1. The apps used MDM profiles, intedned for control of employee's smartphones and/or vpns to filter access to apps.
2. Those approaches gave the app makers enormous control over the devices. If they used vpns, all internet traffic from the device could be intercepted. If they used MDM profiles, they had deep access to all the device's settings. It was a huge privacy risk.
3. This was clearly against Apple's policies. APIs were used for the purpose they were not intended for. That was what Facebooks's certificates were revoked for. They should've feared removal since the day they wrote their first line of code.
4. I guess that Apple understood the need for parental control apps and allowed them, with the privacy risks, as there was no other way to get parental control at the time.
5. Apple knew how important iPhone addiction has become and developed their own, privacy respecting solution, screen Time.
6. The need for parental control has now been filled and the privacy risks of those apps now outweigh the benefits. Apple made the decision to remove.
7. Apple, in general, doesn't allow other apps to access such information on your device, for privacy and security reasons. It's a bit anti competitive, yes, it limits what app makers can do, but it makes iOs secure. There's no other way to do it, and that's what many people don't understand. Apple's philosophy sacrifices some features you might have for your own security. If you're not fine with it, use Android and sideload, but don't run screaming to the police when it suddenly turns out that the online banking app you've just installed was a very good fake. .
Doesn't it seem weird to you how they only cared about "making iOS secure" once they had their own product?
If Google or Microsoft did this the reaction here on HN would be so different. Any anti-competitive practice could be rationalized by saying it makes the platform more secure.
1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable
2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking
Seems like they chose the latter. It’s easy to construct a case for why it is technically inappropriate to allow third-party apps in this space, that I personally boil down primarily to “a frequently-abused chance for corporate entities to monetize the user data of minors”.
Apple took years to implement content filtering, and did so in a way that prohibits applications from knowing whether their filters are ever exercised, as otherwise Facebook and other malicious entities would long ago have added a filter for ^(.*)$ to transmit every request to third-party servers. Is their refusal to permit otherwise anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?
Apple, if I understand correctly, prohibits third-party keyboards in certain password-type dialogs on iOS because keyboard apps are allowed to send network requests. (They are allowed to do so because e.g. GIF search.) Is this prohibition anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?
We as a community need to become a lot more careful with use of the phrase “anti-competitive”, as many industry-standard security practices that we would demand of any product we build and use are then labeled “anti-competitive” solely when they interfere with us doing anything we like, or when they’re done by an organization that doesn’t share its internal discussions with us when making decisions on our behalf.
Is it appropriate to stifle the competition for my personal data, even if that is, in a literalistic interpretation, anti-competitive?
I sure hope so.
> 1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable
> 2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking
Surely the correct answer, if the solution is really so valuable that it cannot be done without in the time it would take to come up with a safe solution, is
3) tell the programmers of the potentially privacy-violating solutions that they'll be banned once you do (2), then do (2);
or arguably even
4) do (3), and, in the meantime, display a hard-to-ignore dialogue on installation that warns "this app may violate your privacy, and will be automatically uninstalled once Apple's safer solution is available. Do you wish to proceed?"
I have watched expert users infect themselves with malware faster than I can open my mouth to warn them that they’ve just unthinkingly clicked Next and blown their foot off, and then had to help them wipe their installation and start over.
I do not consider the current world we live in to be one where it is safe to prioritize absolute freedom over all other concerns. I accept that this puts me at odds with those that do, but as I watch them shoot their own feet off, I am grateful that I chose a more pragmatic path. I am grateful that a safer path is available for those who are unable to comprehend the severities of the risks they are defended against.
The solution you propose is no different than saying that the safety on a gun is sufficient to protect someone from accidentally shooting themselves with it. I do not agree with your assumptions, and I think the solution you describe is selfish and neglectful. You prioritize your ideals over the welfare of others unable to avoid paying the price you think yourself able to dodge. Your choice is abhorrent to me, and pushes me further away from the absolutist freedoms you espouse. Consider carefully in the future whether your argument as presented today helps or harms your cause.
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions. Both my (3) and (4) include "then do (2)", which seemed to be the solution you were proposing; they just more clearly communicated to developers that (2) was coming, and more clearly communicated to users the consequences of implementing half-baked solutions before (2) was done. I can imagine a lot of practical problems with what I suggested, but it's hard for me to see how increasing the communication in either or both of the ways that I proposed, while also doing what (it seems) you're proposing (and what Apple did), constitutes adherence to a selfish ideal.
Ever since moving everyone in my extended family to Apple’s ecosystem, I no longer field any calls about uninstalling malware, computer running slow, video calls are crystal clear, and the devices work forever. And if there’s a problem, they can take it to the Apple store and get it fixed, and restore from iCloud backup and they’re up and running in no time.
If Google or Microsoft want to re-create that convenience, I’m all for it. I know I sound like a shill, but I think it’s well worth whatever extra it costs in terms of time I saved troubleshooting.
If you take those away, of the rest, I'd wager the overwhelming majority is used for sports and hunting.
So, not sure about that. You might have the right claim, but the "by definition" might be too much
A weapon is by definition madr to cause harm, so it is not benign.
Even hunting is not a benign act at all, which is why you need training and have a lot of regulation regarding how you can practice it.
And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.
Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store?
And that’s not how monopolies are defined.
And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.
If you don’t like it by an Android and develop for Android. Literally every single person on the planet with access to iPhone could alternatively use Android. In fact, iPhone is more expensive than cheap Androids, so there is even less reason for people to stay with iPhone. Yet, for some weird reason, people keep buying the phones.
If I subscribe to the Disney channel, I suspect to not see porn. If I buy Apple, I expect that my privacy is being rigorously protected. For people who want porn or less secure devices, those things are readily available from other vendors. Just become Apple doesn’t sell “porn” doesn’t make them a monopoly. If your local movie theater doesn’t screen porn films, are they being anti-competitive? Are they considered a monopoly? Not allowing porn producers to screen their films at the local movie theater is analogous to Apple not allowing privacy dangerous apps on their store.
What exactly is Apple’s business motivation for not allowing third party spyware but allowing third party music streaming, video streaming, office apps, book stores, etc? When they make money off of their own services in the other areas?
Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
I think the argument is Apple has a little more market dominance (both smart phone hardware and OS) than a single smart tv maker or even Nintendo in the console market.
Keeping the market dominance point in mind, Apple isn’t just deciding what is and isn’t allowed...you had a number of developers with successful apps not just have to contend with a copy cat app created by Apple but because of their control over the marketplace Apple killed their developers apps and took the entire market (rightly or wrongly).
So yeah if you change your facts and the smart tv or Nintendo allowed apps/adult games, saw developers create a market and then the hardware maker launched their own software competitors and disallowed the initial apps/games...there would be blowback.
Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses?
If Apple decides they wanted to ban loot boxes in games, would you be opposed to that?
Aren't apps with these same capabilities (and more) being marketed as a way to track and spy on a spouse? (regardless of their fidelity)
With NYT’s (usual) shallow technical reporting, I can’t tell what the app does. Just like the article for this post. The only reason we on HN suspect that the apps for this article must be using some combination of MDM API’s and a VPN is because we know how iOS works.
But I can always throw the question back at you. How can you on one hand say that it would be okay if this app did do something similar (which I can’t tell) and Apple banned it for privacy reasons but not okay to ban other software that is spyware?
>Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app?
>What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform?
Yes. They do not have to endorse or even promote such games, but they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit such games either.
>Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
Yes, Apple should allow the app's functionality. The law shouldn't allow such ads or spying on people without their knowledge.
In short, it shouldn't be Apple/Samsung/Nintendo's business what gets run on a device.
You can then install all of the spyware and ransomware that your heart desires.
Therein is the crux of the matter - it ceased to be Apple's phone the moment they sold it.
Were you okay with them banning Facebook’s VPN app that spied on users?
No, I want them to allow it on MY PHONE.
I spend most of the time on my phone on the web, using subscription services that aren’t bought through the App Store, watching tutorial videos that I don’t buy through the App Store, and reading books I bought from the Amazon store.
I also listen to podcast using a third party player.
Have you ever dropped your phone and needed a repair?
The chance of both of those is correlated to how much time you spend on your device.
And of course, your particular use case isn’t driving apples decisions — it’s the aggregate behavior of all its users.
So while you may not buy more apps or services, it is certainly the case that increases in phone use correlate to increases in Apple Eco System generated revenue for Apple.
And you still haven’t answered the other question. How are these third party apps better at controlling usage than Apple’s built in screen time and parental controls?
Repairs are a non-trivial source of revenue and increased usage certainly increases repairs.
But more important are the other examples I gave which you have ignored.
I don’t know how they are better personally, but the author of the article (did you read it?) certain pointed out some examples.
As far as I can tell, your argument is that user phone usage has zero impact on apples revenue, I’m making the opposite case. My sense is that phone usage is correlated with revenue.
Until you do, I think it’s safe to say that your unsubstantiated opinions are just that. Again, can you cite any feature that the third party apps have that Apple didn’t either include recently in the screen time feature or the parental controls that have been there forever?
Unlike apps such as OurPact, Apple’s tools don’t allow parents to schedule different times throughout a day when an app is blocked — for school or family dinner. And Apple’s tool blocks adult content only on its Safari web browser and some apps, not on other browsers or many popular apps, like Twitter, YouTube and Instagram.
So, in case you missed it, here is what they are saying:
1) ability to set a schedule for blocking apps through out the day.
2) blocking content outside of Safari (in other apps / browsers / etc).
If you set parental limits in settings. Those limits are supported by Chrome. But, if you are trying to limit what sites your kids can browse to, why would you allow them to install the third party browser in the first place? You can set up Family sharing to notify you and when your child tries to install an app and you can approve or reject the approval from your phone.
And if you are that concerned about your child’s well being, why would you install VPN software on their phone that allows a third party to track and record all of the internet activity from your child’s phone?
A VPN app cant block content on a level of granularity that blocks certain videos or twitter accounts.. But if you’re counting on software to block Youtube videos and Twitter, you’re doing it wrong.
You said the article didn’t make any claims as to what features weren’t available so I provided them.
I’m not going to engage in a tangential analysis of those features, but you are welcome to it.
How pray tell is a third party app going to filter only certain YouTube videos and certain Twitter posts? Didn’t you have at least the tiniest bit of suspicion about the article?
You might not agree with the original post, but downvoting me for merely stating what the argument is seems out of the spirit of HN.
What is the financial motivation for Apple wanting you to be on your phone more?
How is Apple’s offering less effective?
As to your other questions, if I use the phone more I’m more likely to buy a new phone, buy more cloud storage, download and buy more apps, generate referral sales by other people seeing me use the product, drop the phone requiring Apple repairs, the list goes on.
Apple wants to develop a deep relationship with their users, so in Nearly every case using the products more is to their benefit.
The more you rely on the products the more free attention you spend in their eco-system, and the more likely you will spend money that they will get a % of.
I think some others have laid out the argument for how the Apple solution is less effective than others, so I’ll let that stand and not rehash it here.
Whether or not this is the actual motivation for Apple is unclear, but the incentives are clear that they’d want you to use your phone vs not using it.
There's a document about this stuff at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Take a look at the third item from the bottom.
Do you really think that people are going to purposefully install an app that keeps them from taking pictures that will cause them to use more cloud storage? Do the third party apps somehow prevent this better than Apples built in controls? You’ve posted twice without giving any details to back up your claims.
Not really - there's a big difference between banning an insecure app when a secure solution has been added to the OS, and banning an app when no secure solution yet exists.
And in the case of Google, it would be different because Google’s business model is all about “targeting” you. Apple’s model is simply to sell you stuff.
Anyone know where Apple's language on this is? MDM is "mobile device management", which sounds very much like what a parental control app is. I don't see much difference in the employer vs parent use cases.
Refer to the Mobile Device Management tab in the link.
So a random employer is allowed to control employee devices, but a parent isn't allowed to control their children's devices?
This is flat-out evil on Apple's part.
It’s not at all the parent that Apple is concerned about, it’s the app developer, or anyone who can hack the app developer.
If a parent was using this feature to manage their in-home devices directly, Apple would have no problem with it at all.
An app developer cannot masquerade as your employer to back door your iPhone and control things on it which third-party apps are generally prohibited from controlling.
Mind you I realise that a lot of people believe parents have absolute right to deny their children privacy. I don't, I have friends with CPTSD.
Maybe that's true in the US, but it's not true in Europe and definitely not true in England.
I would also argue that a family would have equal or more rights/choice over how they manage their devices/family.
But it seems they chose to be significantly more lazy and bigger jerks than that. And here you come with the 7 point plan to say they are really commendable instead.
Everyone is assuming that Apple was aware of the MDM abuse and tolerated it, but seeing how they completely missed Facebook's and Google's abuse of enterprise certificates, it seems just as plausible that the Facebook revelation spurred them to do a re-evaluation of the actual use of all these enterprise programs at which point they found this issue.
Let's face it, Apple also has deep control over people's iPhones. Is that a security threat, or is it something that users choose by buying Apple?
It is absolutely anti-competitive. I think it's time for an anti-trust case against the way Apple abuses their control over the app store.
Even if the users understood what they were doing, they probably didn't know the risks associated with installing an MDM profile. THey didn't know what data exactly the app makers were getting and how they were using it. Even I don't know that. I know where to find such information if I need to, but I don't know exactly the permissions of an mdm profile by heard.
And in my opinion, a big part of the reason why many people have no idea what those security permissions mean, is that iOS and Android are way too vague about them.
The article explains in quite detailed terms why Apple's solution is inadequate and does not "fill the need" at all.
Also, on what ground would those risk/benefit calculations be made and by whom?
Overly-broad rules + selective enforcement = yes, targeted crackdown
Please leave this kind of stuff completely out of comments that you post here. It's not that kind of website.
They could compensate the app makers, at least.
Apple’s solution does show the apps used the most. But I agree it’s not at good as Mute or other 3rd party apps. I’d use those if they didn’t kill my battery on account of needing to track movement at all times (which is their only way to get access to device usage data).
I wish Apple would just let these apps access the bare usage information so they could stop pretending that location is a critical part of their apps.
Reasonable enough, but it's really worth pointing out the interpretation skew here. If this was another major platform vendor, HN would have multiple heads on stakes posted at the top of the topic and flamethrowers would be deployed deep into the subthreads.
But it's Apple, so "it's bad, but" is what we're greeted with on opening the page.
Only Apple gets that kind of "monopolistic, but..." affection here. Everyone else (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tesla...) get crucified for the same kind of thing, every day.
I'm just pointing it out because it's tiresome and at this point frankly embarassing. I'm not particularly offended by your spin in this instance, and honestly don't even disagree with you that this is a non-issue.
Launch the Safari browser on your child's device.
Navigate to pair.ourpact.com.
Enter your OurPact account credentials.
Tap New Child to create a fresh child profile, or assign the device to an existing management profile.
If creating a NEW child profile, enter your child's name.
If asked to open settings, tap ALLOW.
Accept the installation prompts to add management to your child's device:
Enter your child's iOS device entry pin (the code used to unlock the device)
Manage your child's device from the parent OurPact app on your Android device, or our Web App (app.ourpact.com) in a mobile or desktop browser.
There may be an even bigger case if you consider proprietary connectors, Apple certification chips (which is a whole other scam if you've ever worked with them) and third party repair. People must be allowed to choose, even if there is some acceptance of fault upon things not working correctly.
That's exactly what Apple is doing - in this case protecting their ecosystem from providers that use undocumented APIs and MDMs whose business model is fingerprinting customers and selling to advertisers.
What exactly do people expect of Apple here? Apple gets criticized if it doesn't take a hard line on customer privacy, but when it does exactly that it is abusing monopoly power and needs to be regulated and broken up.
If people want third party app stores that's fine, but let's be very clear about what that means. It is going to come with compromises in terms of crappy UX, dark patterns, privacy violations, private APIs and all sorts of stuff that users pretty much hate.
1) make iOS/inhouse app changes
2) throw every competing app under the bus.
It is a well established history that says to developers "if you have an app that fills a need iOS hasn't addressed, your days are numbered, good luck when somebody at Apple writes the mvp of your app themselves".
Not hard to imagine an App Store future that is just corporate portals and games, with everything else covered by Apple thus off limits.
No because these apps don't abuse undocumented APIs or look for loopholes in Apple's review guidelines.
Many of these apps do exactly this.
I know Uber has been smacked before for using private API’s before. Maybe not as hard as a no-name developer would have been but the uncomfortable truth is not all app developers are equal and honestly I understand the reasons for that.
Unfortunately you have the limited hardware, walled garden app store approach of apple
Or the crap privacy of Google.
Pick your poison or wait for the Purism phone.
The absolute dominance of Windows was the reason it was an issue in the first place.
Controlling your own platform is not a monopoly. Controlling a market is, and at the time, Windows controlled the market for PC operating systems. Without a monopoly, it's much, much harder to make a reasonable legal case for the government stepping in and telling you what you can and can't do with your own platform.
Nothing of value was loss.
Almost all connectors are “proprietary” and require license fees.
You personally can install MDM software on your device where you control the traffic and the profile.
You also free to have your own VPN server hosted on your own computer.
We can discuss how we would like things to be more open (personally I love jailbreaking my phone but being on A12 and A11 before that means I haven’t been able to JB for some time now) but comparing Apple to MS in this case is apples and oranges.
I’ll take the Apple locked down ecosystem over the Wild West of malware that is Android any day of the week.
There is plenty of competition, its that Apple users want the government to fix Apple for them. Its easy, stop buying products that are anti-consumer.
The problem is more generically when some company use is its power (company size in a market as buyer or seller, technical possibility to block competitor, etc ...) to disable competition instead on fighting on quality and price of their product and services.
I believe that you can make this argument for Apple easier than you can make it for others because they make most of the product (i.e. hardware, OS, most of the services), but it's still a lot harder than looking at Microsoft with >90% market share of all PCs and agreeing that that's a monopoly.
I suppose this also goes back to the bigger picture in society. We have been trained to root for the underdogs, while the faceless corporation is always to blame. Apple has been consistent in its effort to make iOS secure, but public opinion keeps changing depending on whether it causes them an inconvenience. When Apple refuses to comply with the FBI, Apple good. When Apple removes apps that violate privacy and weakens security, Apple bad.
- companies were using IOS to serve a legitimate need that Apple did not.
- As noted this was done by subverting an API
- Apple tolerated this (did they not know or not care or ?)
- Apple released a competitive product with a new API
- Apple begins removing products using the old methods
The question is whether Apple is allowing existing products to migrate to the new API or are they locked out? If existing products cannot use the same API then my sense is that Apple is indeed being anti-competitive.
I’m sorry but they released a real solution and then started to remove the anti-privacy hacks. Also people don’t seem to understand so I’ll spell it out: APPLE IS LOSING MONEY FROM THIS DECISION. Screen time makes them no money (yes you can argue maybe they make more money from devices because of its existance but that’s a stretch).
I’m betting they put up with these apps because they realized there was no good alternative. Now they they have a real solution there is no reason to allow there privacy nightmares to continue to exist (in their current form at least).
If you don’t like then go develop for Android exclusively. Please do not prevend that these app developers didn’t 100% know they operated in a VERY gray area.
Seems inefficient. And potentially anti-competitive.
>Spotify complained to European regulators last month that Apple used the App Store to give its Apple Music service an unfair advantage over Spotify’s competing app. Dutch regulators announced this month that they would investigate whether Apple abused its control of the App Store.
Funny that Europe of all places ends up being more pro-market than the 'States.
>In the United States, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic candidate for president, recently suggested separating the App Store from Apple as part of her proposal to rein in the American tech giants.
Though, maybe that will change.
Why should that be funny? The EU is explicitly pro trade and has much cheaper telecoms, air travel, and many other items thanks to aggressive pro competition policy. They forced Microsoft unbundle explorer.
In fact they have a very powerful competition commissioner unlike the us which has no such, and where antitrust has been systematically watered down for almost 40 years.
The free market argument would be to let Apple do what it wants with its products. A “competition commissioner” is antithetical to that.
Even in a free market there are regulations in particular around around anti-competitive conduct.
"Free" in this context is an ambiguous word. The libertarian argument is that no regulations make a market free to access for everybody. The counter-argument is that, under no regulations, rich-get-richer dynamics inevitably lead to such wealth inequality that most actors are free in strictly legalistic terms, but prevented in practice from taking any actions but the ones that attend to their immediate survival needs.
It seems clear to me that unregulated markets inexorably condemn the majority of the population to wage-slavery and having most of their waking hours controlled by someone else.
In Europe, we are interested in freedom in practice. This is only possible by protecting the underdogs, so that they do not fall into poverty traps that are impossible to get out of, as is the case in the US -- people having to work all of their waking hours just to survive, no chance of savings that would allow them to take a break and learn new things, or try new things, or just take a deep breath and think about the big picture for a second.
- we should make sure goods and services are allocated using competitive markets
- we should let for-profit corporations do anything they choose
The EU may be doing a better job than the US at the former, but I fear they are lagging a little in the latter (only a little, though).
The EU has its own issues when it comes to free markets. One worrying trend is that the same companies buying influence in Washington are also donating to EU parties in Brussels.
We had the wild west of apps with the Windows ecosystem and it ended in malware, viruses and spyware. Even with appropriate permissions, most customers do not know what they're letting themselves in for if undocumented/private APIs, custom certs and proprietary VPNs are part of the picture.
Same difference. Most consumers don't understand the implications of a third party provider fingerprinting their App usage (and then likely selling the device ID + app usage to advertisers)
What they should have done is allow apps access to the screentime data if the user gives permission to the app to manage screentime.
How would you do this?
However, the kinds of data exposed likely would be the output of the screen time processing system, not the raw data. So these apps would get different UI widgets showing the same data Apple is displaying.
I am 100% ok with Apple requesting changes from or straight up blocking apps that do shit like this. It’s deceptive IMHO and users don’t understand what they are really signing away when they stuff like this. I doubt parents fully understand that while they get some level of control over the phone they are ceding full control over every packet the goes over the VPN to some random company. That’s another thing, let’s not pretend these companies are well know/reputable. I’ve never heard of them before and I assume that’s because they didn’t really do anything novel and instead used a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Granted it’s because a fly-swatter didn’t exist (and still doesn’t) but they exist in the same category for me as ad-blocker apps that use a VPN to accomplish their goals. I’m not interested in giving up 100% of my internet traffic to get something like filtered ads. Also I have a legitimate use for VPN’s for home and work and I don’t like halfway solutions (am I supposed to be fine with ads when I need to use a real VPN?).
In summary I question the usefulness of these apps and strongly feel that they create way more problems than they fix. Also Apple is LOSING money by removing/neutering these apps. This isn’t a case of Spotify vs Apple Music and I’ve got nothing but crocodile tears for these “businesses” that have gone up in smoke because from my perspective they were all smoke and mirrors to begin with.
That debate is beside the point. Apple's timing makes a very strong circumstantial case that Apple is not removing these other apps because they suddenly care that the apps are violating their TOS. Apple is removing them now because Apple now offers a competing app. If Apple had never approved these apps in the first place, or removed them promptly over the years, nobody would have a problem.
Here's an analogy: suppose you live in a small town and the cops have set up a speed trap to catch tourists. They never ticket you because they know you are a local. Years pass, you have children, life is good. Then your daughter dumps her boyfriend, who happens to be the police chief's son. All of a sudden, the cops start ticketing you because "everybody needs to follow the law." Do you believe their explanation?
Their official iOS developer guidelines even threatened developers for speaking to the press about these things...
If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
2008 - rejected a mail client for competing with a mail client https://apple.slashdot.org/story/08/09/21/122225/Apple-Bans-...
2008 - rejected Opera browser https://www.applegazette.com/iphone/apple-rejects-opera-brow...
2009 - Apple rejected Google Voice https://daringfireball.net/2009/07/google_voice
2011 - removed a game for criticizing the human/environmental costs of iPhones https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/game-that-critique...
2013 - removed a music store for competing with iTunes https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/22/apple-hmv...
2015 - Firefox finally gets approved by skinning Safari https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/firef...
2016 - Apple refused Spotify's updates for having web-based subscriptions https://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/12067578/spotify-apple-app-...
2018 - rejected Steam's streaming client for competing with their app store games https://www.shacknews.com/article/105107/ios-steam-link-app-...
2018 - Apple stopped approving Telegram updates https://www.technadu.com/apple-rejected-all-telegram-updates...
2019 - Spotify claims Apple are uncompetitive, surprising many https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/14/spotify-sues-apple-...
Think of the children! Or at least, stop complaining about both Facebook for violating privacy and Apple for protecting privacy. We need to legislate by law rather than anti-trust and arbitrary corporate fines.
I live a modern life and I don't use Facebook or Apple.
There is plenty of competition, let these anti-consumer companies feel the pain of Markets. Or we will find out, people don't actually care about this.
I don't want the government to get involved in Apple, and ruin companies that I do use (Google, Snapchat, etc..)
If anyone at all, government laws should determine this, not 2 or 3 big companies.
An opt-out of this "walled garden" on mobile devices should be possible, like how System Integrity Protection can be disabled in macOS (if you accept the risks involved.)
Current builtin solution is horrid to use in practice.
I also see that screentime is inconvenient for the parent trying to limit access to only few websites. And bookmarks still do not appear by themselves as they should.
But again can’t read article so I might be wrong.
It's no wonder trust in the media continues to wane.
Well ... it was the Apple that got Adam and Eve kicked out of Paradise, right? ;)
I'm getting pretty tired of NYT's tech reporting.
I have half a dozen such people in my family and they don't even know how to open the app store, let alone the password for it. I install stuff for them when they need it, which is like maybe once in a year.
Not just for tech supp.
The extent scammers are preying on our elderly is shocking. It's basically nonstop. At some point, my mom (like other elders we've been caring for before her) won't be able to protect herself.
Insurance companies are actually starting to consider ‘risk of fraud’ as something that needs to be covered as one ages, as humans tend to be more trusting as they get older and their mind becomes duller.
Nothing I say or comment will ever have an impact so they might as well run with it.
All we have is focused on work or a device. Where are our loved ones? Exercise? Hobbies? Safe driving?
We even have to automate DRIVING because we can't keep out eyes off the phone.
When this cracked screen phone finally dies on me, hopefully soon, I'm done with the whole industry.
We are destroying the planet and our minds and our relationships and out lives with these things.
and here I sit. Ranting to people I don't know and who will have entirely no impact on my life with one.
It's time to be done with it.
What a waste.
I feel like the lesson people should start taking here is if they publish for iOS, they should move to another idea as soon as Apple publishes something similar.
It seems a bit like renting a store in a mall vs renting a store somewhere in town.
> “They yanked us out of the blue with no warning,” said Amir Moussavian, chief executive of OurPact, the top parental-control iPhone
Means they haven't been paying attention and they should've been prepared for this since at least September 2018. This is their warning: https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-use-screen-time-ios-12/
As a developer, I feel its my part to let non-devs know that Apple is evil to developers and customers.
It takes time for this message to spread, but I imagine in a decade, Apple will no longer be competitive in the Mobile/Computer markets.
You can only oversell a product for so-long, before people begin to notice.