
Apple to delay privacy change threatening Facebook, mobile ad market - shaabanban
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25U2JU
======
librish
One thing that removes a lot of credibility from Apple's "for the good of the
user" communication on this is that they broke out the personalization for
their own ad network as an option, put it in a different location, and made it
opt-out instead of opt-in.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-
ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on-
ios14/#4d31d1dc7515)

~~~
makecheck
Yeah, this is crazy: Settings -> Privacy -> Location Services -> (ALL the way
to the bottom of the list, past all apps) System Services -> Location-Based
Apple Ads. Oh, and if you have text size increased by any amount, “Ads”
doesn’t even appear and it’s just “Location-Based Apple...” (on or off).

The harder something is to find and disable, the shadier it seems.

~~~
rosege
Apple definitely does shady stuff. Sure on privacy they are the better option,
usually. But don't forget it recently came out that Siri was sending
recordings to be analysed without the users knowledge. They also will only
very begrudgingly fix design faults in their products. I recently was a victim
of their flexgate issue and because I have the 15" MacBook Pro it isn't
automatically covered. Other users with this issue are fighting Apple in a
class action over it. You would hope that a company that makes as much money
as Apple would stand behind their products better but unfortunately that's not
the case.

~~~
goblin89
That Siri sends recordings to humans for analysis without user consent is a
myth. I went through a screen pointing out this is exactly what will happen,
and buttons to opt in or out, during initial OS setup. This was a while ago,
before iOS 14. The myth is likely perpetuated by people who do not use Apple
devices.

~~~
rosege
I was going off this article:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/apple-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/apple-
siri-secret-surveillance-campaign-investigation)

A former contractor who worked for Apple in Ireland told EU regulators that he
heard highly personal conversations as part of a project that transcribed
portions of Siri recordings to improve the feature’s voice recognition. Apple
apologized after the infractions were revealed and said it had suspended the
project while it implemented better practices.

~~~
goblin89
I know of that case.

My point is that Apple disclosed to users that this will happen, so I am
confused as to who would consider this an “infraction”.

I had to set up iOS multiple times (broke phone screens, got an iPad and so
on), and as far as Siri was around I remember being informed.

During initial setup you have options to turn Siri on with continuous
listening, on via button only (my preference), or off entirely. One tap and a
short bit of text informs you of privacy implications, including that your
voice recordings may be sent to and heard by humans in order to improve QoS.

I did not have to dig through a wall of ToS, it was a clear and concise
paragraph set in large enough type that took single-digit seconds to read.

I wonder whether (1) I am missing some circumstances or a period of time where
this was not the case, and therefore I should be offended as well, or (2)
people are misinformed and piling on Apple for, as far as I’m concerned,
little to no reason.

------
AnonHP
(Re-posting on this thread)

What a bummer! As an iOS user, I was eagerly looking forward to this feature,
wanting to tell others about it and how the upgrade to iOS 14 would be worth
it just to clearly expose apps that want to track users.

I already have ad tracking limited in my settings (Settings->Privacy->Limit Ad
Tracking), but that was something I had to explicitly turn on, and there’s no
notice on which apps use the ID for advertising.

~~~
gowld
The only reason you are so desperate for this feature is that Apple refuses to
let you install a firewall on the phone you supposedly own. Otherwise you
could be running pihole today.

~~~
untog
Not really. Pi Hole is great but it comes much later in the process and is an
inexact process trying to filter out internet requests. The filter Apple has
stops apps from being able to get the identifying data in the first place.
It's a lot better.

~~~
ashtonkem
PiHole only works insofar as tracking requests use a different domain. It’s
great, but it’s not a panacea.

------
curiousllama
I understand why they delayed, and it may be the right decision. However,
tracking-by-default is a dark pattern in software, and it needs to be driven
out.

In no other domain is implicit, cross-arena tracking by default acceptable.
Computers _should be_ no exception.

~~~
crazygringo
> _In no other domain is implicit, cross-arena tracking by default
> acceptable._

Maybe you don't think it should be acceptable, but it's the norm everywhere.
Computers _aren 't_ an exception.

Your purchases are tracked by credit card companies. Your license plate is
tracked by road cameras. Your financial history is tracked by credit bureaus.
Your phone calls are tracked by your telephony provider.

And you haven't opted into _any_ of them.

In fact, except for the annoying cookie pop-ups on websites, I've never
encountered opt-in tracking anywhere in my life. _Everything_ is tracking-by-
default, and you're lucky if you get an option to opt out _anywhere_.

~~~
likeabbas
Giving examples of a bad pattern doesn't make the pattern less bad. This
should have never been the default behavior.

~~~
notriddle
curiousllama said that implicit tracking was not allowed in any domain other
than software. Don't move the goalposts.

------
marketingtech
Given the App Store antitrust lawsuit and "big bully" PR issue that Apple is
facing, they probably realize that now would be a terrible timing for them to
flex their muscles and crush a multi-billion dollar ecosystem (even if it's
the ethical thing to do).

Facebook's concern isn't oriented around their revenue - it's about the 3rd
party advertising ecosystem on mobile in general ($2B of FB's $80B revenue).
FB and Google will take a small hit from their 3rd party mobile ad networks
going away, but they still have their dominant 1st party businesses to fall
back on.

Who this really hurts are the apps that don't directly sell their own ads and
rely on a 3rd party network to monetize. Those apps' revenues will be chopped
in half overnight, sending a shockwave throughout the entire mobile ecosystem.

FB and Google get poked in one eye, but most ad-supported apps will be
blinded.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
It also kills off all the smaller players in mobile advertising, of which
there are many (mostly focused on gaming, because that's what makes money on
mobile).

------
firloop
Apple's blog post about their plans:

"We are committed to ensuring users can choose whether or not they allow an
app to track them. To give developers time to make necessary changes, apps
will be required to obtain permission to track users starting early next year.
More information, including an update to the App Store Review Guidelines, will
follow this fall."

[https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=hx9s63c5](https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=hx9s63c5)

~~~
dudus
This reads as just another popup you'll need to click before you can use any
app. Just like cookies.

~~~
asutekku
The pop-up is literally “allow tracking” and “disallow tracking” and
disallowing does not give the advertisers any kind of information about cross-
app usage. It is not something you can as a developer circumvent.

~~~
MayeulC
There are hundreds of ways to fingerprint you and your device, without an
avertising ID. You just need a few (5-7?) To uniquely identify someone.

A few examples that come to my mind: Current battery level, typing speed,
phone model, OS version, battery wear (guessable from charge/discharge rate),
charge rate (depends on the charger), finger width, propensy to use features
differently (scrolling, zooming, selecting text), clipboard contents, RTC lag,
microbenchmark performance... System preferences alone is probably enough
(brightness level, airplane mode, dark mode).

If a fingerprinting library is present in more than one app, I find it
unlikely that both fingerprints couldn't be linked to the same user. If one of
these apps has a log-in, they can probably link that up with the rest of
browsing history, on-device and cross-device.

Sounds far-fetched? I don't think so. I rather think I'm underestimating the
issue.

I think one technical answer to that would be to "taint" every measurement of
a potential identifier, and track its usage across the program. If the app
tries to submit information that is somewhat related, block it.

Alternatively, compute a score and block it above a certain threshold (that
_will_ be gamed, but could help a transition). Or use a RR-like mechanism to
change the measurement to a dummy value, and replay up to the exfiltration
point.

~~~
K0nserv
What you've said is accurate, but one thing that's different in this case
compared to the web is Apple's walled garden.

The walled garden certainly has problems but in this case a real benefit is
that Apple forbids these kinds of technical workarounds. You can implement
them, but do you want to run the risk of your app being banned from the only
distribution channel on iOS because of it?

~~~
Nextgrid
That walled garden still appears to have major holes in its fences, as shown
by the Facebook SDK having infected every single mainstream app for the sole
purpose of stalking the user in the background (over time Facebook can
correlate the traffic by date/time, IP address, device type, etc and link
different instances of the SDK together).

~~~
K0nserv
Yes, but this what the feature is aiming to address. Apps that use the
Facebook SDK will have to ask for permission to track the user and if the user
says no they shouldn't intialize the Facebook SDK, at least not the parts that
relate to ad analytics and tracking.

~~~
Nextgrid
It seems to me that this feature only restricts access to the IDFA/Advertising
ID. It does not prevent the app from loading a piece of malware that uses
other means (device & network fingerprinting) to stalk you regardless of the
availability of the IDFA.

~~~
K0nserv
Apple have been very clear about you being responsible for the SDKs you use
and while the technical limitations are only about IDFA Apple have also stated
that other methods of fingerprinting are not allowed when the user asked not
to be tracked. Thus, App A that uses SDK B can be banned from the App Store if
the user asked not to be tracked but B still tracks using something like
fingerprinting.

~~~
Nextgrid
> other methods of fingerprinting are not allowed when the user asked not to
> be tracked

We'll need to see how well this is enforced and whether they will challenge
bullshit excuses. I can already imagine the Facebook SDK sending its usual
amount of PII and them saying "this is only for fraud protection (or a similar
BS reason) and we pinky-promise to never use this information for anything
else".

------
lapcatsoftware
Here's the technical detail that everyone seems to be missing: IDFA is an
Apple API.

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidenti...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidentifiermanager/1614151-advertisingidentifier)

"The advertisingIdentifier is an alphanumeric string unique to each device,
that you only use for advertising."

Apple created an API for advertisers that gives them a unique identifier,
specifically for the purpose of tracking users. This has been available since
iOS 6, released in 2012.

Shame, shame on advertisers for using the thing that Apple made for them to
use!

If Apple cares so much about privacy, why did they make this in the first
place? Where has Apple been for the past 8 years?

~~~
GekkePrutser
They made it all they could control it. Before this the advertisers were
sneaking out other data like the Mac address etc. The advertiser I'd had
always been opt in so it was progress for privacy.

~~~
lapcatsoftware
> They made it all they could control it.

Didn't seem to work.

> The advertiser I'd had always been opt in so it was progress for privacy.

It's opt out: [https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT202074](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202074)

------
vanc_cefepime
As much as I like iOS in this regard, it’s a shame Apple felt this threatened
to delay this feature. I’m sure privacy is a high priority to Apple but when
it comes to money, expect them to do this more often. Privacy users are
already taking things into their own hands anyway, so this only hurts the tech
novices.

Edit: It’s funny how on HN, you can tell the ones who get triggered when you
say something disparaging about adtech. Just interesting to see here vs other
tech media outlets.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Yeah, I'm curious which large partner or top 10 app provider said they'd
delist on iOS if not given a stay of execution. The number of companies that
could cause this decision is small.

~~~
mmacvicarprett
It is more complicated than that. There is a whole industry that depends on
tracking IDFA to function, it is not about being creepy, something simple as
knowing if your marketing campaign is effective becomes very hard. On one side
we have hoarders of data like Facebook and Google, on another side there are
legitimate use cases like app publishers measuring marketing performance.

SKAdNetwork was poorly designed, it did not involve publishers and channels
and till this week it was literally impossible to test. A 3 month period will
allow all actors in the advertising industry to integrate and come up with
solutions that protect the user's privacy.

If this was released in the current state, you are giving the whole
advertising market in a silver plate to google and facebook, who because of
their huge share of SDK integrations are much better prepared to overcome the
limitations. The market would also shrink instantly, many publishers and
channels would disappear, specially the small ones.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> There is a whole industry that depends on tracking IDFA to function

And hopefully that will become "was" at some point.

> it is not about being creepy

The ad industry is a poor judge of what's creepy; their interests are not
aligned with user interests.

> A 3 month period will allow all actors in the advertising industry to
> integrate and come up with solutions that protect the user's privacy.

The advertising industry has had a very long time to come up with solutions to
protect the user's privacy. The only way it'll _ever_ happen is if it's
inflicted upon them. The less ready they are, the better.

~~~
crakhamster01
> hopefully that will become "was" at some point

> their interests are not aligned with user interests

How do you propose apps monetize going forward? The vast majority of users do
not want to pay for the apps/utilities on their phones, but still appreciate
the value these apps provide them nonetheless. Targeted advertising enables
apps to provide these services to users for free by having marketing budgets
front the cost. The removal of IDFA really only cripples the little guy, and
speeds up the consolidation of wealth among Apple, Amazon, Google, and FB.

I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to remain
free, if not advertising-based?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on
> their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them
> nonetheless.

Chicken and egg problem. There are enough free apps that they drag down user
expectations for pricing. It's hard to figure out value on an absolute scale
("hmmm, is this worth $4?"), and easy to compare value on a relative scale
("wow, $8 seems expensive for an app"). Ads push the app market downwards.

> I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to
> remain free

The same revenue model I'd suggest for any other kind of regularly produced
content that can't charge or doesn't want to: patronage, subscriptions,
sponsorships, merch, add-ons or regular updates that people want to pay for,
services people want to pay for. Have you ever read some of the behind-the-
scenes details from YouTube channels that support the people making them? Ads
don't even come close to paying the bills, even if you're huge. Patronage,
subscriptions, sponsorships, and merchandise do.

~~~
crakhamster01
How is it a chicken and egg problem if we're in a post-ads world? Billions of
people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can
be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed.
From the perspective of someone in a developed nation, the change to a
patronage revenue model may seem trivial, but for the vast majority of the
world this is a non-starter. You're arguing that information should paywalled,
when it currently can exist free of charge.

Also re: the Youtube anecdote - YT ads actually pay out quite well, especially
if you're huge. You usually see Patreons, etc. from the smaller channels or
content creators that want to hit a certain quality of life/stability. The top
10 YouTube channels easily clear $10M from ad rev alone.

~~~
Nextgrid
> Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and
> information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads
> in their feed.

They can still opt-in; not to mention this is about creepy ad targeting that
exposes the user to lots of risk if the targeting data ever leaks (it's a time
bomb); advertising per-se isn't banned, it just can't stalk the user.

However this will hopefully open the door for alternative monetization
options, like you know, the old-school, boring paper bills that some people
might have in their wallet and might be willing to hand over in exchange for a
good app, service or product. ;)

------
wrkronmiller
I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.

Having already pissed off the advertisers, Apple felt threatened enough to
turn around and alienate its power users.

Couldn't have been an easy decision...

~~~
atomicUpdate
I suspect this news will get far less attention than the initial changes, so
Apple still gets (almost) all of the good PR from the change without actually
hurting the app developers.

They certainly still get to claim they are focused on privacy even if they
decide to kick the can a few more times, since the notifications/controls will
come “eventually”.

------
shaabanban
While the delay does disappoint me as a user, I can definitely understand the
"give developers more time" angle. It seems doubtful to me that big ad tech
hasn't already been working on ways to circumvent this policy and it feels
like a few extra months won't exactly make a world of difference for them. I
do hope this gives the "little guy" more time to rethink Ad strategy to not
involve tracking.

~~~
criddell
They are giving the cockroaches time to find a new place to hide before they
turn the lights on.

------
GeekyBear
This is a change that will take an existing setting and make sure the user is
aware of it.

If you want to flip the switch right now for all third party apps:

Go to Settings > Privacy > Advertising. Turn on Limit Ad Tracking.

------
kentf
A cynical take is that all these ad platforms drive a ton of app installs for
Apple and create stickiness on iOS. Without all these targeted ads, it will
decrease app downloads and with the App Store already under such scrutiny they
decided to measure twice and cut once.

~~~
clement_b
This is not that cynical! Apple pulled the plug on something they created on
purpose (ID for Advertisers) without really understanding the impact of that
decision on their own App Store bottom line. So many in app purchases are
initiated by users acquired via ad campaigns. Remove the campaigns, remove the
users, remove the revenue, maybe even more (i.e. Developer's interest for iOS)

But, I bet this is mostly antitrust related, the risk is too big on that front
in the current context. Now, what I wonder is whether they'll adjust to play
by the same rules as everyone else (and not using some extra features as
detailed in the Forbes article mentioned in another comment [0]) or revert in
some way.

[0]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-a...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/apple-
ad-network-gets-special-privileges-that-facebook-google-wont-on-
ios14/#e8b644475152)

------
submeta
That‘s really sad. I thought only a company like Apple has the financial power
and the balls to push back the ads industry. Apparently not.

------
GekkePrutser
Bad Apple.

What was Facebook going to do? Pull out of iOS? They had all the power.

~~~
save_ferris
It’s worth noting that Apple and Facebook very recently sparred over the 30%
App Store fee related to donations[0]. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if
Facebook offered to back down on that controversy if Apple agreed to this, but
of course this is pure speculation.

0: [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-blocked-
facebook-...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/28/apple-blocked-facebook-
update-apple-fees/)

~~~
GekkePrutser
Good point, I'm sure there would have been some quid pro quo there.

------
Yizahi
What will really happen - apps won't work without accepting tracking. So
technically users will be given a choice, and in practice there will be none.
Just like now - "Oh, you don't want to give us your contacts, sms, location
and all photos? Fine, here is an app with every function disabled. You want to
actually use the app? Give us permissions."

~~~
chillacy
Even so, it's still better at the end of the day if users are at least aware
that they are paying for their services with their data.

------
Cantbekhan
Just as they put this ad online
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw)
... "Privacy. That’s iPhone. – Over Sharing"

~~~
hu3
"Comments are turned off."

I was about to grab some popcorn.

------
gigatexal
No! I was enjoying the idea of being able to deny every app that asks. Oh
well.

~~~
ianlevesque
You can go turn it off in settings phone-wide already today.

~~~
hu3
Shouldn't it be off by default?

~~~
ianlevesque
No, app install ads were quite useful to me as a developer in the past. And
judging by the retention rate on the people that installed via those ads, they
derived value from them as well.

------
mlazos
Apple has a massive user base now, I imagine they are preparing to make sure
users stay in their ecosystem for everything. I won’t be surprised if they
eventually use their own Siri search service instead of google as the default.
Once they have all of the users locked in to their ecosystem I think apple’s
own ad network will eventually be touted as “secure” and Apple will avoid
antitrust scrutiny because everyone opts in to this ecosystem, voluntarily
paying higher prices for access. It’s pretty genius really.

------
WoefullyInept
I cringe reading the deluded opinions from people in this thread that clearly
do not understand the impact on the app ecosystem, let alone how ad tech
works.

I'd liken it to reading a post on mumsnet.com with 100+ middle aged women
arguing about 5g.

~~~
K0nserv
I don't think people in the thread don't understand as much as they don't care
about ad tech and the ecosystem. As technologist we understand the invasive
and creepy nature of ad tech and would like to see it gone, sure there'll be
lots of second order effects but personally I am just tired of ads and ad
tech.

The "Do No Track" header is the perfect example, largely abandonded because
when ad companies realised how many people would set it they just ignored it
altogether. Thankfully with Apple's changes they, as the gatekeeps of the
walled garden, can ban apps that don't respect the user's "don't track me"
signal.

The ad industry has had an abundance of chances to fix these issues, but
haven't. As a user I welcome Apple forcing their hand even if the business
models of many apps will be broken as a result.

It's a cleansing by fire if you will.

------
andy_ppp
Any chance a cheque has been written behind closed doors here?

~~~
nip180
A cheque? Unlikely. Was this a part of a closed door negotiation? Likely.

------
BTCOG
A couple influencers these days couple make a viral video on how to go into
settings and switch this off and then you've effectively got the update
anyway.

------
diebeforei485
Is anything changing except the timeline? Pushing things forward a quarter is
not really a big deal if we're still getting the privacy improvements.

------
kingnothing
As a current Android user, this was one of the driving reasons I was
considering coming back to Apple. Maybe I'll switch "early next year".

------
segmondy
I think with the Epic battle and the rumors that Google is about to head to
court is probably the reason that shook em to hold off on this.

------
ocdtrekkie
This is unfortunate. Adtech is a cancer. We don't need to give it time to
adapt, we need to shut it down.

~~~
baby
Do you realize the number of free services that one uses thanks to ads? Not
everyone can afford to pay for these. I for one use gmail, google maps, google
calendar, google docs, etc. Every day

~~~
legulere
Do you realize how much bullshit people buy that they do not need because of
ads? People end up with much less money because of that. And the environment
suffers too.

And no, without apps people would be able to discover new things. Current ads
are not about facts but connecting feelings with products.

~~~
filoleg
> Do you realize how much bullshit people buy that they do not need because of
> ads? People end up with much less money because of that.

Other people's issues with financial self-control isn't a solid basis for
being against something. By that logic, alcohol, clothing stores, videogames,
literally anything that might influence people to buy things they don't really
need is bad.

~~~
AlexandrB
There's a line where what you call "people's issues with financial self-
control" becomes a societal/systemic problem. Alcohol and gambling are the
classic examples where extra taxation and regulation like age restrictions
come into play. Where is that line for general advertising? I don't know. But
it's out there.

P.S. Speaking of videogames, I'm of the opinion that many mobile "gatcha"
games should be regulated like gambling products. Hoping legislation catches
up in this regard.

------
asawfofor
So did Apple just bully Facebook into those additional election season
changes?

------
tomcat27
Zuck probably begged Tim

~~~
m0zg
Zuck needs this least of all - people post their lives to FB via Instagram,
all you need is a high quality, high cardinality object detector, and some
NLP. For ads shown on e.g. Instagram or FB, there should be no impact at all.

Google could mine Photos I suppose, but there's no user graph there, and no
text blurb, and no "likes", so it's less valuable. Google is also more reliant
on tracking due to DoubleClick and ad exchanges. Be that as it may, Google
search ads should also be unaffected.

Where this really hurts are ads shown in apps which are not controlled by
Google/FB. Those would need an ID to know who you are in order to boost
relevance. And that's being withdrawn. I'm not sure how much exposure FB has
to that, though. I know Google is heavily exposed.

~~~
GekkePrutser
Well Facebook was the biggest name complaining in the media that this would
seriously hurt their ad revenue.

I also wonder why, because their apps already require a user to sign in. It
must reference to cross-app tracking, I'm also surprised they were so
dependent on that.

~~~
dialtone
Facebook didn’t complain... they said they would shut off FAN which generated
a whole of $2B in revenue for them in 2018 when they make $80B this year.

They were telling their customers to find an alternative monetization strategy
since this wasn’t going to be worth it for them.

~~~
GekkePrutser
I'm not the only one viewing that as a complaint:

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook-
complains-a...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook-complains-
apple-responds-ios-14s-big-privacy-change-gets-postponed/)

~~~
dialtone
I'm really not sure that makes you right. It's a fact that FAN is 2% or so of
revenue for FB. And it's also a fact that FB, with their analytics/ads SDK and
all the data they ingest from their own applications, already owns a very
important data source for their targeted ads. These are plain as day facts. If
you ever bought ads, you'd know that FAN, for the typical buyers, represents a
tiny fraction of spend on FB (less than 5% typically). Then journalists can
write what they want, as much as I like Arstechnica and pay for it, that's
just plain wrong and countered by facts. It's also frankly funny how little
journalists know about ads when in most cases it's the source of their income.

Furthermore, it's absolutely hilarious to think that the most valuable company
in the world, with enough cash reserves to be able to almost buy FB outright,
would somehow be willing to walk back their core value message because their,
allegedly, value adversary asks. Apple made the change because they would have
cratered their app economy and they themselves weren't going to play by their
own rules, FB maybe played a role because $2B are a lot of money for the free
apps, but they aren't a lot of money for FB. It's really hilarious to think
that Apple gives a crap about what FB writes on their site, specifically when
it's about privacy. Apples cares about its ecosystem, not about what FB says.
Totally hilarious.

------
jmarinez
One, if not the main, feature to upgrade to iOS 14 is now delayed to any of
the 365 days of 2021. Clear message: "Save adtech and continue to screw your
customers". Bravo Apple, Bravo!!

~~~
ogre_codes
Less than 90 days ago this proposed feature hadn't been announced and now you
are vilifying them for delaying it a few months?

