Hacker News Reader

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

>Apple was quite clever in their approach: instead of killing the IDFA, which could be construed as anti-competitive, particularly given Apple’s expanding app install ad business (which is expanding beyond App Store search ads), Apple is simply asking users if they would like to be tracked, and letting them render the IDFA useless.

The unstated implication of this is that when required to receive consent from users, the entire ad-tech complex falls apart.

I think Apple is actually smart to do it this way rather than just getting rid of the IDFA altogether, but only because of the political/regulatory environment right now. Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in their first antitrust case. After that the gloves can come off.

View on HN

I'm curious, though, will Apple's own ads require consent? When you open the App Store for the first time, will there be a popup asking for consent to track for ad purposes?

You can show ads without tracking user behaviour.

yet Apple also tracks you by default, without asking for consent. It's opt-in by default (which I believe is against the GDPR)

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223

Err... opt-in by default isn't opt-in. That is on by default with an opt-out.

I believe Apple asks for permission after major OS updates.

IMO you've given enough consent by using their app store. All they need is to store the device IDs to which they display ads and install apps so that they can attribute app installs to specific advertisements. You're logged into their app store, so you should expect Apple to already know the device ID when they display ads and install apps.

But I pay for the App Store indirectly through high margin hardware, transaction fees, including the 30% tax, so shouldn’t i be able to turn off Apple’s ad network all together and not let them advertise to me in the App Store by using my purchase history?

Funny how privacy invasions are bad and everything should be done on device until Apple starts selling ads and then it’s ok somehow for them to use your behavior/purchase profile.

The thing is, you don't get to choose how you pay. You only get tho coose whether you want to pay or not. They can track you and you can not use the service.

I'm not talking about personalizing ads here, I'm talking about storing who Apple has served ads to so that they can tell advertisers which ads lead to how many app installs.

You can! https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074

Cool, I didn't know, but doesn't that imply it's a dark pattern? How many users know about this setting? Wouldn't it be better as Opt-In, and let the App Store prompt you when you set up your iPhone "do you want to opt in to interest based advertisin/etc"? When other companies do opt-out, they're usually heavily criticized.

> IMO you've given enough consent by using their app store.

The entire point of consent is that your opinion doesn't really matter; mine does.

Imagine, asking consumers what they want and allowing them to consent. It's funny that that's considered a revolutionary new business strategy. I thought that's they way business was supposed to operate?

Sounds great until you consider that the vast majority of users just tap/click “yes” at every prompt.

End users don’t even know what’s best for them. My family acts like I’m a conspiracy theorist when I talk about privacy. Yes, that’s anecdotal, but I’d bet most people would behave similarly. Consider the sheer amount of articles in popular media about Facebook’s privacy violations. Now consider how many people in your family either haven’t heard about them or simply don’t care.

Even other tech-savvy people don’t care. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the phrase, “what do you have to hide?”

I really think we need better representation in the government for protecting citizens from technology.

I was talking to some people about how food delivery apps/companies are basically stealing money from restaurants by using a smaller restaurant’s ad space to promote bigger clients. They just sort of glazed over at the details which in my mind are not terribly technical.

I don’t think Uber should go to jail over what they are doing, it’s more schemey than evil, but the average person is unable to care about technological details so we need better representation in the government against this sort of thing.

I think so, at least for the ad industry. Trust is central to the economy, and most people are unaware that their trust is misguided. A simple food label seems pretty straightforward but it’s anything but. Tic Taks are “sugar free”. There is a transparency in reminding a user or consumer that they are consenting to a predatory agreement in plainer language than you would see in fine print. We are being lied to so much especially with social media.

Many people still harbour the notion that Facebook is a social utility. It used to be.

I see it as more prudent, than clever. In regulated industries, it's called informed consent (IC).

>Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in their first antitrust case.

That would be anticompetitive behaviour with iOS Appstore or perhaps with not allowing browser engines on iOS and honesty I think Apple would find it comfortable if it was for something like IDFA than those.

It's way more crippling and goes beyond IDFA and basic 3P ad tech - at least from my reading.

Unless I'm misunderstanding?

From my reading of the url below, Apple is mandating this consent popup on all apps that use any advertising (both 3p tracking but also serving their own 'walled garden' e.g. FB) - that is beyond basic contextual.

To me this seems to go way too far. For instance FB in the US would have to get consent to show any ads as they currently run for the vast majority of users. Plus if there is privacy a law like gdpr FB already gets opt-in in those countries this is just adding another opt-in on top.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-...

That's not correct. If you read the details carefully, it is about requiring consent to track users beyond the app.

They are also launching an IDFV that can be always accessed and is shared with the same family of apps, e.g. Facebook can track across Instagram without the popup.

I could totally be wrong still/if was at first, but I still read it as more restrictive.

under 'asking permission to track' this line "Displaying targeted advertisements in your app based on user data collected from apps and websites owned by other companies" seems like it would apply to a large amount of Facebook advertising.

They would have to get rid of a lot of targeting (and also the attribution parent mentioned) and maybe even more if using gdpr PII definition

"Sharing device location data or email lists with a data broker" the location data would apply to most SSPs/programmatic. Kind of a question of the comma too. If sharing any device location dat [period]. Or if the location data must go to a data broker to apply to that line. And depends a bit too if they use CCPA data broker definition (and ccpa definition of 'sale' is super broad any exchange of value). Even more if you count IPs as location.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com