[HN Gopher] France fines Apple EUR150M for "excessive" pop-ups t...
___________________________________________________________________
France fines Apple EUR150M for "excessive" pop-ups that let users
reject tracking
Author : sebastian_z
Score : 177 points
Date : 2025-03-31 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| nottorp wrote:
| 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...
| bredren wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| What's even the "double confirmation" that's required?
|
| 1. the ATT permission prompt from iOS
|
| 2. a prompt from the app itself
|
| ?
| refulgentis wrote:
| Yes
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Then it's not a problem and France is just throwing some
| hissy fit.
| ezfe wrote:
| 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.
| leereeves wrote:
| > 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?
| gruez wrote:
| 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.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| As a European Apple user I welcome any and all fines that
| can be levied on Apple for their anticompetitive
| practices.
| gruez wrote:
| What's "anticompetitive" here? If the description
| provided in my previous comment is correct, it seems to
| be more of a failure on the part of the regulators than
| anything else.
|
| The EU (through GDPR) also wants some sort of affirmative
| consent for tracking. That's fair, and results in one
| prompt. However, iOS obviously can't accept a "trust me
| bro" from the app itself that it's okay to enable cross-
| app tracking, so you need a second prompt. The obvious
| solution would be to combine the two, by allowing the ATT
| prompt to be used as consent for the purposes of GDPR.
| Why didn't French regulators go with this solution and
| decide to fine Apple instead?
| refulgentis wrote:
| "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."
|
| more @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24109695 (via
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/08/07/appl
| e-a...)
|
| EDIT: Throttled, so reply can go here:
|
| > My previous comment directly addresses the "asymmetry"
| aspect.
|
| Apologies, you asked what the asymmetry was and I guess
| I'm still rather confused even after reviewing the
| thread. I think I've had too much caffeine...or not
| enough? :)
|
| > The obvious solution would be to combine the two, by
| allowing the ATT prompt to be used as consent for the
| purposes of GDPR. Why didn't French regulators go with
| this solution and decide to fine Apple instead?
|
| I've been involved in regulatory stuff before and it's
| considered overreach, generally, when the government does
| UX design for you. Hopefully, that's a solution Apple can
| consider, it's a great idea on your end, excellent for
| users and competition.
| gruez wrote:
| My previous comment directly addresses the "asymmetry"
| aspect.
|
| >The obvious solution would be to combine the two, by
| allowing the ATT prompt to be used as consent for the
| purposes of GDPR. Why didn't French regulators go with
| this solution and decide to fine Apple instead?
|
| edit:
|
| >Apologies, you asked what the asymmetry was and I guess
| I'm still rather confused even after reviewing the
| thread. I think I've had too much caffeine...or not
| enough? :)
|
| The point is, I can see where the "asymmetry" is, but I
| don't understand why they went decided to fine Apple
| rather than do something on their side (ie. rework the
| idea of consent in GDPR to allow for reusing the ATT
| prompt) to fix the "asymmetry". I think most people would
| agree that the ATT prompt from iOS must stay, and it's
| better to address the "asymmetry" by making third party
| apps more streamlined, than by making iOS worse[1]. That
| would be entirely within the French regulators' remit.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
| umbra07 wrote:
| > but I don't understand why they went decided
|
| You're assuming the regulators have no other motivations
| besides increasing consumer privacy?
| frizlab wrote:
| As a European Apple user, I don't. I specifically WANT
| the walled garden. It's one of the reasons why I buy
| Apple.
| stagalooo wrote:
| > 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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Right.
|
| I'm not sure this is fixable?
|
| Or maybe there is widespread misunderstanding of the
| requirements in this scenario? But I also thought the rule
| was tough enough to require verifying that extra consent?
| Maybe it's not?
|
| Truly confused here.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > I'm not sure this is fixable?
|
| Not from Apple's end.
|
| Apple mandates that all requests for permissions go through
| a single, OS-provided dialog. If a user accepts, the
| permission is granted; if the user rejects, the permission
| is not granted, and the app can't ask again. Simple enough.
|
| App developers try to maximize their chances of getting
| that permission granted by adding another warm-up dialog
| _before_ actually doing the official permissions request.
| Since those other dialogs aren 't part of Apple's
| permissions request chain, they can be rejected by the user
| without consequence, and the app can present them as often
| as it wants.
|
| There is nothing which requires third-party developers to
| use these additional dialogs. It's a design pattern (and an
| annoying one at that) which many developers have gravitated
| towards. Not all developers use it; in particular, Apple
| doesn't use it for their first-party apps. And apparently
| FCA is faulting Apple for not following that pattern
| themselves.
| refulgentis wrote:
| > There is nothing which requires third-party developers
| to use these additional dialogs.
|
| Well, yes there is: I don't have carte blanche to do
| whatever I want with your data because you tapped an
| _Apple_ dialog: I have to obtain your consent first.
| benmanns wrote:
| This is interesting to me--are you an app developer that
| does this pattern for that reason? I definitely figured
| it was exclusively because they can request repeatedly
| for the fake prompt, and only "use" their prompt when the
| user is inclined to accept. There are times where I'll
| accept the first prompt and reject the second prompt when
| apps are spammy about it.
| kemayo wrote:
| I don't see why that matters? Your app triggered the
| Apple dialog to be shown, asking a question about what
| your app is allowed to do, and you can see what the
| answer the user gave is. Why _wouldn 't_ that be enough?
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| That, "we need to maintain the ability to pester the user
| again" pattern is really annoying. Apple should add a
| screen at initial setup that allows the user to default
| every permission that it's possible to use that pattern
| with to "no" and skip the one time dialog just to screw
| with apps that do it.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| It's part of acceptable use by Apple [1], with guidelines
| how to show the first popup.
|
| [1] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-
| guideline...
| duskwuff wrote:
| It's considered acceptable within bounds (i.e. no
| tricking the user into tapping "accept"), but not
| required. At least, not by Apple.
| frumper wrote:
| The link you posted is about not giving the user a
| choice. It's an optional pre alert screen that only leads
| to the system request. Apps are choosing to allow users
| to say no/cancel on that screen that then lets them ask
| again and again without wasting their one chance with the
| system prompt pop up.
| maccard wrote:
| > 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.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Do we only care now that the permissions being requested
| are related to tracking?
| tedunangst wrote:
| 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?
| pests wrote:
| Domino's?
| jtmarl1n wrote:
| US-based Pizza restaurant
| pests wrote:
| I know what it is. They were asking who was harmed.
| Retric wrote:
| Double conformation would presumably help Dominoes as it
| would encourage people to accept tracking.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They could just ask twice on their own apps.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| I thought the double pop-ups were because the app asks
| permission to ask permission, rather than Apple requiring
| apps to prompt twice.
| st3fan wrote:
| This is not what this case is about.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the
| Apple ecosystem harmed?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ergocoder wrote:
| Yes. Apple's competitors are suppressed by Apple.
| Competition would reduce. Thus, consumers would be
| considered harmed.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| It doesn't really matter if you are "fine" with their anti-
| conpetitive behavior. They should comply to regulations
| properly.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Why do we have regulations? Who do they benefit?
| simion314 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| That's some nice story, not relevant facts.
| maccard wrote:
| I like this.
|
| Imagine if people from the old village came to the new
| village and said that they wanted to set up the rules
| they had in the old village but they want to live in the
| new village. Some people are perfectly happy in the new
| village, but the people who came from the old village say
| that the rules are unfair.
|
| As someone who actively wants Apple provide a tighter
| experience, this is how I feel. I have a nice garden that
| I'm playing in, and others have a sandbox. They like my
| garden because it's sunny, but they want the rules of
| their sandbox to apply to my garden. The grown ups let
| them in, and now there's nowhere to play that doesn't
| have sand anymore.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Think of the poor multi-billion dollar corporation! Have
| you no heart?
| ecshafer wrote:
| That is borderline tautological. Apple should comply with
| the regulations, because they are the regulations. The
| regulations are there to protect users, a 3rd party
| application is more likely to harm the user, so less trust
| is warranted.
| pjmlp wrote:
| There is no Apple country, at least not yet.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > That is borderline tautological. Apple should comply
| with the regulations, because they are the regulations.
|
| Correct.
|
| > The regulations are there to protect users
|
| Also correct.
|
| > a 3rd party application is more likely to harm the
| user, so less trust is warranted.
|
| Not sure if I agree or not, but it doesn't matter.
| burnte wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| woah wrote:
| If the EU isn't fining someone for tracking users too much,
| they're fining them for not tracking users enough.
| danieldk wrote:
| That's not what is going on here, right? The complaint is that
| the consent process is much harder for third-party apps than
| Apple apps and Apple cannot give itself advantages because
| Apple is a gatekeeper w.r.t iOS.
|
| A simple yes-no for third-party applications makes it easier
| for the user to reject tracking _and_ doesn 't make the process
| more cluttered than for Apple apps.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| Where did you get that part from?
|
| > 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. "The result is that multiple consent pop-ups are
| displayed, making the use of third-party applications in the
| iOS environment excessively complex."
|
| It's not harder at all. France are just mad that their small
| advertisers have to ask for permission again which is _their_
| own choice.
| diggan wrote:
| List of 2560 GDPR enforcements:
| https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
|
| Granted, not all are fines for tracking users, but all sorts of
| violations. Reasoning is included in the table.
| izacus wrote:
| Having US corporations fund our infrastructure, culture and
| subsidy programs is amazing!
| sylware wrote:
| Any update on noscript/basic (x)html interop of french
| administration web sites?
|
| It is good to straighten the other guys, hopefully they do not
| forget about themselves.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| "We will not tell you how to fix what we found to be 'wrong',
| reserve the right to find your fixes 'wrong' again, and will
| charge you more"
|
| At which point do we admit that this is simply extortion?
| jayd16 wrote:
| Reminds me of app store submissions.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Most of you won't read the past the headline but this isn't
| accurate
|
| >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." The
| press release notes that "while advertising tracking only needs
| to be refused once, the user must always confirm their consent a
| second time."
|
| They take issue with Apple making it easier for their apps but
| applying a different standard for third parties. I think this
| fine is fair.
| bberenberg wrote:
| Is Apples third party though? I don't know, genuinely asking.
|
| If no, then first party vs third party having different
| standards of consent seems reasonable?
| 9283409232 wrote:
| This is referring to Apple's first party apps so no they
| aren't third party. I can understand why someone would make
| that argument but the French regulator argument here is that
| in the spirit of competition, third-parties should have the
| same barrier to entry as Apple's first party apps and I can
| see the argument they are making.
| bberenberg wrote:
| I feel like if the apps have their own tracking then yes
| one click makes sense. If they include third party then
| multi consent also makes sense. They're not contradictory
| points.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Yeah.
|
| Not sure how you collect all the necessary consent clicks
| without at least two clicks if a third party is involved?
|
| Do they get a pass on collecting a consent click for one
| of the parties?
|
| Or do you only ever need the consent for the third party
| to track?
|
| My understanding was you needed to get consent for every
| company in the chain. Is that untrue?
| MR4D wrote:
| I'm curious how things like this play into Trumps recent
| reciprocal tariff threats.
| danieldk wrote:
| Probably it will. Vance even threatened to leave NATO if the EU
| regulates X. But EU countries are not satellite states of the
| US. At some point we just have to draw a line in the sand and
| stand by our own values, even if it comes at an expense. It's
| not as if tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs it will lead to
| is good for the US economy either.
|
| It's all just silly.
| kazen44 wrote:
| a lot of european nations are also discussing on how to
| create more inhouse and become digitally sovereign from US
| tech firms. (the dutch government for instance[0])
|
| 5 or even 10 years ago this would have been unthinkable in
| dutch politics, even if this has been called out a lot as a
| risk in tech circles.
|
| [0] https://www.dutchitchannel.nl/news/602753/tweede-kamer-
| neemt...
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Europe has been pushing this politically for over a decade
| now.... It's just every European initiative to fix it has
| failed.
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| Do other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark
| pattern they've adopted:
|
| * explain and prompt the user for consent
|
| * if they acquiesce pop the real modal
|
| * otherwise bide your time and try again later
|
| The reason for this is because once you receive a rejection in
| the official modal you are not allowed to ask again.
| gruez wrote:
| >Do other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark
| pattern they've adopted:
|
| It's specifically recommended by apple.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
| drivebyhooting wrote:
| In adtech and social media it is a calculated strategy to
| maximize user compliance.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Apple's recommendation (as posted) actually doesn't look like
| double consent to me - in fact, their recommendation calls
| out that it should be treated like a consent form (You
| shouldn't be able to exit the explanation page, only
| continue).
|
| App Publishers have instead used the explanation page as a
| "soft" consent form, so they can bug you later without being
| disabled at the system level.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| Or snapchat repeatedly asking for my contacts access knowing
| it's denied.
| ilnavigante wrote:
| Speaking of dark patterns: if you try to initialize your Mac
| without logging in to your iCloud account, the installation
| process doesn't ask you to encrypt your drive, so everything is
| in clear by default...
| airstrike wrote:
| can we start also fining companies for not easily offering "no
| and never ask again"? the "maybe later" trend needs to die ASAP
| gruez wrote:
| No good deed goes unpunished. Don't protect users' privacy, and
| you get flak from regulators for "not doing enough". Protect
| users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators because it's
| "too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising
| revenue". You see similar levels of cynicism directed at Google.
| When firefox banned third party cookies, it was almost
| universally welcomed, but when Chrome does it the cynics come out
| and say how it's actually some sort dastardly ploy to cement
| their position in the ad market because third party adtech firms
| are disproportionately harmed.
| ipaddr wrote:
| One benefits directly while the other doesn't. Plus many people
| complained.
| gruez wrote:
| >One benefits directly while the other doesn't.
|
| That's the exact of cynicism I'm talking about. It doesn't
| matter whether banning third party was good for users or not,
| only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. This is
| absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes
| get shouted down.
|
| > Plus many people complained.
|
| For what, Firefox?
| briandear wrote:
| The advertising industry was who filed the complaint, it
| wasn't a bunch of normal users. If the ad industry wasn't so
| shitty, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| The difference is that Firefox didn't do it as an excuse to
| sneak in a new tracking system instead.
| gruez wrote:
| You mean this? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-
| preserving-attr...
| dinkblam wrote:
| > No good deed goes unpunished.
|
| this (and similar fines) isn't about any deed at all. this is
| about shady EU countries like france and italy feeling free to
| use american companies like a platinum credit card they can use
| at will to fix their budget holes.
|
| and why wouldn't they? european voters love nothing more than
| the idea of rich american companies subsidizing their countries
| ohgr wrote:
| Indeed. If they really gave a shit they'd be getting Apple to
| open up their APIs so we can get data out of Reminders and
| Notes etc without having to resort to necromancy and
| hacking...
|
| Apple need one of these https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/openspecs/
| briandear wrote:
| As an Apple user, I don't want third party apps to be able
| to have access to that data. Apple has earned my trust, but
| most third party apps have not.
|
| I buy Apple specifically because I want the level of
| privacy that their platform provides. If third party devs
| don't like it, they can ship for Android.
| izacus wrote:
| They literally did that too via DMA. Why are you
| bullshitting? :)
| ginko wrote:
| You seriously underestimate the size of EU countries' budgets
| if you think $150M would even register.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > Benoit Coeure, the head of France's competition authority,
| "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple
| should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make
| sure it now complied with the ruling,"
|
| Sounds like a good shakedown to me. Wait until they tweak it then
| fine them again for getting it "wrong". I wonder if they even got
| the chance to change anything before they were fined the first
| time. And all because the regulator wants users to be advertised
| to _more_?
| refulgentis wrote:
| > "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple
| should change its app, but that it was up to the company to
| make sure it now complied with the ruling,"...shakedown
|
| I wonder if this sheds light: if they said _exactly_ what to
| do, there 's a strong argument that they went too far when
| business regulators became UI designers.
|
| > Wait until they tweak it then fine them again for getting it
| "wrong"
|
| I don't worry too much about it, I used to work at Google,
| companies and regulatory authorities are in constant contact.
| Generally, I haven't yet seen a company claim to have addressed
| a situation then gotten fined again.
|
| > And all because the regulator wants users to be advertised to
| more?
|
| I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it
| before: could you share some more?
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it
| before: could you share some more?
|
| > The Autorite also found that the rules governing the
| interaction between the different pop-up windows displayed
| undermined the neutrality of the framework, causing definite
| economic harm to application publishers and advertising
| service providers.
|
| https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-
| release/targ...
|
| "Economic harm to ... advertising service providers" says it
| implicitly.
| enasterosophes wrote:
| > I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it
| before: could you share some more?
|
| The second paragraph has what you want. From the article:
|
| > The App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework used by Apple
| on iPhones and iPads since 2021 makes the use of third-party
| applications too complex and hurts small companies that rely
| on advertising revenue ... The system harms "smaller
| publishers in particular since, unlike the main vertically
| integrated platforms, they depend to a large extent on third-
| party data collection to finance their business," the agency
| said.
|
| Is there another way to interpret this than that the agency
| wants to protect advertizing and data collection practices by
| small businesses?
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| "by small businesses", and large businesses, and businesses
| like ad agencies that specialize in data collection and
| tracking.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Funny how this is exactly the process that one has to go
| through for getting an app through a review for an app store -
| you're told you've done something wrong, and it is up to you to
| fix it. The reviewer will never point out the specific issue
| they have with your submission.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Here is a new rule you have to comply with. Oh you over complied
| and we need some money so you owe us $150 million. No we cant
| just give you a warning, we need the $ we have to rebuild our
| military and rely on fining US companies to fund that.
| joshstrange wrote:
| So much dumb in this article that it's hard to figure out what's
| actually going on.
|
| I have to assume this this is the same "issue" with all Apple
| permissions. They can only be requested once by the app and if
| the user denies it then the user has to dig into Settings to turn
| it on later. To avoid/work around this a lot of app developers
| prompt the user before they trigger the OS-level prompt so that
| if the user says "no thanks" they don't "burn" their one chance
| to request a permission.
|
| Apple, it seems, doesn't use those "pre-consent" screens so it's
| only 1 dialog. Also, to my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow it's
| apps to prompt with the system dialog multiple times either so
| they are on equal footing it appears.
|
| As always it's important to see who is complaining/behind this:
|
| > The French investigation was triggered by a complaint lodged by
| advertising industry associations.
|
| Ahh, got it.
|
| The "Autorite de la concurrence" seems to suffer from the same
| issue almost all government regulators suffer from, they know
| fuck-all about technology which is perfectly summed up with this:
|
| > Benoit Coeure, the head of France's competition authority,
| "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple
| should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make
| sure it now complied with the ruling,"
|
| Not only is it a "You need to make _A_ change but we won't tell
| you what it is"-type thing which is super annoying [0] but "Apple
| should change its app". If you don't understand the difference
| between an "App" and an "OS" then you should not be making rules
| for either.
|
| ATT is a 100% win for consumers and I don't for a second believe
| the BS around "but what about small businesses!", just look at
| all the people championing small business, it's _check notes_ ,
| ahh, yes, Facebook and large ad agencies, bastions of small
| business /s.
|
| [0] Yes, it's even more annoying when Apple does it to developers
| and I think we are all feeling a little bit of Schadenfreude over
| it.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Can we just frikkin ban tracking completely and just see how that
| goes?
|
| I do not really care if some businesses can no longer make money
| in the way they like to. I'm sure they'll figure it out if they
| have to. Businesses existed for a loooooong time without tracking
| their customers. I'm sure they can do it again.
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| Some apps have a "pre permissions" pop up telling users about
| what permissions they're about to ask for, before then initiating
| the iOS permissions pop up.
|
| The Apple apps go straight to the permissions pop up.
|
| How is it Apples fault they do this?
| klabb3 wrote:
| I think with Apple you agreed to let them do human experiments
| in the EULA when you're unboxing your device. With yet-another-
| tower-defense games the agreement needs to be done on a per-app
| or at least per-publisher basis.
|
| The native iOS permission dialog is only a consent about what
| the app can do locally, and doesn't list the 1034 close
| partners that they will share your DNA with.
|
| Makes me think.. one potential risk here is that vendors will
| band together under a common "publisher" where apps can
| piggyback on consent from previous apps, just like the big guys
| do but without being part of the same feudal kingdom. Wouldn't
| surprise me if this already happens.
| the_clarence wrote:
| This is such a bizarre move from Apple honestly. They're acting
| like they're letting users make a choice when realistically all
| users are going to choose not to get tracked. It's like a "do you
| want to install malware?" button. They just did it for the lulz
| and to hurt the finances of companies they don't like.
| kjreact wrote:
| Wow, do you work for these ad-tech companies? You're totally
| correct that I don't want to be tracked and I'm happy that
| Apple is trying to protect me from these predatory companies.
| If "hurt[ing] the finances" of these privacy invasive companies
| is your definition of "companies they don't like" please sign
| me up. It's a bizarre thing to say any one actually wants to be
| tracked.
| briandear wrote:
| Shouldn't a user be able to choose if they want to be tracked?
| Of everyone says no, I'm not sure that's a problem -- unless
| your business model is intrusive tracking.
| lvl155 wrote:
| At this point, I am convinced EU fines American tech companies
| for fun.
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| 150M is ridiculously low for a company with a 3.34T market cap.
|
| It's the equivalent of fining a millionaire 150 EUR, or a regular
| person fifteen cents.
|
| That's not a fine, it's a show put on for people who can't do
| division.
| freetime2 wrote:
| Agree it's a slap on the wrist for Apple. But the punishment
| fits the "crime" in this case, in my opinion. Enough to pay for
| the legal costs of enforcement, and get Apple's attention. But
| nothing terribly punitive, which I don't think is warranted in
| this case.
|
| I believe Apple's goal with the popups is to protect consumers'
| privacy from 3rd party apps, which is admirable. But where they
| went wrong is that they didn't apply the same process to
| themselves.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| Do you actually agree with the fine?
|
| Don't give users a choice in tracking: complaints Give users a
| choice in tracking: now it's too many pop ups
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It is not the right question. The goal is not to destroy Apple,
| it is to force them into compliance. In order to force them
| into compliance, you only need the fine to be higher than what
| it costs to comply.
|
| And EUR150M is a lot of money, you can have on the order of a
| thousand people working on the problem for a year to get even.
| I am sure they can figure out a way.
|
| Same idea with, say, a parking ticket for nonpayment. It may be
| nothing to a millionaire, but the important part is that in the
| long run, it is more cost effective to simply pay for parking.
| briandear wrote:
| Perhaps they should fine the companies that want to do such
| intrusive tracking? Apple's not sharing data with third parties
| for their internal stuff, that's a big difference when Dominos
| wants to share with someone that isn't Dominos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-31 23:00 UTC)