Live data from Hacker News

Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

developer.apple.com

31–40 of 274 posts

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#31
post #21

Everybody complains about the walled garden, but damn I love to see things like this.

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own fully paid for device?

> Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run?

Do you have a source on the them tracking every app a user runs? Obviously they have to collect every app I install for updates and subscriptions, but collecting every run might be too much.

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#32
post #21

Everybody complains about the walled garden, but damn I love to see things like this.

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own fully paid for device?

That really does seem like whataboutism.

No one is claiming Apple is perfect, but this is a marked improvement of apps requiring tracking to function.

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#33
I remember ios 5 I think brought app permissions. Essentially say app A should not get location or contacts and put this behind a password. The app couldnt do shit. Then android after late got some permissions but its still lame IMO. App can deny you access without a permission. A recent thing I have seen on android is permission protection or whatever. The system gives dummy or no access to the contacts for example instead of actual contacts. Sounds good but now every app can detect this and bugs you to allow the sameby nagging you. Look, if I want to deny app A or B access to contacts, as far as the app is concerned it should get 0 access. Not blocking or pseudo blocking but a sinkhole type "huh. Nothing here". It should not be able to detect this. Same for internet access. If I deny internet to an app, that app should think its in flight mode. Thats it.

Same thing here. Say I dont want to be tracked, apps should think I have allowed access and go ahead. Why should they tailor access based on my permission to track ? My installing the app is proof I want to use the app. I just dont want it to be tied to anything. Kinda like the original "sandbox" idea

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#34
post #10

Such things are never going to come to Android are they? Every preinstalled app abuses every permission possible

With most Android devices, at least you have the option to install a different OS (e.g. LineageOS) that allows you to spoof all such data, including to Google, which IMO provides a better level of safeguarding against tracking.

With iOS, the closed source OS and lack of alternatives fundamentally means that Apple Inc. gets to secretly violate your privacy while they play the moral high ground.

Ultimately the best security comes when you, the user, control the device AND the OS.

EDIT: Apple fanboys downvoting me again, eh? You worship Apple or something that would never do something wrong (ha)? Enjoy your HN echo chamber.

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#35
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal. This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?

Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't si…

Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#36
post #31
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own fully paid for device?

> Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Do you have a source on the them tracking every app a user runs? Obviously they have to collect every app I install for updates and subscriptions, but collecting every run might be too much.

Don't they verify executables for this reason? Do they provide info about whether they log this process?

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#37
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Track you if you want to develop your own code for your own fully paid for device?

That really does seem like whataboutism. No one is claiming Apple is perfect, but this is a marked improvement of apps requiring tracking to function.

[flagged]

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#38
post #3

Full text of the clause: > 3.2.2 Unacceptable > (vi) Apps should allow a user to get what they’ve paid for without performing additional tasks, such as posting on social media, uploading contacts, checking in to the app a certain number of times, etc. Apps should not require users to rate the app, review the app, watch videos, download other apps, tap on advertisements, enable tracking, or take other similar actions…

Doesn't youtube, with its ads, violate this policy?

When it comes to YouTube the waters are muddy. The YouTube app is just a client to a third-party web service (whose functionality falls outside of App Store rules); so in this case it can be argued that the "functionality" of the app is just the client functionality and not the content itself.

Furthermore you can skip ads on YouTube after a 5-second timer, so this seems reasonably fair, though I would still not install it and recommend everyone to just use the web with a content blocker extension (AdGuard) or a third-party frontend like Invidious (https://github.com/iv-org/invidious).

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#39
post #3

Full text of the clause: > 3.2.2 Unacceptable > (vi) Apps should allow a user to get what they’ve paid for without performing additional tasks, such as posting on social media, uploading contacts, checking in to the app a certain number of times, etc. Apps should not require users to rate the app, review the app, watch videos, download other apps, tap on advertisements, enable tracking, or take other similar actions…

I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal. This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?

All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to purchase software that Apple creates and sells.

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#40
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't Apple track every app you install, access and run? Do you have a source on the them tracking every app a user runs? Obviously they have to collect every app I install for updates and subscriptions, but collecting every run might be too much.

Don't they verify executables for this reason? Do they provide info about whether they log this process?

I believe iOS handles this process differently. Apps are signed in advance (when the app is approved and published to the Store) and the signatures are only checked locally against a hardcoded signing key. But even on Mac when it comes to notarization, I'm pretty sure the signatures are only checked on first run and then the result of that is cached (partly for performance reasons).
Post reply on HN