Apple has removed us from the App Store(blog.rescuetime.com)
blog.rescuetime.com
Apple has removed us from the App Store
https://blog.rescuetime.com/rescuetime-for-ios-removed/
180 comments
It looks like they’re using the location API for both (1) screen time inference and (2) screen time and location correlation; and they’re using (2) to justify use of location while ignoring that (1) violates Apple’s TOS.
I agree that users ought to be able to use the app without granting access to location data (opting out of #2). But unfortunately, if Apple provides no way of inferring screen time without use of location, this category of app is impossible.
I agree that users ought to be able to use the app without granting access to location data (opting out of #2). But unfortunately, if Apple provides no way of inferring screen time without use of location, this category of app is impossible.
#1 Does not violate TOS. At least the rep spoken to said it does not. It is permitted to apps to known when the screen is on / screen off, via the built-in notification it provides.
>It is permitted to apps to known when the screen is on / screen off, via the built-in notification it provides.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Unfortunately, this is from a phone call with Apple. Supposedly why there are multiple other apps currently in the store, accepted by apple, the do precisely the same approach for reporting phone use.
[deleted]
Pasting section 2.5.4 here:
Multitasking apps may only use background services for their intended purposes: VoIP, audio playback, location, task completion, local notifications, etc. If your app uses location background mode, include a reminder that doing so may dramatically decrease battery life.
Screen time inference is clearly not an intended purpose for location, since the actual location data obtained has no connection to it (i.e. to #1 above; note we're interpreting "purpose" from the user's perspective). It sounds like the rep is misinformed, or that the TOS needs to be updated with an explicit exception.
Multitasking apps may only use background services for their intended purposes: VoIP, audio playback, location, task completion, local notifications, etc. If your app uses location background mode, include a reminder that doing so may dramatically decrease battery life.
Screen time inference is clearly not an intended purpose for location, since the actual location data obtained has no connection to it (i.e. to #1 above; note we're interpreting "purpose" from the user's perspective). It sounds like the rep is misinformed, or that the TOS needs to be updated with an explicit exception.
The „etc“ is the word that turns a seemingly clear rule into an interpretation battle.
Etc here could allow almost everything or nothing. Depending on what argument you want to push.
Ultimately it’s Apple‘s walled garden and they have the final say.
Etc here could allow almost everything or nothing. Depending on what argument you want to push.
Ultimately it’s Apple‘s walled garden and they have the final say.
In your app configuration, you register your app as needing background capabilities for one or more specific “intended purposes”, and screen time recording isn’t one of them. So I don’t think the wording is actually unclear.
No, it really doesn't. "Etc." just includes other services. But it's unambiguous that whatever the service, it must be used for its own sake.
The app has a feature that allows you to see where you are spending your time on your phone. This could be helpful to get an idea about time wasted at work vs. commuting by train or whatever.
I'm not going to say it's super useful, but it has a use.. I would categorize this in the same bucket as Snapchat needing your GPS.
Anyway, the complaint is that they are using this data for more than features and functionality.
Their side of the story leads me to believe this is not the case, and only Apple knows why they think this company is abusing the data they are collecting.
I'm not going to say it's super useful, but it has a use.. I would categorize this in the same bucket as Snapchat needing your GPS.
Anyway, the complaint is that they are using this data for more than features and functionality.
Their side of the story leads me to believe this is not the case, and only Apple knows why they think this company is abusing the data they are collecting.
Exactly, I've always wanted to have an app like that and have been following rescue time since a lot of years now and have aware about it being one of the pioneers in this space.
It's quite sad that apple conveniently are heavy handing them now that they have built in screen time. Users can't really complain cause this functionality is not kind of baked into the phone anyways.
It's impressive and hurtful at the same time, Apple has unprecedented amount of leverage over app developers and app developers should be careful not to cross Apple's path if they don't want their time to go waste.
It's quite sad that apple conveniently are heavy handing them now that they have built in screen time. Users can't really complain cause this functionality is not kind of baked into the phone anyways.
It's impressive and hurtful at the same time, Apple has unprecedented amount of leverage over app developers and app developers should be careful not to cross Apple's path if they don't want their time to go waste.
Exactly this.
It seems some here maybe confused that location in the app is being used surreptitiously, or ScreenTime measured surreptitiously. In fact, it is explicitly requested, explained to the users who sign up, and reflected clearly in the app with all the necessary warnings about possible battery issues on generations of devices affected (6 and prior) and used to report on location. And screen time.
Our users are installing the app for both features, knowing both are there, in the same vein as a number of other digital tools Apple has allowed in the store, that use the same approach.
It seems some here maybe confused that location in the app is being used surreptitiously, or ScreenTime measured surreptitiously. In fact, it is explicitly requested, explained to the users who sign up, and reflected clearly in the app with all the necessary warnings about possible battery issues on generations of devices affected (6 and prior) and used to report on location. And screen time.
Our users are installing the app for both features, knowing both are there, in the same vein as a number of other digital tools Apple has allowed in the store, that use the same approach.
You can almost always make that claim about any sneaky use of a platform feature. The test that will be used to determine compliance is whether the intended, expected use of the feature complies, not with whether there are any compliant uses.
Exactly this. App developers are constantly saying, I need all your location data for one tiny sliver of a reason or another.
If you are a map app, location data is fine.
If you are tracking screen time, then no.
Apple's is targeting folks like my parents here. They love that apple just works, no crazy secret battery drains etc. Even the subtle prompts apple gives (the little arrow outline etc) is NOT ENOUGH for folks like my parents. It needs to follow logically from what they are doing (no buried menus / advanced features). Apple largely delivers on this. Check out an older person using an android phone with a total ton of apps (and android 3-5 years old, older folks upgrade MUCH more slowly). It's a honking mess. Seriously the battery life goes into the trash, the phone has got a billion things running on it.
Apple is making BIG money focusing pretty strictly on privacy. The idea that they are doing this to avoid competitors to screen time (which they make no extra money on) is ludicrous.
If you are a map app, location data is fine.
If you are tracking screen time, then no.
Apple's is targeting folks like my parents here. They love that apple just works, no crazy secret battery drains etc. Even the subtle prompts apple gives (the little arrow outline etc) is NOT ENOUGH for folks like my parents. It needs to follow logically from what they are doing (no buried menus / advanced features). Apple largely delivers on this. Check out an older person using an android phone with a total ton of apps (and android 3-5 years old, older folks upgrade MUCH more slowly). It's a honking mess. Seriously the battery life goes into the trash, the phone has got a billion things running on it.
Apple is making BIG money focusing pretty strictly on privacy. The idea that they are doing this to avoid competitors to screen time (which they make no extra money on) is ludicrous.
> Anyway, the complaint is that they are using this data for more than features and functionality.
Incorrect. The complaint is that they are not using Location for its intended purpose, thereby impacting the performance (battery life) of the device. Quoted in the article:
> Performance – 2.5.4
> Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality.
The key word here is location-related features and functionality. Not "features and functionality" in general, as your comment implies.
I don't think it could be any more clear-cut. "Screen time" is just about the least "location-related feature/functionality" that one could think of. It's pretty clear that they are violating the terms of service, regardless of the benefit that this feature may or may not provide.
Incorrect. The complaint is that they are not using Location for its intended purpose, thereby impacting the performance (battery life) of the device. Quoted in the article:
> Performance – 2.5.4
> Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality.
The key word here is location-related features and functionality. Not "features and functionality" in general, as your comment implies.
I don't think it could be any more clear-cut. "Screen time" is just about the least "location-related feature/functionality" that one could think of. It's pretty clear that they are violating the terms of service, regardless of the benefit that this feature may or may not provide.
They use the API to determine both location and device usage.
I have to wonder whether RescueTime included the mapping feature (to see where you're using your iPhone) just to satisfy this requirement. But in the absence of evidence that this feature was included as a pretext, what should happen?
It would seem fair to require that the "primary purpose" of an API's usage be for the intended purpose of that API. But no such rule exists in Apple's guidelines, AFAIK. Instead, we're just left with the overarching principle that Apple can interpret its rules however it wants.
As someone who's been on the receiving end of this principle, I have to say I'm not a fan.
I have to wonder whether RescueTime included the mapping feature (to see where you're using your iPhone) just to satisfy this requirement. But in the absence of evidence that this feature was included as a pretext, what should happen?
It would seem fair to require that the "primary purpose" of an API's usage be for the intended purpose of that API. But no such rule exists in Apple's guidelines, AFAIK. Instead, we're just left with the overarching principle that Apple can interpret its rules however it wants.
As someone who's been on the receiving end of this principle, I have to say I'm not a fan.
Right or wrong - it's one of the only was to implement this at the moment and apple are trying to kill the competition.
I develop an app that does similar features, we are currently still in the store but apple won't let us release any updates for 3-4 months now. They keep saying rubbish like this but at the end of the day they don't want competition for this own apps.
I develop an app that does similar features, we are currently still in the store but apple won't let us release any updates for 3-4 months now. They keep saying rubbish like this but at the end of the day they don't want competition for this own apps.
This seems pretty clear. They’re giving you a heads up that in a future iOS version you won’t be able to get awake/pickup information whilst using the background location api.
As others have pointed out, this makes no sense. Apple allows tons of apps in categories that compete with theirs. How many calendar or email or stock tracker apps are there? They make no money from Screen Time, whereas they do make money from apps sold in the App Store.
If they do kill this category of app, I’d say there’s a 99% chance it’s either for technical (for example battery drain) or more likely, privacy reasons.
If they do kill this category of app, I’d say there’s a 99% chance it’s either for technical (for example battery drain) or more likely, privacy reasons.
Do you explicitly get the user to consent to the use if background location data for this purpose?
> They're admitting to using background location to infer screen time
They use it for location data to display where you are using your phone. They also use that location data to infer other things as well. Your comment makes it seem like they aren't using it for location data at all.
They use it for location data to display where you are using your phone. They also use that location data to infer other things as well. Your comment makes it seem like they aren't using it for location data at all.
Once Again, Apple telling users how they are allowed to use the devices they supposedly bought not rented from apple...
I'm glad the restriction is put in place. There were too many apps abusing constant location tracking. If one kid in the kindergarten cannot handle the responsibility, unfortunately all of the little kids have to suffer from it. Same goes with GDPR and net neutrality, regardless whether it's the government or a trillion dollar company.
Reading your comment on would think there are no alternatives, but that wouldd be wrong. In the case of location the app could simply be asking you if you would allow location tracking, with regards to GDRP there is absolutely nothing that indicate putting bureaucracy on the companies is a better way than simply having rules that can be fought in court with regards to the use of data. You argue as if there arent alternatives, but there are. You line of reasoning would ban everything because of what a minority do.
syshum(1)
Nope, we, the users, by buying these devices, tell the developers of apps that they should comply with the platform we use.
You were misusing background location updates to periodically run your app in the background. I bet you were also misusing some keychain API or similar, to determine whether the device is locked or not, because there’s no official API for that either.
You were misusing multiple APIs and hoped that the reviewers won’t notice.
Facebook used to play silent audio in the background to prevent their app from being suspended. They got found out too and had to stop doing it. Suck it up!
I hope Apple would one day reject those apps that misuse silent push notifications for uninstall tracking too.
You were misusing multiple APIs and hoped that the reviewers won’t notice.
Facebook used to play silent audio in the background to prevent their app from being suspended. They got found out too and had to stop doing it. Suck it up!
I hope Apple would one day reject those apps that misuse silent push notifications for uninstall tracking too.
I haven't used this app, but it sounds like people who installed the app knew about those features and wanted them.
If Apple is preventing developers from providing useful apps for arbitrary technical reasons, that's Apple being bad, not the developer.
That's different from uninstall tracking that surprises users in a bad way.
If Apple is preventing developers from providing useful apps for arbitrary technical reasons, that's Apple being bad, not the developer.
That's different from uninstall tracking that surprises users in a bad way.
It’s not about surprising the user or not.
Ultimately, Apple gets to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. If I make a handwarmer app that purposely runs the CPU at 100% I’m pretty sure Apple would reject that too, even though it would be useful for users.
Ultimately, Apple gets to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. If I make a handwarmer app that purposely runs the CPU at 100% I’m pretty sure Apple would reject that too, even though it would be useful for users.
Why should Apple be allowed to decide what runs on phones owned by other people?
That's like letting appliance makers decide what food people can store or cook, or letting phone makers decide who people can call.
I understand this is the status quo, we can also discuss whether it's right, even if it's currently technically possible and legally permitted.
That's like letting appliance makers decide what food people can store or cook, or letting phone makers decide who people can call.
I understand this is the status quo, we can also discuss whether it's right, even if it's currently technically possible and legally permitted.
Actually you can run anything you want, just can’t distribute it via the AppStore. Anyone with a Mac can compile any app themselves and install it via Xcode.
And it’s not like iPhones are being forced onto people. People go out of their way to buy iPhones... Maybe there is some merit to these Draconian rules? Just look at the sorry state of the Google Play Store with all the low-effort adware or outright maliscious crap.
And it’s not like iPhones are being forced onto people. People go out of their way to buy iPhones... Maybe there is some merit to these Draconian rules? Just look at the sorry state of the Google Play Store with all the low-effort adware or outright maliscious crap.
Being able to put any food you cook yourself in a refrigerator isn't the same as being able to put any food you want in it. Nor is being able to run any code you write yourself the same as being able to run anything you want.
You can run pre-built binaries via Xcode. You just need to re-sign it with your developer certificate and voila, you can deploy whatever you want on your phone.
(iOS developer here.) As an iOS user I'm generally very happy with the various app restrictions, because they increase my control over the device and my confidence that apps aren't doing naughty things behind my back.
On the other hand, there clearly exist good product ideas* that need more privileges, long-lived background execution being one. There ought to be a way for a proven good actor to get blessed for special entitlements where they're critical to the product. (There's already at least one entitlement in this model: "Hotspot Helper".)
On a technical front, Apple's positioning the iPad as a laptop replacement; well, the users who are going to buy into that are going to be using authoring, productivity, and communications software that they'll want to be flexible and responsive. That might mean -- horrors -- the occasional helper daemon...
*I don't actually know if RescueTime is in this bucket; I'd never heard of it before this article.
On the other hand, there clearly exist good product ideas* that need more privileges, long-lived background execution being one. There ought to be a way for a proven good actor to get blessed for special entitlements where they're critical to the product. (There's already at least one entitlement in this model: "Hotspot Helper".)
On a technical front, Apple's positioning the iPad as a laptop replacement; well, the users who are going to buy into that are going to be using authoring, productivity, and communications software that they'll want to be flexible and responsive. That might mean -- horrors -- the occasional helper daemon...
*I don't actually know if RescueTime is in this bucket; I'd never heard of it before this article.
If and when general-purpose daemon processes will be allowed, RescueTime can be implemented on iOS again. Right now it’s not possible to implement it while using the existing APIs for their intended purposes.
But then again, I’d highly doubt Apple would ever allow general-purpose daemons on the iPhone. On the iPad Pro, maybe.
But then again, I’d highly doubt Apple would ever allow general-purpose daemons on the iPhone. On the iPad Pro, maybe.
Please re-read the guidelines and the use. No API has been used that wasn't explicitly allowed to be used for said purposes. Location provided location. The public signal that indicates screen off and on was used. Neither was used surreptitiously, rather, used explicitly. Apple says this os OK. They just have an inconsistently applied definition of what qualifies as "location is the primary use".
>Apple says this is OK
No, Apple clearly said this is not OK by rejecting the app.
This is not a courtroom where you get to debate how the letter of the law should be interpreted.
If I invite you to my garden party, but don’t like your behaviour then I can throw you out.
No, Apple clearly said this is not OK by rejecting the app.
This is not a courtroom where you get to debate how the letter of the law should be interpreted.
If I invite you to my garden party, but don’t like your behaviour then I can throw you out.
The debate to me seems to be about whether apple is within it's moral rights. The fact that legally they may be able to do whatever they want (modulo anti trust) seems pretty clear.
Ok. Then consider the following: can I use this app to track my screen time without giving it always-on location access? No. Therefore the app is not using the location API for its intended purpose. They use it to get unlimited background execution time under the disguise of location tracking.
Slightly related. Only a month ago I deleted my RescueTime account and the app from my Mac. With all the privacy issues lately, I finally realized how much data I'm sending RescueTime, and a made a decision.
I don't have a reason to mistrust them, but I also don't have a reason to give them this much of my trust either. A breach of the RescueTime database would be insanely invasive.
I don't have a reason to mistrust them, but I also don't have a reason to give them this much of my trust either. A breach of the RescueTime database would be insanely invasive.
If you're on a mac I'm a big fan of Qbserve[1] which stores the data locally.
[1] https://qotoqot.com/qbserve/
[1] https://qotoqot.com/qbserve/
Could someone please recommend a cross-platform self-hosted alternative to ResueTime?
There is the open-source ActivityWatch[1] which is not perfectly feature complete but it’s a decent alternative.
[1]: https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch
[1]: https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch
I'm not sure I'd even trust a self-hosted alternative. Presumably this would need to be exposed to the internet, and would be a nice target for someone to break into given how much information it collects.
Wouldn't they have to target you personally, though? (I may be wrong about that.) If so, doesn't factor into most people's realistic threat models.
Not necessarily, just need to find an exploit and start scanning for folks hosting the service. Most would probably use some standard/default port for it.
Hiding it behind a VPN sounds fairly secure.
I just did the same because of your comment. Thanks.
It is of note in this case that "misuse" is perfectly arbitrary. The RescueTime app did use location, only locally on the device, to enrich the information provided to users. It also happened to capture screen time, obviously important to the app. Be clear here: Apple has not said this aspect is misuse. Screen time recording is blessed by Apple. There are at least three other apps active in the app store that do the same thing, and advertise themselves as screen time management tools. It cannot be argued that location is the primary reason the api is used for any of these, but it can be argued that it is an important aspect. Just like RescueTime claims.
Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use. That is what their review board is claiming, and it so far used in a capricious and anti-competitive fashion.
Note: this is Mark from RescueTime.
Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use. That is what their review board is claiming, and it so far used in a capricious and anti-competitive fashion.
Note: this is Mark from RescueTime.
You guys may find this talk of interest:
https://academy.realm.io/posts/altconf-josh-michaels-depreca...
Description at the link: "It’s every Apple developers worst nightmare. Your app is doing well, business is going fine, then all of a sudden BAM! Something changes in Apple’s world and suddenly everything is at risk. Sometimes it’s as simple as Apple deprecating an API you depend on. Other times it’s a policy matter - a change in rules that has Apple requesting that you change or remove your app from the store. Sometimes it is a bug in the platform which you have to hack a creative workaround for. No matter what the specifics, developers should be prepared to handle that day when Apple pulls the rug out. After more than six years of working on apps in Apple’s land I’ve had more than my fair share of these experiences. In this talk I will go through four different examples from multiple developers covering the most common situations in which changes in Apple land can disrupt your app. Through these stories I will offer best practices for handling these difficult situations from how to interact with Apple to how to deal with the gripping frustration that can come along with these challenges. The goal of this talk is to better prepare attendees for that inevitable day when something goes wrong and in doing so help reduce the ambient anxiety many developers feel about the possibility of such problems."
https://academy.realm.io/posts/altconf-josh-michaels-depreca...
Description at the link: "It’s every Apple developers worst nightmare. Your app is doing well, business is going fine, then all of a sudden BAM! Something changes in Apple’s world and suddenly everything is at risk. Sometimes it’s as simple as Apple deprecating an API you depend on. Other times it’s a policy matter - a change in rules that has Apple requesting that you change or remove your app from the store. Sometimes it is a bug in the platform which you have to hack a creative workaround for. No matter what the specifics, developers should be prepared to handle that day when Apple pulls the rug out. After more than six years of working on apps in Apple’s land I’ve had more than my fair share of these experiences. In this talk I will go through four different examples from multiple developers covering the most common situations in which changes in Apple land can disrupt your app. Through these stories I will offer best practices for handling these difficult situations from how to interact with Apple to how to deal with the gripping frustration that can come along with these challenges. The goal of this talk is to better prepare attendees for that inevitable day when something goes wrong and in doing so help reduce the ambient anxiety many developers feel about the possibility of such problems."
Hi, I'm the lead developer of another app in the same space, we've also been blocked from updating our app for several months now. Interesting to see that this is happening to the the whole community of apps that compete with apples own screen time.
The worst answer we've had to our use of the APIs has been "the API might change in the future and your app might stop working" - about the location API
The worst answer we've had to our use of the APIs has been "the API might change in the future and your app might stop working" - about the location API
This remember me when my free music app was kicked out of the store with 17 other free & legal music apps ... the exact same day when Apple music was published...
This is why I hate so much Apple and all their products now.
What reason did Apple provide when they pulled your app?
If my memory is correct it was something like "low quality apps are not allowed on the appstore" ... Even if I didn't submitted an update since months and everything was running smoothly with 200k happy monthly users and very high review ratings...
Respectfully, your arguments are weak, and you're playing the crowd with bluster rather than laying out compelling arguments. I've been a RescueTime user before, and it's a real shame it's not allowed on iOS, but again, your arguments here are not strong at all.
> It also happened to capture screen time, obviously important to the app. Be clear here: Apple has not said this aspect is misuse.
In your article, you link directly to a clause:
"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality."
It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear.
> Screen time recording is blessed by Apple
What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
> Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use.
This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
You argument boils down to "everyone else is doing it so why can't we". A reply to your comment shows that Apple appears to be cracking down in general, and as a well-known brand, it shouldn't be that surprising that you're getting targeted first.
> It also happened to capture screen time, obviously important to the app. Be clear here: Apple has not said this aspect is misuse.
In your article, you link directly to a clause:
"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality."
It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear.
> Screen time recording is blessed by Apple
What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
> Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use.
This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
You argument boils down to "everyone else is doing it so why can't we". A reply to your comment shows that Apple appears to be cracking down in general, and as a well-known brand, it shouldn't be that surprising that you're getting targeted first.
"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality."
> It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear.
The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity.
> What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us.
> This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note.
We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.
The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity.
> What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us.
> This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note.
We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.
Your “disclaimer” note would be _much_ better positioned at the top of your post rather than the bottom...
Did you do any other kind of data collection that Apple might have had issues with? Do they get a copy if your source code when reviewing the app?
Also, can you explain a bit more why you need to capture location information for measuring the users screen time? The two things seem pretty unrelated to me (but I’m not an user of the app either).
Also, can you explain a bit more why you need to capture location information for measuring the users screen time? The two things seem pretty unrelated to me (but I’m not an user of the app either).
No other data issue has been cited... There is no other data available on iOS to use for productivity tracking anyway. The app is best used as an out-of-band console / intervention / notification center, however getting a "total screen time across all devices" metric is a much desired feature for users.
As the APIs stand today, the only way the phone screen pick up event can be captured, is if the persistent location capability is in place. Of course, a users location is very informative for work goals and what a users hopes might be for screen time, so it also matters as a data point (think, office vs transit).
So a number of apps have used both together, for the purpose of tackling digital wellness. The decision as to which is "primary" has been applied without consistency by the reviewers.
As the APIs stand today, the only way the phone screen pick up event can be captured, is if the persistent location capability is in place. Of course, a users location is very informative for work goals and what a users hopes might be for screen time, so it also matters as a data point (think, office vs transit).
So a number of apps have used both together, for the purpose of tackling digital wellness. The decision as to which is "primary" has been applied without consistency by the reviewers.
So is Apple mostly worried about the extra battery consumption needed for this feature?
"using the persistent location API also allows us to use an acknowledged acceptable way to capture when our users have active screen time." I am confused, how is screen time correlated with user location? If you want to check if a user is on the go and not using screen then there are other iOS SDK API that you can use to determine that. Are you trying to determine if a user is spending certain time on hhis/her phone during transit? Well, what if my phone is on a holder while I am backing and it is showing me the route? What if I am listening to Youtube videos while I am transiting with my eyes closed.
I am sorry, but location data has become a really hot topic to come in digital privacy related debates. And your usage is not justified. I would love to use your app but with "Always" flag off.
I am sorry, but location data has become a really hot topic to come in digital privacy related debates. And your usage is not justified. I would love to use your app but with "Always" flag off.
For example, if you regularly check app A from the coffee shop and spend x amount of time in it vs checking app B at the bus stop and spend y amount of time.
I don't know the people to whom this is a valuable bit of information, but I don't know of the people who really want to know how much time they are spending in different apps either.
I don't know the people to whom this is a valuable bit of information, but I don't know of the people who really want to know how much time they are spending in different apps either.
Baqend - CEO Felix Gessert:
“Our take is that, eventually, all native apps will disappear and be replaced by web-based tools. This trend is just getting started and it might well be that, in a few years, there won’t be any app stores and we’ll be back to how it’s supposed to be in the first place: open web applications.
Now there are these gatekeepers, such as Apple, who have a hold over how the technology works and how the marketing channels work, but once we are back to some sort of open Web, other players such as startups will get fair chances and space to grow.”
https://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2018/11/06/8-tech-predic...
“Our take is that, eventually, all native apps will disappear and be replaced by web-based tools. This trend is just getting started and it might well be that, in a few years, there won’t be any app stores and we’ll be back to how it’s supposed to be in the first place: open web applications.
Now there are these gatekeepers, such as Apple, who have a hold over how the technology works and how the marketing channels work, but once we are back to some sort of open Web, other players such as startups will get fair chances and space to grow.”
https://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2018/11/06/8-tech-predic...
Out of curiosity, how much does it drain the battery to use this API? I remember a period a few years ago where my battery was draining much faster than normal, and eventually I realized it was because I hadn't properly ended a workout on RunKeeper, which was tracking my location.
This was years ago, and probably on an older phone. Perhaps the newer phones handle this more efficiently? I ask because I'd love to use one of these apps but am wary of the battery impact.
This was years ago, and probably on an older phone. Perhaps the newer phones handle this more efficiently? I ask because I'd love to use one of these apps but am wary of the battery impact.
It is not recommended to enable this capability on iPhone 6 generation and older. Devices after that have on chip acceleration that makes it a minimal drain... it was one of the big hardware advancements a few years back.
You can go download Moment from the App Store right now and find out :)
You can go download Moment from the App Store right now and find out :)
Yeah I'm going on a downloading spree to get all the ones that haven't been yanked yet!
Related question: now that apps are not backed up when an iPhone is backed up to a computer, is it possible to keep a removed-from-App-Store app when upgrading from one iPhone to the next? Or will I lose all these apps (if they are removed) when I get my next iPhone?
Related question: now that apps are not backed up when an iPhone is backed up to a computer, is it possible to keep a removed-from-App-Store app when upgrading from one iPhone to the next? Or will I lose all these apps (if they are removed) when I get my next iPhone?
A related story:
Mute App: Startup to Shutdown by Nick Kuh https://link.medium.com/GVbEIzHhIR
Mute App: Startup to Shutdown by Nick Kuh https://link.medium.com/GVbEIzHhIR
Yes, but also note the follow-up post, after Mute was reinstated: https://medium.com/@nick.kuh/apple-called-a229d86ece30
[deleted]
It seems to me that you can't build a viable business and be so vulnerable. Apple or Google can pull your plug anytime they see fit, for any reason they want.
RescueTime was originally a desktop app and works really well there. I can see why they’d want to work on mobile as well. Hell, I’ll bet customers requested it, but you can never forget whose garden you are playing in.
Just remember that being an iOS/AppStore developer is a lot like being a driver for Uber. Your rights are close to zero.
That’s a lazy comparison. The only meaningful choice you have with Uber is when to drive.
A better comparison would be a general contractor in your city. You can build for yourself, for others on spec, custom per customer, tract homes, etc. The rules for where and how you can build are clearly laid out in advance in the building code. You’ll need inspections and sign-offs from the building dept that you’re following the building code. It’s sometimes annoying, and occasionally unfair. But if you want to build in their jurisdiction, you play by their rules. You’re welcome to go build in the middle of nowhere where building codes are lax or non-existent, but guess what, there are no customers there.
A better comparison would be a general contractor in your city. You can build for yourself, for others on spec, custom per customer, tract homes, etc. The rules for where and how you can build are clearly laid out in advance in the building code. You’ll need inspections and sign-offs from the building dept that you’re following the building code. It’s sometimes annoying, and occasionally unfair. But if you want to build in their jurisdiction, you play by their rules. You’re welcome to go build in the middle of nowhere where building codes are lax or non-existent, but guess what, there are no customers there.
I don't know why you're getting so heavily downvoted.
The only subtle tweak I'd make to your comparison is that Apple's rules are not clearly laid out in advance. In this specific case, Apple had previously approved the same app for literally years, without a change in the relevant rule they claim to now be enforcing. That same rule Apple claims they're now in violation of is intentionally vague — it sort of hand-waves away what behaviors Apple wants to allow or disallow location tracking for, giving editors lots of leeway to turn a blind eye or not.
The only subtle tweak I'd make to your comparison is that Apple's rules are not clearly laid out in advance. In this specific case, Apple had previously approved the same app for literally years, without a change in the relevant rule they claim to now be enforcing. That same rule Apple claims they're now in violation of is intentionally vague — it sort of hand-waves away what behaviors Apple wants to allow or disallow location tracking for, giving editors lots of leeway to turn a blind eye or not.
> That’s a lazy comparison.
In both cases, you are operating inside a platform economy. I.e., an economy that's embedded inside the real economy, and it's being regulated by a company (as opposed to the government).
These companies can do anything they want. The premise is "if you don't like what company X does, then find work elsewhere".
In both cases, you are operating inside a platform economy. I.e., an economy that's embedded inside the real economy, and it's being regulated by a company (as opposed to the government).
These companies can do anything they want. The premise is "if you don't like what company X does, then find work elsewhere".
I do appreciate the irony of a popup dialog covering the article promising to "fight[...] distraction"
I realize this would probably be a last resort, but I’ve heard success stories of companies rallying their user bases to personally email the App Store on behalf of the company (“hey, I love x app. It makes my experience with Apple products so much better...”).
This could be a call to action included in the Rescuetime newsletter.
Despite their occasional authoritarian moments, Apple generally listens to enough frustrated customers.
This could be a call to action included in the Rescuetime newsletter.
Despite their occasional authoritarian moments, Apple generally listens to enough frustrated customers.
Why is Google punished for forcing some of their tools in, and not Apple while it is literally playing a market god ?
Can someone explain how this worked in the first place? I’m missing how enabling location services helps them gather info on screen time spent
I'd guess the location tracking means their app is waken up regularly to process location data. During that awake period, they can then check the screen status, while otherwise the app would stay suspended and unable to record this?
AppStore is not a democracy, they decide to keep the power and people working with them accept that Damocle sword.
Closed source comprehend such situation, FOSS does not.
Closed source comprehend such situation, FOSS does not.
I still wonder how is this legal.
How could it be illegal? If you sold bread in a grocery store and the grocery store decided they preferred their own brand and didn't wanna sell yours anymore... would that be illegal?
When the grocery store accounts for 80% of profits, and about 70% of revenues in it's category [1] (mobile app store), it stops being legal, and falls into the category of anti-trust.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
You’re just redefining monopoly to suit your purposes.
How exactly? What in the definition of the app market is disingenuous.
If "browsers" were a market at the time of the Microsoft anti trust ruling, a $70B app store space is very much a market according to prevailing economic theory.
You just don't like the truth about Apple, which is understandable, as they're a loved brand. But evil
If "browsers" were a market at the time of the Microsoft anti trust ruling, a $70B app store space is very much a market according to prevailing economic theory.
You just don't like the truth about Apple, which is understandable, as they're a loved brand. But evil
What if you moved into a neighborhood that had an exclusive contract with one grocery store (you were kicked out if you bought from elsewhere) and they removed non-store brands?
Something similar - my university changed the dorm policy such that, to stay in my room another year, I was required to purchase a meal plan of 20 meals a week at the new buffet-style cafeteria to live there.
I moved into an apartment.
I moved into an apartment.
It should be if there are 3 grocery stores in the country, and your bread can't be sold by other 2. This is a great case to be a precedent.
The great case of the application that abused a platform location feature --- one of the more privacy-sensitive features on the phone --- to do something privacy-invasive?
Did not they explicitly tell what's it for?
The title also claims other time-tracking apps were removed, so was is the reason?
UPD. I see the title was edited, and they have retracted the others apps claim now. The first question still stands though.
The title also claims other time-tracking apps were removed, so was is the reason?
UPD. I see the title was edited, and they have retracted the others apps claim now. The first question still stands though.
Apple's ToS goes beyond asking the user for consent for a privacy or power-impacting feature; the review process is meant to also verify that the access is for an appropriate reason.
This similar to how they ban apps that do cryptocurrency mining in the background.
With the exception of a few specific Apple apps (Mail is actually the only one I know of now, and I believe it is more that the Mail app is a renderer of the system mail process) and apps which use particular API (such as VOIP and navigation-related location), you cannot have your app run persistently in the background to preserve power and resources. Using these API has always required you actually be an app in these categories.
Independent of draining battery and tying up the CPU/memory - it sounds like the primary purpose of this app (tracking your phone usage) broke if you didn't consent to a secondary feature (reporting where you were when you used your phone). Which means the app was fundamentally broken. Which isn't a surprise, because the API doesn't let you make this sort of app.
This similar to how they ban apps that do cryptocurrency mining in the background.
With the exception of a few specific Apple apps (Mail is actually the only one I know of now, and I believe it is more that the Mail app is a renderer of the system mail process) and apps which use particular API (such as VOIP and navigation-related location), you cannot have your app run persistently in the background to preserve power and resources. Using these API has always required you actually be an app in these categories.
Independent of draining battery and tying up the CPU/memory - it sounds like the primary purpose of this app (tracking your phone usage) broke if you didn't consent to a secondary feature (reporting where you were when you used your phone). Which means the app was fundamentally broken. Which isn't a surprise, because the API doesn't let you make this sort of app.
> With the exception of a few specific Apple apps (Mail is actually the only one I know of now, and I believe it is more that the Mail app is a renderer of the system mail process) and apps which use particular API (such as VOIP and navigation-related location), you cannot have your app run persistently in the background to preserve power and resources.
Apple has dozens of daemons that run continuously that handle everything from push notifications to fetching calendars to performing backups.
Apple has dozens of daemons that run continuously that handle everything from push notifications to fetching calendars to performing backups.
Because it should be legal for the owner of a store to decide not to sell a product, whatever the reason.
Not when the market is a monopoly.
How is Apple a “monopoly” with less than 20% of the smart phone market?
100% of that market. The apple app market is not the same as the android app market. They're not in competition with each other. Owners are captive.
Sorry, but this is completely ridiculous. You can slice and dice any market down enough to where one company is a “monopoly”.
They’re the only taco store on this block! I demand the government force them to lower their prices so I don’t have to walk more than 50 feet!
If you don’t like it, switch to Android. But of course, the real problem is that people don’t want to switch to Android. They want to have their cake and eat it to, but that’s unfair and illogical, so they start slicing down the market to where they can cry monopoly and ask the government to force the business to give them what they want.
They’re the only taco store on this block! I demand the government force them to lower their prices so I don’t have to walk more than 50 feet!
If you don’t like it, switch to Android. But of course, the real problem is that people don’t want to switch to Android. They want to have their cake and eat it to, but that’s unfair and illogical, so they start slicing down the market to where they can cry monopoly and ask the government to force the business to give them what they want.
Maybe the government should something about the fact that said taco store controls all real estate within the city and does not allow anyone else to sell food.
Apple doesn’t control the entire smart phone market. Anyone who can get an iPhone can get Android. Hell, for the price of an iPhone you can get two decent Android phones.
They control the entire market for Iphone apps. Android apps are completely useless for Iphone users.
So people can’t choose a smart phone platform based on thier platform? If people care about the apps that are not available on iPhone they can buy an Android device just as easily S someone who doesn’t like the games that are available on Nintendo’s platform can buy a PlayStation or XBox.
If an Iphone user wants to use an Android app, they can just buy a second phone? Great solution.
Android apps and Iphone simply aren't substitutable goods, so they are different markets.
Android apps and Iphone simply aren't substitutable goods, so they are different markets.
No I’m saying that if people don’t like the iPhone, they can go buy an Android in 18-24 months. The usual amount of time that people buy new phones.
But people who care about “freedom” and “openness” and not being in Apple’s “walled garden” can easily by an Android.
But how aren’t the two substitutable?
But people who care about “freedom” and “openness” and not being in Apple’s “walled garden” can easily by an Android.
But how aren’t the two substitutable?
I actually like the definition through "substitutable". Is it official in any way? Because if it is not, it should be.
That is like saying Hacker News has a monopoly because it is 100% of the Hacker News market.
No, it is like saying news.ycombinator.com has a monopoly because it is 100% of the Hacker News market.
PS: We really need a community-backed hackernews.org
PS: We really need a community-backed hackernews.org
Go make one.
Sorry, not enough time nor money. You have enough time to be a moderator of a new HN instance, though.
I'll get right on that.
There is a problem, though: hackernews.org currently redirects to news.ycombinator.com.
It's not.
So does that make every console maker a “monopoly”?
Yes. It's only becomes an issue if they're using that to an anti-competitive end.
So now you want to get the government involved because Sony didn’t allow cross platform play for the PS4?
What type of content will Apple be allowed to ban on its store? Do you want the government telling Apple what they have to allow third parties to access on thier OS? Should the government tell them that every developer should have root access? Access to the Secure Enclave?
What type of content will Apple be allowed to ban on its store? Do you want the government telling Apple what they have to allow third parties to access on thier OS? Should the government tell them that every developer should have root access? Access to the Secure Enclave?
If they're using that to a commercial benefit, to the point of being anti-competitive, over other people who are developing for that platform, yes.
So if One Password wanted access to the Secure Enclave should Apple be forced to give it to them?
And do you want to set up a “government app review board” to decide on a case by case basis when Apple is denying an app for “competitive reasons”?
And do you want to set up a “government app review board” to decide on a case by case basis when Apple is denying an app for “competitive reasons”?
The threat of divesting Apple from their app store should be a threat hanging over their heads, if they choose to engage in anti-competitive activities.
As Apple's customer, I don't see the "store" as so much a store as the way for me to install and update applications. After all, it shouldn't be legal for the owner of a store to break into my house and either take stuff or leave trash I don't want (something Apple is perfectly willing to do).
Apple has chosen to position itself as the only way to install apps, which I feel is generally fine, but as Apple's customer, I have every right to complain to them when they harm my experience with their product by denying me a product I want based purely on business decisions and that don't protect me.
Apple has chosen to position itself as the only way to install apps, which I feel is generally fine, but as Apple's customer, I have every right to complain to them when they harm my experience with their product by denying me a product I want based purely on business decisions and that don't protect me.
> it shouldn't be legal for the owner of a store to break into my house and either take stuff or leave trash I don't want (something Apple is perfectly willing to do).
Apple does not remove apps from your device, it stops you from downloading them. So this is still like a store refusing to sell something rather than a storeowner coming to your house and taking things.
Apple does not remove apps from your device, it stops you from downloading them. So this is still like a store refusing to sell something rather than a storeowner coming to your house and taking things.
> Apple does not remove apps from your device
Just because they've never done it doesn't mean they can't.
> So this is still like a store refusing to sell something rather than a storeowner coming to your house and taking things.
You conveniently ignoring the fact they've still gone and left trash on my device is noticed.
Just because they've never done it doesn't mean they can't.
> So this is still like a store refusing to sell something rather than a storeowner coming to your house and taking things.
You conveniently ignoring the fact they've still gone and left trash on my device is noticed.
I think legality is less the issue and it's more about how ethical this is. Apple is notoriously known for stealing great ideas and integrating them within their ecosystem only to then block others from doing anything remotely similar...
Apple has a very interesting approach to these type of app monopolies.
It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app.
The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app.
Seems unfair.
It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app.
The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app.
Seems unfair.
Apple aren't interested in an even playing field, this type of muscling in is possible by design. There's a risk they'll turn developers off their platform, but providing they don't piss off too many at once, barely anyone will notice.
I mean both iPhone and Android do this but Google won’t pull competitors.
Even if the did, we can still sideload apps by sending the apk to the phone and installing it. No root/jailbreak needed.
Google also does not prevent Alternative App Stores, or Sideloading.
For example I use FDriod as much as possible only using the Play Store to get the few non-open source apps I use
For example I use FDriod as much as possible only using the Play Store to get the few non-open source apps I use
App doesn’t care if you use a Notes competitor or not. What they care about is Rescue Time is using persistent location when it doesn’t need it. Lest people forget, Apple makes money from the App Store and doesn’t directly make money from Screen Time. Considering this an Apple conspiracy is ridiculous. Otherwise, why allow Fantastical or Bear or any number of apps that compete with Apple’s own?
This case is because of the performance implications of persistent background location services, not because it competes with Apple. That logic makes no sense anyway since Apple makes money from this app! And, admittedly, similar apps haven’t been blocked, so clearly this isn’t a business “strategy” but one of technical implementation.
This case is because of the performance implications of persistent background location services, not because it competes with Apple. That logic makes no sense anyway since Apple makes money from this app! And, admittedly, similar apps haven’t been blocked, so clearly this isn’t a business “strategy” but one of technical implementation.
Because Apple would lose all of the money they are making from the Screen Time app...
> It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app.
Out of curiosity: Is there a generic version of RescueTime?
> The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app.
This is what Microsoft allegedly did with Office. Sysinternals' Mark Russinovic documented that so called "Native API" in the late nineteens. Of course the pages are all gone since Microsoft bought Sysinternals but they are still in archive.org[1].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040630004415/http://www.sysint...
EDIT:
Latest working snapshot is from 1 Sept 2006:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060901032614/http://www.sysint...
Out of curiosity: Is there a generic version of RescueTime?
> The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app.
This is what Microsoft allegedly did with Office. Sysinternals' Mark Russinovic documented that so called "Native API" in the late nineteens. Of course the pages are all gone since Microsoft bought Sysinternals but they are still in archive.org[1].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040630004415/http://www.sysint...
EDIT:
Latest working snapshot is from 1 Sept 2006:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060901032614/http://www.sysint...
I don't see any mention of Office on the page you linked?
No it doesn't mention MS Office by name. What is says is:
>Thoughts along these lines usually lead to the Native API conspiracy theory: Microsoft is keeping the API for themselves and their own application to unfair advantage.
From my memory of the discussion back then I think "their own application" was understood as mainly MS Office. The back this up bit more the Analysis of the Inadequacies of Microsoft [1] by the DOJ specifically mentions "the Internet Explorer browser, and Office in desktop applications".
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080625000937/http://www.consum...
>Thoughts along these lines usually lead to the Native API conspiracy theory: Microsoft is keeping the API for themselves and their own application to unfair advantage.
From my memory of the discussion back then I think "their own application" was understood as mainly MS Office. The back this up bit more the Analysis of the Inadequacies of Microsoft [1] by the DOJ specifically mentions "the Internet Explorer browser, and Office in desktop applications".
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080625000937/http://www.consum...
Every single application built since the dawn of OOP has public documented methods and private methods....
In this case, the allegation is that the OS itself had private APIs which Office used, while other apps had less access to because they were not documented. (Let’s not forget, private API can still be discovered and called, especially on Windows 95 and NT).
But not for App Store apps, unless you’d like your binary to be rejected.
Yes, of course. I meant at the time of Windows 95 and NT. It's much worse now on Apple's App Store.
It’s actually better. Using private undocumented methods leaves one or two alternatives. Either Apple will have to put in bespoked hacks for software when they decide to make changes like Microsoft does or applications will break with every release and then OS upgrades will get a reputation for being buggy.
[deleted]
Whether they are right or wrong in doing this, both play store and App Store have too much power and govt/legal regulation of some kind is drastically needed.
To be fair - they're using the background location feature in a way that sucks your battery flat much more quickly than normal.
Apple are most likely to cop the flack for that, and given a few recent poor choices on Apple's part regarding making un-acknowledged changes to try and maintain appearance of good battery life, it's not _too_ surprising they're choosing to more heavily enforce rules in that area to reduce the number of complaints that hit _their_ support lines which are directly attributable (but not to the majority of iPhone owners) to people bending or breaking app store rules...
Apple are most likely to cop the flack for that, and given a few recent poor choices on Apple's part regarding making un-acknowledged changes to try and maintain appearance of good battery life, it's not _too_ surprising they're choosing to more heavily enforce rules in that area to reduce the number of complaints that hit _their_ support lines which are directly attributable (but not to the majority of iPhone owners) to people bending or breaking app store rules...
Please don’t get me wrong. I am absolutely “for” all the quality assurance and privacy work done by Apple. But both the stores have become a very big part of digital life everywhere. Google and Apple as gatekeepers have a lot of power and decisions seem arbitrary and unfair a lot of times. I am pretty sure everybody dealing with the stores have themselves experienced it first hand and not always through their own faults. There needs to be at least some regulation or legal framework for impartial grievance redressal.
Time for some anti-trust regulations on the app store.
In the "mobile apps" market, Apple is an overwhelming monopoly with 66% market share [1]. Some stats:
- Total app store market revenues for 1st half (1H) of 2018: ~$33B
- Apple's app-store revenue for 1H-2018: $22B
- Apple's market share: 66%
They constantly abuse their power and stifle competition by:
1. Banning apps (this app, steam streaming, ....)
2. Stifling the iOS browser's compliance with W3C spec, to force developers into their app store.
The EU and FTC should have ample data to stop this abuse.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
In the "mobile apps" market, Apple is an overwhelming monopoly with 66% market share [1]. Some stats:
- Total app store market revenues for 1st half (1H) of 2018: ~$33B
- Apple's app-store revenue for 1H-2018: $22B
- Apple's market share: 66%
They constantly abuse their power and stifle competition by:
1. Banning apps (this app, steam streaming, ....)
2. Stifling the iOS browser's compliance with W3C spec, to force developers into their app store.
The EU and FTC should have ample data to stop this abuse.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
This is not an abuse of power. This is looking out for their users' privacy.
I would have thought most people at this time would know that Apple does not take lightly a situation where an app is sending lots of privacy related user behavior to some kind of server somewhere. At a minimum, store this analytics on the phone only. But then again, you may use APIs for reasons other than their intended purpose.
I would have thought most people at this time would know that Apple does not take lightly a situation where an app is sending lots of privacy related user behavior to some kind of server somewhere. At a minimum, store this analytics on the phone only. But then again, you may use APIs for reasons other than their intended purpose.
Shouldn't I have the choice? If you paid $1000 for a phone, and were using and enjoying this app, and suddenly, it can no longer be updated, because Apple says they want to 'protect' me, why can't I be given the control to decide whether or not I want this protection?
After all, there are permissions dialogs. If an app needs location data, and asks me for it, why can't I decide to grant permission of the app to use it for novel new use cases like screen time management?
This not only inhibits innovation, it takes away my own agency and ownership of my, very expensive, device.
This kind of nanny state, closed source, locked down stuff used to cause everyone to rebel on HN. We'd have people quoting Richard Stallman, etc.
These days, it seems like HN has abandoned a lot of its original culture, and is totally willing to cede control of computing to a proprietary, locked down, centralized control mechanism that permits no exploration or hacking, and certainly no forking.
Can't we protect users AND allow them to make informed decisions? What if I want to use a battery draining service? There's lots of games that will nuke your battery very fast. Hell, the Camera app on my iPhone 6 used to drain my battery fast.
And hanging over this is the spectre that once again, this is Apple killing off third party apps that compete with iOS 12's own built in screen time management features.
After all, there are permissions dialogs. If an app needs location data, and asks me for it, why can't I decide to grant permission of the app to use it for novel new use cases like screen time management?
This not only inhibits innovation, it takes away my own agency and ownership of my, very expensive, device.
This kind of nanny state, closed source, locked down stuff used to cause everyone to rebel on HN. We'd have people quoting Richard Stallman, etc.
These days, it seems like HN has abandoned a lot of its original culture, and is totally willing to cede control of computing to a proprietary, locked down, centralized control mechanism that permits no exploration or hacking, and certainly no forking.
Can't we protect users AND allow them to make informed decisions? What if I want to use a battery draining service? There's lots of games that will nuke your battery very fast. Hell, the Camera app on my iPhone 6 used to drain my battery fast.
And hanging over this is the spectre that once again, this is Apple killing off third party apps that compete with iOS 12's own built in screen time management features.
If you paid $1000 for a phone, and were using and enjoying this app, and suddenly, it can no longer be updated, because Apple says they want to 'protect' me, why can't I be given the control to decide whether or not I want this protection?
What does the price of a phone have to do with anything? If someone buys a $300 iPhone, or a $25 flip phone, do they not deserve the same amount of privacy or choice?
What does the price of a phone have to do with anything? If someone buys a $300 iPhone, or a $25 flip phone, do they not deserve the same amount of privacy or choice?
> Can't we protect users AND allow them to make informed decisions?
Unfortunately, the answer to this question currently seems to be “no”. I have not found a system that both allows people to have “choice” and also prevents the average user from messing up their device.
Unfortunately, the answer to this question currently seems to be “no”. I have not found a system that both allows people to have “choice” and also prevents the average user from messing up their device.
The OpenWeb seems to work pretty well, at least from the standpoint of not getting viruses or malware from it. You could argue about tracking users, but it’s not like the native Facebook iOS doesn’t collect lots of data on you.
The app pulled is impossible on the web.
Why wasn't Apple looking out for users' privacy before they released a similar feature in iOS?
They also don't take competition lightly. Just look at how they banned Steam's game streaming app [1], and retroactively modified app-store policies to substantiate their abuse of power.
[1]: https://www.cultofmac.com/552995/app-store-rules-steam-link/
[1]: https://www.cultofmac.com/552995/app-store-rules-steam-link/
In this case, the location data doesn't leave the phone. That's not the issue.
Or you know instead of getting the government involved, you could just get an Android phone like 80% of other smart phone users....
How do you protect developers & their businesses from abuse at the hands of a channel (Apple) that controls access to ~70% of revenues, and probably more in profits.
The answer is not for users to switch to Android, but for the FTC & EU to step in, as they did for Android, and for MSFT's browser related cases.
The answer is not for users to switch to Android, but for the FTC & EU to step in, as they did for Android, and for MSFT's browser related cases.
They control 80% of the hardware revenues. What does that have to do with third party developers?
So if you don’t like the policies of Sony with regards to the PlayStation do you want the government involved their too?
So if you don’t like the policies of Sony with regards to the PlayStation do you want the government involved their too?
This is why we've stopped developing iOS apps years ago. Happened to us once, won't ever happen again. Developing for iOS is extremely dangerous for your business, as Apple may kick your app out any moment for insert random reason here. I couldn't justify exposing my company to this risk anymore. History shows, my decision was perfectly right. Luckily, there are plenty of other business models that don't depend on Apple.
They're admitting to using background location to infer screen time, which is clearly "misuse" according to section 2.5.4. Whether the decision is right or wrong, I find it hard to believe that the developer is actually confused by this.