Apple Subject to 'Special Abuse Control' Says German Antitrust Regulator [Updated]

[britboyj]

This investigation is about "App Tracking Transparency" which simply requires app developers to publicly summarise whatever tracking they do. Apple can simply order their own app dev team to do the same thing (and as far as I can tell, Apple does that - search Messages in the App Store for example, and you can see the same privacy card as, say, Facebook messenger... except of course Apple's app does a lot less tracking).

Except the apps that are pre-installed from Apple are automatically OPTED-IN to advertising, which is the exact opposite of any third-party app. So not only does a user have little reason to see the disclaimer in the app store, they may have no idea what the app is doing since it never has to pop the modal.

It's hypocrisy.

 

[constructor]

Except the apps that are pre-installed from Apple are automatically OPTED-IN to advertising, which is the exact opposite of any third-party app. So not only does a user have little reason to see the disclaimer in the app store, they may have no idea what the app is doing since it never has to pop the modal.

It's hypocrisy.

Nope. Apple's apps are subject to the same rules, Apple just doesn't collect user data in the way that's covered by these rules.

 

[_Spinn_]

Um I like not being tracked don’t turn that off

Yeah me too

 

[constructor]

I live in Germany right now.

So do I, and your views are quite distorted.

You can't even have Google Maps street view because of "privacy",

We have both street view and Apple maps look around, and at least in the latter I have not yet seen any pixelated houses.

When Google started street view there was a lot of debate about privacy and home owners themselves demanded their houses to be pixelated – it had nothing to do with the government, other than those demands actually requiring Google to comply.

By now people have become more used to this feature and complaints have apparently receded.

can't have dashcams that record longer than x, can't record people in public, can't have a security camera that covers public street or neighbors,

Private citizens can't willy-nilly record other people without their consent. Which is how it should be.

but you have speed cameras everywhere.

Aw, still hurt by those speeding tickets you deserved? Too bad!

Those cameras are still subject to privacy regulations and the use of those pictures is restricted – not at all like the US where police photos are published for all to see!

Illegal search and seasure? Not if the government does it.

Search & seizure limitations are not absolute in the US, and it is not a free-for-all in Germany either. As in other countries there are unfair cases, but your accusation here makes no sense.

Germany is trully a surveilance police state,

No, it is not remotely.

You should probably explain how you got into conflict with the police here, and then separately how your experience actually applies in general.

but they claim privacy when it comes to companies.

Privacy and confidentiality can be claimed by pretty much everybody and by every organisation, but in all cases there are limits to that, and those limits are not perfect, but all in all reasonable.

Worst part is citizens are all for it. They like following rules no matter how absurd. "Zeez ar ze rulz yah" as they say here. 83 million of them blinding following. It's no wonder what happened in the 1930s happened.

Protection of privacy and traffic regulations are not really great examples for "absurd" rules. You're not exactly making your case here.

I live here, first hand account I can see it with my eyes.

So what exactly did you do to have the police coming after you?

 

[britboyj]

Nope. Apple's apps are subject to the same rules, Apple just doesn't collect user data in the way that's covered by these rules.

This is factually incorrect.

Apple apps do not pop the "Ask App Not to Track" modal on launch like any third-party apps installed from the App Store and must be opted-out of manually by going to Settings > Privacy & Security > Scrolling *all* the way down to the bottom to Apple Advertising (they are not included in the list if you just tap Tracking) > Personalized ads.

This setting is global for all Apple owned apps, which is also unlike other app developers, who can't have a global opt-in (there's no framework for them to anyway).

So you're doubly wrong here.

Tim Cook is a hypocrite. The end.

 

[constructor]

This is factually incorrect.

Apple apps do not pop the "Ask App Not to Track" modal on launch like any third-party apps installed from the App Store and must be opted-out of manually by going to Settings > Privacy & Security > Scrolling *all* the way down to the bottom to Apple Advertising (they are not included in the list if you just tap Tracking) > Personalized ads.

This setting is global for all Apple owned apps, which is also unlike other app developers, who can't have a global opt-in (there's no framework for them to anyway).

So you're doubly wrong here.

Tim Cook is a hypocrite. The end.

They don't pop up those prompts because they don't have any user data collection in the first place, that's why!

They are not exempt from the privacy rules, they just don't violate user privacy to begin with, so they don't need to ask about it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[britboyj]

They don't pop up those prompts because they don't have any user data collection in the first place, that's why!

They are not exempt from the privacy rules, they just don't violate user privacy to begin with, so they don't need to ask about it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Yes, they do. They even do it when you opt-out and are facing regulatory sanctions on it.

Not to mention the data Apple collects on you extends *way* outside of app usage and it all goes in one giant bucket, utilized by Apple's personalized ads services. Which is, again, turned on by default.

 

[constructor]

Yes, they do. They even do it when you opt-out and are facing regulatory sanctions on it.

Not to mention the data Apple collects on you extends *way* outside of app usage and it all goes in one giant bucket, utilized by Apple's personalized ads services. Which is, again, turned on by default.

You still don't get it:

Regular Apple apps are subject to the same rules as other apps.

Only the App Store app as effectively a meta-app is a specific, separate issue which has been discussed already.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple apps do not pop the "Ask App Not to Track"

The popup says:

Allow “app” to track your activity across other companies' apps and websites?

Apple doesn’t track activity across other companies’ apps and websites (there are no cross-site tracking cookies, pixel sized images, etc.) so why would there be a popup asking not to do a thing they’re not doing?

 

[britboyj]

You still don't get it:

Regular Apple apps are subject to the same rules as other apps.

Only the App Store app as effectively a meta-app is a specific, separate issue which has been discussed already.

Still waiting on you to rebut any of my actual evidence.

Ads in Stocks, News, etc. do not play by the rules set forth by Apple and Apple's own settings, as previously detailed. If they did, they'd be in the Settings > Privacy > Tracking section, but instead, there's a single option for all Apple personalized tracking, as detailed previously.

The popup says:

Apple doesn’t track activity across other companies’ apps and websites (there are no cross-site tracking cookies, pixel sized images, etc.) so why would there be a popup asking not to do a thing they’re not doing?

Pedantry isn't a good argument here, it was clear what I was referring to. Furthermore, the requirement to pop the ATT modal actually covers quite a few more tracking use cases, but the verbiage chosen to be required by Apple (not the string set by developers) is deliberately as negative as possible and only advertising-focused, and popping it is required if the app asks for the IDFA at any point, regardless of what the IDFA is used for.

While the IDFA is ostensibly for advertising (hence the name), there are a host of other uses, including just raw attribution. Starbucks, for example, has no third-party ads, but if they don't ask for the IDFA after install, they have no validating whether you were an organic install, or installed via one of their ads, and whose ad you tapped on for the install. Quite a few push notification vendors use the IDFA as well, since the IDFV is much newer, and adds a layer of complexity to managing users.

(Since Apple can't see what happens with the IDFA once given, it does make sense for them to assume the worst, however there's no options for a developer to declare usage like the settings for location and WAN device access, because that would run against Apple's interests)

The idea that the personalized ads served by Apple's personalized ads are indeed built up on a device level, not a per-app level, is woefully ignorant and just assuming Apple can do no wrong. If they weren't device-based, they wouldn't sit under a single "Personalized ads" IO option.

It's clear I've proven my point, and the counter-arguments have been reduced to "No you're wrong" with no actual evidence. I'm out.

 

[BaldiMac]

Still waiting on you to rebut any of my actual evidence.

Ads in Stocks, News, etc. do not play by the rules set forth by Apple and Apple's own settings, as previously detailed. If they did, they'd be in the Settings > Privacy > Tracking section, but instead, there's a single option for all Apple personalized tracking, as detailed previously.

The poster did rebut your point, but you keep ignoring it. Apps are only required to have the Tracking Popup (and therefore appear in the Tracking section) if they "would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies." Stocks, News, etc. don't do that. Like any app that doesn't do that, they are not required to have the popup.

 

[britboyj]

Apps are only required to have the Tracking Popup (and therefore appear in the Tracking section) if they "would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies."

Factually inaccurate. The modal must be presented if the app requests the IDFA, regardless of the reason.

 

[BaldiMac]

Factually inaccurate. The modal must be presented if the app requests the IDFA, regardless of the reason.

Seems pedantic, but I'll bite. Do Stocks, News, etc. request the IDFA?

 

[britboyj]

Seems pedantic, but I'll bite. Do Stocks, News, etc. request the IDFA?

I think that's a fair question. Fundamentally, they don't need to ask because as Apple apps they already have access to it. It's also possible they don't need it and just identify devices via serial, UUID, or other internal identifiers not exposed to third-parties.

We actually don't know how Apple's ad server works and serves personalized ads in the same way we know how say, GMP or The Trade Desk determine their ad placements and bids, which is somewhat more known because of their programmatic nature.

What we do know from some code sniffing is that Apple absolutely does collect sensitive behavioural data on usage, amongst other data used to personalize ads like installed apps, location, etc. (Information Apple requires consent for third parties to access to serve ads)

Furthermore, since Apple's ad server doesn't rely on it (again, as far as we know, because they collect data through other methods) they don't need to share it with external vendors to serve the ads because they're operating a full black box ecosystem for their own ads.

(Aside: Apple Classical ads on Twitter and elsewhere seem to target users who don't have the app installed, which implies Apple has some level of device information on installed apps and is uploading that data into the bidstream, implying IDFA knowledge, but I can't confirm that, just surmising.)

The people I've been arguing with seem to be committed to the idea that Apple isn't doing anything wrong here, and focused on the ATT modal as proof that everything Apple was doing is on the up-and-up, which is clearly untrue.

People who don't think Apple has an aggressive and profiteering plan around its ad ambitions would do well to remember they went out and quietly hired Antonio García Martínez, the guy who built Twitter and Facebook's modern ad exchanges. Until a bunch of employees elsewhere in Apple found out, and he was let go for being a massive liability.

Martinez is not someone you hire if you're not building an ad network, and he's definitely not someone you hire if you actually care about privacy, because his entire career is built on exploiting every drop of data possible.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think that's a fair question. Fundamentally, they don't need to ask because as Apple apps they already have access to it. It's also possible they don't need it and just identify devices via serial, UUID, or other internal identifiers not exposed to third-parties.

We actually don't know how Apple's ad server works and serves personalized ads in the same way we know how say, GMP or The Trade Desk determine their ad placements and bids, which is somewhat more known because of their programmatic nature.

What we do know from some code sniffing is that Apple absolutely does collect sensitive behavioural data on usage, amongst other data used to personalize ads like installed apps, location, etc. (Information Apple requires consent for third parties to access to serve ads)

Furthermore, since Apple's ad server doesn't rely on it (again, as far as we know, because they collect data through other methods) they don't need to share it with external vendors to serve the ads because they're operating a full black box ecosystem for their own ads.

(Aside: Apple Classical ads on Twitter and elsewhere seem to target users who don't have the app installed, which implies Apple has some level of device information on installed apps and is uploading that data into the bidstream, implying IDFA knowledge, but I can't confirm that, just surmising.)

The people I've been arguing with seem to be committed to the idea that Apple isn't doing anything wrong here, and focused on the ATT modal as proof that everything Apple was doing is on the up-and-up, which is clearly untrue.

What the "Apple is hypocritical" point and the anit-competitive charges come down to is that Apple has placed safeguards (or barriers, depending on your POV) that impact third-parties, whilst having no barriers for its own ad services. Hiding the option to opt-out in a different place from other opt-outs, and automatically being opted-in to personalized ads is really, really shady. No other app or publisher gets that privilege.

Its privacy play is long term plan to squeeze potential competitors out (mostly for user acquisition spend, which makes up massive, massive amounts of spend on mobile) before doing a more concerted rollout of its own offerings.

People who don't think Apple has an aggressive and profiteering plan around its ad ambitions would do well to remember they went out and quietly hired Antonio García Martínez, the guy who built Twitter and Facebook's modern ad exchanges. Until a bunch of employees elsewhere in Apple found out, and he was let go for being a massive liability.

Martinez is not someone you hire if you're not building an ad network, and he's definitely not someone you care about if you actually care about privacy, because his entire career is built on exploiting every drop of data possible.

So, as far as you know, Apple's Stock, News, etc apps comply with App Store requirements regarding the Tracking popup and Tracking section of the Privacy settings. Which was my point.

 

[britboyj]

So, as far as you know, Apple's Stock, News, etc apps comply with App Store requirements regarding the Tracking popup and Tracking section of the Privacy settings. Which was my point.

The comply with settings they're not required to comply with, because Apple deliberately built the requirements to not apply to them. They're hypocritical and anti-competitive.

 

[BaldiMac]

The comply with settings they're not required to comply with, because Apple deliberately built the requirements to not apply to them. They're hypocritical and anti-competitive.

You're just begging the question there. You were wrong, but you're unwilling to change your conclusion.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you are deliberately trying to equate single company tracking with tracking across companies. These are fundamentally different things. Apple tracking what you do on Apple properties is not the same as Google tracking you across multiple apps owned by different companies. I expect Apple to remember what I do on the App Store. That's why I login with an Apple ID. I do not expect someone to follow me from store to store without my permission.

 

[britboyj]

You're just begging the question there. You were wrong, but you're unwilling to change your conclusion.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you are deliberately trying to equate single company tracking with tracking across companies. These are fundamentally different things. Apple tracking what you do on Apple properties is not the same as Google tracking you across multiple apps owned by different companies. I expect Apple to remember what I do on the App Store. That's why I login with an Apple ID. I do not expect someone to follow me from store to store without my permission.

But I'm not wrong. You're misconstruing my original point to make it feel like you won, and focusing on one facet of the standards to try and say you're right. The original point is that Apple is hypocritical and anti-competitive in its standards, holding itself to different standards than it holds other developers, despite doing the same thing with its first-party data. It demonstrably and clearly does that.

There's absolutely nothing you can produce as evidence that Apple doesn't hold itself to a different, lower standard for advertising and tracking transparency than it does third parties, which is what this whole post and article are about.

You are right though, Apple tracking you as a first party is not the same as Google utilizing cookies across websites that have integrated other Google products. But if they're doing the same thing with with the data... how much does it matter, especially when they use the first party data they have for targeting in the mobile ad ecosystem anyway?

Apple is the only major advertiser keeping Musk's Twitter afloat at the the minute, and Apple is all-in on performance marketing for Apple Music/Fitness/TV+, all of which necessitate some MAID knowledge to target effectively. They could be used hashed IDs, etc. we don't really know, but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

It's not about privacy. It never was. It's about squeezing advertising incumbents out iOS as much as possible.

I would expect an Apple-powered ads monetization offering announced by 2025, because that's the only piece of the pie they don't presently own within the larger ad ecosystem. It'll be "Privacy safe, Apple compliant, just check this box in Swift, and place the integration box and you're good to go!" (Similar to integrating Unity Ads in Unity apps, but with a Tim Cook stamp of approval).

 

[mrochester]

It's more like this:

Apple: Third-party applications and services on our platform need to comply with our App Tracking Transparency Framework to ensure end-user privacy protection.

Germany: That's great! What about first-party applications and services though? Are your own applications and services subject to the same App Tracking Transparency Framework to ensure the same end-user privacy protection as the third-parties are in force?

Apple: Nope.

Germany: Interesting double standard...

Apples answer to that would be yes, not no.

Google can track you across all of their different apps on iOS the same way apple can track you across all of their iOS apps. What ATT prevents is from google tracking you when you are using an app made by Microsoft, should you have declined consent. The same ATT modal would apply if apple wanted to track you in Microsoft apps. The reason apple apps don’t present that modal is because apple does not engage in third party app tracking.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Pedantry isn't a good argument here, it was clear what I was referring to.

It’s not pedantry, it’s “The activity the popup is intended to alert the user about”, which is third party tracking. The same third party tracking that many companies still want to use as selling that data has been a lucrative business for them. Companies, like Apple, that don’t collect third party data don’t show the popup. Companies that DO want to still collect it now have to let users know that “We intend to collect your data AND intend to sell it.”

 

[bsolar]

Apples answer to that would be yes, not no.

Google can track you across all of their different apps on iOS the same way apple can track you across all of their iOS apps.

This is not what the preliminary findings by the German authority stated: they explicitly stated that Apple was excluded by some of the new rules they impose on third-parties.

Now, things might have changed in the meantime, but according to their latest report the investigation is still ongoing:

App-Tracking-Transparency-Framework (ATTF)

Review of Apple’s tracking rules for third-party apps. Apple’s rules have raised the initial suspicion of self-preferencing and/or impediment of other companies.

ongoing; initiated on June 14, 22.

 

[mrochester]

This is not what the preliminary findings by the German authority stated: they explicitly stated that Apple was excluded by some of the new rules they impose on third-parties.

Now, things might have changed in the meantime, but according to their latest report the investigation is still ongoing:

Suspicion, not actual.

 

[bsolar]

Suspicion, not actual.

Correct, it's an ongoing investigation which has not reached conclusion yet.

 

[BaldiMac]

Correct, it's an ongoing investigation which has not reached conclusion yet.

A suspicion is hardly the same as "preliminary findings." Do you have any information to suggest that they have actually found any evidence that Apple excluded its own apps from ATTF?

As discussed earlier, Apple apps wouldn't trigger ATTF because they don't share data with other companies for purposes of tracking across apps and web sites.

 

[bsolar]

A suspicion is hardly the same as "preliminary findings." Do you have any information to suggest that they have actually found any evidence that Apple excluded its own apps from ATTF?

"Preliminary findings" is the exact wording used by the authority itself in their announcement (emphasis mine):

While users can also restrict Apple from using their data for personalised advertising, the Bundeskartellamt's preliminary findings indicate that Apple is not subject to the new and additional rules of the App Tracking Transparency Framework.

As discussed earlier, Apple apps wouldn't trigger ATTF because they don't share data with other companies for purposes of tracking across apps and web sites.

From the announcement, the authority seems indeed to take issue with Apple being able to combine data from its own ecosystem:

These rules apparently do not affect Apple when using and combining user data from its own ecosystem.

I don't know which information the authority considered during their "preliminary findings", but it's clear that at least in this initial phase the information they had was not satisfactory to them.

I looked for more detailed documents but found nothing: I guess until the proceeding reaches some new milestone that's all we will get.