I think Apple will need to make a new phone line. Call it the ePhone.
In a few years we can compare who got it right.
France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
201–210 of 217 posts
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
If we could expect the same level of compliance from our governments.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing a fine with market cap doesn't make a lot of sense. More logical is to compare it to their yearly profit. Net income was $74B last year. So the fine is ~0.2% of that, which is pretty significant for something as tiny as having two pop-up messages rather than a single combined one. And for a regular person making $50K/yr, it would equate to a $100 fine. Not fifteen cents.
No, you'd need to first take the expenses out of the person's salary. Assuming the person needs 35k to live it's a 30$ one.
Good point! I've never seen it compared that way before but I like it.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Afaik the apps don't have to ask you, they could just request the OS-level permissions. They don't do that because if you reject the request at the OS level, they can't request it again, you have to go to the Settings app to enable it and it's harder to do. So apps prefer to just nag you again and again until you say you're ready.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#205Perhaps 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.
>Apple’s not sharing data with third parties for their internal stuff Yes, they do. >Apple does not sell your personal data including as “sale” is defined in Nevada and California. Apple also does not “share” your personal data as that term is defined in California. From their privacy policy (C. 1/31/2025) It's enough to comply for a definition under a single state in a single country. They make a billion off ads so…
You can make still money off untargeted ads (just not as much).
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple makes more than 10B $ on advertising unless you've been leaving under a rock, and it's virtually all targeted ads. In fact them limiting more and more third party access to data is just a play to boost their own selling of your data.
There is a big difference between targeting and tracking.
Tracking is just targeting integrated over time. If you can be targeted a number of times, and somebody can connect those data points, that's tracking!
So I guess the question hinges on if the data Apple shares with their partners can be fingerprinted or not.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
So? In that case they should have no issue at all for adhering to the same rules as others.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a big difference between targeting and tracking.
Tracking is just targeting integrated over time. If you can be targeted a number of times, and somebody can connect those data points, that's tracking! So I guess the question hinges on if the data Apple shares with their partners can be fingerprinted or not.
Apple does not share identifiable personal data with partners for the purpose of advertising, which is why its apps don’t ask for permission to track. Almost everyone arguing against Apple in these comments seems to misunderstand this, likely because of motivated reasoning.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tracking is just targeting integrated over time. If you can be targeted a number of times, and somebody can connect those data points, that's tracking! So I guess the question hinges on if the data Apple shares with their partners can be fingerprinted or not.
Apple does not share identifiable personal data with partners for the purpose of advertising, which is why its apps don’t ask for permission to track. Almost everyone arguing against Apple in these comments seems to misunderstand this, likely because of motivated reasoning.
What are Apple apps asking permissions for?
As as I understand, declining to use the ATT framework just means they don't share the system advertising identifier (IDFA). That does not mean the information they do share cannot be fingerprinted.
Re: France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm still missing something: my simpleton understanding is taking action to ensure neutrality, implies they want consumers to see more ads?
Which of these options in isolation will result in economic harm to an advertising company? A) A consumer seeing more of their ads B) A consumer seeing the same number of ads C) A consumer seeing less of their ads
I feel talked down to :) C. It sounds to my simpleton ear like I should assume demand for ad slots will grow due to a supplier having less of a monopoly, but I'm struggling to find a step to add to my little overly(?) rational analysis that leads to that conclusion.