They won't because rules for thee, not for me. It's OK if someone big enough violates Apple's rules, but if a smaller dev does it? You get booted off the store.
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... says "before you send [marketing push] notifications to people, you must receive their explicit permission to do so".
Apple themselves have started doing that, so zero chance of the rule being enforced.
> https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... says
Those are the Human Interface Guidelines, which are basically suggestions on how to make a proper app. They don’t impact policy and Apple has been shitting on them for years now. Liquid Glass breaks so many rules it’s not even funny. What you want to link to is the App Review Guidelines, specifically 4.5.4.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#4.5...
"Push Notifications should not be used for promotions or direct marketing purposes unless customers have explicitly opted in to receive them via consent language displayed in your app’s UI, and you provide a method in your app for a user to opt out from receiving such messages. Abuse of these services may result in revocation of your privileges."
> Apple themselves have started doing that
Well, it's their platform. They've their own internal rules and app review processes, one would presume. Like how the cops can shoot people, but I can't.
That’s the one I wanted to link to. Fixed. Thank you.
> and agrees with the "you must" bit in the HIG.
I know. The point is that the HIG is not used to enforce app policy, the App Review Guidelines are.
> They've their own internal rules and app review processes, one would presume.
Which is exactly why they are in trouble with governments around the world.
> Like how the cops can shoot people, but I can't.
Cops can’t just shoot people (well, maybe in the US?), they have to have a reason. In any civilised nation, a cop who shoots a random person doesn’t just get a pat on the back and a thumbs up. They are meant to be public servants who help enforce the law, not vigilantes who stand above it.
This would be the same as the cops owning a monopoly business for profit and shooting anyone who competes with them. If Apple stops making their own apps for their platform, then yes, your analogy would make sense.
can be disabled via:
settings > communication > push notifications
but the worst part is when they add a new category (eg uber teen accounts) and surprise it’s enabled by default.
Ditto New York Times "Breaking News" alerts pushing features that were published a week ago, but didn't get enough traction for some editor.
No, this is not as simple as Meta calling internal APIs that can be detected. This is Meta developing tricky ways of identifying users from patterns of usage without regard to opt-in. If users consent, the app can use the Apple API to track. Easy. If users don’t consent, Meta tracks through tricks matching behavior stored on their servers.
This is Meta abiding by the letter of the Apple developer agreement but not the spirit of the agreement.
Yes, it is. It's just more manual.
Meta has repeatedly done this sort of thing. It's clear that Apple knows they're up to this stuff, and it's clear that Meta will continue to do it, and it's clear that Apple doesn't have the will to kill their apps over it.
Which they would absolutely do for an app you or I made.
Well, Apple did threatened to remove Facebook in the past, and they did get Meta to follow the rules back then
But, today, unfortunately I think you are right. If Apple bans Facebook, Meta will take the opportunity the EU has given them to start their own app store, which can have whatever privacy rules (read: none) they want.
I guess it's just another Brussels Effect.