Hacker News Reader

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

Instagram does, in fact, have such a dialog in the EU. Because they are legally required to, like everybody else.

I don't live in the EU. My comment is based on what they do in the rest of the world.

What "The German regulator" did is definitely not based on what they do in the rest of the world.

What Apple and Facebook do in their apps in the rest of the world.

Based on the final paragraph before the edit it sounds like it was about Germany and the EU as a whole

Nothing on page 1 of the faq supports any of the assertions in your comment.

>Apple only gives third-party app publishers access to the IDFA if they have obtained user consent through a dedicated consent prompt that is largely predefined by Apple – the so-called ATT prompt. If the user refuses to give consent in this prompt, the app publisher does not gain access to the IDFA. According to the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation, there are no other technical options available to app publishers that are equally suitable for exchanging data across companies.

In contrast, Apple’s own personalised advertising is subject to different conditions. Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt. Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes, the company uses a different consent prompt – the so-called PA prompt (“Personalized Ads prompt”). The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers.

Ok, let's break down your claims one by one and compare to the text of the FAQ...

> Apple didn't give itself better dialogs.

On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."

> It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites

The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",

> It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising.

Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"

> Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.

Nothing in the FAQ supports this claim, and as discussed in other comments here it is simply false.

> 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.

Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.

>On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."

The PA prompt is a voluntary (required in the EU?) prompt Apple shows requesting opt-in for personalzied ads. It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever.

If Apple wanted, it could mirror Facebook's behavior (in the rest of the world) by not showing any PA prompt. This would greatly increase the number of people who are exposed to personalized ads from Apple's first-party ad network.

>The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",

It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.

>Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"

My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.

>Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.

That is my informed opinion based on following this story since the very beginning.

> It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.

Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps (just that it is not using the apple specific identifier for advertisers to do so) nor say that not doing so is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.

> My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.

No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.

>Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps nor say that is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.

That is what Apple says about their ad network and what they've said in communications with regulators. And if they were actually doing third-party tracking, that would actually be an instance of Apple being a hypocrite. The regulator would have had them dead to rights if that were the case. The regulator doesn't actually say Apple was doing that.

The quoted section from page 1 indeed says that Apple does not use the IDFA nor uses cross-company combination of data:

>Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt.

>No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.

I wrote my comment and know what I was referring to and I clarified it in later comments. I'm sorry you misunderstood.

Your mistaken, words have meanings, I understood perfectly, I'm sorry you did not write the comment you meant to but intending to write something other than what you did does not mean you did so.

That's okay. Everyone can determine who has the better argument for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com