marginally more difficult for them to profile customers without the system ID’s, but it’s certainly not impossible and they’ll continue to get better at it.
Yet Apple lets it happen. This and CSAM. Apple you suck for allowing it to happen. Tim Cook is a 2 faced AH...![]()
"Loose" interpretations of Apple's privacy policies allow apps such as Facebook and Snapchat to continue tracking users for targeted advertising even when they have asked to not be tracked, The Financial Times reports.
![generic-tracking-prompt-green.jpg]()
In May, Apple launched its App Tracking Transparency feature that allows users to opt-out of being tracked across apps and websites for advertising purposes. Seven months after Apple introduced the feature, companies such as Snapchat and Facebook have purportedly been allowed to continue sharing user-level signals from iPhones, providing that data is anonymized and aggregated rather than directly linked to specific user profiles.
The Financial Times said that Apple's position was the result of "an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," which developers have interpreted to mean that they can still observe "signals" and behaviors from groups of users instead, enabling these groups to be shown tailored ads anyway.
Apple has not explicitly endorsed these techniques, but they allow third parties to track and analyze groups of users regardless of whether or not they have given consent to user-level tracking. In addition, Apple reportedly continues to trust apps to collect user-level data such as IP address, location, language, device, and screen size, even though some of this information is passed onto advertisers.
Snapchat investors were told that the company plans to share data from its 306 million users, including those who ask the app "not to track," with advertisers so that they can gain "a more complete, real-time view" of the success of ad campaigns. Likewise, Facebook is undertaking a "multiyear effort" to rebuild ad infrastructure "using more aggregated or anonymized data," according to the company's operations chief.
In June, Apple faced pressure to tighten the rules around App Tracking Transparency after it was found that third parties were using workarounds to identify users who do not consent to be tracked, but there have been no changes around looser "probabilistic" methods of user identification.
Article Link: Report: iOS Users Who Opt-Out of App Tracking Continue to Be Tracked by Facebook and Snapchat
Well said. I’m taking baby steps, I’ve deleted the Facebook app but now instead use Safari maybe twice a week to view Facebook. It’s helped , as I’m no longer on it daily for long periods like before. Next bold step will be deletion of Facebook account. Thoughts and prayers welcomed . 😂
They made a deal with the parties that are continuing to track people, because killing off or significantly hampering advertising will be very bad for iOS.
Many MR members were appluading Apple for the introduction of App Tracking Transparancey (ATT) with comments such as 'Up yours Facebook, Apple has stuck it to you'.
The problem for Apple is that it gave users the impression that once they selected 'opt out', nothing was being sent to 3rd parties but the article proves this is not the case as ATT only prevents 'some' of your data from getting to 3rd parties, not all of it. I think rather than Apple 'sticking it' to 3rd parties, they have 'stuck it' to their customers/users by not being 100% transparent about how ATT works.
If a user selects 'opt out' then NO data should be sent to 3rd parties. We are supposed to trust that Apple is doing the right thing and looking after it's customers but this article proves that you cannot even trust Apple to do the right thing.
The annoying thing about all this data tracking is that when you put it up against other things that can identify a person, their image, their voice, both of which have laws that prevent others from using them without the owners consent and this consent usually comes with some financial compensation for the owner (3rd party has to pay to use the image or voice) but when it comes to your electronic data, your email address, your ip address, your location, your web browser, all things that can personally identify you, companies can use this data as they please then sell it on to who ever they please without the owner being financially compensated for having their data used.
The problem for Apple is that it gave users the impression that once they selected 'opt out', nothing was being sent to 3rd parties but the article proves this is not the case as ATT only prevents 'some' of your data from getting to 3rd parties, not all of it. I think rather than Apple 'sticking it' to 3rd parties, they have 'stuck it' to their customers/users by not being 100% transparent about how ATT works.
If a user selects 'opt out' then NO data should be sent to 3rd parties. We are supposed to trust that Apple is doing the right thing and looking after it's customers but this article proves that you cannot even trust Apple to do the right thing.
The annoying thing about all this data tracking is that when you put it up against other things that can identify a person, their image, their voice, both of which have laws that prevent others from using them without the owners consent and this consent usually comes with some financial compensation for the owner (3rd party has to pay to use the image or voice) but when it comes to your electronic data, your email address, your ip address, your location, your web browser, all things that can personally identify you, companies can use this data as they please then sell it on to who ever they please without the owner being financially compensated for having their data used.
This is clearly one of those:
Apple introduces App Tracking Transparancey (ATT) to help prevent 3rd party data tracking
Apple fans: Woohoo, way to go Apple, your the man, up yours data trackers
Few months later report comes out that there is a kind of loophole in Apples T&C's that allows some user data to be tracked
Apple fans: err what!!!, Hey Apple, what gives???, you were the man but now you suck
Apple introduces App Tracking Transparancey (ATT) to help prevent 3rd party data tracking
Apple fans: Woohoo, way to go Apple, your the man, up yours data trackers
Few months later report comes out that there is a kind of loophole in Apples T&C's that allows some user data to be tracked
Apple fans: err what!!!, Hey Apple, what gives???, you were the man but now you suck
Well… I’d say hardly a surprise. Companies like Facebook are made since the beginning with the core business of tracking customers