Nothing on page 1 of the faq supports any of the assertions in your comment.

>Apple only gives third-party app publishers access to the IDFA if they have obtained user consent through a dedicated consent prompt that is largely predefined by Apple – the so-called ATT prompt. If the user refuses to give consent in this prompt, the app publisher does not gain access to the IDFA. According to the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation, there are no other technical options available to app publishers that are equally suitable for exchanging data across companies.

In contrast, Apple’s own personalised advertising is subject to different conditions. Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt. Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes, the company uses a different consent prompt – the so-called PA prompt (“Personalized Ads prompt”). The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers.

	▲	gpm 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, let's break down your claims one by one and compare to the text of the FAQ... > Apple didn't give itself better dialogs. On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers." > It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]", > It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising. Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes," > Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business. Nothing in the FAQ supports this claim, and as discussed in other comments here it is simply false. > The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech. Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.