Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 488 posts

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

#421

Post by lern_too_spel »

dlivingston wrote: post #353
lern_too_spel wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm only too happy to pay a premium if that gives me some control over my own privacy. Apple gives you less control over your privacy. Do you want to open map links in an offline maps app? Impossible on the iPhone. Do you want to develop apps for your own device without handing over card details? Also impossible. Do you want to install apps at all without telling Apple you installed them? Too bad. Would you rather…

More hyperbole... > Do you want to open map links in an offline maps app? Impossible on the iPhone. Yes and no. The app launcher defaults to Maps. You can copy and paste addresses into any offline maps app. > Do you want to develop apps for your own device without handing over card details? Also impossible. Blatantly false. You can compile and sideload direct from Xcode to any iOS device without the need for a paid d…

> Yes and no. The app launcher defaults to Maps. You can copy and paste addresses into any offline maps app.

Are you serious? Do you normally copy and paste links instead of clicking on them? You think it's reasonable for somebody to do this with every map link? How about map links inside native applications that aren't even copyable at all?

> Blatantly false. You can compile and sideload direct from Xcode to any iOS device without the need for a paid dev account.

But you will have to reinstall it weekly, which makes this method unworkable.

> I had to 'trust' the developer's certificate first.

When you did that, you also had to tap a "Verify App" button, which phones home to Apple. Ultimately, Apple may revoke the enterprise certificate used to sign your emulator apps, and then you won't even be able to install them.

> Citation needed.

"By enabling Location Services for your devices, you agree and consent to the transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of your location data and location search queries by Apple and its partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based and road traffic-based products and services."

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056

You cannot get your GPS location without Location Services enabled.

> More hyperbole...

You've bought into Apple's marketing so completely that you don't believe the evidence right in front of your face.

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

#422

Post by pwinnski »

banachtarski wrote: post #406
pwinnski wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon Appstore exists[0]. It also takes a 30% cut. As a comment above[1] highlights, it is more expensive than it might seem to operate the ecosystem. It always seems like one should be able to reproduce a popular service in a weekend, but the details (and scale) are tricky. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1002999431 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20093819

Right Google Apple and Amazon all take exactly %30. Seems like a fair competitive market. /s

I remember life before the iOS App Store. Mechanisms for delivering software on MacOS usually took a much larger cut than 30%. Heck, when Apple announced 30%, Amazon had to scramble and switch from keeping 70% to matching Apple's 30%. Amazon still keeps 70% if you price your ebook under $3, in fact, while Apple does not.

Your comment implies price-fixing, but history demonstrates competition, and Apple lowered the costs for everyone.

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

#423

Post by IMTDb »

pwinnski wrote: post #365
IMTDb wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anymore, they updated their policy recently

You absolutely, 100% can handle billing completely outside of Apple's infrastructure and have your app be a "Reader app," to use Apple's term for such apps. Apple just posted a document[0] that lists Amazon Kindle, Netflix, Audible, and Spotify as examples of this. You seem very confident about your understanding of things, but you seem to have misidentified the exact cause of your rejection. [0] https://www.apple.co…

Here is the response we got :

--- START ---

Hello XXX team,

We are writing to let you know the results of your appeal for your app, XXX.

The App Review Board evaluated your app and determined that the original rejection feedback is valid. Your app does not comply with:

Guideline 3.1.1 - Business - Payments - In-App Purchase

We continue to find that your app offers a subscription with a mechanism other than the in-app purchase API.

While we understand that the app reads data, it does not fall into any of the categories listed in guideline 3.1.3 for reader apps:

3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase

We hope you will consider making the necessary changes to be in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines and will resubmit your revised binary.

Best regards, XXX App Review Board

--- END ---

So unless you are in one of those listed categories, it does not work. Don't know why we can't be considered to be a professional database tho.

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

#424

Post by elliekelly »

gundmc wrote: post #420
elliekelly wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And maybe they deserve some slack. They deserve a lot of slack. Apple's privacy approach may not be perfect but they are head and shoulders above just about every other major tech company. I've written many privacy policies - for privacy-focused companies and for companies seeking to get away with the absolute bare-minimum. One of the best "quick and dirty" ways to assess a company's privacy policy without actually…

Can you clarify your comment? I don't see anything I would classify as a footnote in either linked policy.

Certainly! I contemplated explaining a bit further about Google's footnotes but thought I might sound crazy.

Google actually takes the extra step of obscuring the footnotes to look like hyperlinks. For example, if you click "ads you'll find most useful" under "We want you to understand the types of information we collect as you use our services" you'll see that it pops out as a footnote rather than linking you to a new site.

Because I often found myself looking for footnotes to find the begrudging disclosures and because I found more and more footnotes hiding as hyperlinks I made myself a little browser extension to highlight html elements that are probably footnotes as most are still pretty obvious from the properties. For example, from Google's privacy policy:

  ads you’ll find most useful
I'm undecided whether this is a style decision or another attempt to hide the ball. Google used to publish a pdf version which made it much easier to see the footnotes but I haven't been able to find a current pdf version in years.

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

#425

Post by autoexec »

FabHK wrote: post #348
tfha wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem that I have is that it's privacy built on a closed source platform that works extremely hard to wall users in and create substantial vendor lock-in. As someone who has tried multiple times to dip their toes into the Apple world, I can tell you that it's highly hostile to users who try to pick and choose how much they want to be an Apple citizen. If you don't agree to sign up for Apple cloud on the…

There is some lock-in, but that's because the system integration works so well (Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch, etc.) that one is loath to switch, not because they actively lock up your data. Contacts, Calendar, Photos, documents all allow exports to commonly understood formats (and iTunes with some caveats). I would not currently consider alternative OSes because they'd not work as seamlessly for me, but if Apple became a…

It's not that the system integration is so wonderful, it's that they make it extremely difficult to work outside of it for no reason.

A few years ago I had a friend who wanted a song put on her iphone. I've never used one but I assumed I could do exactly what I've done with every other phone/MP3 player in the universe and just connect it to my laptop via USB and move the file over to some folder called "music" or something. Nope. Needs Itunes. I fire up a VM and install itunes, she has to log into everything and authorize the phone for that machine (with a warning that she can only do this so many times) and then I was able to get the file on her phone but not before it synced her entire library onto my machine (wtf). A few days later her friend is over and she wants the same song on her phone. I still have the VM with itunes installed so we give it a try and it wipes every song on her phone. The whole thing was 100% obnoxious and unnecessary. Really put me off of Apple when every other product "Just Works" while apple requires you to jump through insane hoops for basic functionality the moment you dare to Think Different and do something in a way other than exactly how they want you do things

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

#426

Post by smt88 »

manmal wrote: post #389
smt88 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every company wants to retain users and their business. I think GP's point is that Apple is doing this using lock-in, rather than having the best possible products. If there were multiple app stores for iOS users, you could argue that Apple is behaving just like every other business. But they're not. They're stifling competition to lock their customers in.

Indeed, but which of the big tech companies does not use lock-in as a tool? Android Play Services, Google Photos, Amazon Prime, Facebook platform, any streaming service (library is „lost“ if you stop paying)..

I think you misunderstand what I meant by lock-in. Everything you just mentioned is not a lock-in for users. You can use your Android phone with non-Google operating systems without hacking your phone. The same is not true of iOS.

If you buy an iPhone, which is a big investment for most people, then you must either use Apple's App Store or jailbreak.

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

#427

Post by smt88 »

MBCook wrote: post #339
smt88 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every company wants to retain users and their business. I think GP's point is that Apple is doing this using lock-in, rather than having the best possible products. If there were multiple app stores for iOS users, you could argue that Apple is behaving just like every other business. But they're not. They're stifling competition to lock their customers in.

Purely as a user, I don’t want to deal with 5 competing app stores. That sounds like a mess. I think there is a reason there is basically one App Store on each platform (outside desktops).

You don't have to deal with 5 stores. If you like Apple, use Apple's.

The difference is in whether other people who dislike/distrust Apple have another option, and right now they don't.

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

#428

Post by Retra »

hellofunk wrote: post #377
afpx wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, eventually, Apple will lose revenue, and their shareholders will demand profit. And, Apple will be sitting on a trove of data, or metadata, or predictive models built from that data.

That sounds speculative. Why will they lose revenue eventually? Do you think 40 years from now they will be in a worse position than today? After all, they are today in a better position than 40 years ago. Perhaps a privacy-focused company will actually perform better in a society obsessed with privacy, and eventually, their competitors who don't share these perspectives will be the ones that lose revenue. All we can…

You're right that all we can do is speculate. That means that we can't assume things will work as they always have, or as they currently are. Which means you have to assume things will change.

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

#429

Post by tzakrajs »

tfha wrote: post #314
nafizh wrote: post #22

Lots of negativity/skepticism here which is reasonable I would say given tech companies' abuse of our trust. I for one, am happy that Apple can afford to offer privacy as one of its strong suites. Whether they can do it because of their business model or not is moot IMO. Everyone is here to make money, I would rather have someone who doesn't have to sell every aspect of my life to do it.

The biggest problem that I have is that it's privacy built on a closed source platform that works extremely hard to wall users in and create substantial vendor lock-in. As someone who has tried multiple times to dip their toes into the Apple world, I can tell you that it's highly hostile to users who try to pick and choose how much they want to be an Apple citizen. If you don't agree to sign up for Apple cloud on the…

I’m iOS 13 Siri is now interoperable with other maps and music providers on CarPlay. Apple is changing.

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

#430

Post by erikpukinskis »

dcosson wrote: post #354
tfha wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem that I have is that it's privacy built on a closed source platform that works extremely hard to wall users in and create substantial vendor lock-in. As someone who has tried multiple times to dip their toes into the Apple world, I can tell you that it's highly hostile to users who try to pick and choose how much they want to be an Apple citizen. If you don't agree to sign up for Apple cloud on the…

I've been using iPhone and MacOS for years and successfully picking & choosing different parts of the ecosystem. Sure, the defaults are usually set up to opt you into their own products so it takes a bit of fiddling but it's not hard to opt into just the set of services you want to use - i.e. sync only particular services like iCloud Notes and password manager, but use gmail for email and calendars (using open format…

If you ever disable iMessage you permanently lose access to all group chats. Messages will just silently fail to deliver.
Post reply on HN