Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#unacceptable

by Nextgrid • 6 years ago

373 252 6 years ago

developer.apple.com

_Microft• 6 years ago

Anything else wouldn't be GDPR compliant anyways, would it?

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

In Europe it indeed wouldn't, however GDPR enforcement has been severely lacking despite the potential for significant fines, so Apple taking matters into its own hands (and using its influence and power over the App Store) is very good news.

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

Full text of the clause:

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.

jonplackett• 6 years ago

Amen.

JadeNB• 6 years ago

Is this in the usual technical sense of MUST / SHOULD / MAY, or does 'should not' here actually mean 'may not' (as suggested by the category being 'Unacceptable', rather than 'Discouraged')?

(Several other entries are phrased much less ambiguously: "Unacceptable: (i) Creating an interface …", and (ix) is explicitly "Apps must not …" (emphasis mine).)

reaperducer4• 6 years ago

Apple's guidelines are usually written in soft language to give it wiggle room in case an unexpected scenario arises.

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.

jmull• 6 years ago

I'm just about 100% sure Apple uses "should" and "should not" in the absolute sense, not the way RFC's define it.

jtsiskin• 6 years ago

The clause starts with "get what they've paid for" - does this apply to free apps?

LeoNatan25• 6 years ago

You get what pay for with free garbage too.

DoofusOfDeath2• 6 years ago

I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal.

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?

easton2• 6 years ago

Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't since the bootloader is locked.

donarb• 6 years ago

All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to purchase software that Apple creates and sells.

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

lostgame• 6 years ago

IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled and configured Hackintosh boxes. (Does anyone remember what the name of the company was? It was like 2007-9 or something)

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.

danShumway6• 6 years ago

It's a very good policy, I wish they'd follow it for their own systems.

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.

jariel2• 6 years ago

"I find that policy entirely acceptable"

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.

electriclove• 6 years ago

This sounds.. great!

ggrrhh_ta• 6 years ago

Doesn't youtube, with its ads, violate this policy?

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

When it comes to YouTube the waters are muddy. The YouTube app is just a client to a third-party web service (whose functionality falls outside of App Store rules); so in this case it can be argued that the "functionality" of the app is just the client functionality and not the content itself.

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).

kinkrtyavimoodh3• 6 years ago

"Apps should allow a user to get what they’ve paid for."

YouTube does not show ads to YouTube Red (now called Premium) users.

dathinab4• 6 years ago

But this also excludes letting the user chose between either watching ads or paying for the content.

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"

a13692099932• 6 years ago

this also excludes letting the user chose between either watching ads or paying for the content.

Good. They should clairify that content not available by paying also counts as "monetary or other compensation" for watching ads.

Advertising delenda est.

toredash• 6 years ago

Should. Not "must not"

msbarnett• 6 years ago

The subsection this falls under is "Unacceptable" as in "Will not be accepted". The "should" in the sentence is a normative statement about values, not recommendational.

marvel_boy• 6 years ago

In this legal context 'should not' means 'must not'.

criddell• 6 years ago

watch videos

So games that periodically stop to show a full screen ad and don't resume until the user closes the ad are in violation?

pindab0ter• 6 years ago

Is this for paid games? I imagine this would not apply to freemium games.

Angostura• 6 years ago

Feels in line with GDPR

sizzle2• 6 years ago

Wow this is why my next phone will be an iphone, so sick of apps in Android play store pestering me to rate their app after completing an action in the app or forcing me to turn on location services when I can easily enter a zip code instead.

bmarquez• 6 years ago

forcing me to turn on location services when I can easily enter a zip code instead

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.

yazaddaruvala5• 6 years ago

And hopefully sideloading is never allowed, or apps would just bypass any such customer focused regulation and most users would again be forced into a poor UX.

ooobit22• 6 years ago

Can it also not require Apple to get a 30% cut when we buy something from within an app, like... oh, IDK, a Fortnite skin? Because I think requiring us to tack on a 30% tax or for the devs to take a 30% loss on something Apple has nothing to do with is also unacceptable.

yazaddaruvala5• 6 years ago

Technically only buying Vbucks is an “in app purchase”, using the Vbucks to buy a skin would not be.

But I agree that’s a bit pedantic

tempodox2• 6 years ago

The Hitman Sniper app does at least one of those “unacceptable” things: They offer (not really) “free” digital items in exchange for “likes” on Facebook. And there seems to be more app functionality tied to Facebook logins.

Will big players like Square Enix be made to comply with those rules or is it only the little guys?

JiNCMG6• 6 years ago

Once these rules are in place (like now) they will wait until the next update submission to notify them of the infractions.

ffpip4• 6 years ago

Such things are never going to come to Android are they? Every preinstalled app abuses every permission possible

cmeacham98• 6 years ago

Pre-installed apps where you can't disable them or revoke their permissions are a cancer on the Android ecosystem. Especially fun when they have permissions like "access the filesystem" or "obtain device location" or "send notifications".

ffpip4• 6 years ago

There used to be a security app on my MIUI phone. Security apps can't do anything on android, because each app is sandboxed. But of course, it had full non-revocable permissions including physical sensors, precise location, contacts, camera and microphone.

I hope someone cracks open their 'security' app and controls every MIUI device, just for them to learn their lesson.

wvenable• 6 years ago

Are there pre-installed apps you can't disable? I have a bunch disabled on my phone.

cma2• 6 years ago

With a user controlled Android phone, you can just feed apps you don't trust fake location data. But now Google has started restricting user-owned Android to a fixed number of flashes or something, or they get locked out of Google Play Services.

expectsomuch• 6 years ago

Can't tell if this is a serious reply.

lern_too_spel7• 6 years ago

On Android, you can deny permissions to preinstalled apps (I just verified this myself) or even disable the apps entirely, which unlinks all entry points into the app. On iOS, they just sit there sucking up your data like iMessage keeping track of everybody you message.

flukus• 6 years ago

With android the tracking is baked into the OS, I'd worry about that before worrying about apps with less permissions.

actuator2• 6 years ago

I have been using Android for a long time, I don't find this to be true. Can you qualify as to what Google collects on a standard Pixel phone which they don't ask for?

Dahoon3• 6 years ago

This is about tracking via gps. Exactly the same rules as Google play.

actuator2• 6 years ago

As some others have mentioned, this is not true at all for phones like Pixel at least.

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.

cblconfederate6• 6 years ago

Thats a good thing. Can Apple guarantee that they themselves are not tracking their users' app preferences/behaviour either?

scarface743• 6 years ago

Of course they can’t guarantee it. The best they could do is give users the ability to block all internet access in an app. Currently you can only block an app from using cellular data.

saagarjha9• 6 years ago

Interestingly in China you can block all network access…

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

Nope they can't. In fact to use an iOS device you pretty much need an Apple account (if you want to be able to install any apps) and that comes with a privacy policy and some extra "features" you might not know about like every sender e-mail on iOS Mail being synced to their cloud.

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).

NovemberWhiskey• 6 years ago

There's a fairly simple cui bono aspect to this.

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?

cblconfederate6• 6 years ago

Apple profits from knowing their users' app/music/news/books/siri etc preferences and making purchase suggestions, don't they?

polyomino• 6 years ago

Facebook and Google are valuable because they have this data and their customers don't. If the data is harder to come by, Facebook and Google just win out over smaller data collectors.

beervirus2• 6 years ago

Everybody complains about the walled garden, but damn I love to see things like this.

ProAm• 6 years ago

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own fully paid for device?

ffpip4• 6 years ago

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run?

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.

slipheen2• 6 years ago

That really does seem like whataboutism.

No one is claiming Apple is perfect, but this is a marked improvement of apps requiring tracking to function.

sbuk4• 6 years ago

There has to be be some degree of tying purchases to an account. The real issue here is what is done with the data after it's been collected. Internal use is one thing; such as improving apps etc. When it's used to target individual in a bid to influence their thinking, that's when the real problem starts. Are Apple guilty of the latter?

threeseed5• 6 years ago

On iOS under: Privacy -> Analytics & Improvements

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.

lern_too_spel7• 6 years ago

This policy is straight from GDPR. The Play Store and the Amazon App Store also enforce this, despite neither enforcing walled gardens.

dayjobpork• 6 years ago

You do realise Apple could still do this in their app store AND allow 3rd party app stores?

threeseed5• 6 years ago

But 3rd party app stores just mean a race to the bottom.

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.

austhrow743• 6 years ago

Not to the same effect. It means if developers don’t want to play by Apple’s rules they don’t have to completely surrender the iOS market. A big enough name could just direct users to the third party App Store.

systemvoltage4• 6 years ago

That's a terrifying idea. Horrifying.

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.

m3kw92• 6 years ago

No 3rd party apps stores will not guarantee my one click subscription cancelation Like Apple does, for example

sneak2• 6 years ago

Note that “tracking” is used in an intentionally misleading way here. Apple’s guidelines expressly permit all sorts of silent, invisible, no-opt-in tracking within apps, and most apps in the app store embed this sort of spyware.

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.

beervirus2• 6 years ago

What sort of "silent, invisible, no-opt-in tracking" does Apple allow?

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

The way I read this (as well as their recently-postponed change regarding the advertising ID) is that they are explicitly tightening up the rules and will hopefully crack down on the behavior your describe (malware - aka the Facebook SDK - being embedded in every single app).

stefan_• 6 years ago

Remember that app SDK that decided to hijack every URL open and leak auth tokens back to the mothership?

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.

lilyball• 6 years ago

I’m not sure what your point is.

[…] 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.

apexalpha• 6 years ago

This is literally what GDPR will enforce. Under GDPR you're not allowed to 'trade' extra functionality or access for tracking.

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.

dellcybpwr• 6 years ago

Should not vs may not. Any difference?

mensetmanusman• 6 years ago

“I should still be able to view where I am on this map without letting anyone know where I am”

reaperducer4• 6 years ago

“I should still be able to view where I am on this map without letting anyone know where I am”

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.

canadianwriter• 6 years ago

"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."

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.

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

Out of curiosity, which apps?

dathinab4• 6 years ago

I do not think Apple should have the power to do such decisions.

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.

slipheen2• 6 years ago

Governments ought to be the place for this level of regulation, absolutely - But right now, governments aren't regulating.

In the mean time, I'm glad Apple is. If Apple wasn't doing this, no one would be.

zoredache• 6 years ago

Never heard of regulatory capture?

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.

spideymans2• 6 years ago

Government regulation would be at the mercy of Google and Facebook and their hoard of regulators, so I’m not convinced this would protect iOS end users better than the status quo. Facebook and similar developers might be happy about it though

gpanders• 6 years ago

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.

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.

nucleardog• 6 years ago

Freedom in the market got us a massive surveillance apparatus selling data to analytics companies selling data to foreign governments to help them most effectively influence elections and society, widening divides and contributing to massive unrest, and not to the benefit of any of us.

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.

systemvoltage4• 6 years ago

I completely disagree. I want Apple to have complete control over my device because the alternatives are absolutely horrifying - ransomeware attacks, blackmailing to get my photos back, contact list sold off in an auction, etc.

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.

dathinab4• 6 years ago

How did you jump from advertisement related stuff to ransomware, blackmail and similar?

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).

closeparen• 6 years ago

An opinion about what is right is a lot less dangerous as one option in a competitive marketplace vs. the law of the land.

lma21• 6 years ago

Yes of course, because we saw how governments (around the world) are capable of enforcing such laws when it comes to user privacy and tracking.

2Gkashmiri• 6 years ago

I remember ios 5 I think brought app permissions. Essentially say app A should not get location or contacts and put this behind a password. The app couldnt do shit. Then android after late got some permissions but its still lame IMO. App can deny you access without a permission. A recent thing I have seen on android is permission protection or whatever. The system gives dummy or no access to the contacts for example instead of actual contacts. Sounds good but now every app can detect this and bugs you to allow the sameby nagging you. Look, if I want to deny app A or B access to contacts, as far as the app is concerned it should get 0 access. Not blocking or pseudo blocking but a sinkhole type "huh. Nothing here". It should not be able to detect this. Same for internet access. If I deny internet to an app, that app should think its in flight mode. Thats it.

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

renewiltord2• 6 years ago

Okay, but I don't want that as a user. If I accidentally say "Deny Location Permission" I want the app to say "I actually can't navigate for you without this, sorry. Want me to request the permission again?". I don't want to debug this shit - oh why is navigation not working? No thanks. Life's too short.

reaperducer4• 6 years ago

Life is too short for you to press Settings > Privacy > Location Services > app > enable?

Are you on life support or something?

mumblerino• 6 years ago

Correction: iOS has had permissions at least for as long as apps were allowed and more permissions were added over time.

Screenshot in the Camera section of this iPhoneOS 2 review: https://www.imore.com/iphone-os-2-review

saagarjha9• 6 years ago

I find it very interesting that Maps is asking for permission to access your location.

ATsch• 6 years ago

This is already legally required by GDPR but I guess it's good for apple to check for it.

Nextgrid14• 6 years ago

The GDPR so far doesn't have any enforcement for stuff like this. All the links to "enforcement tracker" (which I'm sure someone will reply with down below) have been either about a technicality like a badly worded privacy policy or the amount of the fine was peanuts compared to the size of the offending company.

matthewmacleod• 6 years ago

This is not required by GDPR.

cblconfederate6• 6 years ago

the tracking thing is

Angeo34• 6 years ago

Apple wants all the data for themselves obviously.

RcouF1uZ4gsC3• 6 years ago

This is one of the reasons, I am actually in favor of only having the App Store on Apple. As soon as you have another way to distribute apps on the iPhone, app developers will try to migrate to the less privacy conscious store that lets them do all their dark patterns.

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.

spideymans2• 6 years ago

Certain developers (ahem... Facebook) love to cry about Apple’s walled garden, without acknowledging that the reason that iOS and its walled garden is so popular is precisely because these large developers have proven to users that they are completely untrustworthy. If they conducted their business more responsibly, and if users could trust that these developers wouldn’t abuse their privacy and security, perhaps the mobile software ecosystem would be more open in nature.

ugh123• 6 years ago

Could say the same thing about these cookie-accept popups as some will just redirect you off their site if you don't accept.

noisem4ker• 6 years ago

Those go against the GDPR.

ryandrake• 6 years ago

I've always wondered why do companies call it "opt" in if it's not optional?

perryizgr8• 6 years ago

It is optional, of course. The other option is to not use the app.

prophesi• 6 years ago

Would this also apply to forcing users to enable location for content that only partially requires it? In particular, Snapchat has some location-based filters, but even the ones that don't require location (purely cosmetic, rewind, slow-mo, etc filters) are disabled.

daveisfera• 6 years ago

(iii) Artificially increasing the number of impressions or click-throughs of ads, as well as apps that are designed predominantly for the display of ads.

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

pkamb• 6 years ago

Apps should allow a user to get what they’ve paid for without performing additional tasks, such as [...] uploading contacts

WhatsApp gates many features behind Contacts access. Do the same rules apply to everyone, even Facebook?

coronadisaster• 6 years ago

Can they trick you into thinking it is required?

tempodox2• 6 years ago

Nice words, but to whom do they apply? Apple just postponed the upcoming iOS 14 tracking restrictions that Facebook complained about to next year.

egberts1• 6 years ago

Yep. Ditched a web cam because some China-made app wanted my location.

jariel2• 6 years ago

Apple's policies are starting to read like governmental regulatory documents, and their internal process like an opaque, private Judicial system.

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.

andrewjl• 6 years ago

This is a terrific policy.

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.

Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

Related Stories