Facebook sponsored research paper lambasts Apple's iOS 14.5 privacy
An academic study backed by Facebook, calls Apple's iOS 14 App Tracking Transparency feature "pernicious," and claims it is using privacy as a guise for its anti-competitive measures.
Facebook will have to convince users to disable App Tracking Transparency
"Harming Competition and Consumers Under the Guise of Protecting Privacy," is a new academic research paper funded by Facebook. Citing the social media company on 11 of its 22 pages, it takes the position that Apple's privacy features are "devastating" and that, "app developers, advertisers and the ads ecosystem lose."
The paper, subtitled "An Analysis of Apple's iOS 14 Policy Updates," is written by D. Daniel Sokol of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and Feng Zhu, from the Harvard Business School.
"While thinly veiled as a privacy-protecting measure, Apple's iOS 14 policy changes harm the entire ad-supported ecosystem-- from developers to advertisers to end consumers," they write in the full paper. "By sharply limiting the ability of third-party apps to create value through personalized advertising, Apple's policy changes undermine competition."
As of iOS 14.5, app developers are required to ask users if they want to allow ads to track them. This App Tracking Transparency has previously seen Facebook reportedly wanting to "cause pain" to Apple, and many worldwide marketing firms have strong objections too.
The writers of this paper describe how Apple's messaging allegedly uses "stark, biased, and misleading terms," which "diminish consumers' abilities to make meaningful and informed choices about data use."
It does not address the issue that prior to App Tracking Transparency, users were not typically informed of an app's data use. It also does not mention that Facebook was never clear on what it did with users' data, prior to Apple's moves.
"Without convincing explanations of how its policy changes represent the least competition-restrictive means of enhancing consumer privacy and why those changes do not apply to Apple's own apps and services," say the authors, "Apple may have a hard time justifying its exclusionary conduct."
Rather than an academic study of an issue, the paper reads as a position statement. It is critical of Apple for not having "convincing explanations," for example, but the authors seemingly did not ask Apple for any.
It does briefly attempt to put App Tracking Transparency in a wider context of what else is happening with privacy in the industry. However, it chiefly does so in a damning criticism of Europe's General Data Protection Regulations.
The authors state that the EU's GDPR regulatory measures, meant to reduce spam sent to the public, have "had a negative effect on venture capital investment." It connects this to Apple's ATT by stating that any system that requires users to choose to opt-in to advertising could "chill innovation and reduce welfare to consumers."
Follow all the details of WWDC 2021 with the comprehensive AppleInsider coverage of the whole week-long event from June 7 through June 11, including details of all the new launches and updates.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Facebook will have to convince users to disable App Tracking Transparency
"Harming Competition and Consumers Under the Guise of Protecting Privacy," is a new academic research paper funded by Facebook. Citing the social media company on 11 of its 22 pages, it takes the position that Apple's privacy features are "devastating" and that, "app developers, advertisers and the ads ecosystem lose."
The paper, subtitled "An Analysis of Apple's iOS 14 Policy Updates," is written by D. Daniel Sokol of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and Feng Zhu, from the Harvard Business School.
"While thinly veiled as a privacy-protecting measure, Apple's iOS 14 policy changes harm the entire ad-supported ecosystem-- from developers to advertisers to end consumers," they write in the full paper. "By sharply limiting the ability of third-party apps to create value through personalized advertising, Apple's policy changes undermine competition."
As of iOS 14.5, app developers are required to ask users if they want to allow ads to track them. This App Tracking Transparency has previously seen Facebook reportedly wanting to "cause pain" to Apple, and many worldwide marketing firms have strong objections too.
The writers of this paper describe how Apple's messaging allegedly uses "stark, biased, and misleading terms," which "diminish consumers' abilities to make meaningful and informed choices about data use."
It does not address the issue that prior to App Tracking Transparency, users were not typically informed of an app's data use. It also does not mention that Facebook was never clear on what it did with users' data, prior to Apple's moves.
"Without convincing explanations of how its policy changes represent the least competition-restrictive means of enhancing consumer privacy and why those changes do not apply to Apple's own apps and services," say the authors, "Apple may have a hard time justifying its exclusionary conduct."
Rather than an academic study of an issue, the paper reads as a position statement. It is critical of Apple for not having "convincing explanations," for example, but the authors seemingly did not ask Apple for any.
It does briefly attempt to put App Tracking Transparency in a wider context of what else is happening with privacy in the industry. However, it chiefly does so in a damning criticism of Europe's General Data Protection Regulations.
The authors state that the EU's GDPR regulatory measures, meant to reduce spam sent to the public, have "had a negative effect on venture capital investment." It connects this to Apple's ATT by stating that any system that requires users to choose to opt-in to advertising could "chill innovation and reduce welfare to consumers."
Follow all the details of WWDC 2021 with the comprehensive AppleInsider coverage of the whole week-long event from June 7 through June 11, including details of all the new launches and updates.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Comments
Maybe people have just accepted that the 'service' FB provides is worth giving up their privacy. I personally am not OK with it, so I avoid it entirely now.
But I do miss some of the interaction I'd get from it. So if everybody just decided to move to some other less-invasive platform, I'd probably use that.
For now though, I simply live without those interactions and feel like my life is better for it.
Oh poor, poor Britney.
Firstly he should state his views and stick to them rather than this back and forth of ever changing and seemingly confused narratives.
It’s harmful, Apple is Evil….Actually they’re doing us a big favour because it will drive more advertising to our platform etc….
Secondly, the only ones that benefit from targeted advertising and data harvesting are the massive data brokers such as Facebook, google Et Al. It vastly increases margins and profits, the benefits of which are not passed on to the clients. Considering how efficient this technology is they should be getting much cheaper ads. The fact is, It has served to devalue and effectively eliminate the competition for traditional advertisements. This is the real anticompetitive behaviour.
The constant rhetoric that these corporations are complaining about measures such as ATT or the GDPR for altruistic reasons - i.e the “consumer” - which by the way I loathe this descriptor! - drives me nuts as its a blatant lie.
Why are citizens themselves not consulted for any of these papers or hearings etc? A survey is very simple realistically. Considering it affects us I think it is our views that matter most of all. If they care so much about the user then they should value the more transparent nature and extra choice we have in whether to allow this highly intrusive practice. Those that are happy to allow, fair play, but count me out. In my opinion any product or service that you must give away for “free” has no real value in the first place. If they are so convinced they have a revolutionary product that connects people all over the world blah blah… then they should offer a subscription - say £1.49 per month - £18 per year multiplied by 2.7 billion is not an insignificant sum.
Another thing that irritates me is the frequent attempts to distract and misinform by stating that Apple doesn’t follow its own rules because their own apps, products and services don’t have pop ups and dialog boxes. They have extensive privacy policies in fairly plain English in many places within the OS explaining exactly what they collect, why and how to opt out or turn off the features. There are granular controls within settings for location services through to various product improvements, to mapping and siri recordings. If there isn’t a distinctive dialog box, it’s because they don’t follow that practice. If and until Apple does something to make me mistrust them, or there’s some huge scandal, I’ll take them at their word as would I imagine most other customers. That their stance on privacy is part of their business model and gives them a competitive advantage is not in doubt. People are not stupid. They are very good at making their own interests align with that of their customers and having some good corporate values. But rather than seeking to hobble them by systematically destroying their business strategies, these other companies should instead adapt, innovate, and compete on merit. Since when was competition in and of itself anticompetitive?! I think it is a farce to expect a company to lower their own standards to make it easier for others. It’s like expecting someone smarter than you to dumb themselves down to make you feel better.
Granted, as Apple has grown into the behemoth that it is today, perhaps there should be some regulations put in place for them and other massive companies like them, but that will be no mean feat when they are structured in such a way that all of their products are by and large part of the same ecosystem, which is what defines them and attracts customers to begin with.
Now it's becoming painfully obvious that the CEO is entirely capable of running the platform into the ground all on his own.
But Apple doesn't do that at all. Apple merely gives the consumer the choice to limit their data from being collected. The consumer is perfectly able to let Facebook to track them, IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)
By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.