From Digital Age to Nano Age. WorldWide.

Tag: choice

Robotic Automations

You've spoken! Meet the Disrupt 2024 breakout session audience choice winners | TechCrunch


TechCrunch Disrupt showcases cutting-edge technology and innovation, and this year’s edition will not disappoint. Among thousands of insightful breakout session submissions for this year’s Audience Choice program, five breakout sessions have soared to the top and were selected by thousands of people from around the globe to speak at this year’s event. Without further ado, […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Last day to vote for TC Disrupt 2024 Audience Choice program | TechCrunch


Attention, tech enthusiasts and startup supporters! The final countdown is here: Today is the last day to cast your vote for the TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 Audience Choice program. Voting closes tonight at 11:59 p.m. PT, so this is your last chance to make your voice heard and help select the most promising startups to take […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

2 days left to vote for Disrupt Audience Choice | TechCrunch


TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 isn’t just an event for innovation; it’s a platform where your voice matters. With the Disrupt 2024 Audience Choice Program, you have the power to shape the future of tech by voting for your favorite thought leaders and sessions. But with just 48 hours left until the May 24 deadline, now is […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Disrupt Audience Choice vote closes Friday | TechCrunch


TechCrunch Disrupt 2024 is not just about groundbreaking innovations, insightful panels, and visionary speakers — it’s also about listening to YOU, the audience, and what you feel is top of mind for the tech community. With the Disrupt 2024 Audience Choice Program, your vote can make a difference and propel your favorite thought leaders to […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Vote for your Disrupt 2024 Audience Choice favs | TechCrunch


We received countless submissions to speak at this year’s Disrupt 2024. After carefully sifting through all the applications, we’ve narrowed it down to 19 session finalists. Now we need your help to choose who will actually speak at the conference! Vote for the sessions you most want to see at Disrupt in October. You can […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Alternative browsers report uplift after EU's DMA choice screen mandate | TechCrunch


A flagship European Union digital market regulation appears to be shaking up competition in the mobile browser market.

It’s been a little over a month since the Digital Markets Act (DMA) came into application and there are early signs it’s having an impact by forcing phone makers to show browser choice screens to users.

On Wednesday, Reuters reported growth data shared by Cyprus-based web browser Aloha and others that it said suggests the new law is stirring the competitive pot and helping smaller browser makers gain share or at least grab more attention than they were.

But it’s early days for DMA implementation, with choice screen rollouts still a work in progress, and many EU users haven’t even seen one yet. While Aloha is not the only other browser reporting a boost in interest since the DMA compliance deadline kicked in on March 7 — Brave, Opera and Vivaldi also shared positive stories of increased interest — several others, including DuckDuckGo and Firefox, told us it’s too soon for them to be able to assess the regulation’s effect.

TechCrunch reached out to 16 alternative browser makers with questions, as well as Apple and Google, to inform our reporting. We also contacted the European Commission to ask about its own tracking of the DMA’s impact in this area — but it declined to share any data.

Neither Apple nor Google responded to questions asking about any changes in regional usage of their own browsers since the choice screens began being shown to mobile users.

Opting for choice screens

The EU’s goal for the DMA is to boost competition against internet “gatekeepers” whose control of dominant platforms gives them many operational advantages over smaller rivals. The regulation does this through a list of “dos and don’ts” that tech giants must comply with. In the case of browsers, it obliges the likes of iOS maker Apple and Google’s Android to display browser choice screens — forcing them to point users to alternatives to Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome.

Choice screens are intended to work against platform dominance and self-serving defaults by alerting consumers there are other options. But users do still need to decide to switch to an alternative app in order for choice screens to boost competition. The design of screens is also important.

Some alternative browser makers remain concerned the design of choice screens isn’t where it needs to be. We suspect this is leading to reluctance by some underdogs to share data on early impact, especially as the EU is currently investigating Apple’s choice screen design for suspected noncompliance.

In other words, some browser makers may be playing a waiting game in the hopes of encouraging Commission enforcers to push for a stronger implementation. At the same time, some really small browser players may see more gains to be had from good old-fashioned publicity — for example, sending out a press release trumpeting early interest — as a tactic to raise their profile to try to drive more downloads through increased awareness.

Overall, it’s still very early. Many regional mobile users may not have even seen a choice screen appear on their handset yet. Google, for instance, says screens are being displayed on newly launched Android devices but for existing Android handsets it’s up to the makers of the devices to push out the choice screens to their users. So there isn’t a clear implementation timeline on Android.

While in the case of iOS, Apple says it’s been displaying choice screens to users of iOS since iOS 17.4. But users who haven’t updated to this version also won’t have seen any yet.

Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser, told us it estimates that less than a fifth of iOS users have been shown a choice screen so far. It reckons even fewer Android users have seen one in the wild as yet.

With this patchy Android rollout picture in mind, it seems likely that more iOS users will have seen choice screens than Android users so far — even though Google’s platform has a larger regional market share.

Measuring the impact of the DMA on alternative browsers’ market share is further complicated by variations in the apps that mobile users see in different EU countries. Some alternatives, such as Firefox, can appear on the iOS choice screen in every EU market. Whereas others are far more limited: Vivaldi, for example, can only appear in eight countries. So exposure to potential users can vary substantially depending on the browser. (Apple lists the options it’s currently showing in each market here.)

Alt browsers on the up?

Aloha, a browser that focuses on privacy and claims not to track users, told us it’s seen 250% growth in new users (i.e., app downloads) since the DMA came into effect last month. It reports having approximately 10 million active monthly users globally — and estimates that around 1 million of those are located in the EU. So it remains a very small player.

However, since Aloha says it does not collect any personal data, including location data, it told us it cannot be precise about where its users are located. Yet it told Reuters the EU had moved up from being its fourth largest market to its second largest since the DMA compliance deadline kicked in.

Aloha also claimed to have seen an uptick in users in the U.S. since the DMA came into effect — yet the regulation does not apply in the U.S. market so U.S. users aren’t encountering it via browser choice screens. Aloha told TechCrunch it believes privacy awareness is rising generally, but also suggested growth in new installs in the EU may be helping to raise its position in the U.S. App Store.

Norway-based Opera, meanwhile, is also claiming market share gains since the DMA started to bite on March 7. Per new metrics shared with TechCrunch Wednesday, Opera said new user growth from February to the end of March was 63% — so it’s reporting a substantial uptick in people downloading Opera and giving it a try.

It is also reporting a 39% growth in users on iOS selecting its browser as their default specifically, from March 3 until April 4.

Previously (as of March 18), Opera reported 164% growth in the inflow of new EU users on iOS after the deadline for Apple to implement the DMA-enforced choice screen. So there actually appears to have been a drop in the growth rate it’s seen over this period — that is, after a bigger initial spike of interest.

Regardless, Opera is sounding very happy with the extra level of interest it’s seeing. In a statement, Jørgen Arnesen, its EVP of mobile, said the DMA “is working to even the playing field,” adding: “We’re excited to see that it has become easier for users to express their browser choice and for that choice to be respected.”

Another browser maker with a positive experience since DMA compliance day is Vivaldi, which is also developed out of Norway.

It told TechCrunch it’s seen an increase of 36.7% in downloads in the EU (in total) since the iOS choice screen came into effect. But the boost in downloads is even bigger when you look at the eight markets where Vivaldi is actually being shown on iOS choice screens. In those markets it said downloads have increased 69.6% since the choice screen started being pushed at users.

Despite this uptick in downloads, Vivaldi is unhappy with the current design of Apple’s choice screen.

“There are significant flaws with its implementation, including when it is shown and what is shown,” a company spokesperson told us. “Users can only see the choice screen when they click Safari. The list of browsers does not show additional information and that does not help users to make a meaningful choice. If the user has already selected a browser of their own choice, the choice screen can actively try to push them away from it, and may not even include it in the list that it presents to the user.”

“We think the priority should be given to cross-platform browsers, so that the same browser can be used on all of the user’s devices,” she added. “Apple looks at it very narrowly, per platform and country. We believe the main browser choices should be visible and we are not. And we should be on the list for all countries.”

We also heard positive things from Brave. The U.S.-based privacy-focused browser said it’s seen “a significant uptick” in installs since the DMA came into effect. (Although it does not report users per region so declined to break out total usage figures for the EU.)

“The daily installs for Brave on iOS in the EU went from around 7,500 to 11,000 with the new browser panel this past March,” per a company spokesperson. “In the past few days, we have seen a new all time high spike of 14,000 daily installs, nearly doubling our pre-choice screen numbers.”

“Regarding retention, users who are choosing Brave from the DMA screen are being retained equally to or better than our average,” she added, arguing that, overall, the uptick in interest it’s seeing “confirms that users want choice.”

On the flip side, three other alternative browsers that we contacted — DuckDuckGo, Ecosia and Firefox — suggested it’s too early to tell whether the DMA is helping them.

Veteran privacy-focused browser maker DuckDuckGo declined to share any data, saying it’s too soon to draw meaningful conclusions.

“While we’ve seen some positive signs, the choice screen rollout is ongoing and for a competitor like us that sees billions of searches and millions of downloads a month, we need more time to make an accurate impact assessment at scale,” it said in a statement.

DuckDuckGo also told us it lacks access to “key information” to be able to assess the DMA’s impact, saying, for example, that it has no way of knowing how many people have seen a search engine or browser choice screen.

“This is key because it would help us understand our selection rate on a choice screen and how widespread the rollout has been,” it noted, adding: “We’re at the beginning of this journey, not the end.”

Another alt player, the not-for-profit, tree-planting and eco-action focused Ecosia, also told us it doesn’t have enough data to make an accurate assessment of the regulation’s impact. “We have not received selection rates or any other meaningful datasets, so it is hard for us to solidly report on the effectiveness of the choice screen at this stage,” said Sophie Dembinski, its head of public policy and climate action.

She emphasized Ecosia isn’t happy with the current iOS choice screen, which it believes is hampering potential growth — also pointing to the Commission’s open case investigating Apple’s implementation.

“While Ecosia has jumped to second and third position in some European markets for utility apps in the Apple App Store, our search numbers have barely changed,” she said. “This is due to several design issues within Apple’s choice screen — such as showing the choice screen to users who have already selected an alternative choice to Safari; an overly complex installation process which loses a large number of users; and keeping the Safari browser app in the best position on the home screen.”

Another veteran browser player, Firefox, is also keeping its powder dry when it comes to assessing early impact.

“We are not currently sharing absolute numbers, both because we have some serious concerns about the current choice screens and because we estimate that less than 20% of users on iOS and likely less on Google have been exposed to them thus far,” said Mozilla’s Kush Amlani, global competition and regulatory counsel.

“The DMA represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create competition and choice for EU consumers. Whether that potential is realized depends on the gatekeepers’ compliance and the European Commission’s enforcement,” he emphasized, also referencing the Commission’s probes into suspected gatekeeper non-compliance.

“While we’re seeing many thousands of people select Firefox on the choice screens, we don’t think this should distract from the fact that the iOS choice screen has significant flaws that block people from making genuine choices,” Amlani added. “The critical challenge is that powerful and deep-pocketed gatekeepers are incentivized to protect their existing closed ecosystems and fight the implementation of the DMA, which will open them up to competition.”

TechCrunch’s outreach to browser makers that may benefit from the DMA choice screens also yielded one report of no meaningful impact since the requirement kicked in: Yandex, a Russia-based browser that can appear on the iOS choice screen anywhere in the EU, told us it hasn’t seen “any meaningful changes in the user metrics in the region so far.”

In Yandex’s case, its possible disinterest in switching could be linked to consumer concerns about using or supporting software that’s developed in Russia in light of the Ukraine war.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Adtech giants like Meta must give EU users real privacy choice, says EDPB | TechCrunch


The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published new guidance which has major implications for adtech giants like Meta and other large platforms.

The guidance, which was confirmed incoming Wednesday as we reported earlier, will steer how privacy regulators interpret the bloc’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in a critical area. The full opinion of the EDPB on so-called “consent or pay” runs to 42-pages.

Other large ad-funded platforms should also take note of the granular guidance. But Meta looks first in line to feel any resultant regulatory chill falling on its surveillance-based business model.

This is because — since November 2023 — the owner of Facebook and Instagram has forced users in the European Union to agree to being tracked and profiled for its ad targeting business or else they must pay it a monthly subscription to access ad-free versions of the services. However a market leader imposing that kind of binary choice looks unviable, per the EDPB, an expert body made up of representatives of data protection authorities from around the EU.

“The EDPB notes that negative consequences are likely to occur when large online platforms use a ‘consent or pay’ model to obtain consent for the processing,” the Board opines, underscoring the risk of “an imbalance of power” between the individual and the data controller, such as in cases where “an individual relies on the service and the main audience of the service”.

In a press release accompanying publication of the opinion, the Board’s chair, Anu Talu, also emphasized the need for platforms to provide users with a “real choice” over their privacy.

“Online platforms should give users a real choice when employing ‘consent or pay’ models,” Talu wrote. “The models we have today usually require individuals to either give away all their data or to pay. As a result most users consent to the processing in order to use a service, and they do not understand the full implications of their choices.”

“Controllers should take care at all times to avoid transforming the fundamental right to data protection into a feature that individuals have to pay to enjoy. Individuals should be made fully aware of the value and the consequences of their choices,” she added.

In a summary of its opinion, the EDPB writes in the press release that “in most cases” it will “not be possible” for “large online platforms” that implement consent or pay models to comply with the GDPR’s requirement for “valid consent” — if they “confront users only with a choice between consenting to processing of personal data for behavioural advertising purposes and paying a fee” (i.e. as Meta currently is).

The opinion defines large platforms, non-exhaustively, as entities designated as very large online platforms under the EU’s Digital Services Act or gatekeepers under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) — again, as Meta is (Facebook and Instagram are regulated under both laws).

“The EDPB considers that offering only a paid alternative to services which involve the processing of personal data for behavioural advertising purposes should not be the default way forward for controllers,” the Board goes on. “When developing alternatives, large online platforms should consider providing individuals with an ‘equivalent alternative’ that does not entail the payment of a fee.

If controllers do opt to charge a fee for access to the ‘equivalent alternative’, they should give significant consideration to offering an additional alternative. This free alternative should be without behavioural advertising, e.g. with a form of advertising involving the processing of less or no personal data. This is a particularly important factor in the assessment of valid consent under the GDPR.”

The EDPB takes care to stress that other core principles of the GDPR — such as purpose limitation, data minimisation and fairness — continue to apply around consent mechanisms, adding: “In addition, large online platforms should also consider compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, and they are responsible for demonstrating that their processing is generally in line with the GDPR.”

Given the detail of the EDPB’s opinion on this contentious and knotty topic — and the suggestion that lots of case-by-case analysis will be needed to make compliance assessments — Meta may feel confident nothing will change in the short term. Clearly it will take time for EU regulators to analyze, ingest and act on the Board’s advice.

Contacted for comment, Meta spokesman Matthew Pollard emailed a brief statement playing down the guidance: “Last year, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU] ruled that the subscriptions model is a legally valid way for companies to seek people’s consent for personalised advertising. Today’s EDPB Opinion does not alter that judgment and Subscription for no ads complies with EU laws.”

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, which oversees Meta’s GDPR compliance and has been reviewing its consent model since last year, declined to comment on whether it will be taking any action in light of the EDPB guidance as it said the case is ongoing.

Ever since Meta launched the “subscription for no-ads” offer last year it has continued to claim it complies with all relevant EU regulations — seizing on a line in the July 2023 ruling by the EU’s top court in which judges did not explicitly rule out the possibility of charging for a non-tracking alternative but instead stipulated that any such payment must be “necessary” and “appropriate”.

Commenting on this aspect of the CJEU’s decision in its opinion, the Board notes — in stark contrast to Meta’s repeat assertions the CJEU essentially sanctioned its subscription model in advance — that this was “not central to the Court’s determination”.

“The EDPB considers that certain circumstances should be present for a fee to be imposed, taking into account both possible alternatives to behavioural advertising that entail the processing of less personal data and the data subjects’ position,” it goes on with emphasis. “This is suggested by the words ‘necessary’ and ‘appropriate’, which should, however, not be read as requiring the imposition of a fee to be ‘necessary’ in the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter and EU data protection law.”

At the same time, the Board’s opinion does not entirely deny large platforms the possibility of charging for a non-tracking alternative — so Meta and its tracking-ad-funded ilk may feel confident they’ll be able to find some succour in 42-pages of granular discussion of the intersecting demands of data protection law. (Or, at least, that this intervention will keep regulators busy trying to wrap their heads about case-by-case complexities.)

However the guidance does — notably — encourage platforms towards offering free alternatives to tracking ads, including privacy-safe(r) ad-supported offerings.

The EDPB gives examples of contextual, “general advertising” or “advertising based on topics the data subject selected from a list of topics of interests”. (And it’s also worth noting the European Commission has also suggested Meta could be using contextual ads instead of forcing users to consent to to tracking ads as part of its oversight of the tech giant’s compliance with the DMA.)

“While there is no obligation for large online platforms to always offer services free of charge, making this further alternative available to the data subjects enhances their freedom of choice,” the Board goes on, adding: “This makes it easier for controllers to demonstrate that consent is freely given.”

While there’s rather more discursive nuance to what the Board has published today than instant clarity served up on a pivotal topic, the intervention is important and does look set to make it harder for mainstream adtech giants like Meta to frame and operate under false binary privacy-hostile choices over the long run.

Armed with this guidance, EU data protection regulators should be asking why such platforms aren’t offering far less privacy-hostile alternatives — and asking that question, if not literally today, then very, very soon.

For a tech giant as dominant and well resourced as Meta it’s hard to see how it can dodge answering that ask for long. Although it will surely stick to its usual GDPR playbook of spinning things out for as long as it possibly can and appealing every final decision it can.

Privacy rights nonprofit noyb, which has been at the forefront of fighting the creep of consent or pay tactics in the region in recent years, argues the EDPB opinion makes it clear Meta cannot rely on the “pay or okay” trick any more. However its founder and chairman Max Schrems told TechCrunch he’s concerned the Board hasn’t gone far enough in skewering this divisive forced consent mechanism.

“The EDPB recalls all the relevant elements, but does not unequivocally state the obvious consequence, which is that ‘pay or okay’ is not legal,” he told us. “It names all the elements why it’s illegal for Meta, but there is thousands of other pages where there is no answer yet.”

As if 42-pages of guidance on this knotty topic wasn’t enough already, the Board has more in the works, too: Talus says it intends to develop guidelines on consent or pay models “with a broader scope”, adding that it will “engage with stakeholders on these upcoming guidelines”.

European news publishers were the earliest adopters of the controversial consent tactic so the forthcoming “broader” EDPB opinion is likely to be keenly watched by players in the media industry.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Back
WhatsApp
Messenger
Viber