Apple's App Tracking Transparency treated its own apps better than rivals

Meta would have a field day with this change, since it was the company that was most upset and angry when ATT was introduced.

Considering that ATT was about sharing an identifier to “track across other companies' apps and websites” (text definition of the ATT setting), I don’t believe this ruling is a good move for anyone on informed consent or privacy. In the name of improving competition, sometimes regulators may end up making things worse for users.

Title doesn't match the article, which is currently "Apple changes its rules for personalised advertising in apps".

Apple gave itself better dialogs for the permission prompts, which they will now equalize (perhaps just in the EU?) with the prompts they use for their own apps.

My understanding of ATTF is that first-party tracking needed no disclosure other than the information declared in the app's App Store privacy section about the information gathered. If you made a suite of 20 apps, you could track usage across all of them without issue, as long as you didn't also share that info with a third party.

I see the regulators only regulated that first-party and third-party apps be treated equally, and didn’t specify how.

It’s a bummer (albeit an expected one) to see Apple reducing the burden for third-party publishers to collect personal data, rather than increasing the burden for themselves to collect it, thus overall raising the floor of user privacy. This is to say, when a regulator requests “everyone be treated equally to ensure competition” maybe they should also take into account how users are impacted and instead request something more nuanced like: if there are unequal standards, they must be equalized in a way that maximizes user benefit.

They also do other things you aren’t allowed to do as a developer - eg. When they do a ‘free trial’ of Apple TV, if you cancel it cancels immediately. All proper subscriptions you retain the use of until the renewal date.

A good step.

Apple's own apps are still blessed with permissions that other apps have to ask for. This needs to be addressed too.

I used to work on an app with one of the largest repos of health data in the App Store. Their team specifically leaned on us to have more favorable text when the data sharing requests came through. Felt very inappropriate given we were often at Apple’s mercy. Seems like a consistent cultural issue.

Imagining my grandpa calling me because his camera doesn't work because he denied the camera permission on his camera app. But then he can't because he denied all the permissions his phone app needs.

> With its operating systems and its App Store, Apple controls a key infrastructure for the distribution of apps on its devices. In addition, Apple offers its own apps and advertising space. This dual role makes Apple subject to specific competition law requirements.

> Under the commitments that have now been declared binding, Apple will align the consent prompts for its own offerings and for third-party apps much more closely.

Fork found in kitchen.

A monthly headline could honestly just read "Apple treated its own better than rivals" and it would always be relevant

Apple never hid the fact that their apps work better on their devices. They have access to APIs that third parties do not have.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing necessarily.

I'm already curious what kind of malicious compliance Apple will invent this time. When it comes to that, their creativity knows no bounds.

Earlier:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047952

Watchdog ponders why Apple doesn't apply its strict app tracking rules to itself (theregister.com)

161 points by Logans_Run on Feb 14, 2025 | 69 comments

Smells like another successful lobby attempt by VG Wort. Disgusting.