Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#291

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #271

Loughla wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My assumption is that the OP meant - every company is compared to Apple and Google and Facebook in terms of profit. That the business in question has to make extreme amounts of money to be considered a success, when in reality, if the business is sustainable and marginally profitable, it should be good enough for some cases.

If we're talking about privacy, there seems to be a direct correlation between the size of a companies profits and their willingness to sell your private information. As someone who values my privacy, I prefer smaller, stable companies because I'm more confident they are acting with my best interests in mind; not chasing massive growth and huge profits. I spend quite a bit of money per month to maintain some semblanc…

Until they get bought out by a larger company.

See Onova....

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#292

Post by doyoulikeworms » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #252

propertymagnate wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thriving may be a bit strong - These are small potatoes compared to apple, sure, but these are tech obsessed people buying privacy orientated products. Librem 5 raised over $2.1 million https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/purism-librem-5-crowdfun... The VPN market is measured in the billions. https://www.statista.com/statistics/542817/worldwide-virtual... People spend money in this area. The privacy orientated crowd…

You need to wait a bit for the reply button to appear. The site has a delay to prevent discussions from getting too heated. (The delay increases the deeper a comment thread gets.)

Woah, that's a really thoughtful feature. Is there somewhere I can find all of the, like, rules of HN similar to this one?

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#293

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #279

scarface74 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers aren’t doing ad supported apps because of the 30% “tax”. Did software sell with ads when they had to pay physical retail stores 60% for distribution? They do ads because people are too cheap to buy apps.

There might be a more subtle issue at work here. Sales provide one-time revenue, heavily taxed. Ads provide recurring revenue.

And would reducing the “tax” - what normal businesses call distribution expenses - to 10% change the equation?

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#294

Post by graeme » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #183

johncolanduoni wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that you’re interpreting the guidelines correctly? Lots of apps serve content related to subscriptions/digital purchases that are signed up for on the web (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). Or are you trying to use the app as an acquisition channel?

It does not matter how we interpret the guidelines. The fact is that our app has been developed and tested, but was rejected by the app store reviewer citing this reason. We believe we fall under the exception of "business databases" which are exempted from this restriction, but the reviewer does not believe so. Guess who won. We are not trying to use the app as an acquisition channel, we don't believe our customers…

What was their specific rejection reason? Generally the rule is you can offer a service paid for elsewhere if you don't link to it and don't tell people you can pay elsewhere.

I have apps on my phone that accept payment only on the web.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#295

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

doyoulikeworms wrote: post #292

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to wait a bit for the reply button to appear. The site has a delay to prevent discussions from getting too heated. (The delay increases the deeper a comment thread gets.)

Woah, that's a really thoughtful feature. Is there somewhere I can find all of the, like, rules of HN similar to this one?

Sadly, I don't think so. The best source I know of is https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented, but it's missing a lot of stuff like that bit about the reply button.

I learned about the reply button because I too was once wondering why it sometimes doesn't appear, and I Googled it.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#296

Post by graeme » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

IMTDb wrote: post #205

dewey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We wanted our customers to subscribe on the web but not using in-app subscriptions. But you can, and that's what a lot of companies including Netflix do?

Netflix offers subscription through the app as well. If you offer those and do not advertise your other channels, you are allowed to publish. The important part here is that you have to offer the same subscriptions at the same price between your web version and your in-app version. But this would require a significant amount of work on our side to support both web and mobile subscription. We do not expect to get any…

Netflix removed in app subscriptions. It is still on the app store. Fairly sure your company is wrong about this, or the reviewer made a mistake.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#297

Post by iamnothere » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #218

galangalalgol wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except now you don't have control over your own device. I don't think they are orthogonal goals. Give me root on my iPhone and I'll switch for the privacy. Leaving gapps off an Android install is becoming crippling.

The idea that the ability to easily root your own phone is going to make you more secure is laughable.

Being able to root the device is pretty important for security research. It's much harder to do an in-depth analysis of a system without root access.

Apple products have had plenty of bugs leading to security issues, and I'd rather make it easier for researchers to discover these.

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#298

Post by nvrspyx » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

neurostimulant wrote: post #234

IMTDb wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not matter how we interpret the guidelines. The fact is that our app has been developed and tested, but was rejected by the app store reviewer citing this reason. We believe we fall under the exception of "business databases" which are exempted from this restriction, but the reviewer does not believe so. Guess who won. We are not trying to use the app as an acquisition channel, we don't believe our customers…

Can you release the app using enterprise distribution? While not ideal, this will at least allow your customers to use your app instead of getting nothing.

Enterprise distribution is meant just for internal use of the company using it and distributing to customers via that method is exactly why Facebook and Google had their Apple enterprise services disabled a few months ago (although I’m sure they resolved their issues with Apple to get them enabled again)

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#299

Post by pmontra » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

In other news "Apple’s privacy reputation at risk with new iTunes class-action lawsuit"

> The plaintiffs allege that a third party can purchase a list of iTunes customers based on different demographic requirements, like a list of unmarried people who have a taste for a particular genre of music:

> The lawsuit further alleges that the third-party beneficiaries of this listening data match it to other sensitive personal information gathered about iTunes users from various sources, and then resell that information on the open market.

[1] https://thenextweb.com/business/2019/05/27/apples-privacy-re...

Re: Apple is now a privacy-as-a-service company

#300

Post by cftorres » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

LiamMcCalloway wrote: post #83

Are we so brainwashed that we barely can feel outrage at a title like this? How about privacy as a basic human right?

Finally I've found at least one coment related to this point. Everyone seems so atonished because of a new alternative for monetization, they forgot that privacy is a right that tech companies must fulfill. We are running fast towards a content distopy.