Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Earlier:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047952
Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself (theregister.com)
161 points by Logans_Run on Feb 14, 2025 | 69 comments
by fsflover - Actual title: Apple changes its rules for personalised advertising in appsby raincole
- I used to work on an app with one of the largest repos of health data in the App Store. Their team specifically leaned on us to have more favorable text when the data sharing requests came through. Felt very inappropriate given we were often at Apple’s mercy. Seems like a consistent cultural issue.by bleakcrate
- > With its operating systems and its App Store, Apple controls a key infrastructure for the distribution of apps on its devices. In addition, Apple offers its own apps and advertising space. This dual role makes Apple subject to specific competition law requirements.
> Under the commitments that have now been declared binding, Apple will align the consent prompts for its own offerings and for third-party apps much more closely.
by wxw - Fork found in kitchen.by flipnotyk
- spoon still missing
- > In addition, app publishers and content providers, such as media publishers, will be given more scope to explain to users what significance personalised advertising has for their offering and their business model.
Great, sounds like a new channel for marketing where I really just want to opt-out. Also, does this added scope include the mechanism to maliciously comply like so many websites do with cookies? (eg: You want our cookies? Here is a list of things you can de-select... with toggles that aren't clearly on or off)
- Meta would have a field day with this change, since it was the company that was most upset and angry when ATT was introduced.
Considering that ATT was about sharing an identifier to “track across other companies' apps and websites” (text definition of the ATT setting), I don’t believe this ruling is a good move for anyone on informed consent or privacy. In the name of improving competition, sometimes regulators may end up making things worse for users.
by newscracker - There are arguments about how Apple has too much power and we need better app stores and anecdotes about I-built-an-app-it-was-a-nightmare
...but Meta is exactly the reason why IMO it's needed. Because of people like Zuckerberg who treat the internet and people's phones like his personal plaything. No granularity. Contacts uploaded whenever anyone does the slightest thing
by alex1138 - Meta, the same company that used to play silent audio so it wouldn't be killed in the background? I'm not super worried about them being upset about privacy laws changing.by eddieroger
- Imagining my grandpa calling me because his camera doesn't work because he denied the camera permission on his camera app. But then he can't because he denied all the permissions his phone app needs.by phoghed
- Things that don't happen and that you make up for to win a hypothetical argument: this one.
- Had a laugh :Dby Mythli
- This is about tracking not actual functionality .by lozenge
- They also do other things you aren’t allowed to do as a developer - eg. When they do a ‘free trial’ of Apple TV, if you cancel it cancels immediately. All proper subscriptions you retain the use of until the renewal date.by jonplackett
- A good step.
Apple's own apps are still blessed with permissions that other apps have to ask for. This needs to be addressed too.
by iamcalledrob - >Apple's own apps are still blessed with permissions that other apps have to ask for. This needs to be addressed too.
This is a strange position imo. Why would we expect third party apps written by totally unknown people with unknown goals to have the same permissions as apps written by Apple itself?
- For me it depends on which app and which permissions, like "Photos" obviously needs to be able to see my photos... Camera needs my camera, but for location it should ask me before it turns it on.
I don't even care if they make the dialogue look a little different since they're system apps you need to use the features of your phone, but the "extras" they support should default to "Ask First" in an ideal world that is.
- Baloney I don’t see anything in these laws that actually stops the onward march of companies effing the customers. All I see is the move to have give equal access to effing the customer even more.
They are doing nothing to stop the endless ads, and the pop-ups in the browser I want to kill turn them off not them grant equal access to have even more ads.
Another problem is the onward, march towards renting leasing, owning nothing endless upgrades for price, in the end I don’t expect a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats to do anything about that. They have been paid off long time ago.
Recently in the last couple of years in particular it’s gotten to be completely out of control. I’m glad I bought a super drive before Apple discontinued it soon the way things are going you won’t even be able to have a large drive or even big memory you’ll be tied to that remote data center…
by Danox - I see the regulators only regulated that first-party and third-party apps be treated equally, and didn’t specify how.
It’s a bummer (albeit an expected one) to see Apple reducing the burden for third-party publishers to collect personal data, rather than increasing the burden for themselves to collect it, thus overall raising the floor of user privacy. This is to say, when a regulator requests “everyone be treated equally to ensure competition” maybe they should also take into account how users are impacted and instead request something more nuanced like: if there are unequal standards, they must be equalized in a way that maximizes user benefit.
by rad-b - Regulations for user privacy shouldn't be conflated with regulations for market competition.
I also delight in this highlighting Apple's hypocrisy
by Zagitta - There's two problems here:
1. The competition law people are not the data protection people. From the perspective of competition law, they only care that the playing field is leveled, they don't care if you equalize down or up.
2. The EU has fumbled the ball on GDPR by not enforcing it on the tech giants that it was intended to regulate[0], to the point where a tech company enforcing the intent of the law and not the letter of the law feels like singling out competitors.
[0] In particular, the Republic of Ireland is a rotten borough for Facebook, who has all their EU offices there.
by kmeisthax - Title doesn't match the article, which is currently "Apple changes its rules for personalised advertising in apps".
Apple gave itself better dialogs for the permission prompts, which they will now equalize (perhaps just in the EU?) with the prompts they use for their own apps.
My understanding of ATTF is that first-party tracking needed no disclosure other than the information declared in the app's App Store privacy section about the information gathered. If you made a suite of 20 apps, you could track usage across all of them without issue, as long as you didn't also share that info with a third party.
by jshier - Apple didn't give itself better dialogs. It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites so the ATT prompt would never apply to their apps. It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising. Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.
The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech.
EDIT: You can downvote me all you like, but it's right there on page 1 of the FAQ from the regulator. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Pr...
by Despegar