181–190 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European Apple user, I don’t. I specifically WANT the walled garden. It’s one of the reasons why I buy Apple.
It's not as if this will remove that. The same with the sideloading. Nobody's forcing you to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't find that bit in the article and I haven't heard it before: could you share some more? > The Autorité also found that the rules governing the interaction between the different pop-up windows displayed undermined the neutrality of the framework, causing definite economic harm to application publishers and advertising service providers. https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targ... “Economic…
I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm still missing something: my simpleton understanding is taking action to ensure neutrality, implies they want consumers to see more ads?
A) A consumer seeing more of their ads B) A consumer seeing the same number of ads C) A consumer seeing less of their ads
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or WhatsApp not allowing you name contacts unless you gave it access to your entire address book so FB can have your entire FOAF graph.
I'm traveling to Europe right now and had to install WhatsApp, and this absolutely infuriated me. You cannot start new chats with anyone (on Android at least) unless you grant it the contacts permission. I'm sure other things are limited too, like you say. Workarounds include having the other person message you first, or manually typing wa.me/+number into your browser. Slightly more info: https://android.stackexchang…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this. Imagine if people from the old village came to the new village and said that they wanted to set up the rules they had in the old village but they want to live in the new village. Some people are perfectly happy in the new village, but the people who came from the old village say that the rules are unfair. As someone who actively wants Apple provide a tighter experience, this is how I feel. I have a nice…
>As someone who actively wants Apple provide a tighter experience, this is how I feel. I have a nice garden that I'm playing in, and others have a sandbox. They like my garden because it's sunny, but they want the rules of their sandbox to apply to my garden. The grown ups let them in, and now there's nowhere to play that doesn't have sand anymore. The laws are created for all, all people, all companies. We do not gi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here is that Apple only needs one click to sell your data (and yes they do it, they made 11B $ on ads last year) and others need two. In fact Apple is making more and more money on ads because they limit data access to third parties, but still sell yours in search and store.
No, the issue in the article is that 3rd parties feel they need additional consent. That's on them if they choose to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can definitely check on whether the user answered yes to the prompt, because if they declined you'll get a null (ie. all 0s) uuid. Whether app developers can rely on that as confirmation for tracking on their side is a purely legal question, and I wish the French government would try to resolve it on their side rather than going straight to fining Apple.
As a European Apple user I welcome any and all fines that can be levied on Apple for their anticompetitive practices.
They are not a monopoly, they never will be and won't have Microsofts 90% desktop market share, so let the damn market sort it out.
Do other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark pattern they’ve adopted: * explain and prompt the user for consent * if they acquiesce pop the real modal * otherwise bide your time and try again later The reason for this is because once you receive a rejection in the official modal you are not allowed to ask again.
Or snapchat repeatedly asking for my contacts access knowing it’s denied.
It's constantly whinging it's been denied camera access too. I really hate that app but some people I talk to use it.
At this point, I am convinced EU fines American tech companies for fun.
At this point, I am convinced EU fines American tech companies for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One benefits directly while the other doesn't. Plus many people complained.
>One benefits directly while the other doesn't. That's the exact of cynicism I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down. > Plus many people complained. For what, Firefox?
Well, yes. These are billion dollar companies. Always follow the money. The incentives change everything.
>This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down.
Probably because "objectively good" changes often follow before even more harmful decisions. Many have long lost their benefit of the double for these Big Tech trillionaifes. And the reputation is deserved.