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

“Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 398 posts

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#251

Post by chii »

HyperTalk2 wrote: post #165
joshstrange wrote: post #2

Here is the whole section > 1.3 Kids Category > The Kids Category is a great way for people to easily find apps that are designed for children. If you want to participate in the Kids Category, you should focus on creating a great experience specifically for younger users. These apps must not include links out of the app, purchasing opportunities, or other distractions to kids unless reserved for a designated area beh…

These apps will be nearly impossible to monetize. No ads, but also basically no in-app purchases either. I doubt many children will see a parental gate and actually do what it asks. They'll just treat it like a dead-end and close the app to find something else to play with. This category will be entirely populated by totally free apps that are created solely for branding purposes or funded by NGOs to push an agenda,…

> nearly impossible to monetize. No ads, but also basically no in-app purchases either.

How about a paid app? Charge what it costs to create once. The old model worked fine before the advent of IAP and adware. If the app is good, people would pay for it. Esp. if now there's a specific category for discovery!

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#252

Post by hueving »

edmundsauto wrote: post #238
dllthomas wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only people who try to mount a case that the answer is yes are people whose livelihoods depend on everyone being OK with ads. Playing devil's advocate... Advertising helps the world in the case where a person has a need and they see an ad that informs them of a way they hadn't considered to address that need, and that solution proves to be better than available alternatives. ... I'm sure that happens ever. I am…

Another argument would be that advertising allowed the internet to develop as it is, to the scale it is. It's impossible to separate the accessibility, progress, UX, and information available from the core business model that enabled so much of it. If ads had never been allowed, would search be more like AOl's keywords? Would we still be limited to 10MB in email storage? Think what you will, but Google has developed…

IBM and Microsoft both contribute more to open source than Google. In fact, the explosion of the internet occured during their primes moreso than Google.

What Google really pushed forward was SaaS and the free price tag was a trick to make it seem as good as open source.

But when it comes down to it, Gmail is worse than Windows 7 when it comes to user power. At least you can use windows 7 without a constant connection to Microsoft.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#253

Post by Mirioron »

stcredzero wrote: post #42
move-on-by wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind that once customers expect your app to follow the Kids Category requirements, it will need to continue to meet these guidelines in subsequent updates, even if you decide to deselect the category. I love this. You can't just follow kids guidelines to build up your user-base and then drop it in favor of ads and analytics. Once you follow it, you have to continue to follow it.

This is more proof that apps and games are just another form of media. There are the same issues and conundrums dealing with children's media, as there are for books and television. I wish there would appear a 2019 version of Children's Television Workshop which would produce wonderful media for the children of today. (Is it already happening in some form?)

I'm kind of surprised by this thread. I understand that parents want to keep their kids away from a lot of topics and places, but I also remember how as a kid sought stuff like that out.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#254

Post by Mirioron »

mc32 wrote: post #232
soulofmischief wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't an easy conversation, and it's not one that happens over one discussion. It's something you have to actively teach them to understand while growing up. When I was three I had already developed the basic sense that people can lie and that advertisements are made by people. I had already taught myself how to read and was reading at a junior high level before even entering preschool. I have clear and distinct m…

To me your passage itself is an indicator that that’s not the level most three year olds are at. If it were then preschool would expect more from them and society would expect more and psychology would tell us these things. But they are all at odds with your anecdote, which while sincere, I don’t think we can generalize to the population. No, Google/YouTube with all their resources and experts should do better.

Kids used to start working on family farms rather early in life. Not a full day of working but doing things here and there.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#255

Post by Mirioron »

chii wrote: post #251
HyperTalk2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These apps will be nearly impossible to monetize. No ads, but also basically no in-app purchases either. I doubt many children will see a parental gate and actually do what it asks. They'll just treat it like a dead-end and close the app to find something else to play with. This category will be entirely populated by totally free apps that are created solely for branding purposes or funded by NGOs to push an agenda,…

> nearly impossible to monetize. No ads, but also basically no in-app purchases either. How about a paid app? Charge what it costs to create once. The old model worked fine before the advent of IAP and adware. If the app is good, people would pay for it. Esp. if now there's a specific category for discovery!

There's a disconnect between who plays/uses the app and who pays. How do you know that it's worth the money if you're not going to play it?

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#256

Post by edmundsauto »

hueving wrote: post #252
edmundsauto wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another argument would be that advertising allowed the internet to develop as it is, to the scale it is. It's impossible to separate the accessibility, progress, UX, and information available from the core business model that enabled so much of it. If ads had never been allowed, would search be more like AOl's keywords? Would we still be limited to 10MB in email storage? Think what you will, but Google has developed…

IBM and Microsoft both contribute more to open source than Google. In fact, the explosion of the internet occured during their primes moreso than Google. What Google really pushed forward was SaaS and the free price tag was a trick to make it seem as good as open source. But when it comes down to it, Gmail is worse than Windows 7 when it comes to user power. At least you can use windows 7 without a constant connectio…

These are valid counter-arguments; my intention wasn't to litigate the merits of each claim, just to mention that as the parent had trouble conceiving of other options than 1.

I will say, however, that your claims would be challenging to verify or refute -- quantity of contributions may not be a good metric, and it appears your Gmail/Win7 comparison is based on a single dimension (user power) which is further limited to one dimension of that dimension (whether it requires a constant connection).

You may be correct, but your comment didn't provide much of an argument to get me to think more of the problem. It just seemed like you needed to negate my (also unsubstantiated but admittedly devil's advocate position) out of some sense of anti-google sentiment.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#257

Post by petre »

tcfunk wrote: post #85
jeffwass wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On YouTube it’s not just the presence of ads that’s the problem, it’s the type of ads. My kids were watching an obviously kids-themed kids-friendly YouTube video and were shown an ad for Walking Dead, with graphic scary zombies. My 4yo was covering her eyes in fear. Like WTF Google.

Yeah I actually stopped allowing YouTube and YouTube Kids. YouTube has inappropriate ads, and YouTube Kids content is basically half ads in disguise (just people advertising toys and how they work).

Youtube is mainly just ads and advertorials. I now get a "breaking news" "recommendation" as well for some reason although I never watch news.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#258

Post by judge2020 »

move-on-by wrote: post #34

So far the only kids apps I've used with my little one is 'Sesame Street' and 'PBS Kids Video'. He loves Elmo, and its very handy in the pediatrician's waiting room to have a distraction. I also run a PiHole, and to my displeasure, I've found both these apps use Google Analytics. PBS Kids Video goes a few steps further and uses Google AdWords as well as ScorecardResearch analytics. These publicly funded apps are siph…

If I'm not mistaken, Google Analytics isn't used for tracking/targeting across apps and a browser or app beaming statistics won't have that page visit associated with their google account. You don't even need to tick "my app uses the advertisement tracking ID" during app store distribution if you just embed Google analytics.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#259

Post by Avamander »

notatoad wrote: post #242
dawnerd wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Analytics can be harmful too. Developers use it to make the app/game stickier, more attractive to children. Children also have no way of consenting or even knowing what analytics are. Not only that but there’s no knowing what happens to the analytics at third parties - regardless of their privacy policies. Basically all third party analytics are designed to build profiles and help marketing. Plenty of safe ways to tr…

>Developers use it to make the app/game stickier, more attractive to children another way to phrase that is "developers use it to make the game more fun"

Addictive does not always mean fun. Kids love bright things like lasers and love to shine them into their eyes (I know I did), doesn't mean it's a good idea - even if it is fun.

Re: “Apps intended for kids may not include third-party advertising or analytics”

#260

Post by im3w1l »

dllthomas wrote: post #227
bunderbunder wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I morally disagree with advertising or tracking. This seems to me like one of those spots where one's approach to ethics can play a big part in the conclusions you draw. From a sort of Kant-style, deontological perspective, where you have to be able to say with confidence that something is morally wrong in order to make much of a judgment at all about it, yeah, it seems hard to mount a strong case agai…

> the only people who try to mount a case that the answer is yes are people whose livelihoods depend on everyone being OK with ads. Playing devil's advocate... Advertising helps the world in the case where a person has a need and they see an ad that informs them of a way they hadn't considered to address that need, and that solution proves to be better than available alternatives. ... I'm sure that happens ever. I am…

I wish I saw more ads for local entertainment options. Preferably diverse. I don't need 100 ads all telling me to do the same thing at different venues. But an ad informing me that hey, this weekend there will be a model train convention or if you'd rather there is a big chess boxing game you could go see. That'd be cool.
Post reply on HN