| ▲ | rdtsc 7 hours ago |
| > privacy rules imposed by Apple for iOS devices, as of April 2021, on third-party developers of apps distributed through the App Store. In particular, third-party app developers are required to obtain specific consent for the collection and linking of data for advertising purposes through Apple’s ATT prompt Wait, so they are punishing Apple because Apple makes it harder to spy on users. What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can create their own Apple competitor, I guess. |
|
| ▲ | piva00 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, they are punishing because the ATT pop-up is not enough to comply with privacy rules, requiring 3rd party apps to have a secondary pop-up to be compliant (which Apple's own apps wouldn't need since they don't use ATT). So it's more that Apple's ATT is not compliant with stricter privacy rules, not the opposite... |
| |
| ▲ | concinds 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in Italy even among large companies and news sites? Meanwhile ATT blocks access to IDFA (instead of making it a pinky promise), and if apps were honest and were denied ATT it should disable other tracking too. The user has already indicated lack of consent. | | |
| ▲ | piva00 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in Italy even among large companies and news sites? I don't know, I just stated what is in the decision: Apple makes 3rd party developers have to go through a process their own apps do not have to, hence creating an imbalance in competition since they are also the owners and controllers of the distribution channel. The blatantly illegal pop-ups also annoy me a lot, it's clear it's not even malicious compliance but a targeted attack against the regulations to make it seem the law is requiring them to make it as annoying as possible. It seems to work since you got incensed by it. | | |
| ▲ | concinds 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not "incensed" by the law at all, only by the companies gleefully violating it. But Apple doesn't track you in the way ATT prevents, see my other comment; the narrative that they do was pushed by the adtech industry who wants ATT gone, and the courts (French, Italian) just never bothered checking if that was true. Check the decision yourself, they take it for granted and never look into how it works. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | amarcheschi 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As far as I can understand, the fine is for having a prompt for 3rd party apps, but not apple's own apps. Then I'm not sure because even to me, the wording used by the authority is not entirely clear, but the issue would lie in a different treatment reserved for 3rd parties compared to 1st party apps |
| |
| ▲ | dns_snek 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, precisely, take a look at the summary document [1] at the bottom of the article. > xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store services increased, in terms of higher
commissions collected from developers through the platform; likewise, Apple’s advertising division, which is not subject to the same stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased revenues and higher volumes of intermediated ads > xiii. Therefore, considering that Apple holds an absolute dominant position in the market for the supply to developers of platforms for the online distribution of apps to users of the iOS operating system, the Authority established that Apple’s conduct amounts to an exploitative abuse, in breach of Article 102 TFEU, that started in April 2021 and is still ongoing. [1] https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf | |
| ▲ | concinds 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ATT isn't about a vendor tracking you across their apps (Facebook can still log you into all their apps at once). It's about using data collected by third-parties or sending data to third party trackers, which Apple doesn't do for their own ads. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can create their own Apple competitor, I guess. My guess is that if they want to do that, they'd also need to leave the European market as a whole, as many countries share similar laws and regulations, besides the ones that applied across the entire European Union. And since Europe seems to represent ~25% total revenue in 2025 for Apple, that feels like a highly unlikely choice for them to do, considering they're a public company and have obligations to the shareholders. |
|
| ▲ | epolanski 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's about 3rd party vs apple's own. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | p-e-w 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can’t. If they did, the company (and thus shareholders) would lose money. Shareholders would vote out the board, and the new board would appoint a CEO who would promptly re-enter the Italian market. This is why corporations get slapped around by regulators everywhere, even though on the surface, the regulators need the company far more than the other way round. |
