> (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.
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.
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.
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).)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> (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
[+] [-] Nextgrid|5 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] DoofusOfDeath|5 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] jtsiskin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sizzle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dathinab|5 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] ggrrhh_ta|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criddell|5 years ago|reply
So games that periodically stop to show a full screen ad and don't resume until the user closes the ad are in violation?
[+] [-] ooobit2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JadeNB|5 years ago|reply
(Several other entries are phrased much less ambiguously: "Unacceptable: (i) Creating an interface …", and (ix) is explicitly "Apps must not …" (emphasis mine).)
[+] [-] tempodox|5 years ago|reply
Will big players like Square Enix be made to comply with those rules or is it only the little guys?
[+] [-] electriclove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonplackett|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Angostura|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toredash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beervirus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dayjobpork|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ProAm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefan_|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] apexalpha|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ffpip|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NovemberWhiskey|5 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nextgrid|5 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] dathinab|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] slipheen|5 years ago|reply
In the mean time, I'm glad Apple is. If Apple wasn't doing this, no one would be.
[+] [-] gpanders|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] systemvoltage|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] spideymans|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lma21|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canadianwriter|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 2Gkashmiri|5 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] spideymans|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reaperducer|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] andrewjl|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tempodox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prophesi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkamb|5 years ago|reply
WhatsApp gates many features behind Contacts access. Do the same rules apply to everyone, even Facebook?
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] daveisfera|5 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] ryandrake|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dellcybpwr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egberts1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coronadisaster|5 years ago|reply