7 ms·

Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need

Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice. So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff. They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...

tedunangst 2y ago
I'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It's anti-competitive. Apple owns the platform and is giving preference to it's own apps on that platform. Every non-Apple app that competes with an Apple app is harmed.
  - tedunangst 2y ago
    So the solution is Apple will be forced to trust that apps asked properly, and grant whatever permissions the app claims I agreed to? And that's going to encourage me to use more third party apps?
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      If they want to own the platform and compete on it simultaneously, they need to abide by the same common carrier rules they impose on everyone else. They could easily achieve this by enforcing the same level of security on their own apps.
    - arcticbull 2y ago
      They could just ask twice on their own apps.
  - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
    I thought the double pop-ups were because the app asks permission to ask permission, rather than Apple requiring apps to prompt twice.
  - st3fan 2y ago
    This is not what this case is about.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Seems like it’s roughly what it is about. Apple has a mandatory consent, but won’t adapt it so that third party apps can integrate their own tracking consent into it. As a result third party apps are treated differently than first party because they have one fewer consent screen. That advantages entrenched incumbents with big, locked-in user bases and disadvantages new entrants. Since Apple owns the platform, it’s anticompetitive to pass regulations (which is what Apple is doing here) that discriminate against other participants in a way that acts as a competitive advantage.
      - dkga 2y ago
        Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem harmed?
        JadeNB 2y ago
        > Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem harmed? It seems that this logic would prevent any regulation of what happens on macOS or iOS, since anyone who is using either has knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem. (And analogously for Windows, since anyone who is using it has knowingly bought into the Microsoft ecosystem.)
        overfeed 2y ago
        Consumers are only part of the competition equation. I bet consumers also love the initial phases of dumping, but regulators have to look beyond short-term consumer preferences.
        abduhl 2y ago
        Regulators don’t have to look beyond short term consumer preference (or rather, consumer benefit) with respect to dumping actually, because only the long term aspect of dumping (when prices are raised on consumers after driving competitors out of the market) is illegal. A company is free to burn as much capital as it wants while it is trying to enter and take over a market.
- pests 2y ago
  Domino's?
  - jtmarl1n 2y ago
    US-based Pizza restaurant
    - pests 2y ago
      I know what it is. They were asking who was harmed.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Double conformation would presumably help Dominoes as it would encourage people to accept tracking.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        Retric 2y ago
        To clarify across 10’s of millions of people even slight inconvenience really does push people to accept 3rd party tracking. There’s a lot of dark patterns websites use because AB testing shows even slightly more effort works.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  It doesn't really matter if you are "fine" with their anti-conpetitive behavior. They should comply to regulations properly.
  - tedunangst 2y ago
    Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - simion314 2y ago
      >Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit? Weird you still have no idea why. So let me tell you, there was a tribe in a village and they had many rules, some young boys hated the rules so they left and made their own village with no rules. One day one of them made a fire and let it unsupervised and many of their shacks burned so the boys decided that there should be one rule about not letting fires unsupervised.... the story continues with similar issues happening and they reluctantly adding one more tule, then one more rule until they get tot he same original rules from the original village.
      - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
        That's some nice story, not relevant facts.
        simion314 2y ago
        >That's some nice story, not relevant facts. My response is on topic for the comment it responds. But in case someone else fails to understand the message, the rules are added because someone made something bad intentionally or now, so can you guess why the companies were forced to add "Unsubscribe" in their emails? do you think someone imagined this rule for no reason ?
      - maccard 2y ago
- burnte 2y ago
  You might be ok with it, but the regulators want Apple to treat third parties the same way they treat their own apps, and that's a good thing. Either everyone would generate two prompts, or no one, but excluding yourself is just favoritism.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    Yup, it's much, much better for the rules to be exactly the same than any debate about how much difference is permitted. No difference unless you can demonstrate a compelling reason for it.
  - briandear 2y ago
    Apple doesn’t have a track record of abusing user privacy, unlike the plethora of third party apps that want to aggressively track you and sell that data.
    - epolanski 2y ago
      Apple makes more than 10B $ on advertising unless you've been leaving under a rock, and it's virtually all targeted ads. In fact them limiting more and more third party access to data is just a play to boost their own selling of your data.
      - shuckles 2y ago
        There is a big difference between targeting and tracking.
        itishappy 2y ago
        Tracking is just targeting integrated over time. If you can be targeted a number of times, and somebody can connect those data points, that's tracking! So I guess the question hinges on if the data Apple shares with their partners can be fingerprinted or not.
        2y ago
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  The Camera app wouldn't need an ATT confirmation, of course. Apple has some other products which do feature targeted advertisements, including News and even the App Store itself. Apple created this problem for itself when they decided that they wanted to double dip and become advertisers (while conveniently making advertisement less effective for everyone else). The amount they net from it surely can't be worth the trouble is causes. It's also simply scummy and always puts conflicting interests at play. Still don't understand the two versus one confirmation thing. I have tracking entirely disabled so apps can't even request it, but it'd be nice to see some workflow of how Apple's tracking works versus everyone else. The complaint almost seems that Apple apps simply do track your details and use them for targeting, without any confirmation (which Apple argues is okay because there is no third party getting the deets), where others have to do the confirmation.
- golli 2y ago
  And if it weren't a dominos app, but an otherwise identical or better third party app? Which through this now has a disadvantage compared to Apples app. Making it worse (regardless of how small or large that downside is) compared to whatever Apple offers, not because of having the worse product in the category, but because Apple also happens to own the otherwise unrelated operating system.
  - frumper 2y ago
    Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to.
    - joshuaissac 2y ago
      > Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to. According to the article, the French agency believes they would have to ask twice: > Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said.
      - fnordsensei 2y ago
        I always thought it was because where you to deny in the Apple popup, that decision is “final”, whereas if they can gauge your mood before that, they can keep pestering you about it in the future. I’ve seen confirm (app) -> confirm (Apple), but never deny (app) -> deny (Apple).
- st3fan 2y ago
  I don't think the Camera app asks for permission to use the Camera. You could argue that choice is questionable because Apple needs to follow its own rules, but also .. it is the Camera app. I think if you don't want the Camera app to use the Camera you probably should not have opened the app at all. ATT (App Tracking Transparency) is the dialog that says something like "Facebook would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies. Your data will be used to ... $AppProvidedExcuseHere." with "Allow Tracking" and "Ask App Not To Track" buttons. ATT is the First consent. The SECOND consent this case is about is the in-app consent that needs to happen according to French law. I can't give an example of that because I do not live in France but I assume this is probably some horribly designed page inside a French app that asks you to share your data with the ad surveilance industry.
  - maccard 2y ago
    > The SECOND consent this case is about is the in-app consent that needs to happen according to French law. I can't give an example of that because I do not live in France but I assume this is probably some horribly designed page inside a French app that asks you to share your data with the ad surveilance industry. I don't live in france but I'm familiar with the popups. many apps on first install will give you an in-app prompt asking if they can send you push notifications. If you accept, you get the system prompt. if you decline, you don't. I'm not a regulator, but it seems they've misread this one IMO - they only need to provide the conseent at the platform level and can opt out at the platform level if they so wish.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  it's not the consumers, it's the competitors. Instead of comparing apples to pizas, compare something like the Notes app compared to a 3rd party notes app. Any web/app dev knows each extra click adds friction and reduces retention, so that extra pop up can be a subtle advantadge to the one who manages the platform.
- aiauthoritydev 2y ago
  The pen pushers in France. As a consumer your choice does not matter much as much as the government servants who have decided that they know what is good for you.
- wdr1 2y ago
  Are you also okay with Apple only asking once for Apple Advertising and making other advertising ask twice? I don't mean ads for Apple products. I mean the ads that Apple sells in News, the App Store, where they track your behavior to personalize the ads you see and to see if you ever buy what the ad is selling.
- sitkack 2y ago
  You should decide for everyone whether Apple gets a pass.
- octacat 2y ago
  Apple has its own trackers and ad services. But it treats itself specially. While other apps need to ask. Maybe I don't want some apps from apple to have the same permissions, as other apps from apple. It is basically bundling. I agreed for one app from apple to share data, not for all apps from apple. Oh, and don't let me start about wording they use on these pop-ups... Like when I download some app from the internet, which is signed, notarized and so on, it still asks: oh, you downloaded this app from the internet (surprise!)... Instead of: "ok, you downloaded from internet, it has sign, notarification, developer is already delivering software for 10 years and have 20 million users, so looks safe to run...". Basically, fear inducing messages instead of actually useful from security sense.
bredren 2y ago
>The agency said there is an "asymmetry" in which user consent for Apple's own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are "required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications."
gruez 2y ago
What's even the "double confirmation" that's required? 1. the ATT permission prompt from iOS 2. a prompt from the app itself ?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Yes
  - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
    Then it's not a problem and France is just throwing some hissy fit.
ezfe 2y ago
Right, but that second click isn't coming from Apple and they can't control it. The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent which means they have to request it through two channels. If Apple doesn't feel like they need additional consent and/or doesn't use ATT-blocked systems then they don't need that. This is stupid.
- maccard 2y ago
  > The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent which means they have to request it through two channels. Surely the same argument can be applied to the cookie law - many sites feel like they need consent therefore it's unfair over people who think they only need one prompt.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent Are they right about that? Does Apple provide the app with confirmation that the user consented, and if they do, is it legal to rely on that confirmation?
  - stagalooo 2y ago
    > Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said. This absolutely sounds like a problem caused by the law and not apple. Apps can’t rely on the prompt for legal authorization (presumably because it is filtered through apples apis?) and must therefore ask themselves. The only two solutions I see to this is either Apple can’t prompt which means they can’t protect the user or the law can change to accept the prompt as authorization to track.
  - gruez 2y ago
    You can definitely check on whether the user answered yes to the prompt, because if they declined you'll get a null (ie. all 0s) uuid. Whether app developers can rely on that as confirmation for tracking on their side is a purely legal question, and I wish the French government would try to resolve it on their side rather than going straight to fining Apple.
crazygringo 2y ago
I'm genuinely confused. Where's the double part? When I install an app I get a single popup asking whether I want to share with advertisers or not. I don't have to do anything twice. Is it different in Europe or something? Is there a second popup there, and if so, what?
- tarentel 2y ago
  I'm assuming there are additional GDPR compliance asks in Europe when using apps. If that's the case I don't see how that is Apple's fault. I wish this article was a bit better but after reading a few of them I still don't get what the actual complaint is.
- AlanYx 2y ago
  This is for system-level permissions. In third-party apps, the app asks whether you want to enable X permission and then you get an OS-level confirmation request. It's not just in Europe. Likely they'll fall back in Europe to double-prompting as well in system apps.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    I've never gotten that, I don't think? I only get the OS-level request. For ad tracking we're talking about? But even for stuff like Bluetooth or location. I mean, I've had apps show a popup beforehand explaining what they want me to answer. But that's not required, nor does it seem common.
  - 85392_school 2y ago
    Do we only care now that the permissions being requested are related to tracking?
  - chillacy 2y ago
    Afaik the apps don't have to ask you, they could just request the OS-level permissions. They don't do that because if you reject the request at the OS level, they can't request it again, you have to go to the Settings app to enable it and it's harder to do. So apps prefer to just nag you again and again until you say you're ready.

tedunangst 2y ago

I'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?

arrosenberg 2y ago
It's anti-competitive. Apple owns the platform and is giving preference to it's own apps on that platform. Every non-Apple app that competes with an Apple app is harmed.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  So the solution is Apple will be forced to trust that apps asked properly, and grant whatever permissions the app claims I agreed to? And that's going to encourage me to use more third party apps?
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    If they want to own the platform and compete on it simultaneously, they need to abide by the same common carrier rules they impose on everyone else. They could easily achieve this by enforcing the same level of security on their own apps.
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    They could just ask twice on their own apps.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  I thought the double pop-ups were because the app asks permission to ask permission, rather than Apple requiring apps to prompt twice.
- st3fan 2y ago
  This is not what this case is about.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Seems like it’s roughly what it is about. Apple has a mandatory consent, but won’t adapt it so that third party apps can integrate their own tracking consent into it. As a result third party apps are treated differently than first party because they have one fewer consent screen. That advantages entrenched incumbents with big, locked-in user bases and disadvantages new entrants. Since Apple owns the platform, it’s anticompetitive to pass regulations (which is what Apple is doing here) that discriminate against other participants in a way that acts as a competitive advantage.
    - dkga 2y ago
      Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem harmed?
      - JadeNB 2y ago
        > Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem harmed? It seems that this logic would prevent any regulation of what happens on macOS or iOS, since anyone who is using either has knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem. (And analogously for Windows, since anyone who is using it has knowingly bought into the Microsoft ecosystem.)
      - overfeed 2y ago
        Consumers are only part of the competition equation. I bet consumers also love the initial phases of dumping, but regulators have to look beyond short-term consumer preferences.
        abduhl 2y ago
        Regulators don’t have to look beyond short term consumer preference (or rather, consumer benefit) with respect to dumping actually, because only the long term aspect of dumping (when prices are raised on consumers after driving competitors out of the market) is illegal. A company is free to burn as much capital as it wants while it is trying to enter and take over a market.
pests 2y ago
Domino's?
- jtmarl1n 2y ago
  US-based Pizza restaurant
  - pests 2y ago
    I know what it is. They were asking who was harmed.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Double conformation would presumably help Dominoes as it would encourage people to accept tracking.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 2y ago
        To clarify across 10’s of millions of people even slight inconvenience really does push people to accept 3rd party tracking. There’s a lot of dark patterns websites use because AB testing shows even slightly more effort works.
surgical_fire 2y ago
It doesn't really matter if you are "fine" with their anti-conpetitive behavior. They should comply to regulations properly.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - simion314 2y ago
    >Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit? Weird you still have no idea why. So let me tell you, there was a tribe in a village and they had many rules, some young boys hated the rules so they left and made their own village with no rules. One day one of them made a fire and let it unsupervised and many of their shacks burned so the boys decided that there should be one rule about not letting fires unsupervised.... the story continues with similar issues happening and they reluctantly adding one more tule, then one more rule until they get tot he same original rules from the original village.
    - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
      That's some nice story, not relevant facts.
      - simion314 2y ago
        >That's some nice story, not relevant facts. My response is on topic for the comment it responds. But in case someone else fails to understand the message, the rules are added because someone made something bad intentionally or now, so can you guess why the companies were forced to add "Unsubscribe" in their emails? do you think someone imagined this rule for no reason ?
    - maccard 2y ago
burnte 2y ago
You might be ok with it, but the regulators want Apple to treat third parties the same way they treat their own apps, and that's a good thing. Either everyone would generate two prompts, or no one, but excluding yourself is just favoritism.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Yup, it's much, much better for the rules to be exactly the same than any debate about how much difference is permitted. No difference unless you can demonstrate a compelling reason for it.
- briandear 2y ago
  Apple doesn’t have a track record of abusing user privacy, unlike the plethora of third party apps that want to aggressively track you and sell that data.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    Apple makes more than 10B $ on advertising unless you've been leaving under a rock, and it's virtually all targeted ads. In fact them limiting more and more third party access to data is just a play to boost their own selling of your data.
    - shuckles 2y ago
      There is a big difference between targeting and tracking.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Tracking is just targeting integrated over time. If you can be targeted a number of times, and somebody can connect those data points, that's tracking! So I guess the question hinges on if the data Apple shares with their partners can be fingerprinted or not.
        2y ago
llm_nerd 2y ago
The Camera app wouldn't need an ATT confirmation, of course. Apple has some other products which do feature targeted advertisements, including News and even the App Store itself. Apple created this problem for itself when they decided that they wanted to double dip and become advertisers (while conveniently making advertisement less effective for everyone else). The amount they net from it surely can't be worth the trouble is causes. It's also simply scummy and always puts conflicting interests at play. Still don't understand the two versus one confirmation thing. I have tracking entirely disabled so apps can't even request it, but it'd be nice to see some workflow of how Apple's tracking works versus everyone else. The complaint almost seems that Apple apps simply do track your details and use them for targeting, without any confirmation (which Apple argues is okay because there is no third party getting the deets), where others have to do the confirmation.
golli 2y ago
And if it weren't a dominos app, but an otherwise identical or better third party app? Which through this now has a disadvantage compared to Apples app. Making it worse (regardless of how small or large that downside is) compared to whatever Apple offers, not because of having the worse product in the category, but because Apple also happens to own the otherwise unrelated operating system.
- frumper 2y ago
  Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to.
  - joshuaissac 2y ago
    > Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to. According to the article, the French agency believes they would have to ask twice: > Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said.
    - fnordsensei 2y ago
      I always thought it was because where you to deny in the Apple popup, that decision is “final”, whereas if they can gauge your mood before that, they can keep pestering you about it in the future. I’ve seen confirm (app) -> confirm (Apple), but never deny (app) -> deny (Apple).
st3fan 2y ago
I don't think the Camera app asks for permission to use the Camera. You could argue that choice is questionable because Apple needs to follow its own rules, but also .. it is the Camera app. I think if you don't want the Camera app to use the Camera you probably should not have opened the app at all. ATT (App Tracking Transparency) is the dialog that says something like "Facebook would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies. Your data will be used to ... $AppProvidedExcuseHere." with "Allow Tracking" and "Ask App Not To Track" buttons. ATT is the First consent. The SECOND consent this case is about is the in-app consent that needs to happen according to French law. I can't give an example of that because I do not live in France but I assume this is probably some horribly designed page inside a French app that asks you to share your data with the ad surveilance industry.
- maccard 2y ago
  > The SECOND consent this case is about is the in-app consent that needs to happen according to French law. I can't give an example of that because I do not live in France but I assume this is probably some horribly designed page inside a French app that asks you to share your data with the ad surveilance industry. I don't live in france but I'm familiar with the popups. many apps on first install will give you an in-app prompt asking if they can send you push notifications. If you accept, you get the system prompt. if you decline, you don't. I'm not a regulator, but it seems they've misread this one IMO - they only need to provide the conseent at the platform level and can opt out at the platform level if they so wish.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
it's not the consumers, it's the competitors. Instead of comparing apples to pizas, compare something like the Notes app compared to a 3rd party notes app. Any web/app dev knows each extra click adds friction and reduces retention, so that extra pop up can be a subtle advantadge to the one who manages the platform.
aiauthoritydev 2y ago
The pen pushers in France. As a consumer your choice does not matter much as much as the government servants who have decided that they know what is good for you.
wdr1 2y ago
Are you also okay with Apple only asking once for Apple Advertising and making other advertising ask twice? I don't mean ads for Apple products. I mean the ads that Apple sells in News, the App Store, where they track your behavior to personalize the ads you see and to see if you ever buy what the ad is selling.
sitkack 2y ago
You should decide for everyone whether Apple gets a pass.
octacat 2y ago
Apple has its own trackers and ad services. But it treats itself specially. While other apps need to ask. Maybe I don't want some apps from apple to have the same permissions, as other apps from apple. It is basically bundling. I agreed for one app from apple to share data, not for all apps from apple. Oh, and don't let me start about wording they use on these pop-ups... Like when I download some app from the internet, which is signed, notarized and so on, it still asks: oh, you downloaded this app from the internet (surprise!)... Instead of: "ok, you downloaded from internet, it has sign, notarification, developer is already delivering software for 10 years and have 20 million users, so looks safe to run...". Basically, fear inducing messages instead of actually useful from security sense.

bredren 2y ago

>The agency said there is an "asymmetry" in which user consent for Apple's own data collection is obtained with a single pop-up, but other publishers are "required to obtain double consent from users for tracking on third-party sites and applications."

gruez 2y ago

What's even the "double confirmation" that's required? 1. the ATT permission prompt from iOS 2. a prompt from the app itself ?

refulgentis 2y ago
Yes
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  Then it's not a problem and France is just throwing some hissy fit.

ezfe 2y ago

Right, but that second click isn't coming from Apple and they can't control it. The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent which means they have to request it through two channels. If Apple doesn't feel like they need additional consent and/or doesn't use ATT-blocked systems then they don't need that. This is stupid.

maccard 2y ago
> The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent which means they have to request it through two channels. Surely the same argument can be applied to the cookie law - many sites feel like they need consent therefore it's unfair over people who think they only need one prompt.
leereeves 2y ago
> The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent Are they right about that? Does Apple provide the app with confirmation that the user consented, and if they do, is it legal to rely on that confirmation?
- stagalooo 2y ago
  > Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said. This absolutely sounds like a problem caused by the law and not apple. Apps can’t rely on the prompt for legal authorization (presumably because it is filtered through apples apis?) and must therefore ask themselves. The only two solutions I see to this is either Apple can’t prompt which means they can’t protect the user or the law can change to accept the prompt as authorization to track.
- gruez 2y ago
  You can definitely check on whether the user answered yes to the prompt, because if they declined you'll get a null (ie. all 0s) uuid. Whether app developers can rely on that as confirmation for tracking on their side is a purely legal question, and I wish the French government would try to resolve it on their side rather than going straight to fining Apple.

crazygringo 2y ago

I'm genuinely confused. Where's the double part? When I install an app I get a single popup asking whether I want to share with advertisers or not. I don't have to do anything twice. Is it different in Europe or something? Is there a second popup there, and if so, what?

tarentel 2y ago
I'm assuming there are additional GDPR compliance asks in Europe when using apps. If that's the case I don't see how that is Apple's fault. I wish this article was a bit better but after reading a few of them I still don't get what the actual complaint is.
AlanYx 2y ago
This is for system-level permissions. In third-party apps, the app asks whether you want to enable X permission and then you get an OS-level confirmation request. It's not just in Europe. Likely they'll fall back in Europe to double-prompting as well in system apps.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  I've never gotten that, I don't think? I only get the OS-level request. For ad tracking we're talking about? But even for stuff like Bluetooth or location. I mean, I've had apps show a popup beforehand explaining what they want me to answer. But that's not required, nor does it seem common.
- 85392_school 2y ago
  Do we only care now that the permissions being requested are related to tracking?
- chillacy 2y ago
  Afaik the apps don't have to ask you, they could just request the OS-level permissions. They don't do that because if you reject the request at the OS level, they can't request it again, you have to go to the Settings app to enable it and it's harder to do. So apps prefer to just nag you again and again until you say you're ready.