5 ms·

I'm confused with this particular cause, though. It is known that "in the beginning" of 2021 Apple will make IDFA enabled on a per app basis after explicit user

I'm confused with this particular cause, though. It is known that "in the beginning" of 2021 Apple will make IDFA enabled on a per app basis after explicit user consent. This was working in beta version of iOS 14 this summer and caused huge pushback mainly from Facebook. So, this is what Schrems is after, but it will happen with or without their action.

DavideNL 6y ago
I'm not sure about the details, but i imagine something like this; If Apple breaks the rules by placing "cookies" without user consent/knowledge, they may need to be fined. Whether they may or may not stop abusing the rules in the future, is a secondary issue.
izacus 6y ago
This is just a mirror suit of Schrems Google ID tracking suit: https://noyb.eu/en/complaint-filed-against-google-tracking-id https://noyb.eu/en/complaint-filed-against-google-tracking-i... That's already in progress and in this case it's pretty much about the exact same practice on Apple platforms. (Also please note how iOS 14 has a separate switch for Apple Ads tracking identifier which is ON by default.)
Pentamerous 6y ago
They don't consider those improvements sufficient. See section titled "Insufficient “improvement” on third-party access.": https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-files-complaints-against-apples-tracking-code-idfa https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-files-complaints-against-apples-trac... They argue that with the planned changes, Apple still creates a IDFA, and while it will allow users to restrict other apps from using it, Apple itself still can. Additionally they want users to be able to have no IDFA at all.