If there is a tip ‘Do you allow Instagram follow your activities?’ suddenly when you use your iPhone. Then you choose ‘Don’t allow’ to fell like protecting your privacy rights. But is Apple really protecting your privacy, or are they just using their strategies?
In recent years, Apple has promoted many privacy protection actions like App Tracking Transparency (ATT), which allow users to block and track the status of data. As we dig deeper, perhaps Apple’s privacy protections are not simply protecting user privacy, but may be one of their business strategy as well.
The $10 Billion Apple’s Privacy Protection: ATT
Do you know the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, introduced in iOS 14.5? It forces apps to seek user permission before tracking them across other apps and websites.This protection is hailed as a landmark victory for consumer privacy. But as the dust settles, a troubling question emerges: Is Apple truly protecting users, or is this just the other strategy to crush competitors and expand its own dominance?
When Apple imposed ATT in April 2021, the digital advertising world shuddered. The change seems like simple but devastating for companies like Meta (Facebook), Snap, and Twitter that relay on user tracking for targeted ads. Overnight, users gained the power to opt out—and most did. After users opted out, these companies were unable to track user activity and data for accurate placement of ads as well as service recommendations. Meta later revealed this single change would cost them $10 billion in 2022 alone (Fiegerman, 2022). But while Meta lost benefits, Apple’s advertising business flourished. The company’s search ads in the App Store—which aren’t subject to ATT rules—grew by 50% in 2023, generating over $7 billion (Kanter, 2023). This is no coincidence. If some big companies like Meta are losing a lot, what about smaller companies or small developers during this privacy protection war?
While Meta’s overall revenue appears stable at first glance, the 17% quarterly drop in advertising income—their cash cow—reveals the true impact of Apple’s privacy changes.
As privacy researcher Seufert (2022) points out that Apple created a moat around its own ads while burning the bridges of competitors. Flew (2021) mentions that some large tech platforms avoid responsibility by presenting them as intermediaries rather than publishers, while restricting data and rules for other publishers. Under these protection actions, the double standards between Apple and other companies are exposed. For users, on the other hand, it just seems to be nothing more than their rights to protect their privacy.
Apple’s Protection — Protect Users or Get Benefit form It?
Why is ATT having such a dramatic impact? Because it not only blocked tracking it also changed the rules of mobile advertising.Until 2021, apps could view user behavior in all types of apps through Apple’s advertising identifiers (IDFA), enabling accurate advertising. After the release of ATT, Apple turned this feature off by default, and 75% of users chose to “disallow” when they saw a data tracking notification.
But most people are missing the point: Apple’s own apps don’t seem to be restricted by ATT. While Facebook can’t track what you browse on Amazon, the App Store records and collects data on your searches. This seems less like privacy protection and more like an exclusive data collection machine masquerading as a way to capitalize on it. Apple’s marketing contrasts its “privacy first” philosophy with the “surveillance” of Google and Facebook. But peel back the glossy facade and you may find that Apple still operates a massive data collection machine.
For other companies:
Do not allow tracking without permission
Limited data collection for ads
Limited rules about sharing data
Devastate smaller apps that relied on affordable targeted ads then increase costs
For Apple:
Permission to track your App Store and purchases data
Allow to collect data and provide personalized ads services
Retain the access to users’ files types, sizes and time
Perhaps most concerning is how Apple handles government requests. While they loudly refuse FBI demands to unlock iPhones, their 2021 transparency report shows they complied with 82% of Chinese government data requests. As cybersecurity expert Schneier (2021) mentions that privacy is not absolute – it’s whatever Apple’s legal team decides is convenient.
But the point is that Apple now sells privacy as a premium feature. If you want true protection? Then you may need to spend on it:
This is actually just a data protection service offered by Apple. For other apps tracking data, it does protect user data. But it is still Apple platform that ultimately benefits from it and the collection of user data. Is it the perfect business strategy: break your old ad system firstly, then charge people to escape the mess Apple created?
When Privacy Rights Becomes a Luxury?
Source: Apple
While Apple markets privacy as a core selling point, this makes users feel safe and in control. However, when we take a closer look at the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework, it raises questions about digital rights, corporate power, and who is really controlling our personal data. It makes us wonder: is privacy becoming a luxury? Does the seemingly legitimate need to protect privacy already require us to spend money or even work to maintain it?
For that matter, digital privacy means control over personal information – who collects it, how it is used, and for what purpose. In theory, ATT supports this by allowing users to opt out of cross-app tracking. In practice, however, the benefits of this system are unevenly distributed. While users may feel empowered, other developers and competing companies have been hit hard. In the process, Apple has been able to continue to profit from the data ecosystem it claims to be reforming. Ostensibly in the name of protecting users’ privacy, but in reality it is also somehow depriving them of their digital rights.
Some critics might contend that Apple’s approach to privacy demonstrates inconsistent application of principles. As observed, Apple’s native applications remain excluded from app tracking transparency requirements, while their ad-related operations continue functioning with minimal constraints—an uneven application of standards. If privacy protections were truly fundamental rights, they should extend uniformly across all applications, not just for external developers but also applicable to the company’s own services. Only through such equitable implementation could reasonable equilibrium be maintained between user privacy protections and market competition dynamics. However, the current situation reveals dual roles—Apple simultaneously acts as rule-maker and market participant in digital privacy governance, establishing rules that serve to benefit its own commercial interests. To put it simply, when the entity defining compliance standards also operates competing services exempt from those same standards, it creates an environment where impartial oversight becomes inherently challenging.
In addition, Apple’s introduction of paid features such as iCloud services and advanced data protection signaled a shift in the way privacy is treated. Instead of treating it as a basic human right, it treats it as a premium feature. By charging users for enhanced privacy protections, Apple is effectively creating a system of double standards: basic protections are free, but more meaningful safeguards require payment. This commoditization of privacy raises concerns about fairness and security. Should only users willing to spend money enjoy true digital security and privacy?
It also raises questions about Apple’s impact on the broader digital copyright landscape. Through the use of ATT, Apple has redefined norms in privacy and advertising, but has done nothing to address the problems and liabilities that may follow. As it stands, this is simply a privacy-protecting app that Apple has unilaterally rolled out to its users, but without third-party oversight or cooperation. While this may lead to stronger protection in some areas, it also centralizes control of data and user privacy to Apple as a platform.
Zuboff (2019) argues that we now live in a surveillance economy where data extraction is central to profitability. And while Apple maintains a track of users’ data in other apps, it also extracts users’ data on Apple’s platform. And in doing so, it offers a profitable solution to protect data. Rather than focusing on protecting user privacy, Apple is reinventing privacy as a service while quietly collecting, processing, and monetizing data in its own data systems.
It also raises a deeper ethical issue: transparency. Apple’s privacy policy does not make clear what data is collected, how it is stored, and with whom it is shared. Its public image may be privacy-focused, but users are largely unaware of the inner workings of its data policy. But Apple seems to prioritize business image management over true transparency and users’ fundamental right to privacy.
Take Back Your Privacy and Digital Rights
Today, big tech companies have more control over our data than ever before. Even when they say they protect our privacy, they often still collect information for their own use. That’s why we should not only rely on companies like Apple to protect our digital rights—we need to take action ourselves.
As users, you can check your privacy settings on apps and devices. Use browsers or tools that block tracking. Try websites and apps that don’t ask for too much personal data. These changes may seem small, but they help protect your privacy in the long run. At the same time, we need better rules from governments. Laws should make sure companies are open about how they use data. All companies—not just small ones—should follow the same rules. If a company says it protects your data, it must do so in every country, not just where privacy laws are strong. Education is also important. Many people still don’t understand how their data is collected or shared. Schools and universities should teach students how to stay safe online. When people understand digital privacy, they are more likely to protect themselves. Lastly, companies must be more honest. Privacy should not be a business strategy or a paid feature. It should be a basic right for everyone. If companies really care about users, they should make privacy easy and free to access.
In the future, we must work together—users, lawmakers, and companies—to make sure digital rights are fair and equal. Privacy is not something we buy. It’s something we all deserve.
Conclusion
Undeniably, Apple’s privacy campaign has undeniably moved the needle, forcing the tech industry to pay more attention to user rights. Users have also been given the power to choose for themselves whether or not to track data when using apps, giving them a certain level of trust. However, it can not be denied that users also need to remain vigilant against companies that combine privacy with their business strategies and models.
As you read this on your iPhone, remember: every “Ask App Not to Track” prompt represents both progress and unfinished business. It may be a good chance to quit this article for a while and check the privacy settings in your iPhone. The real privacy is not about choosing between tech companies, it is about demanding systems that put user rights before profits.
Be the first to comment