That hasn't been the case for a pretty long time. Now the permissions are quite granular and you can accept and refuse specific one at any time. It's actually quite tiresome to go through 4-5 permissions popup on some apps, but it makes sense so it's okay.
The apps is informed of that decision, so yeah it can decide to not works without it. I suggest you to not use an app that require stuff that you don't want to allow.
> That hasn't been the case for a pretty long time. Now the permissions are quite granular and you can accept and refuse specific one at any time.
This is technically a correct answer, but I've seen the bad habit of asking for many permissions (and sometimes refusing to work without) being more common on Android. An example is a bank's app that will refuse to launch (or I mean, provide any meaningful information/experience) unless location permission is given (this is when giving the permission means an "always allow") and unless it's connected to a cellular data network (not WiFi). On iOS, the app is better behaved and will work with some useful functionality when certain permissions are denied.
All of the Apps get the same ID and that's how your "persona" graph is constructed.
Sidenote: One of the bets people are making with this change is that now free apps will start forcing you to signup (via email/mobile number) which will be used to construct this "persona" graph again because who has time to create new emails for these purposes.
You don't have to offer Sign in with Apple if you have your own login system. Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sig...
This is only applicable if the Apps provide this as an option right?
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sig...
I wouldn’t treat it as a privacy feature, I would treat it as a convenience feature. When I needed some extra mask straps, I installed Etsy, didn’t previously have an account. So I used Sign In with Apple to register, picked out some mask straps, and Apple Pay to pay. The whole process only took as long as it took for me to make a selection and two biometric authentications, but some of my information had to be exchanged in order to make that transaction possible.
Also I can login to UPS and Etsy without a password.
If you go into Settings on iOS 13/iPadOS 13 and into the Privacy pane, all the way at the bottom you should see two tabs, one labeled “Analytics & Improvements” which is for information Apple collects for the device, Siri and iCloud, and another “Advertising”.
It’s in that second one that you can toggle “Limit Ad Tracking”, off by default today, on by default in iOS 14, at least that’s the plan and is the case in reports from people using the beta releases. Right below this toggle is a button labeled “Reset Advertising Identifier” which does exactly what it says. This is the “IDFA” that is the subject of discussion and will be the same value returned to Apps that request to use it. If you reset it, that will break continuity with your previous identifier, at least in theory.
Deary me. Reading comprehension fail.
Limiting tracking will be off by default? Are you sure you're not the one inverting things?
What mechanism remains for tracking a user across apps?
But I was thinking more about tracking within apps that isn’t concerned with tracking across apps or even tracking for advertising purposes, hence, “does not kill all forms of tracking”.
It'll be really interesting to see this play out. The experiment with the "Do Not Track"[0] header on the web failed becaused it was largely ignored by everyone. With Apple's tight control over the App Store you simply cannot ignore the rules because Apple can outright ban you for it.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/30/facebook-...
Consent should be opt-in and granular (a user might wish to opt-in for one app but opt-out for another one) so every app should’ve already implemented their own toggle (like iOS 14 would force them to) instead of just using it in the background and pointing users to the system-wide setting if they want to opt-out (which isn’t ideal if the user wants to remain opted-in for some apps only).
First of all under GDPR, tracking can be for a legitimate interest, and thus it might not require opt-in. For example security, or even first-party analytics, with the purpose of optimizing the content, can be legitimate interests. However this cookie is meant for advertising, and user profiling for marketing purposes doesn't pass the test for legitimate interest.
The other problem, for Apple, might be the revised E-Privacy Directive. You can't set such tracking cookies without informing users. Such cookies must be opt-in, whether you use them or not.
AFAIK Apple is simply complying with the law, whereas Facebook is effectively arguing for unlawful tracking, because that's just who they are.
Given that this feature is entirely made by Apple, that's not a reasonable conclusion.
Holy mackerel, compared to this, the folks at Fox and MSNBC are paragons of neutrality. This may be the worst example of journalism I've ever seen. I'm looking all over for something that says "opinion" or "editorial", but no...
Take this job listing for example: https://www.theregister.com/Page/devoops.html
1. DevOops.html
2. Titled: "Vultures seeking penguin-tamer"
This article communicated multiple facts/relevant quotes to me that I was not aware of before (eg iOS14 changing a default setting to improve user privacy, and the extremely revealing quotes from the FB Audience Network bloc [0]) and put them in a context relevant to the audience that values privacy. I don't see how this is an example of bad journalism.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/audiencenetwork/news-and-insights/p...
I’m sure there’s a joke in there...
I just wish people understood how much they’re being manipulated by Apple’s marketing here. Credit to them: they’re the best in the world —- if Tim Cook decided to sell cigarettes, he’d have most of us on two packs a day and believing it’s good for us by Christmas.
Apple is a giant corporation, they’re not your friend. They can be total jerks when it suits them. They happen to have failed at their own advertising network and had the brilliant idea to spin this as if they “care” about your “privacy”. It is a convenience of the moment to sell more devices like the iPad Pro I’m typing this on.
The level of rhetoric has reached foaming-at-the-mouth proportions, and we can no longer have a rational discussion that acknowledges the nuances. Even the word “tracking” is so loaded with evil connotations and indistinguishable in most people’s minds from the ever-cited, rarely existent “selling my personal information” that few can see beyond the word to make a conscious choice about what level of tracking is acceptable. (NONE! I can already hear the shouting.)
IDFA is a random identifier that’s been used for attribution and audience targeting (for which Apple provided it). Digital advertising has a fairly unique property, which is that it’s possible (at least sometimes) to connect the dots between “I paid for an ad for my product” and “someone bought the product”. If you’re spending money on advertising and offered the choice between casting it into the void and hoping your sales pick up, versus only paying for successful “conversions”, that second option is going to be pretty attractive.
I saw an ad on Facebook for a food delivery service. I signed up and have been enjoying their products and benefitting from fewer grocery trips. I’m ok with that. And I’m ok if there was a little anonymous tag that allowed Facebook to get paid for the service they provided to the company. I’m less ok if they collect information on how much red meat I’m buying and sell it to my insurance company, but that’s not what we’re talking about here and I pretty wound up when people assume that all “tracking” is the same.
1) Marketing alone is not why you have an iPad Pro. All other tablets kinda suck compared to it. It's at least 5 years ahead of anything else in hardware and the software is probably further than that.
2) Facebook also not your friend. Corporations can't be friends.
3) Why would anyone _want_ to be tracked if they can avoid it?
4) From a business' POV, sure tracking is useful, but as a consumer, I don't care. I would rather not be tracked - in this instance I think it's nearly even possible to say Apple are being my friend, working for my interests. Also IDFA was introduced as a more private device ID, I doubt they expected it to be exploited this way and are now fixing it.
5) The reason FB cares about this tracking isn't for tracking installs of other apps, it's about their ability (or not) to build up a comprehensive identity of who you, what you do, where you go and what you like, from all the apps and websites you've ever visited.
People get value in return. Free to use product and ads about stuff they’re interested in. For some it’s not enough of value proposition, but for others consider it fair value exchange.
I'd also say that's a better argument for google, where them knowing some stuff about me probably does give better search results - but facebook just want to give me better adverts, which is of marginal (approaching zero) benefit to me.
People that see it that way can choose option 1 when presented with the choice.
In other words: if your demand is legitimate, you have no reason to whine about opt in.
I have no romantic attachments to Apple in particular, after all they were the SOBs that provided IDFAs and set the initial policy, which is why this was a “friendly reminder” on what this policy going forward is and what it isn’t. What appears to you to be a “scary dialogue box” appears to me to be an adequate and accurate description of what IDFAs are used for and why Apple provided IDFAs in the first place. Tracking users and across apps and websites from different companies is IDFAs working as intended.
Now you can be as cynical or romantic about why Apple is doing this now as you want, to me it’s a half-step towards correcting a mistake they initially made, and to others it is clearly something else, but let’s not kid ourselves into believing that just because Apple stripped the paint off of an advertiser’s favorite toy that this is somehow going to be the death knell of user tracking and the app-based advertising industry is doomed on iPhones and iPads. Facebook and Google are big boys, they may not like this new change, but they’ll learn to adapt around it because adapting to new situations and facts on the ground is just another cost of doing business. Business plans aren’t set in stone since time immemorial, sometimes they need alterations to remain relevant and operable.
Mind I wouldn’t care if I could install apps (native, not PWAs) through Safari distributed through a means that cuts Apple out of the loop and download them right to my home screen, or in future versions, my App Library.
This is such a hoary old argument usually made by those who believe a product value is only measured by the cost of the hardware components comprising it, not how it was packaged or how it works or the experience it’s custom software enables.
Of course in this case, if your job is selling snake oil, you think everyone’s job is selling snake oil.
This does not kill all forms of tracking, nor does it eliminate IDFA as an an option, but it does make it more obvious to iPhone/iPad users what exactly is going on behind the curtains with this tracking tool and let them make an informed and explicit choice about whether they want any part of that.