Hacker News Reader

Comment by refulgentis | Hacker News Reader

> "told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling,"...shakedown

I wonder if this sheds light: if they said exactly what to do, there's a strong argument that they went too far when business regulators became UI designers.

> Wait until they tweak it then fine them again for getting it “wrong”

I don't worry too much about it, I used to work at Google, companies and regulatory authorities are in constant contact. Generally, I haven't yet seen a company claim to have addressed a situation then gotten fined again.

> And all because the regulator wants users to be advertised to more?

I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more?

View on HN

> I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more?

The second paragraph has what you want. From the article:

> The App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework used by Apple on iPhones and iPads since 2021 makes the use of third-party applications too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue ... The system harms "smaller publishers in particular since, unlike the main vertically integrated platforms, they depend to a large extent on third-party data collection to finance their business," the agency said.

Is there another way to interpret this than that the agency wants to protect advertizing and data collection practices by small businesses?

"by small businesses", and large businesses, and businesses like ad agencies that specialize in data collection and tracking.

> I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more?

> The Autorité also found that the rules governing the interaction between the different pop-up windows displayed undermined the neutrality of the framework, causing definite economic harm to application publishers and advertising service providers.

https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targ...

“Economic harm to … advertising service providers” says it implicitly.

I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm still missing something: my simpleton understanding is taking action to ensure neutrality, implies they want consumers to see more ads?

Which of these options in isolation will result in economic harm to an advertising company?

A) A consumer seeing more of their ads B) A consumer seeing the same number of ads C) A consumer seeing less of their ads

I feel talked down to :) C. It sounds to my simpleton ear like I should assume demand for ad slots will grow due to a supplier having less of a monopoly, but I'm struggling to find a step to add to my little overly(?) rational analysis that leads to that conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com