If the software developer didn't get anything off you they wouldn't make the software available to you in the first place.
There's even comments in this HN thread that point you on how to do it on Android if you're so inclined.
I'd give more credence to "the market is making an informed choice" hypothesis if consumers were, in fact, informed.
At some point users are allowed to complain about shady behaviour done by huge corporations with resources they use to try to thrust their way into everyones lives.
I sometimes will load a website that uses React when really it's just a static content site. It just gets tiring, and doesn't add to the conversation, when every discussion about an article that could be HTML devolves into that. I get that other people feel that way, and in many ways I share their values... But it becomes its own sideshow and hijacks the otherwise interesting conversations, without adding anything new.
With sincere respect, I don't understand this argument, in general, whenever it comes up. Whenever I find a discussion unhelpful or tedious, I move on or mute it. Often, I've been in an interesting online discussion, and someone pipes up with the wish for everyone to stop talking about this topic because it's not interesting, when they have the tools available to not follow the discussion.
Can you explain? Honest question.
No, they are only allowed to monetize according to laws and regulations. There is nothing magic about software making it right to disregard laws or not having respect for customers. It feels like some think software should be where to world was at the start of the industrial revolution, where companies could do what they wanted and there was no laws stopping them from dumping acid in the river.
Edit: fixed spelling
Why deflect criticism.by saying "well you don't have to use their app now do you?"
When a person does something immoral rarely do people defend them by saying "well you don't have to engage with them now do you?
Why not debate the morality or legitimacy of the act in question rather than deflect try to deflect the criticisms?
Wrong. At least for EU citizens.
If Spotify are collecting data in this way (and not only using the SDK for Facebook Login), they are in violation of the GDPR. There must be clear unambiguous consent to collect the data in the form of an affirmative action of the user and it must be possible to use the app without giving consent, because the Facebook data collection is not essential for the app to operate.
If they do share data with Facebook, Spotify should be scared, since they are definitely large enough to be on the radar of the EU or national bodies.
Moreover, outside the EU it would be dumb for Spotify to say "just don't install the app if you don't agree". The 10 Euro per month that premium users pay is worth more than some Facebook tracking.
(IANAL)
It's kinda worse. They "only" open the gate wide and any of your data they can see is there for Facebook to take. It can feast on any data it can grab with the same permissions the main app has. Like a fucking virus from MS-DOS times infecting binaries, but this time developers are doing it quite voluntarily.
Regardless of which SDK features they use the SDK calls out to Facebook with the device's fingerprint and a persistent UUID every time the app is launched or brought back into foreground.
I was glad today when watching this newsline, to have avoided the facebook SDK.
I think OAuth is usually better because every major provider has some version of it and so you basically can implement them all the same or at least in a really similar fashion.
A lot of software these days don't offer a way for casual users (read: not enterprise/small business) to pay for it. It's "free" or nothing.
If apps start charging money, there would be a significant drop in the # of average user installs. Then the app would only make money off of privacy focused users, which is comparatively small.
Because they don't know.
Like every industry, there are practices involved to which the layman is oblivious. It is important to remind ourselves that the reason the majority of users aren't vocalizing their concerns with these unsavory practices isn't because they don't care but because they don't know.
Sorry, I'm lost here. Can you elaborate?
>We as developers have sortof taken for granted that the FB/Google/etc SDKs can do no evil. Maybe that attitude should change, because public opinion certainly has.
Previously, you mentioned
>If apps start charging money, there would be a significant drop in the # of average user installs. Then the app would only make money off of privacy focused users, which is comparatively small.
I don't have any reason to believe sales would lessen if a formerly "free" application began charging. The difference, however, I have no idea. You mention "significant" which is, of course, relative.
It isn't difficult to see the incentive at work in this scenario:
a) I could charge a nominal fee for use of my software, foregoing the unsavory practices discussed in this thread, and make X amount of money.
b) I could sell my user out and potentially make more than X amount of money. How much more? I don't know, but more.
Is that what it comes down to?
There would be no reason to put advertising in the app the user has already paid for.
And paid software (such as Spotify) still does shady stuff like reporting to Facebook that I'm a user of their app and the schedule on which I use it.