Is there any evidence anywhere that Apple is doing, or is intending to do, the same things they've blocked others from doing?

Apple hasn't stopped anybody from advertising, they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking. They don't seem to intend to do over-intrusive cross-app personal tracking themselves, so it seems to be a level playing field. So far, at least.

>they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking.

It's important to remember, they aren't stopping them from doing the overly-intrusive cross-app tracking, they just make you actively consent to an app allowing that tracking.

I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too? As in, do they give themselves some advantage over other ad platforms?

You do have to consent, but there are many parts where they don't let you say no and continue using, while all third parties are forced to make you say no and to continue using.

Apple is doing the classic "we don't share with third parties, we just collect a shit ton of data from everywhere and then make people buy our data indirectly via our ad sale services" like google and facebook do today. So it's not shared with third parties, but because of their scale it might as well be in effect size .

> I'm not familiar -- do you have to actively consent to Apple's tracking too?

It's called App Tracking Transparency and there is a scary prompt when Facebook/others do it. It's called Personalization and a friendly prompt when Apple does it.

These two are not the same thing. Every app is allowed to serve you personalized ads, without asking. ATT is about cross app/site tracking between other companies, which is something Apple has never done.

> …they've only stopped them from doing overly-intrusive cross-app personal tracking.

They've required consent for cross-organizational tracking. For a single organization, they have only required disclosure in apps (via the privacy nutrition labels).

For instance, Google can still push you to sign into a Google account so they can add all your interactions across services/devices to your profile. They also can still share information between Google native apps for unauthenticated users. This would include if they start to move over apps from other acquired companies under the Google umbrella.

The difference is that I can make an opt-in choice (if possibly a difficult one) on whether I want to interact with Facebook services directly, but I couldn't make a such a choice before on what information Facebook was gathering about me without my consent or knowledge via tracking.

Let's be clear though, the information FB got was always a subset of what Apple got, so it's a little invidious of them to ban cross app tracking for everyone else except for them.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you are talking about all data seen by Safari (e.g. browser history)

The vast majority of what FB saw (and used to optimise) was first open as a proxy for install, and purchases because they make companies money.

Apple have all of this data (in fact, it's automatically collected and much better quality) because they own the platform on which the data is collected. Therefore, Apple can supply the same services as FB (on iOS only, obvs).

You've pretty much defined the anti-trust case in your own sentence.

Microsoft did not prevent other browsers from being installed; it just shipped IE by default and made it annoying af to uninstall.

... and compelled OEMs to not uninstall IE (p18), or add a competing browser in a visible way (p24)

... and entered partnerships with ISPs to have pre-installed listings in IE if the ISP didn't mention a competing browser (p29)

... and entered into arrangements with companies to switch browsers being used (p17)

... and attempted to get Netscape to agree to not compete with Microsoft for Windows browsers (Netscape would be Unix and Mac only if that was done) (p14)

https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp

There's quite a bit more to DOJ vs Microsoft than just "shipping IE by default".

Good points. Still, what Apple is doing here is a clear abuse of its position.

Only if they use the data people seem to be assuming without evidence that they are using.

That a single corporate entity is capable of collecting data does not necessarily mean that said entity is collecting and using that data. Maybe they do! But so far I've seen no evidence of it anywhere from anyone ever.

They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking?

> They can target you in app store based on your activity on the Kindle app - is that not tracking?

It doesn't say that in the article and that's patently false. Apple does not have access to Amazon's data about your activity in the Kindle app. Can they potentially track you in the Apple Books app? Perhaps, but if you trust what they're saying, you're presented first with an opt-out dialog about ad personalization.

Apple does have access to the amount of time you open that kindle app although ;)

You mean like Apple not allowing third party browser engines?

No, you're not wrong. If Apple follows through with this it's pretty much the textbook definition of an antitrust violation: leveraging their market power in one market to circumvent competition in the target market.

When I watch Netflix, I have no reason to be surprised or shocked that Netflix is using that information to target movies I want to watch. It’s the same with Amazon and Facebook.

What I don’t expect is that when I shop on Amazon I get ads showing me what I searched for and bought on Amazon to show up on Facebook (which of course does happen).

What would be the consumer friendly thing for the government to do? Allow more cross app data sharing? Refuse to let any company use the history of what a consumer does at that company for targeting?

Regulators could kill several birds with one stone and allow alternative app markets on iOS devices.

I can see the marketing aspect now “if you install this third party App Store, the apps you can install can ignore the privacy guards and advertise and track you better!”

Or a company like Facebook can once again encourage users to install a VPN that allows them to track all of the traffic to and from your phone.

https://mashable.com/article/facebook-used-onavo-vpn-data-to...

This has been possible for many years now on Android and that has yet to been an issue, even though it's been brought up for years as a potential concern.

It turns out that people (or at least Android users) aren't as dumb as Apple users think they are. (Or maybe it says something about Apple users that Apple and other Apple users think that Apple users are too dumb to be able to make this decision for themselves?)

Name one successful profitable company that has bypassed the Google Play Store on mobile?

And yes there has been security vulnerabilities caused by bypassing the Google Play Store by a little company I am sure you have heard of.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/fo...

But Google or Android is not exactly a model of protecting users privacy.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18204064/apple-google-mon...

Amazon...

Every Chinese phone company...

But Google or Android is not exactly a model of protecting users privacy.

And neither is Apple.

In the era of anti tracking, Amazon doesn’t need to worry about it. It’s knows what consumer preferences based on “revealed preferences” - what people buy. It’s a “strategy credit”.

Amazon also created its own line of devices and its own fork of Android and replaces Google Play Services APIs with its own. But how many applications are successful distributing only on Amazon’s Android store? How many western developers are going to bypass Google Play Store?

> neither is Apple

it is.

This is what we're talking about:

- Company F was doing ads using X mechanism on Company A's devices.

- Company A banned X mechanism under the false claim of "privacy."

- Now Company A is going to use X mechanism to launch their own competitor to Company F's platform (because X is what makes the ad platform a worthwhile expense for advertisers; Company A already uses X mechanism to market its own products and services to its customers, and they simply banned Company F and third parties so they could eliminate existing and potential competition.)

Or in other words, almost as textbook an example of anticompetitive behavior as you can get.

You don’t see the difference between Amazon selling ads based on what I do on Amazon’s platform and Facebook selling ads based on what I do on Amazon?

It’s the sane thing in this case with Apple.

Besides, Apple isn’t banning third parties from sharing information. They just have to ask permission. What’s the government suppose to do? Say Apple isn’t allowed to ask consumers whether they want to be tracked across parties?

Par for the course in big tech. They love walled gardens.

My understanding of a "conflict of interest" is that they happen when a personal interest interferes with a duty. Ex: a company executive receiving a gift from a potential supplier.

This situation would not be a conflict of interest because Apple has no duty to third party advertisers

If you really wanted to rule out conflicts of interest, you would have to break up the company in several hardware and several software companies.

Yes, just like Facebook can’t limit others from scheduling ads and Google can’t limit other search engines from just being plugs in.

Also cable companies can’t limit others from carrying channels.

Do you think advertisers on Facebook, Google or Amazon get access to all of the data that the platform vendor has?

Do you also want everyone to get access to Google’s search algorithm?

If I had a dollar every time someone on HN yelled “anti trust” about anything no matter how little legal sense it made, I could be my own VC.

I don’t deliver Apple is offering anything different that third parties can’t see.

Anyone confirm or deny?

My hearsay impression is that Apple can and do track in ways they prevent 3rd parties from doing on their platform.

They ABSOLUTELY do.

They track everything about the device - and the user has almost no control over it.

Sure, they aren't tracking what you're doing INSIDE the FB app. But they track every time you use it, where you use it, the context that led to that usage, etc.

> Sure, they aren't tracking what you're doing INSIDE the FB app. But they track every time you use it, where you use it, the context that led to that usage, etc.

So does Facebook (as much as they're able and allowed to), being fair.

FB can't track every time you open Pinterest on an iPhone.

Apple can and does.

FB absolutely can and does correlate events and various metadata sent by the "Facebook SDK" spyware which litters most mainstream apps. ATT does not prevent that because the fingerprint it collects, combined with your IP address is sufficient to link all the separate instances of the SDK by correlating enough events.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that individual applications can track those metrics for their own properties.

And, to be fair, while I don't want Apple tracking that data (however useful/useless it may be), I wouldn't want Facebook tracking it either.

Every (smart) merchant uses information from its interaction with its customers to target better. What overall law do you want the government to pass?

They've been doing it for years now with Apple music, and other stuff. Why do you think they will be stopped now?

You seem to be suggesting there isn't a level playing field: can you explain why?

Apple doesn't limit anyone from advertising; they just limit third-party tracking, no?

> Apple doesn't limit anyone from advertising; they just limit third-party tracking, no?

They don’t limit third-party tracking either. They limit third-party tracking without the user’s consent. The only thing advertisers need to do is ask the user for permission to track them.

They're a little disingenuous about this.

You can compare the pop-up language Apple shows for an app like FB and the one they show for their own personalized ads to see what I'm talking about. They've also run misleading ads and have made comments that confuse people about what's actually going on.

I'm no apologist for ads, but Ben Thompson is right to point out that this hurts small companies that rely on these targeted ads in order to exist a lot more than it hurts large players like FB.

For example - a grocery store doesn't want to manage 'first party' user data to track what you purchase (and you probably don't want them to), they're bad at that and more likely to do it poorly. They'd rather rely on an ad company they can use instead. This applies to most small businesses that rely on targeted advertising to get their business in front of users that would want it. In Apple's model Amazon doesn't need to say they track you because all purchase data happens on Amazon, but FB does because others use FB to target third party ads. The data doesn't leave FB though so a reasonable person could argue why is this worse?

My personal opinion is that we'd be better off in an equilibrium where these ad driven models are not viable because the models that would replace them would be better on net with incentives more aligned between user and product.

There is a problem here with how user data is handled in some cases, but Apple is also being at best misleading about the issue in a way that benefits themselves and reasonable people could think they're doing the wrong thing.

> The data doesn't leave FB though so a reasonable person could argue why is this worse?

Because the user has a relationship with the grocery store application and as far as they are aware, only interacting with the grocery store application. They aren’t given the knowledge or opportunity to decide whether to send their data to Facebook or not. All Apple are requiring is that the user be given that knowledge and opportunity.

This is misleading.

Apple limits third party tracking without user's consent by both calling it as third party tracking and having it opt in, while Apple's tracking is "personalization" that is opt out.

It's absolutely a dark pattern meant to destroy non apple advertising while making the owners of the OS the only real way to advertise on it. It should be clamped down hard.

> while Apple's tracking is "personalization" that is opt out.

For about a year this is no longer true.

> Apple limits third party tracking without user's consent by both calling it as third party tracking and having it opt in, while Apple's tracking is "personalization" that is opt out.

You just seem to be skipping over the fact that Apple is not a third-party here. The user has a direct relationship with them.

> the only real way to advertise on it.

The advertising industry has existed for over a hundred years without pervasive third-party tracking. Pervasive third-party tracking is not “the only real way to advertise on it”.

They limit cross-application tracking.

Which I'm fine with.

Is there any evidence that Apple themselves are tracking across 3rd party application advertisements (this is me assuming that they do track across 1st party apps, which is not fair).

Rules for thee not for me (Apple Advertising).

You can enable and disable personalized adverts from Apple in the settings

But they're not set to disabled by default like 3rd party tracking is.

Gee, I wonder why...

If I use an Apple device then I am clearly using an Apple product and I have a relationship with Apple.

If I use an application then I am clearly using their product and I have a relationship with the application developers.

If that application embeds third-party tracking, I am not clearly doing anything with the third party and I don’t have a relationship with that third party. Therefore Apple requires that the application developers ask for my consent first.

Only one of these needs the user’s consent, and it’s clear why. Apple can act fairly and still hold third-party tracking to a different standard.

But that argument is not limited to tracking, isn't it. For example if I use an application that integrates with Shopify or Stripe, by that logic Apple would also be in the right to ask for consent (while the integration with Apple Pay would be pop-up free). In fact I don't see any reason why Apple shouldn't go after those businesses next - there's a clear privacy angle they can play here too. As much as I like Apple Pay as a consumer, I don't think Apple should get a blanket pass on favoring its own infrastructure over any third-party integrations just because the user is less confused about their relationship with Apple.

On the other hand, third-party tracking is not silently disabled either - instead, it prompts the user on first run and the user is given the choice to opt in or out per-app.

It's:

Non Apple ads: Opt In for scary third party tracking

Apple Ads: Opt Out for a "less personalized" experience

Apple isn't the only online advertising platform, and they don't have anything close to a monopoly there. They are free to build their own ad tech and keep it to themselves, or give themselves preferential access.

That's missing the point, Apple owns the platform and are using that dominance to push people out while pushing themselves in.

Using your dominance in one industry like that could fall afoul of anti monopoly laws.

> That's missing the point, Apple owns the platform

People make a lot of to-do about it, but, that's not really an unusual thing in the market anymore. Sony has exclusive control of their store, does not permit sideloading, and no, the hardware isn't subsidized.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/325504-sony-finally-turns...

Regardless of whether you feel that's also bad, it goes to establish that this is not unusual or particularly noteworthy behavior.