I don't really care about any of Apple's business partners being upset about their business terms with Apple. Developers want a bigger cut, banks want a bigger cut, Foxconn wants a bigger cut.

My interests as an Apple user are aligned with Apple. But even if I wasn't an Apple user, market forces determine what the "fair" cut is for everyone.

The nominal developer program fee is not designed to be Apple's profit generator. It's to keep spammers out.

That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.

It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.

It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.

Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.

That is what Apple says about their ad network and what they've said in communications with regulators. And if they were actually doing third-party tracking, that would actually be an instance of Apple being a hypocrite. The regulator would have had them dead to rights if that were the case. The regulator doesn't actually say Apple was doing that.

The quoted section from page 1 indeed says that Apple does not use the IDFA nor uses cross-company combination of data:

>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.

>No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.

I wrote my comment and know what I was referring to and I clarified it in later comments. I'm sorry you misunderstood.

The PA prompt is a voluntary (required in the EU?) prompt Apple shows requesting opt-in for personalzied ads. It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever.

If Apple wanted, it could mirror Facebook's behavior (in the rest of the world) by not showing any PA prompt. This would greatly increase the number of people who are exposed to personalized ads from Apple's first-party ad network.

>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 draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.

>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,"

My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.

>Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.

That is my informed opinion based on following this story since the very beginning.

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.

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.

EDIT: You can downvote me all you like, but it's right there on page 1 of the FAQ from the regulator. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Pr...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/08/sergey-...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42970412

Points: 762

# Comments: 1034

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42769568

Points: 4

# Comments: 4