Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content
developer.apple.com
developer.apple.com
> 3.2.2 Unacceptable
> (vi) Apps should allow a user to get what they’ve paid for without performing additional tasks, such as posting on social media, uploading contacts, checking in to the app a certain number of times, etc. Apps should not require users to rate the app, review the app, watch videos, download other apps, tap on advertisements, enable tracking, or take other similar actions in order to access functionality, content, use the app, or receive monetary or other compensation, including but not limited to gift cards and codes.
This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?
To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information.
I'm forced to use the command line interface from Brew and mess around with network interfaces on my work laptop just because I refuse to give Apple my phone number and home address, even though Wireguard is free and no billing/payment information would be required for me to download it, and even though having an Apple account is completely unrelated to their sandboxing goals or the information that the app needs to run.
Bonus points for telling me I'm providing my phone number "for security purposes" but providing no option during signup to use a secure 2FA app instead of SMS.
Wait, on macOS? You’re saying the store gives you extra permissions there?
Sideloading would be helpful if Mac app store apps were made available as sideloaded apps anywhere. But I'm going to hazard a guess that Wireguard would not be permitted to provide those downloads -- I haven't been able to find a download link anywhere. And I'm seeing conflicting information online about whether or not sideloading even works for some apps unless the Apple IDs are shared between computers.
I suppose that I could try to compile the Wireguard app from source, but for all I know, running XCode will require an account as well.
All of these solutions are less work than manually managing the network interfaces myself. It's just kind of crappy that a privacy-oriented company is forcing me to do so. I shouldn't have to outsmart my Mac to get work done.
I would tolerate giving Apple billing information to purchase an app. I don't understand why I need billing information to download a free app that doesn't cost any money. There's no transaction for Apple to verify.
And I don't understand why I need to give Apple a phone number of any of this.
I'm not even asking for an ideal world, just a very slightly less crappy one; Apple objectively does not need my phone number to let me hit a download link. That serves no purpose, it's a completely unrelated step to the task I'm trying to perform.
I have to pay money for a piece of hardware and give a bunch of personal information to Apple, just to download a free app on the hardware that I paid for?
If you know an online service that provides that without also requiring me to give it a bunch of personal information, please let me know.
IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law.
Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
And US isn't alone nation in this.
That’s how I understand it, anyway. I hope to be corrected if I’m inaccurate as this is not my area of expertise.
The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s...
I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part.
> When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter.
In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
Source?
IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'.
This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.
Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS.
I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
(It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.)
If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims.
These are all antitrust claims!!!
Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well.
> Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!
The official 90s clones ended badly because the OEMs were cutting corners as part of a race to the bottom on pricing. This led to shit hardware which led to a shit customer experience. Which meant Apple took back control and killed off the official clone industry.
There are videos on YouTube of Steve Jobs talking (during informal interviews, not corporate statements) about the importance to both him personally and Apple of the entire customer experience (hardware and software). Its not from a perspective of monopoly. Its from a perspective of quality of the overall experience. That's what all the dumb Apple bashers fail to understand.
There's a difference between policies that we agree with, and policies that should be policy.
I think in this context, the real policy should be regulatory, and it shouldn't allow Apple to even have such a policy or forbid anything.
Apple should be allowed to discriminate in their own garden, and/or to rate or group apps based on various factors.
So an app that 'requires social sharing and to make a review' receive a negative quality score ranking etc. - but otherwise - 'informed users' can make their own choices.
This exists on iOS too. I recently downloaded a wardrobe app that refused to let me select clothes for hot or cold weather unless I turned on location services. Also some fast food apps (either Burger King, Popeye's or Taco Bell...can't remember which one) constantly whine about location services off and introduce extra friction to type in a zip code.
A not very well working but reasonable business model.
Why is it incompatible?
Because getting access to normally payed-extra-for content by watching apps means receiving a "monetary or other compensation"
Good. They should clairify that content not available by paying also counts as "monetary or other compensation" for watching ads.
Advertising delenda est.
You should have the freedom to choose to pay by having ads.
At least as long as it's a actually free and fair choice, i.e. the non ad payments are not overpriced.
Advertising delenda est.
Furthermore you can skip ads on YouTube after a 5-second timer, so this seems reasonably fair, though I would still not install it and recommend everyone to just use the web with a content blocker extension (AdGuard) or a third-party frontend like Invidious (https://github.com/iv-org/invidious).
For me, that only really happens these days with mid-video ads (and even then it's happening less frequently despite the number of mid-video ads increasing.) Most of this week I've had double unskippable ads at the front of many videos and they're generally 60+ seconds combined.
2. It doesn't work in the long-term. Paying just signals that you have disposable income and showing subjecting you to ads will be profitable.
Both companies will lose, of course, but Google has a hell of a lot more web traffic to its content than Apple does.
(Note: this does not apply for "generic" remote desktop clients that are not intended to stream specific apps or services, such as the generic Microsoft Remote Desktop Client for iOS.)
Presumably, if anyone tried to build a service for “streaming” non-game apps, that wouldn’t be allowed on the App Store either.
I thought they did just the opposite?
4.9: Streaming games Streaming games are permitted so long as they adhere to all guidelines — for example, each game update must be submitted for review, developers must provide appropriate metadata for search, games must use in-app purchase to unlock features or functionality, etc. Of course, there is always the open Internet and web browser apps to reach all users outside of the App Store.
The problem is that companies like Google are able to get away with it, but not small developers.
YouTube does not show ads to YouTube Red (now called Premium) users.
So games that periodically stop to show a full screen ad and don't resume until the user closes the ad are in violation?
But I agree that’s a bit pedantic
(Several other entries are phrased much less ambiguously: "Unacceptable: (i) Creating an interface …", and (ix) is explicitly "Apps must not …" (emphasis mine).)
Practically-speaking, if Apple decides an app has violated this provision, the app is toast. No app company on the planet has enough lawyers to challenge Apple on such nit-pickery.
I once had to delete an entire bug fix version, and turn it into a feature version, because I "shouldn't" have done something (can't remember what, exactly -I'd have to go digging through the commit comments to find it, and I don't want to do that).
Will big players like Square Enix be made to comply with those rules or is it only the little guys?
Maybe argue about what Epic is doing based on its own merits, rather than some baseless conspiracy about Tencent.
I'll ask again - do you actually have something to say about the merit of the case itself rather than just conspiracies about Tencent? Why is anything you mentioned bad? For argument's sake let's say Apple is in the wrong here and Epic is in the right. Why would Tencent also having a stake in the case change that?
One workaround could be permitting additional stores, but insisting that anything available on the additional stores must also be submitted to the Apple store. If Apple rejects it, that's their right but the software can still be made available through the third sideloading.
Of course this would also need to be behind a big 'UNSAFE MODE' lock because it would be an obvious target for malware.
At first I hated the whole idea of the various PC game stores and would continue to buy, say, Assassin's Creed games on Steam even though Uplay came out (and iirc, they started requiring Uplay be installed for DRM or whatever anyway). Then eventually I realized that directly in Uplay, you could get pretty absurd discounts plus discounts from some type of point system compounded on top of that. So by cutting out Steam in that interaction, it made it cheaper for me and they effectively got the same amount of money so win/win. Granted, Playnite and GOG Galaxy 2 really streamlined the whole thing such that managing various libraries wasn't an absolute nightmare.
As far as iOS goes, we should look at Android and Fortnite. Originally, Fortnite was side loaded. Then they moved it to the Android Play Store because they weren't getting the traction that they expected. So they went in with the Play Store.
Could Epic do a side loaded Epic Mobile Store or something where you could get Fortnite, an Infinity Sword remaster, or Shadow Complex ported to mobile (great game, shame they haven't done anything with that property since Xbox 360 era really)? Sure, but if that did happen it would be the exception and not the rule. I don't think you'd see the proliferation of alternate storefronts you see on PCs because the storefronts came later in the PC's life so various means of pulling in new applications has been what we've experienced from day one whereas the App Store has always been there for the vast majority of iOS adopters (no App Store era was during the AT&T period and even then, early on people were under contracts and what not/weren't ready to shell out the kind of money an iPhone called for). Non-billion dollar development shops aren't going to leave the App Store because they want the discoverability nor the overhead required of setting up their own payment gateways and what not.
The app store with the least oversight and cheapest prices would be the winner.
Policies like this are good for users but bad for apps and by extension app stores.
In the context of this guideline and other user focused non-tracking/permissions related things, the PlayStore is “already at bottom”.
Trust building is really, really hard.
I absolutely detest this idea of third party app stores. Please tell me why this is a good idea when literally your entire life and its contents are contained in this palm sized device.
Do you really want sideloading of apps that asks average joes for ransomware?
We already have another sandbox - browsers. And you're seeing problems with extensions, popups, .dmg downloads and .exe virus scans, etc. So much so that browsers are constantly fighting against attacks for 20 years.
They are, and, if you look around, they're winning: billions of people use Windows, MacOS and desktop Linux, safely, to do all manner of things. Billions of people use the web, which involves all kinds of code from all kinds of places - none of which is held hostage by a single absurdly valuable corporation - and, judging by the continuing success of that platform, I would say it's doing pretty well.
You know what's terrifying? This argument is terrifying. So, you brought up the web … assuming iOS continues to be what it is, and eventually people just stop bothering to make websites: is that okay? Is that what we want?
If we have so little faith in those developers that we believe the last line of defence - the App Store reviewers - are the thing holding us back from disaster, then we definitely should not be using iPhones.
It's really obvious to me which is more secure - a 2 trillion dollar company with vested interest and one of the key selling points, that is privacy; or ... literally anything else.
The term “tracking” in this instance refers to GPS or contacts permission and other such things that Apple has built an opt-in switch for.
Even without GPS permission, IP geolocation provides them a rough track log, enough to say “user x was in california on monday, new york on tuesday, then new jersey for the remainder of the month”.
On other platforms, I can install apps on my devices without telling anybody.
And we know for a fact Windows does this.
Now you know that you were wrong. Windows allows you to disable telemetry and certainly doesn't report apps you install to Microsoft if you don't want it to. Same for Android and obviously for desktop and server Linux distros. This is simply not possible on iOS.
And if you are willing to jailbreak then you have the full suite.
Not without reinstalling weekly unless you reduce your privacy even further by also give Apple your banking details.
> And if you are willing to jailbreak then you have the full suite.
On these other platforms, you don't have to rely on your device being so insecure that it has a rootable vulnerability.
Do you have a source on the them tracking every app a user runs? Obviously they have to collect every app I install for updates and subscriptions, but collecting every run might be too much.
It's essentially Google Analytics, just for apps on iOS.
Where do you think those "Daily active devices" data comes from?
They (a) show what data is being sent e.g. stack traces and (b) provide the privacy policies.
At least on my device I am not seeing a list of apps being sent to Apple.
If your device offloads apps, they know when you download it again and thus can infer usage.
No one is claiming Apple is perfect, but this is a marked improvement of apps requiring tracking to function.
That's all right with Apple:
https://www.securityweek.com/malicious-behavior-found-advert...
These rules are not worth the bytes used to transfer them. It's the epitome of selective enforcement.
> […] the tech giant has found no evidence that apps using the Mintegral SDK are harming users. […] The company says app developers are responsible for the behavior of their products, including the behavior of third-party code, and they should exercise caution when using third-party code to insure it does not accidentally undermine security and privacy.
This seems to be correct. This is an SDK the application developer chose to use. Its behavior may be harmful to other ad networks, but doesn’t seem to have any effect on the user. Which is to say, the SDK isn’t doing anything the app itself couldn’t just do itself. The SDK may be doing stuff the developer isn’t aware of, but that’s true of any third-party code, and this is why developers need to ensure they validate third-party code appropriately.
I'm still applauding Apple for taking this stance on privacy, but want to point out that privacy in no way requires a walled garden approach to software.
I hope someone cracks open their 'security' app and controls every MIUI device, just for them to learn their lesson.
Last I checked, I had to provide permission to each app that came in the phone. I can deny access to location to even Google Maps.
I think Google largely went wrong with Pixel 4 hardware, but my three year old Pixel 2 still runs sharp and I have always wondered why it didn't grab a bigger share of Android pie.
Apple makes money by selling products to their users or taking a cut of the users' purchases in their marketplace.
Facebook and Google, on the other hand, make most of their money by selling micro-segmented access to their user base to third parties.
Which of these two kinds of companies stands to benefit from harvesting more data about their users whenever possible?
At least in EU (and thus all apps made in EU) you can ask for personal info to be deleted. The list of apps downloaded is certainly sensitive info that reveals many preferences. Can you ask apple to delete this info?
See https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
That's not what GDPR requires. I am sure Apple has a way to request to delete sensitive info such as app purchases without loss of service, or else they d be in violation in EU.
> to aim at Apple is to ask if the data is anonymised.
I can't see a way in which my app purchases could be anonymized (then it wouldn't be personal information)
A bank holds personal data about its customers. This includes details of each customer’s address, date of birth and mother’s maiden name. The bank uses this information as part of its security procedures. It is appropriate for the bank to retain this data for as long as the customer has an account with the bank. Even after the account has been closed, the bank may need to continue holding some of this information for legal or operational reasons for a further set time.
Based on that, I'd suggest its entirely reqasonable to posit:
An online app store holds personal data about it's customers. This includes payment information and a list of apps that have been purchased, including free apps, and which of those apps have been downloaded. It is appropriate for the app store to maintain this information so they can allow the customer to install apps on their devices and link in app purchased made in those apps to the correct account. Even after the app has been removed from a device, the app store may need to continue holding some of this information for legal and/or operation reasons.
Arguing that app store purchases are sensitive is some what missing the wood for the trees. What matters is what is done with the information. If Apple (or Google, Sony and Microsoft - they all run similar stores) use this in an attempt to target app store recommendations, the negative inpact on the individual is extremely debatable, certainly from the point-of-view of GDPR. If they are using the information to build a profile of an individual to sell access to that individual to 3rd parties, then there is a problem.
Apple's recommendations are handled on-device. It's great for security, but the downside is that Apple News on my iPhone and Apple News on my computer don't have the same list of publications I dislike.
I'm gonna try that with my clients. "Sir, I wont aggregate your store's point of sale data because it's more secure if the data never leaves the store. Now pay me a premium for the added security, thanks."
https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/aib10i/in_china_ios_al...
However, at least we can find comfort in the fact that their business model so far has been against the surveillance/advertising economy and their entire marketing strategy has been based on that for the past few years, so at least they currently do not have any incentive to misuse that data even if they do collect it (and if they do eventually think about misusing it, we can hope that there would be some actual enforcement of laws such as the GDPR that would discourage them from doing so).
I do not like tracking at all.
But I think this is something which needs to be handled by governments (laws/regulations) not by apple forcing their opinion about what is right onto everyone else by abusing their marked positions.
In this case it might be beneficial for the users.
In others cases it was not beneficial for the users at all but only for apple. Like if I remember correctly apps where not allowed to state that they are Pebble compatible because Pebble did compete with the Apple Watch at least theoretically, similar platforms like Netflix/Amazon Prime got special terms wrt. the pay cut but a Netflix/Amazon Prime for gaming wasn't allowed at all for dubious reasons (with that reasons any content gateway like browsers, newsfeeds, Netflix etc. would not be allowed) oh and guess what it seems Apple is currently working on their own Gaming/Game Streaming platform...
So yes anti tracking is good. But I still belive Apple is again abusing their monopoly like positions for their own benefits, let's not forget Apple has their own app network which likely isn't affected by this.
In the mean time, I'm glad Apple is. If Apple wasn't doing this, no one would be.
If the government regulates something, that very often means that the incumbents will donate/bribe officials to pass regulations that favor the mega corps.
Getting government regulations that actually favors the consumers is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
Why should governments force their opinion about what is right onto everyone else? Why not allow freedom in the market so that users can choose what matters most to them? Right now, Apple is serving the market of those opposed to tracking and in favor of greater privacy. If it turns out this is what consumers want and are willing to pay for, competitors will feel pressure to follow suit. No heavy handed government regulation needed.
In isolation it doesn’t matter if you want to sell your privacy (and all your friends’ privacy!) for access to a Facebook quiz on what breed of dog you are. As a collective whole on a societal or global scale it makes a difference.
The NSA doesn’t become less scary because it’s “free market” instead of a government agency. If anything the lack of accountability to the public makes it more scary.
This is exactly where government should be involved—when the desirable individual action results in negative outcomes for the group.
This is not a linux PC. Average joes and jills are not avid users with understanding of security. Think billions of users, not just HN community of 30k developers.
Android allows many things Apple doesn't, including alternative app stores and there is no massive problem with ransomware, blackmailing and similar.
On the other hand do you really think you contacts are not sold of if you sync them with e.g. WhatsApp on a apple device?
No one ever said that phones should not run apps in a sandbox or not have a permissions system or not have opinionated app store(s!) or not throw warnings at users when side-loading apps or similar.
It's about apple being a quasi monopoly for millions of phones which today are the most commonly spread and used general purpose computers. And it's about Apple abusing that power for their own benefit sometimes also in ways which happen to profit the end-user.
Allows third party app stores and apple can do whatever they want in their App store. And yes most people still would mainly use the Apple app stores. (And yes you might still allow Apple to "ban"/"reject" third party app stores which act malicious/abusiveness. But on legal basis. I.e. if they ban a third party Appstore the banned company must be able to sue for damages if the ban is found to be baseless. And no absurd arbitrary max damages TOS clause like there currently is).
Bunch of apps started doing the above "enable tracking" part already - good thing Apple specifically disallowed it, should nip that problem before 14 comes out.
Same thing here. Say I dont want to be tracked, apps should think I have allowed access and go ahead. Why should they tailor access based on my permission to track ? My installing the app is proof I want to use the app. I just dont want it to be tied to anything. Kinda like the original "sandbox" idea
Screenshot in the Camera section of this iPhoneOS 2 review: https://www.imore.com/iphone-os-2-review
Are you on life support or something?
Sometimes, let the consumer choose does not work. For example, if governments did not regulate kids products and just said let the consumer choose, the market would be filled with unsafe products. Sometimes you need someone enforcing standards.
Apple’s enforcement of standards is one of the big reasons why I choose their ecosystem.
Seems perfectly reasonable. We used to do it before there was an internet to feed our locations to. I did it on my Palm III.
Heck, my car does it today. And is able to show me all the nearby coffee shops with zero internet connection, thus no snitching.
I think irrespective of how good the App Store policies are, every user should be given the right to load non-App Store apps if they so choose. It's totally fine if it's buried 10-levels deep in settings. It's fine if they cannot do it easily by just clicking a random link due to security considerations. It's a good idea to make it hard to do by accident, and I expect if Apple wanted to they could create an awesome UX that preserves safety & security while respecting device owner sovereignty of what can go onto their device.
Might seem like a trivial thing, but it would have made all the difference for the civil liberties protests in HK when their app got banned from the App Store.
WhatsApp gates many features behind Contacts access. Do the same rules apply to everyone, even Facebook?
This is not good for us in the long run.
We need a new version of the FCC that's smart enough to engage lightly for the most part, but heavily and smartly where necessary in this new digital age.
So they're going to remove most of the games that my kids have been duped into installing from an ad in another game? ;p