
Preparing Our Partners for iOS 14 - danielamitay
https://www.facebook.com/business/news/preparing-our-partners-for-ios-14-launch/
======
criddell
> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform
> policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer
> ecosystem.

Why should platform makers consult the advertising industry? It's not like the
advertising industry consulted anybody before they started collecting every
bit of data they could.

~~~
oblio
I'm honestly interested about this, Facebook is a big company.

Is there no case of FB screwing over its partners? Like locking or limiting an
API that they had offered in the past, etc.

One thing that comes to mind immediately is that Facebook Messenger used to be
accessible through XMPP and then they blocked that.

~~~
snowwrestler
I mean, at one time you could build apps on Facebook that basically downloaded
all of a user's data when they used it. The Obama campaign built an app that
you could use to find your Facebook friends who hadn't been contacted by the
campaign yet, so you could call them on the campaign's behalf. I heard of
other political operations that built a "wish [famous person] happy birthday"
app solely so they could grow their database.

Eventually Facebook closed all that access down and basically deprecated the
concept of FB as an app platform entirely. That is a way more dramatic change
than what Apple is doing to Facebook here.

~~~
miki123211
This is a perfect example of the tradeoffs between openness and privacy.

If you give dangerous tools to users, you will have a few cool things and lots
of tech-illiterate users screwed over.

Privacy advocates often preach solutions like the fediverse, without
understanding that the fediverse is a privacy disaster for the tech
illiterate. Cambridge Analytica wouldn't even be preventable on Mastodon, and
it would have far worse consequences. Nevermind admins snooping on messages of
their users, for i.e. romantic or financial reasons and poor people having to
pay for their own services instead of seeing ads.

Yes, Facebook is horrible, but all currently known cures are worse than the
disease.

~~~
jacobush
It’s like the Drake equation - you will have to multiply with the risk that FB
goes _truly_ rogue. If they do, they have ALL dirt.

------
ffpip
For people blocking facebook -

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.faceb...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200826162402/https://www.facebook.com/business/news/preparing-
our-partners-for-ios-14-launch/)

[https://archive.is/9q5Bc](https://archive.is/9q5Bc)

~~~
lapcatsoftware
> For people blocking facebook

I love that this is a category of people. (I'm one of them.)

------
Despegar
>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform
policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer
ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place
in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the
recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We
look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this
right for people and small businesses.

Yes they would certainly prefer a "UN of ad-tech" that doesn't do anything
rather than Apple's unilateral action.

~~~
danShumway
To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well
for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally
respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as
it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by
default?

What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table?

I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission
statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its
name!

~~~
renewiltord
We respected it in our ad pixel server. DNTs didn't get tracked, just returned
200 blank, no logs generated. It didn't matter, though, in the end. Didn't get
us positive/negative attention, users didn't really care, browsers stopped
supporting it, and then it was just dead code.

Left the guard clause in, in the end, because of some misguided need to "do
the right thing". It's just dead code. I'd just get rid of it now.

Despite online Internet attention, users don't care about this stuff so long
as it's wicked fast (response times < 20 ms) and doesn't interfere with the
thing they want. They want the thing it enables and they'll happily pay the
price.

People online who talk about all this stuff visit whacky sites, get angry at
being infected with god knows what from some shit Forbes.com or some crap or
some porno site and then flip out at "Google for tracking me" or some crap.

Glad I'm not in that industry anymore. No one outside it knows what it does or
enables.

~~~
pseudalopex
Why is Facebook alarmed about users getting a choice if users are happy to be
tracked?

~~~
renewiltord
Because forced decision making is a barrier to tool use. For instance, imagine
if every time you opened your IDE it asked you which language you're going to
type in. You like your IDE to be work best with the language you're working
in, so that's good. You're adding user choice here, so that's good. But the
outcome is bad. Why is that?

~~~
danShumway
This isn't every time you open an app though, it's once, on install.

Imagine if the first time you opened your IDE it asked you what language
you're going to type in. That would actually be very reasonable and helpful.

~~~
renewiltord
Well, if the discussion has shifted from "Why is Facebook alarmed about users
getting a choice if users are happy to be tracked?" to "What frequency of
being asked about a choice is acceptable?", I think all the tough parts of the
argument are now complete and it's possible for the reader to walk through to
the conclusion of why Facebook is alarmed.

~~~
danShumway
I don't think the discussion has shifted. It's just that the objection you're
raising, that too much choice is a barrier to tool usage, doesn't really apply
to this situation.

Given that this isn't overloading the user with a ton of options each time
they launch an app, why is Facebook alarmed about users having the choice to
opt out of tracking?

And I'll extend on that question: even if users are annoyed at a single extra
popup that gets shown once when they install an app, why does Facebook care?
Users will still pick the option that they prefer, they'll just be annoyed at
Apple for asking. Why is Facebook alarmed that users on iPhone will have to
spend a half second, once, saying, "ugh, Apple, of course I want a company to
track everything I do online"?

------
shajznnckfke
In iOS 13, Apple and third-party ad tracking were both controlled by the same
opt-out setting. In iOS 14, the settings have been split, with third party
tracking disabled and and Apple’s tracking enabled by default. Blatant
anticompetitive behavior to promote their own tracking services in the guise
of protecting users. Genius move by Apple.

[https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...](https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21)

~~~
filleokus
Hmm, what is "their own tracking services"? iAd is dead since long, the only
ads they serve are Apple Search Ads right? Is there any evidence/suggestion
that they are using usage data from outside the App Store to target ASA? The
promo-page doesn't seem to indicate that at least [1].

I mean, still in iOS 14, Google can use your data from e.g Google Maps /
Chrome to target ads in the Youtube app on the same device without requiring
any accounts by using identifierForVendor [0]. AFAIK this wouldn't require
them to show the scary pop-up either, since they are only sharing the info
with themselves?

But yeah, even without "tracking" the users, the ASA is of course in a
privileged position, both in its prominent position in the (only) App Store,
and by the possibility to charge per e.g app install. Doing reliable app
install tracking without IDFA is next to impossible. Taking it further by
restarting iAd now would be highly problematic imho.

[0]:
[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uidevice/162...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uidevice/1620059-identifierforvendor)
[1]:
[https://searchads.apple.com/privacy/](https://searchads.apple.com/privacy/)

~~~
shajznnckfke
Facebook’s top ad business on iOS is for app installs. Their cross-app
tracking is how they demonstrate that the ad resulted in app sales. Apple is
cutting that off here. As you mention, Apple’s competing ad service is also
for app installs.

~~~
adrr
Apple will actually hurt themselves with this change. The apps that can afford
to advertise have a paid component to generate revenues. Apple taxes this
revenue at 30%. I don’t get why they are going after FB when they aren’t a
threat and Social media is the reason to people upgrade your phone to get a
better camera. Not to mention the revenue FB drives in App Store purchases.

~~~
shajznnckfke
That’s a solid point. I’d look out for Apple to push their app install ads
into more places (eg. the home search bar, various apps they bundle with the
phone). Maybe a second attempt at iAd - it will be easier for that to succeed
with the competition blocked.

------
bonaldi
The wording here is subtly different from the text they reportedly emailed out
-
[https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848](https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1298662658934222848)

Notably, it omits the line saying they won't use the prompt in their own apps
(which they'd be required to do whether or not they used IDFA) and omits the
advice that implies their customers should figure out other ways to gather
identifying information

~~~
Despegar
The response to that is to just not allow them to update their app until they
comply.

~~~
Spivak
Not sure why you got downvoted for this. I expect that this will be Apple’s
response 100%. They would come off so good putting up a fight for users.

~~~
Despegar
Probably because Apple's total control of the platform is why this change
could happen. Their ability to not allow a developer to distribute an app
update that doesn't comply with the new privacy change stems from the same
power that allows them to collect 30/15% of in-app purchases.

------
spzb
Gosh, there goes Apple with their anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour
again. Facebook better join Epic in the queue at the courtroom.

(sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious)

~~~
ziftface
Apple absolutely does abuse their power as a monopoly. I'm not sure how that's
related to asking users for permission to share data with third parties, which
is what this was about.

~~~
shajznnckfke
Apple is exempting itself from this policy, keeping its own tracking on by
default:
[https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?...](https://twitter.com/eric_seufert/status/1291730115253145600?s=21)

Previously, Apple and third-party tracking were both controlled by the same
opt-put setting. Using your power as platform owner to turn your competitor’s
ad tracking off by default while keeping yours on? Sure seems abusive to me.

~~~
Ensorceled
In what way is Apple a competitor to Facebook or Google Ads?

~~~
shajznnckfke
Facebook’s top ad business on iOS is promoting other apps. The tracking being
blocked by this change is how they attribute app sales to the Facebook ad.
Apple has a competing service:
[https://searchads.apple.com/](https://searchads.apple.com/)

I think the purpose of this change is to redirect the revenue from FB to
Apple.

~~~
Ensorceled
That is, for Apple, perhaps a nice side effect of the change. But I don't see
it replacing Facebook app ads ... I never "see" the Apple ads.

The real purpose of this change is to continue to drive home to Apple users,
who are increasing aware of privacy issues, that Apple has their back.
Anything else is gravy.

~~~
shajznnckfke
My opinion: follow the money. Apple’s publicly stated growth strategy is to
expand services revenue. Taking this ad market from Facebook is part of that
strategy. The PR is gravy. Apple isn’t the EFF.

------
AnonHP
> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience
> Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on
> iOS 14.

Translation: The iOS changes are making the platform more like a printed
newspaper. So please continue to spend your ad budget with Facebook because we
have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media.

> We expect less impact to our own advertising business, and we’re committed
> to supporting advertisers and publishers through these updates.

Translation: We will do everything in our power to track users and collect
more information from our already invasive apps. While we’re happy to keep
making money here, please continue to advertise with us on our platforms
because we have X monthly active users and we’re the top in social media.
Innovation is at the heart of what we do. Did you see our TikTok clone in
Instagram lately?

------
whywhywhywhy
I’m all for how these changes are going to negatively affect Facebook and
advertisers. But I just can’t also escape the feeling in the long term I’m
giving up control of the devices I own and the actual act of computing to get
to this result.

If it came to destroying advertisers or free open computing I want free
computing.

~~~
threeseed
Then don't buy an iPhone.

There are hundreds of phone manufacturers who are more than happy to take your
money.

But if you buy an iPhone you need to understand that you are in the minority
i.e. that most of us want Apple to make changes like this.

~~~
saagarjha
> There are hundreds of phone manufacturers

That all ship one OS.

~~~
threeseed
Not really. Android differs pretty heavily from one manufacturer to another.

And there are pure Linux phones as well.

------
DangerousPie
This kind of thing is why I was happy to pay a premium for my iPhone.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Ultimately, despite our best efforts, Apple’s updates may render Audience
> Network so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on
> iOS 14.

Seems like Apple is really backing up their rhetoric with real action. Awesome
news for anyone that values privacy. Kudos to Apple.

~~~
techbra
Only if they made this accessible to everyone. You need a thousand dollar
phone which is useless in 3 years

~~~
saagarjha
[https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/](https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/)

------
hyko
Facebook are not in control of this, so their consultations and conversations
will all be for naught.

Thank god.

~~~
ignoramous
_We remain committed to helping the thousands of developers and publishers
that rely on ads from Audience Network, and we’re investing time and resources
into building monetization products for publishers as well as supporting other
platforms outside of iOS 14._

[https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-
insights/p...](https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-
insights/preparing-audience-network-for-ios14/)

Translation: Facebook will find a way.

------
ciarannolan
What changes are being made in iOS 14 that are so impactful to FB's business?

~~~
ffpip
[https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/](https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-14-privacy/)

Facebook is getting scared of the prompt (shown by Apple) saying FB will track
you, and whether you would like to opt-out. More importantly, they are putting
the opt-opt right below the opt-in (yayyy!)

Almost every app will have to ask this kinda prompt now. Not just FB.

Good move by Apple

~~~
btmiller
Yep. Great segment from Jobs that seems to hold true today:
[https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo](https://youtu.be/39iKLwlUqBo)

------
gregorythecat
Given the attitude on HN about iOS14, I don’t think most here grasp the
implication of gutting ad attribution. All publishers (news sites, indie
games, etc) are going to see huge drops in CPM. It could easily be a business
ending shift.

Sure removing IDFA will help protect user privacy, but let’s not kid ourselves
that there will not be collateral damage. Being a third party publisher will
be that much harder and walled gardens (FB, Google, Instagram) will be further
cemented as the only viable business model.

~~~
Spivak
If that was really the case then why are FB and Google fighting it so hard?
Shouldn’t they want this then?

~~~
gregorythecat
I believe it will still comprise a reduction in their revenue. The internet as
a whole will be less profitable, and only the big players will be able to
survive.

Maybe with time there can be a shift in the economics, but I would not bet on
it. I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music
streaming...

~~~
fuzzer37
Or we'll shift back to an internet where people make things because they enjoy
making them, not because they're trying to get a million clicks on blog spam.
I'd be happy if the internet as a whole was a less profitable place.

~~~
gregorythecat
Don’t assume I’m against that from the perspective of a netizen. I too grew up
reading slashdot and idolizing the FSF. I’m just pointing out this well could
be the death knell of SWE as we know it.

I will definitely miss the ridiculous TC fueled by the ad-laden web, but at
least maybe I won’t work alongside physics and math phds on optimizing
clicks....

------
eitland
Today it struck me that at the moment I think I like Facebooks _behavior_
better than Googles.

Mind you; I don't think Facebook is less evil, just that they seem to have
understood better than Google that users need to be treated with some amount
of respect, at least for now.

------
bitxbit
At this point you have to assume a round of antitrust lawsuits once the US
govt returns to normal. But you have to wonder how they will divide the big
tech or whether DC will even have the expertise required to implement
something credible and effective.

~~~
Ensorceled
What, exactly, would be this grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit for this
change?

I mean, I can see a viable anti-trust action for the Hey.com/Epic fiascoes and
the ongoing 30% app revenue fees...

~~~
eitland
The WhatsApp acquisition didn't exactly improve the messaging landscape
either.

On the browser side one company has really been using their market position in
a different market (ads) to outcompete at least two commercial browser engines
while the independent open source one has been reduced to fraction of what it
once was.

------
victor106
> We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get
> this right for people and small businesses.

right for people? by people they mean shareholders and zuckerberg not users

------
noxer
The online ads business is collapsing. I predicted that some years ago and now
the first signs become visible. First data collecting will be come harder and
harder because people simply don't want that anymore. Then if targeted ads are
no longer possible we have a level playing field again where everyone can
deliver ads not just the big players. And finally if ads do no longer pay for
everything on the net we will finally put a piece tag on commercial stuff.

~~~
Nextgrid
I think the online ad business is collapsing (collapsing might be a strong
word, but there's definitely a bubble bursting and the market needing a big
readjustment) not because of technical problems but simply because people have
a certain amount of time and attention and anything beyond that is a waste of
money. The advertising industry unfortunately did not understand that and most
people are saturated with ads (crappy, low-quality ones for the most part too)
and learned to tune them out or outright block them. This may not have
happened if the ad quantity remained reasonable.

~~~
creato
Understand that the ad industry isn't a monolith. The advertisers shoveling
shit ads onto local news websites aren't making some grand bargain for short
term revenue at the expense of long term consequences (blocking, etc.). Those
advertisers simply wouldn't exist otherwise. They're filling a small niche
while they can. The fact that their behavior might cause the whole industry
problems over the long term does not matter to them.

Google, FB, et al would love it if these shitware ads disappeared because
fewer people would feel the need to block ads. But there's really nothing they
can do about it without being shouted down (or worse) as being
anticompetitive, regardless of whether that's true or not in this case (and
there probably is some truth to it).

~~~
Nextgrid
> But there's really nothing they can do about it without being shouted down
> (or worse) as being anticompetitive

Why would enforcing a standard of quality (to keep user's trust by not showing
them shit ads) be considered anti-competitive? Google already bans entire
industries from advertising and are fine with that, why would enforcing a
level of quality (and raising prices to offset the cost of human review) be
anticompetitive?

Truth is that neither Google nor Facebook care as long as they get paid.

------
nuker
Cannot wait for iOS 14. Apple is the only big company taking privacy
seriously, well done.

How is that so many anti-Apple comments in this thread? Are we already in a
stage when giant Ad Corps are intentionally distorting public discussions?

~~~
Razengan
As a user, when developers and other companies complain about Apple’s
overreach, it just tells me to avoid those developers and companies.

As to your last question: Of course, why wouldn’t they?

------
treyfitty
It’s interesting that Apple is taking steps that are tough on Ad networks and
tracking. From Apples perspective, why are they waging this war? Sure, user
experience in the Apple ecosystem is improved, but there has to be more to the
story.

At first, I thought it was a long-game strategy of chipping away at Google +
Facebook while developing a walled-off user base that only Apple (and their
affiliates/partners) can monetize. But there has to be something more
substantial.

Assuming it costs $X to develop these adtech walls, Apple must require $Y in
return... where is this $Y going to come from?

~~~
summerlight
It's simple; Apple is aggressively expanding into service business space where
many of it doesn't really make sense to make direct revenue while they're
largely a underdog. Given that developing those services on par to
FB/Google/Amazon's needs at least tens of billions of dollars, they cannot
really build a sustainable business without generating actual revenue. And no
one has developed a business model applicable to billion user bases for those
"free" services other than advertising.

Of course, while it's possible that Apple can keep themselves away from those
"free" services but it means that they also need to give up a part of their
control on customer relationship. Since it is the core part of their long term
strategy, I don't think they can easily give it up. I think they will
eventually foray into the advertising business rather than giving up user
control.

Here, the only major advantage of their services is platform control. The
major disadvantage is their perception of privacy-friendly company, so their
options on ad network level optimization are significantly limited. The only
relevant ads service from Apple is app search ads because this is the only
area they can get user information without privacy troubles; this clearly
demonstrates their strong and weak points.

The only logical conclusion that can be derived from this situation is
utilizing their platform control to "level the playground"; even if Apple
cannot use the same user data, they can force others to give up. This will
neutralize Apple's disadvantage while retaining their platform advantages,
which likely give them some time to catch up their competitors in service
businesses as well.

------
kalleboo
What amuses me is that all Apple is doing here is putting up a dialog asking
if the user wants to be tracked. And Facebook knows just how much users hate
being tracked, so they are avoiding the API that results in the dialog.

Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going to
be so sad once tracking is gone!"

~~~
kevindong
> Yet their rhetoric is "tracking is great and people love it! they're going
> to be so sad once tracking is gone!"

I would not characterize Facebook's post that way. Facebook's post doesn't
mention the impact on/reaction from the end users at all.

My interpretation of all this is that no reasonable user would consent to the
tracking anyway and the marginal benefit of users who do consent is outweighed
by users who are creeped out and decline the tracking.

------
HumblyTossed
So much drama. Ugh. But, I won't be shedding any tears for Facebook.

------
vipulved
What a squirmy and deflective piece of writing.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
The more I see ad tech complaining about iOS the safer I feel using it.

------
Austin_Conlon
They never responded to me asking that they document privacy preparation
guidance for their SDK in iOS 14: [https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-
sdk/issues/1450](https://github.com/facebook/facebook-ios-sdk/issues/1450).

------
foogazi
Can they follow the Epic route and sue?

~~~
ffpip
Sue Apple for putting privacy first and informing users of clear opt-out
choice right below the opt-in?

~~~
freeone3000
Yes. Apple is using their monopoly position to harm their business of selling
private data of consumers.

~~~
daralthus
They are not competitors. Antitrust law might not apply.

~~~
freeone3000
Apple has an ad platform.

~~~
schoolornot
Yes, how is forcing developers to use Apple telemetry/ads/whatever any
different than forcing them to use Apple Pay for in-app purchases? What else
can they grasp?

------
supernova87a
"Preparing our partners"? More like notifying them that their businesses may
go out of business.

~~~
dylan604
It reads to me like "Wah, we can't do what we want anymore. Boohoo! However,
we are working hard to find a way to get around the upcoming limitations."

~~~
nerfhammer
it will impact small apps that are whose business is dependent on buying or
selling mobile ad space more than facebook itself

~~~
dylan604
I have no sympathy for a company who is so dependent on the invasive use of
personal data to survive.

------
rv-de
fuck facebook and fuck their implications ... I really, really hope this is
finally actually a change that puts a dent into ad monetization.

------
vaxman
Aww the gangsters are fighting. Maybe they should call a truce and focus on
making everyone happy before they are busted the hell up by the most powerful
government on Earth.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-
ant...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-antitrust-
panel-to-propose-fixes-for-big-tech-dominance)

------
hinkley
The abuser playbook really is pretty standard. I'm kind of surprised we don't
have classes on how to avoid being on the receiving end.

Push the person until they crack, then call for discretion and dialog about
the 'problem' so you don't get what's coming to you.

But that would probably conflict tremendously with the corporate interests
that inform our public education system.

~~~
cactus2093
You kind of took it off the deep at there with the last sentence. Sure the
Trump dept of education has been especially bad, but you can't blame all of
the past decades of US public education mediocrity on corporate interests.
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

~~~
reaperducer
_Don 't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence._

Or unions.

While teachers unions have been great for teachers, they've been lousy for
teaching.

~~~
pjmlp
As European it is hard to grasp the US hate on unions.

I love our European unions, which support anyone across the company, including
software developers.

Want to make a slave out of me? Talk to the hand.

~~~
Ensorceled
Plenty of hate for unions here in Canada too. Some how, in North America,
we've convinced a large percentage of people who should belong to unions that
unions will destroy society.

~~~
pjmlp
Which is quite sad, given how relevant both countries were in giving birth to
them during the early days of industrial revolution.

------
wdr1
TL;DR: Apple's move will help the big guys & hurt the smaller ones.

------
fmakunbound
> We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform
> policies

User consultation is more critical, but Facebook doesn't really have "users",
per se - they have products.

~~~
jfb
Oh, they have _plenty_ of users; they're just not the people whose labour
they're harvesting.

~~~
fmakunbound
Good point

------
simonh
What we really need is an open platform on iOS for app stores, so that
Facebook can launch or partner with a third party store that provides built in
APIs to enable bypassing Apples restrictions. Maybe Facebook could make their
app exclusive to it, so hundreds of millions of users are drawn to an App
Store sub-platform subsidised by intrusive, data scraping, privacy
compromising policies. Win!

~~~
kevincox
Why are you assuming that app stores get to provide access to private data? I
would expect that apps from any app store are just as sandboxed as the ones
from Apple's.

~~~
simonh
They need to be able to communicate with the store, which needs to be able to
provide services such as iAP, background update, reviews and recommendations
and whatever else the store provider wants to offer. This is how Google Play
store works right now on Android, so this is not theoretical, and you'd bet
Google would want a store on iOS and they'd want it to provide the same
services Play Store provides on Android.

Apple Store apps might well be sandboxed from third party store apps, but
there are no guarantees apps within a store ecosystem would provide the same
privacy, that would be up to the store provider and Apple would have no say in
it.

------
laksdjfkasljdf
Apple pushed an OSX update (10.15.6) just to demand acceptance to their data-
sharing practices from all their user.

The forced-to-accept "welcome" screen (which shows up before the main desktop
and disregard every single accessibility option the user might have (even the
mouse scrolling direction!) starts with:

> "Apple's ad platform is designed to protect your information ..."

A few interesting things. First, I doubt any Advertising platform was or will
ever be designed "to protect you information". They are designed to generate
revenue by ensuring people see Adverts.

Second, I think it is the first time the words "Apple's [Advertising]
Platform" was ever shown to Apple's end users.

Lastly, what's up with using "ad" on a somewhat legal document you are forcing
me to accept? It is not a word.

~~~
easton
When did this happen? Accessibility options have always been available for me
in Setup Assistant (which usually does the post-login after update setup).

~~~
laksdjfkasljdf
i mention the version on the now-downvoted-to-oblivion post

