9 ms·

Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google

jeffbee 6y ago
Apple exempts all their iOS software from their own privacy scaremongering. iOS never pops up a scary dialog warning you that Camera has accessed your location twice in the last week, even though Camera accesses your location every time you start it. There is a completely separate iOS privacy regime for Apple's own apps.
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  The idea is that we trust Apple already by using their computers. If Apple was sending that data back to their servers each time then that would ruin their reputation, but there are no such guarantees for third-party applications. Yes, theoretically, Apple reviews third party code, but it is easy enough to slip something small by them.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    But I don't trust Apple to never make mistakes, so I want to be warned when the collect more data.
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    We are not using "their computers". We are using our own computers. Apple made them. I realize Apple likely doesn't feel the same way. I also think this is kind of an "of course Apple does that." A great many people pay money for this particular experience.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      With due respect, you're giving the OP a deliberately ungenerous reading to score a point. If I tell you "I like using Dell's servers because [reasons]" you wouldn't say, "They're YOUR servers, Dell just made them" because I said "Dell's servers" rather than "Dell servers".
      - slowmovintarget 6y ago
        The trouble is with the language though, especially when thinking about who is permitted to do what with the device. I wasn't trying to score cheap points, I was attempting to demonstrate two concepts that had been collapsed into the pronoun "their" really must be considered separately when thinking about authorization. I apologize if the message was muddled in "gotcha" language. I aim to do better than that.
      - saurik 6y ago
        I live in my landlord's apartment. Technically, they have a key to enter. I absolutely have to trust them to ensure they don't come inside if I am not here. However, they still have to ask permission to enter (unless it is some clear and obvious emergency), as we don't consider it to be my landlord's apartment: we consider it to be my apartment; the language is trying to shift the discussion into some weird natural stance that somehow, just because Apple made something and I can't know for sure they aren't lying to me about whether they honor the restrictions I tell them, it somehow means they don't have to ask... that's bullshit :/.
- acdha 6y ago
  Scaremongering isn't the right way to describe a real, well-documented ongoing concern. We have a long history of app developers trying to monetize their user's privacy, and that also explains why your comparison is inaccurate: if you buy an iOS device you are already trusting Apple. If you don't trust Camera to do nothing more than geotag your photos, you can't use iOS at all because every mechanism which would protect your privacy is built by the same company. What the privacy measures are doing is giving the user the ability to review requests for access to your personal data by parties you aren't already trusting by virtue of owning the device.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    Don't you think it's at least a little hypocritical that they don't extend the same privacy configuration options to their apps that they mandate for 3rd party apps? Sure, I generally trust Apple more than a random 3rd party developer, but the fact that Apple doesn't trust me to set my own privacy configuration for the camera makes me trust them less.
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      You have the same options to disable location data for the built-in Camera app that you have with any other app.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        Yes, but iOS does not proactively beg you to disable location access for Apple Maps, the way it does for Google Maps even if you've been using Google Maps daily since 2007.
        zepto 6y ago
        Actually it does, and always has. When you set up iOS there is a full screen permission request to allow location data for Apple’s apps.
        thelopa 6y ago
- xoa 6y ago
  Duh? What's up with all the recent assertions that there is any sort of trust equivalency for 3rd parties vs Apple within the iOS ecosystem? Apple is part of the core trust foundation for any iOS user. They are present in the entire freaking stack, from the SoC everything runs on up. As a technical matter, they can do absolutely anything they want. By definition if you run iOS you trust Apple's stuff, from the hardware to software. If you don't, you shouldn't be running iOS. There is absolutely a "completely separate privacy regime" for Apple on Apple platforms, and it's not "Apple's own apps" it's "Apple's own processor and microcode and firmware and other chips and cryptographic keys and operating system ...and apps". For human facing privacy and security information overload is a genuinely huge issue. What value do you assert exists for a "scary dialog" for Camera, software from Apple? After all, for that to even mean anything you must by definition be trusting iOS, software from Apple. On the other hand it's perfectly reasonable to not have the same level of trust in 3rd parties. 3rd parties do not share the same financial relationship or incentives that Apple has with its customers. Nor the same culture, nor necessarily scrutiny or technical acumen or even controlling legal regime. You certainly do not need to trust Apple at all in general, you can run Linux, the BSDs, Windows, ChromeOS, Android or (happily!) various improving Linux phones that are extremely open. But if you decide to run Apple specifically, then you must indeed trust them. Edit: Also, "fearmongering" is a ridiculous bit of bait. I mean, 2020 on HN and you're suggesting random 3rd party apps accessing camera/location/whatever is not the slightest issue? Ok.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Apple could offer a single consent dialog for a bucket of third parties, like they do for all their internal organizations. To say otherwise is to say that just because Apple has vendor lock-in they deserve trust.
    - xoa 6y ago
      >To say otherwise is to say that just because Apple has vendor lock-in they deserve trust. Incorrect, the whole point is that Apple doesn't have vendor lock-in. As I said there are great non-Apple options for every aspect of our lives (vastly better in many cases). If you choose to buy into Apple's platform however, then it's not a matter of "deserve", you DO trust them by definition. You have made a conscious choice to buy from a massively vertically integrated corporation that exerts significant hardware backed cryptographic control over the software ecosystem. That's not a bug, that's a feature for a lot of people, but it's one that depends entirely on (a specific, limited context sort of) trust in Apple.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Well, kind of. Some apps get entitlements to prevent showing TCC popups; some don’t, like Weather. And if you look in Settings, you will find that Camera shows that it was using your location, just like other apps on your system. (FWIW: I believe that dialog is specifically for apps that use your location in the background, so Camera won’t trigger it anyhow.)
- gruez 6y ago
  It makes sense if you consider why the feature was added in the first place: to catch malicious behavior by apps. eg. apps that tracks your location even after you've closed it, or surreptitiously record you. It doesn't really make sense to do so for first-party apps because apple controls the operating system, so from a security perspective it doesn't add any meaningful security. If apple wanted to be malicious they could disable those alerts from ios, or do their spying from ios itself so it bypasses the app sandbox entirely.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    There's a neutral way to do this. They could pop up a surprise dialog that says something like: These apps used your location. * "Popular near me" * Maps * Google Maps * Chrome If I saw that dialog, I'd probably be tempted to disable the Popular Near Me feature, which I've never heard of and therefore I assume provides me no value and, at a minimum, might be cutting into my battery life. But Apple doesn't present me with that dialog because they don't want to impair their own advertising business.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  And Apple is 100% sure of exactly what happens with that location data. I'd be happy to get some limited exceptions to this, like "3rd party camera apps can get pre-granted location access, but only if the developer agrees that the location data will be used for nothing but EXIF tags, and if it is ever found to have left the device the developer gets delisted from the app store."
  - fragmede 6y ago
    There isn't a box inside of Apple HQ marked 'location data, do not eat', so Apple isn't actually 100% sure where the location data is. There are numerous safeguards, both in their device and the online platform to try and make sure it never leaks, but no one other than their marketing team would say 100%.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      That's true, I shouldn't say 100%. But the location data is in my iCloud Photos box, which I think Apple will at least internally take a hard look at anything that wants to access it. If the iPhone calculator app team said "We're going to turn this into a social calculator and it's going to use your photo library to automatically identify receipts to calculate tips and splits, and we're going to do the image processing on the server and make a database of where we identified your receipts to help with identifying restaurant payment locations," somebody higher up would tell them "No, we need to do receipt recognition all on-device." That makes it a lot easier to avoid accidental data leakage.
- thelopa 6y ago
  The prompt you’re thinking of only shows if the app uses location in the background. An app that has While Using the App authorization can’t get the background usage prompt. It’s not that Camera is exempted, it’s that Camera isn’t relevant.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Of course they do, why wouldn't they? You bought Apple hardware; it can be safely assumed you trust Apple the company, right? (insert knowing head-tilt here ;) )
- iji40 6y ago
  You know, given this forum’s recent experience with misinformation about Apple, I shouldn’t be surprised to read a completely false comment (and another accusing Apple of illegal behavior downthread, also known as actionable libel). And yet here I am, surprised. Your interpretation of events is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the permissions framework functions on iOS. That you then pivoted that misunderstanding into malevolent intentions from Apple speaks to your biases. Of course, given that you’re a member of this forum, I’d expect you’d find this behavior abhorrent when it comes to things like vaccination or COVID, so I’d only challenge you to think about whether you have all the facts, just as you would with any other contentious topic. The only difference here is that you don’t realize it’s contentious for you. iOS programs shipped by Apple do not interact with the operating system in a different way with respect to privacy. Full stop. Your entire thesis, conclusion, and argument are not even remotely defensible in their falseness. There are no exemptions carved out in the operating system. First party apps with very few, SVP-documented exceptions (and usually for technical reasons) are held to the exact same standards that third parties adhere to during app submission. I know this because at one time in my career it was my job to know. Don’t believe me? Reverse the apps.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Can you explain, then, why "Routing and Traffic" is a system service with background access to location services, but iOS never suggests that I might want to turn it off?
    - iji40 6y ago
      Because more apps than Apple Maps consume that information. Your “never ask to turn it off” returns to the complete misunderstanding of how permissions work. You are not prompted because you already granted it access during provisioning, and it’s not asking for background data. Your allegation that Google Maps is targeted with engineering and architectural decisions is not supported by public evidence and wholly refuted by internal evidence. I helped build Apple Maps. Please consider yourself uninformed and ask more questions rather than draw conclusions that affirm your biases, particularly if you then come here to spread them.
- glitchc 6y ago
  This is hyperbolic and wrong. On my iPhone XS running iOS 13.6, there is an option inside Settings>Privacy>Location Services to turn off location access for the Camera app. You can turn off Location for other core Apple apps too, including HomeKit, Health, etc.
wutbrodo 6y ago
I had a very brief stint working on mobile ads in 2011, so I have some vague familiarity with the sausage factory and its implications for user privacy on mobile devices, and this is par for the course for Apple. A big part of their marketing strategy is duping people into thinking they're pro-user, when they're one of the most aggressively anti-user companies I can think of. What's really impressive is how successful the reality distortion field has been in nominally technical fora (HN included, though it's gotten much better in the last few years).
- sjroot 6y ago
  Apple may be certainly far from perfect when it comes to favoring their own software, but to say the company as a whole is aggressively "anti-user" is just hogwash. Updates they have made to Safari, the App Store, and iOS generally have made millions of people more conscious of how applications they use every day consume and interact with their personal information. They've inspired other companies like Google to follow suit, and are having a huge impact on the targeted advertising industry. Give credit where it is due.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    Check into their ads data policy sometime - it's much, much, worse than the incumbents. but it's buried on the 3rd page of a PDF so they just got praise for releasing the PDF when it came out, only a few noticed
  - banachtarski 6y ago
    This is evidence of the reality distortion field. It's like when they made the argument why Netflix/Spotify should pay them 30% of the proceeds of all sales because it's good for consumers and people actually bought it.
    - dwaite 6y ago
      Except that isn't how it works. Both Netflix and Spotify had app versions which support in-app purchase and only the sign-ups in-app resulted in Apple getting a cut. The problem both of these companies had was that the option to sign up in-app and have Apple manage the subscription was more popular than they hoped.
justapassenger 6y ago
This has been Apple’s iPhone playbook for a decade. Force other companies to use their frameworks, so they can make money out of it. Privacy is just an amazing excuse to take it even further. And in Apple’s case privacy means available and controlled by Apple.
SimeVidas 6y ago
> Other advertisers and ad networks on iOS, however, need to ask permission every single time. Is this something new? I have been using iOS for years until recently, and I don’t remember any ad network ever asking me permission for anything. …Ah, it says that the prompts are new in iOS 14. I see.
- blue_box 6y ago
  It is a new feature in iOS 14.
Despegar 6y ago
>It’s possible that this is a temporary situation. One source in the mobile marketing industry who requested anonymity said that Apple is using an “archaic” attribution engine they built years ago, and they are currently upgrading their code to comply with the new rules. The thinking is that Apple Advertising will eventually be compatible with SKAdNetwork, a framework Apple built for advertisers. SKAdNetwork enables completely privacy-safe advertising attribution, meaning that brands can know which ad campaigns worked, but they won’t have specific, granular data on which people viewed an ad, clicked an ad, or took action. If they're going to use SKAdNetwork then they're tying their own hands as well.
anonobviosly 6y ago
It's baffling to me that Apple doesn't get get more attention from regulators. They're very blatant in behavior which is explicitly illegal in current antitrust law. They 1) formed a cartel with book publishers to increase ebook prices, 2) formed a cartel with multiple other tech companies to suppress software engineer wages, and now they're 3) using a dominant position in one market to enter into another. The other tech companies do things which one could argue should be illegal... Apple does things which already are illegal.
- zepto 6y ago
  What are you talking about? They were subjected to regulatory action over both of your first two concerns and forced to desist from the behavior. As to #3, this applies just as much to Amazon, Google and Facebook and frankly Microsoft too... ...and it turns out that all except Microsoft in fact are under regulatory scrutiny and antitrust action.
zepto 6y ago
This piece is complete bullshit. IOS14 is unreleased, and features continue to change. We have no idea whether Apple’s ad network will require permissions or not by the time the software is released. Usually these permissions are requested during set up, but the set up flow is not usually finalized until shortly before the release. You do get asked if you will allow Apple’s apps to have access to Location data and other personal data. There is no reason to suppose the set up flow won’t ask you about this preference too. The idea that 3rd parties have to ask ‘every single time’ is misleading. They mean on every single installation. Yes, if they release software with this preferential treatment, by all means call it out. But this piece is just dishonest innuendo.
AlexandrB 6y ago
> Essentially, Apple is forcing advertisers to use a per-app permission pop-up with scary language, telling users the app wants permission to track them across other apps and websites. > But notice the significantly scarier language: “’Pal About’ would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” > This is language that is likely designed to minimize opt-in. Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language. This is an admission that what they do is fundamentally creepy and if they were honest with their users, much fewer would be ok with it. I wish advertisers were forced to ask permission using similar language on all platforms.
- luckylion 6y ago
  You've left out a critical part, which explains the "minimize opt-in" comment: > In contrast, Apple’s own advertising service looks to enable personalization by default, giving it a platform-level advantage over competitors. And the language in Apple's settings is quite different as well, they claim that their "advertising platform is designed to protect your privacy". That doesn't sound invasive, quite the opposite, that sounds like they shield you from harm.
  - tiny_epoch 6y ago
    Don't Apple also claim to do personalization on-device, not in the cloud? Or is that not the case with their ad network?
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Exactly. The creepiness is in the stalking done by advertisers, not in the accurate descriptions made about it.
- MiroF 6y ago
  'Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language' Isn't the problem here that Apple isn't using honest language for their own advertising?
  - prophesi 6y ago
Pesthuf 6y ago
Figures that advertisers are scared of brutally honest language. The popular lie "We value your privacy" just sounds so much better! "Our internal tests have found that lying to our users and making it confusing for them to do what they really want via dark patterns increases our revenue!"

Apple exempts all their iOS software from their own privacy scaremongering. iOS never pops up a scary dialog warning you that Camera has accessed your location twice in the last week, even though Camera accesses your location every time you start it. There is a completely separate iOS privacy regime for Apple's own apps.

3pt14159 6y ago
The idea is that we trust Apple already by using their computers. If Apple was sending that data back to their servers each time then that would ruin their reputation, but there are no such guarantees for third-party applications. Yes, theoretically, Apple reviews third party code, but it is easy enough to slip something small by them.
- sukilot 6y ago
  But I don't trust Apple to never make mistakes, so I want to be warned when the collect more data.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  We are not using "their computers". We are using our own computers. Apple made them. I realize Apple likely doesn't feel the same way. I also think this is kind of an "of course Apple does that." A great many people pay money for this particular experience.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    With due respect, you're giving the OP a deliberately ungenerous reading to score a point. If I tell you "I like using Dell's servers because [reasons]" you wouldn't say, "They're YOUR servers, Dell just made them" because I said "Dell's servers" rather than "Dell servers".
    - slowmovintarget 6y ago
      The trouble is with the language though, especially when thinking about who is permitted to do what with the device. I wasn't trying to score cheap points, I was attempting to demonstrate two concepts that had been collapsed into the pronoun "their" really must be considered separately when thinking about authorization. I apologize if the message was muddled in "gotcha" language. I aim to do better than that.
    - saurik 6y ago
      I live in my landlord's apartment. Technically, they have a key to enter. I absolutely have to trust them to ensure they don't come inside if I am not here. However, they still have to ask permission to enter (unless it is some clear and obvious emergency), as we don't consider it to be my landlord's apartment: we consider it to be my apartment; the language is trying to shift the discussion into some weird natural stance that somehow, just because Apple made something and I can't know for sure they aren't lying to me about whether they honor the restrictions I tell them, it somehow means they don't have to ask... that's bullshit :/.
acdha 6y ago
Scaremongering isn't the right way to describe a real, well-documented ongoing concern. We have a long history of app developers trying to monetize their user's privacy, and that also explains why your comparison is inaccurate: if you buy an iOS device you are already trusting Apple. If you don't trust Camera to do nothing more than geotag your photos, you can't use iOS at all because every mechanism which would protect your privacy is built by the same company. What the privacy measures are doing is giving the user the ability to review requests for access to your personal data by parties you aren't already trusting by virtue of owning the device.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  Don't you think it's at least a little hypocritical that they don't extend the same privacy configuration options to their apps that they mandate for 3rd party apps? Sure, I generally trust Apple more than a random 3rd party developer, but the fact that Apple doesn't trust me to set my own privacy configuration for the camera makes me trust them less.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    You have the same options to disable location data for the built-in Camera app that you have with any other app.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Yes, but iOS does not proactively beg you to disable location access for Apple Maps, the way it does for Google Maps even if you've been using Google Maps daily since 2007.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Actually it does, and always has. When you set up iOS there is a full screen permission request to allow location data for Apple’s apps.
      - thelopa 6y ago
xoa 6y ago
Duh? What's up with all the recent assertions that there is any sort of trust equivalency for 3rd parties vs Apple within the iOS ecosystem? Apple is part of the core trust foundation for any iOS user. They are present in the entire freaking stack, from the SoC everything runs on up. As a technical matter, they can do absolutely anything they want. By definition if you run iOS you trust Apple's stuff, from the hardware to software. If you don't, you shouldn't be running iOS. There is absolutely a "completely separate privacy regime" for Apple on Apple platforms, and it's not "Apple's own apps" it's "Apple's own processor and microcode and firmware and other chips and cryptographic keys and operating system ...and apps". For human facing privacy and security information overload is a genuinely huge issue. What value do you assert exists for a "scary dialog" for Camera, software from Apple? After all, for that to even mean anything you must by definition be trusting iOS, software from Apple. On the other hand it's perfectly reasonable to not have the same level of trust in 3rd parties. 3rd parties do not share the same financial relationship or incentives that Apple has with its customers. Nor the same culture, nor necessarily scrutiny or technical acumen or even controlling legal regime. You certainly do not need to trust Apple at all in general, you can run Linux, the BSDs, Windows, ChromeOS, Android or (happily!) various improving Linux phones that are extremely open. But if you decide to run Apple specifically, then you must indeed trust them. Edit: Also, "fearmongering" is a ridiculous bit of bait. I mean, 2020 on HN and you're suggesting random 3rd party apps accessing camera/location/whatever is not the slightest issue? Ok.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Apple could offer a single consent dialog for a bucket of third parties, like they do for all their internal organizations. To say otherwise is to say that just because Apple has vendor lock-in they deserve trust.
  - xoa 6y ago
    >To say otherwise is to say that just because Apple has vendor lock-in they deserve trust. Incorrect, the whole point is that Apple doesn't have vendor lock-in. As I said there are great non-Apple options for every aspect of our lives (vastly better in many cases). If you choose to buy into Apple's platform however, then it's not a matter of "deserve", you DO trust them by definition. You have made a conscious choice to buy from a massively vertically integrated corporation that exerts significant hardware backed cryptographic control over the software ecosystem. That's not a bug, that's a feature for a lot of people, but it's one that depends entirely on (a specific, limited context sort of) trust in Apple.
saagarjha 6y ago
Well, kind of. Some apps get entitlements to prevent showing TCC popups; some don’t, like Weather. And if you look in Settings, you will find that Camera shows that it was using your location, just like other apps on your system. (FWIW: I believe that dialog is specifically for apps that use your location in the background, so Camera won’t trigger it anyhow.)
gruez 6y ago
It makes sense if you consider why the feature was added in the first place: to catch malicious behavior by apps. eg. apps that tracks your location even after you've closed it, or surreptitiously record you. It doesn't really make sense to do so for first-party apps because apple controls the operating system, so from a security perspective it doesn't add any meaningful security. If apple wanted to be malicious they could disable those alerts from ios, or do their spying from ios itself so it bypasses the app sandbox entirely.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  There's a neutral way to do this. They could pop up a surprise dialog that says something like: These apps used your location. * "Popular near me" * Maps * Google Maps * Chrome If I saw that dialog, I'd probably be tempted to disable the Popular Near Me feature, which I've never heard of and therefore I assume provides me no value and, at a minimum, might be cutting into my battery life. But Apple doesn't present me with that dialog because they don't want to impair their own advertising business.
wlesieutre 6y ago
And Apple is 100% sure of exactly what happens with that location data. I'd be happy to get some limited exceptions to this, like "3rd party camera apps can get pre-granted location access, but only if the developer agrees that the location data will be used for nothing but EXIF tags, and if it is ever found to have left the device the developer gets delisted from the app store."
- fragmede 6y ago
  There isn't a box inside of Apple HQ marked 'location data, do not eat', so Apple isn't actually 100% sure where the location data is. There are numerous safeguards, both in their device and the online platform to try and make sure it never leaks, but no one other than their marketing team would say 100%.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    That's true, I shouldn't say 100%. But the location data is in my iCloud Photos box, which I think Apple will at least internally take a hard look at anything that wants to access it. If the iPhone calculator app team said "We're going to turn this into a social calculator and it's going to use your photo library to automatically identify receipts to calculate tips and splits, and we're going to do the image processing on the server and make a database of where we identified your receipts to help with identifying restaurant payment locations," somebody higher up would tell them "No, we need to do receipt recognition all on-device." That makes it a lot easier to avoid accidental data leakage.
thelopa 6y ago
The prompt you’re thinking of only shows if the app uses location in the background. An app that has While Using the App authorization can’t get the background usage prompt. It’s not that Camera is exempted, it’s that Camera isn’t relevant.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Of course they do, why wouldn't they? You bought Apple hardware; it can be safely assumed you trust Apple the company, right? (insert knowing head-tilt here ;) )
iji40 6y ago
You know, given this forum’s recent experience with misinformation about Apple, I shouldn’t be surprised to read a completely false comment (and another accusing Apple of illegal behavior downthread, also known as actionable libel). And yet here I am, surprised. Your interpretation of events is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the permissions framework functions on iOS. That you then pivoted that misunderstanding into malevolent intentions from Apple speaks to your biases. Of course, given that you’re a member of this forum, I’d expect you’d find this behavior abhorrent when it comes to things like vaccination or COVID, so I’d only challenge you to think about whether you have all the facts, just as you would with any other contentious topic. The only difference here is that you don’t realize it’s contentious for you. iOS programs shipped by Apple do not interact with the operating system in a different way with respect to privacy. Full stop. Your entire thesis, conclusion, and argument are not even remotely defensible in their falseness. There are no exemptions carved out in the operating system. First party apps with very few, SVP-documented exceptions (and usually for technical reasons) are held to the exact same standards that third parties adhere to during app submission. I know this because at one time in my career it was my job to know. Don’t believe me? Reverse the apps.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Can you explain, then, why "Routing and Traffic" is a system service with background access to location services, but iOS never suggests that I might want to turn it off?
  - iji40 6y ago
    Because more apps than Apple Maps consume that information. Your “never ask to turn it off” returns to the complete misunderstanding of how permissions work. You are not prompted because you already granted it access during provisioning, and it’s not asking for background data. Your allegation that Google Maps is targeted with engineering and architectural decisions is not supported by public evidence and wholly refuted by internal evidence. I helped build Apple Maps. Please consider yourself uninformed and ask more questions rather than draw conclusions that affirm your biases, particularly if you then come here to spread them.
glitchc 6y ago
This is hyperbolic and wrong. On my iPhone XS running iOS 13.6, there is an option inside Settings>Privacy>Location Services to turn off location access for the Camera app. You can turn off Location for other core Apple apps too, including HomeKit, Health, etc.

wutbrodo 6y ago

I had a very brief stint working on mobile ads in 2011, so I have some vague familiarity with the sausage factory and its implications for user privacy on mobile devices, and this is par for the course for Apple. A big part of their marketing strategy is duping people into thinking they're pro-user, when they're one of the most aggressively anti-user companies I can think of. What's really impressive is how successful the reality distortion field has been in nominally technical fora (HN included, though it's gotten much better in the last few years).

sjroot 6y ago
Apple may be certainly far from perfect when it comes to favoring their own software, but to say the company as a whole is aggressively "anti-user" is just hogwash. Updates they have made to Safari, the App Store, and iOS generally have made millions of people more conscious of how applications they use every day consume and interact with their personal information. They've inspired other companies like Google to follow suit, and are having a huge impact on the targeted advertising industry. Give credit where it is due.
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  Check into their ads data policy sometime - it's much, much, worse than the incumbents. but it's buried on the 3rd page of a PDF so they just got praise for releasing the PDF when it came out, only a few noticed
- banachtarski 6y ago
  This is evidence of the reality distortion field. It's like when they made the argument why Netflix/Spotify should pay them 30% of the proceeds of all sales because it's good for consumers and people actually bought it.
  - dwaite 6y ago
    Except that isn't how it works. Both Netflix and Spotify had app versions which support in-app purchase and only the sign-ups in-app resulted in Apple getting a cut. The problem both of these companies had was that the option to sign up in-app and have Apple manage the subscription was more popular than they hoped.

justapassenger 6y ago

This has been Apple’s iPhone playbook for a decade. Force other companies to use their frameworks, so they can make money out of it. Privacy is just an amazing excuse to take it even further. And in Apple’s case privacy means available and controlled by Apple.

SimeVidas 6y ago

> Other advertisers and ad networks on iOS, however, need to ask permission every single time. Is this something new? I have been using iOS for years until recently, and I don’t remember any ad network ever asking me permission for anything. …Ah, it says that the prompts are new in iOS 14. I see.

blue_box 6y ago
It is a new feature in iOS 14.

Despegar 6y ago

>It’s possible that this is a temporary situation. One source in the mobile marketing industry who requested anonymity said that Apple is using an “archaic” attribution engine they built years ago, and they are currently upgrading their code to comply with the new rules. The thinking is that Apple Advertising will eventually be compatible with SKAdNetwork, a framework Apple built for advertisers. SKAdNetwork enables completely privacy-safe advertising attribution, meaning that brands can know which ad campaigns worked, but they won’t have specific, granular data on which people viewed an ad, clicked an ad, or took action. If they're going to use SKAdNetwork then they're tying their own hands as well.

anonobviosly 6y ago

It's baffling to me that Apple doesn't get get more attention from regulators. They're very blatant in behavior which is explicitly illegal in current antitrust law. They 1) formed a cartel with book publishers to increase ebook prices, 2) formed a cartel with multiple other tech companies to suppress software engineer wages, and now they're 3) using a dominant position in one market to enter into another. The other tech companies do things which one could argue should be illegal... Apple does things which already are illegal.

zepto 6y ago
What are you talking about? They were subjected to regulatory action over both of your first two concerns and forced to desist from the behavior. As to #3, this applies just as much to Amazon, Google and Facebook and frankly Microsoft too... ...and it turns out that all except Microsoft in fact are under regulatory scrutiny and antitrust action.

zepto 6y ago

This piece is complete bullshit. IOS14 is unreleased, and features continue to change. We have no idea whether Apple’s ad network will require permissions or not by the time the software is released. Usually these permissions are requested during set up, but the set up flow is not usually finalized until shortly before the release. You do get asked if you will allow Apple’s apps to have access to Location data and other personal data. There is no reason to suppose the set up flow won’t ask you about this preference too. The idea that 3rd parties have to ask ‘every single time’ is misleading. They mean on every single installation. Yes, if they release software with this preferential treatment, by all means call it out. But this piece is just dishonest innuendo.

AlexandrB 6y ago

> Essentially, Apple is forcing advertisers to use a per-app permission pop-up with scary language, telling users the app wants permission to track them across other apps and websites. > But notice the significantly scarier language: “’Pal About’ would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” > This is language that is likely designed to minimize opt-in. Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language. This is an admission that what they do is fundamentally creepy and if they were honest with their users, much fewer would be ok with it. I wish advertisers were forced to ask permission using similar language on all platforms.

luckylion 6y ago
You've left out a critical part, which explains the "minimize opt-in" comment: > In contrast, Apple’s own advertising service looks to enable personalization by default, giving it a platform-level advantage over competitors. And the language in Apple's settings is quite different as well, they claim that their "advertising platform is designed to protect your privacy". That doesn't sound invasive, quite the opposite, that sounds like they shield you from harm.
- tiny_epoch 6y ago
  Don't Apple also claim to do personalization on-device, not in the cloud? Or is that not the case with their ad network?
MereInterest 6y ago
Exactly. The creepiness is in the stalking done by advertisers, not in the accurate descriptions made about it.
MiroF 6y ago
'Love how honest language is framed as "scary" language' Isn't the problem here that Apple isn't using honest language for their own advertising?
- prophesi 6y ago

Pesthuf 6y ago

Figures that advertisers are scared of brutally honest language. The popular lie "We value your privacy" just sounds so much better! "Our internal tests have found that lying to our users and making it confusing for them to do what they really want via dark patterns increases our revenue!"