
Apple’s ad network gets ‘preferential access to users’ data’ vs Facebook, Google - blinding-streak
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on-ios14/
======
AlexandrB
> 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
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.

------
anonobviosly
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
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.

------
justapassenger
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.

------
wutbrodo
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
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.

~~~
banachtarski
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
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.

------
Despegar
>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.

------
jeffbee
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.

~~~
acdha
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
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
You have the same options to disable location data for the built-in Camera app
that you have with any other app.

~~~
jeffbee
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.

~~~
thelopa
If you set Google Maps to While Using the App you will stop seeing the prompts
you’re thinking of. Those “downgrade” prompts only apply to apps with Always.
Apple Maps doesn’t support Always and so it cannot get a downgrade prompt.

~~~
jeffbee
This is only because Apple draws a boundary around their stuff that says
"Maps" only uses location when it's running, but "Significant Locations" and
"Routing & Traffic" and "Improve Maps" are system services.

------
Pesthuf
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!"

------
SimeVidas
> 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
It is a new feature in iOS 14.

------
zepto
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.

