6 ms·

Is there any evidence anywhere that Apple is doing, or is intending to do, the same things they've blocked others from doing? Apple hasn't stopped anybody from

Is there any evidence anywhere that Apple is doing, or is intending to do, the same things they've blocked others from doing? Apple hasn't stopped anybody from advertising, they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. They don't seem to intend to do over-intrusive cross-app personal tracking themselves, so it seems to be a level playing field. So far, at least.

badwolf 4y ago
>they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. It's important to remember, they aren't stopping them from doing the overly-intrusive cross-app tracking, they just make you actively consent to an app allowing that tracking.
- hn92726819 4y ago
  I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too? As in, do they give themselves some advantage over other ad platforms?
  - novok 4y ago
    You do have to consent, but there are many parts where they don't let you say no and continue using, while all third parties are forced to make you say no and to continue using. Apple is doing the classic "we don't share with third parties, we just collect a shit ton of data from everywhere and then make people buy our data indirectly via our ad sale services" like google and facebook do today. So it's not shared with third parties, but because of their scale it might as well be in effect size .
  - pkaler 4y ago
    > I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too? It's called App Tracking Transparency and there is a scary prompt when Facebook/others do it. It's called Personalization and a friendly prompt when Apple does it.
    - selsta 4y ago
      These two are not the same thing. Every app is allowed to serve you personalized ads, without asking. ATT is about cross app/site tracking between other companies, which is something Apple has never done.
whimsicalism 4y ago
They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking?
- WoodenChair 4y ago
  > They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking? It doesn't say that in the article and that's patently false. Apple does not have access to Amazon's data about your activity in the Kindle app. Can they potentially track you in the Apple Books app? Perhaps, but if you trust what they're saying, you're presented first with an opt-out dialog about ad personalization.
  - novok 4y ago
    Apple does have access to the amount of time you open that kindle app although ;)
dwaite 4y ago
> …they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. They've required consent for cross-organizational tracking. For a single organization, they have only required disclosure in apps (via the privacy nutrition labels). For instance, Google can still push you to sign into a Google account so they can add all your interactions across services/devices to your profile. They also can still share information between Google native apps for unauthenticated users. This would include if they start to move over apps from other acquired companies under the Google umbrella. The difference is that I can make an opt-in choice (if possibly a difficult one) on whether I want to interact with Facebook services directly, but I couldn't make a such a choice before on what information Facebook was gathering about me without my consent or knowledge via tracking.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  Let's be clear though, the information FB got was always a subset of what Apple got, so it's a little invidious of them to ban cross app tracking for everyone else except for them.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you are talking about all data seen by Safari (e.g. browser history)
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      The vast majority of what FB saw (and used to optimise) was first open as a proxy for install, and purchases because they make companies money. Apple have all of this data (in fact, it's automatically collected and much better quality) because they own the platform on which the data is collected. Therefore, Apple can supply the same services as FB (on iOS only, obvs).
yazzku 4y ago
You've pretty much defined the anti-trust case in your own sentence. Microsoft did not prevent other browsers from being installed; it just shipped IE by default and made it annoying af to uninstall.
- shagie 4y ago
  ... and compelled OEMs to not uninstall IE (p18), or add a competing browser in a visible way (p24) ... and entered partnerships with ISPs to have pre-installed listings in IE if the ISP didn't mention a competing browser (p29) ... and entered into arrangements with companies to switch browsers being used (p17) ... and attempted to get Netscape to agree to not compete with Microsoft for Windows browsers (Netscape would be Unix and Mac only if that was done) (p14) https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp There's quite a bit more to DOJ vs Microsoft than just "shipping IE by default".
  - yazzku 4y ago
    Good points. Still, what Apple is doing here is a clear abuse of its position.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      Only if they use the data people seem to be assuming without evidence that they are using. That a single corporate entity is capable of collecting data does not necessarily mean that said entity is collecting and using that data. Maybe they do! But so far I've seen no evidence of it anywhere from anyone ever.

badwolf 4y ago

>they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. It's important to remember, they aren't stopping them from doing the overly-intrusive cross-app tracking, they just make you actively consent to an app allowing that tracking.

hn92726819 4y ago
I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too? As in, do they give themselves some advantage over other ad platforms?
- novok 4y ago
  You do have to consent, but there are many parts where they don't let you say no and continue using, while all third parties are forced to make you say no and to continue using. Apple is doing the classic "we don't share with third parties, we just collect a shit ton of data from everywhere and then make people buy our data indirectly via our ad sale services" like google and facebook do today. So it's not shared with third parties, but because of their scale it might as well be in effect size .
- pkaler 4y ago
  > I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too? It's called App Tracking Transparency and there is a scary prompt when Facebook/others do it. It's called Personalization and a friendly prompt when Apple does it.
  - selsta 4y ago
    These two are not the same thing. Every app is allowed to serve you personalized ads, without asking. ATT is about cross app/site tracking between other companies, which is something Apple has never done.

whimsicalism 4y ago

They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking?

WoodenChair 4y ago
> They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking? It doesn't say that in the article and that's patently false. Apple does not have access to Amazon's data about your activity in the Kindle app. Can they potentially track you in the Apple Books app? Perhaps, but if you trust what they're saying, you're presented first with an opt-out dialog about ad personalization.
- novok 4y ago
  Apple does have access to the amount of time you open that kindle app although ;)

dwaite 4y ago

> …they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. They've required consent for cross-organizational tracking. For a single organization, they have only required disclosure in apps (via the privacy nutrition labels). For instance, Google can still push you to sign into a Google account so they can add all your interactions across services/devices to your profile. They also can still share information between Google native apps for unauthenticated users. This would include if they start to move over apps from other acquired companies under the Google umbrella. The difference is that I can make an opt-in choice (if possibly a difficult one) on whether I want to interact with Facebook services directly, but I couldn't make a such a choice before on what information Facebook was gathering about me without my consent or knowledge via tracking.

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
Let's be clear though, the information FB got was always a subset of what Apple got, so it's a little invidious of them to ban cross app tracking for everyone else except for them.
- dwaite 4y ago
  I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you are talking about all data seen by Safari (e.g. browser history)
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    The vast majority of what FB saw (and used to optimise) was first open as a proxy for install, and purchases because they make companies money. Apple have all of this data (in fact, it's automatically collected and much better quality) because they own the platform on which the data is collected. Therefore, Apple can supply the same services as FB (on iOS only, obvs).

yazzku 4y ago

You've pretty much defined the anti-trust case in your own sentence. Microsoft did not prevent other browsers from being installed; it just shipped IE by default and made it annoying af to uninstall.

shagie 4y ago
... and compelled OEMs to not uninstall IE (p18), or add a competing browser in a visible way (p24) ... and entered partnerships with ISPs to have pre-installed listings in IE if the ISP didn't mention a competing browser (p29) ... and entered into arrangements with companies to switch browsers being used (p17) ... and attempted to get Netscape to agree to not compete with Microsoft for Windows browsers (Netscape would be Unix and Mac only if that was done) (p14) https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp There's quite a bit more to DOJ vs Microsoft than just "shipping IE by default".
- yazzku 4y ago
  Good points. Still, what Apple is doing here is a clear abuse of its position.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Only if they use the data people seem to be assuming without evidence that they are using. That a single corporate entity is capable of collecting data does not necessarily mean that said entity is collecting and using that data. Maybe they do! But so far I've seen no evidence of it anywhere from anyone ever.