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

351–360 of 398 posts

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

#351

Post by pnutjam »

gridlockd wrote: post #47
pnutjam wrote: post #12

That's great, except there is no way to create a "kids" account without another apple device. My kids school won't participate in the program to create kids accounts for schools, and I don't own other apple devices. So on my rented ipad, the only option is to create a 13+ year old account (for my kindergartner). So now that she's in 2nd grade, apple thinks she's 16. I've complained about this endlessly to the school,…

> I don't mind having a parent account, but you cannot have family accounts without an Ipad or some other apple device, and a single ipad is a single user device. You can't just log in to the ipad with a parent account, create a child account, log out, then log back in with the child account?

I tried this, but whenever the child account needs approval, your done. You can't approve anything so your child is stuck.

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

#352

Post by cyrksoft »

wayneftw wrote: post #346
asaddhamani wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why Apple devices are more secure, faster, more privacy-respecting, and last much longer with good performance. That trade-off is absolutely worth it to me.

Nope. Kids demand Apple devices because of the cool factor. "Survey: 83% of US teens have an iPhone, Android 9%" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19610357 Seems like they're abusing their monopoly to me.

Where do you see a monopoly? The fact that people choose it doesn’t make it a monopoly. Specially with that price tag. You can choose many other options. There is no real economic argument to call it a monopoly.

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

#353

Post by cyrksoft »

kakkksaknmdm wrote: post #300
cyrksoft wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no problem about jsnell posting that. I just want to know what all the complaints about Apple (Amazon, Google, etc) is about. Why would it be wrong for Apple to do everything jsnell predicts?

It's not okay for Apple. It's a bait and switch tactic which Google uses that Apple is doing now. They created their App ecosystem on the basis of Ad's. Now they're strong arming developers to doing things their way. It should not be okay, and must be protested. I hope that the government and Anti-trust lawsuits force apple to unbundle the Appstore. Apple has made enough money to recoup their investment starting from…

How do you define enough money? The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can get the government involved. Protest all you want, but that doesn’t give you the right to call for help from the government to enforce something because you consider they had “enough” success. Go build your own company, compete. If it is that bad developers would go somewhere else.

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

#354

Post by pnutjam »

simongr3dal wrote: post #35
pnutjam wrote: post #12

That's great, except there is no way to create a "kids" account without another apple device. My kids school won't participate in the program to create kids accounts for schools, and I don't own other apple devices. So on my rented ipad, the only option is to create a 13+ year old account (for my kindergartner). So now that she's in 2nd grade, apple thinks she's 16. I've complained about this endlessly to the school,…

I'm no expert on family accounts but can't you set all that stuff up via macOS on a virtual machine? Or does it actually require iOS?

I've never tried to run MacOS on a virtual machine. I'm assuming you can't get a license for that, so it wouldn't be an "official" solution, but do you have a link?

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

#355

Post by simongr3dal »

pnutjam wrote: post #354
simongr3dal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert on family accounts but can't you set all that stuff up via macOS on a virtual machine? Or does it actually require iOS?

I've never tried to run MacOS on a virtual machine. I'm assuming you can't get a license for that, so it wouldn't be an "official" solution, but do you have a link?

https://techsviewer.com/install-macos-10-14-mojave-virtualbo...

The link has a guide on how to configure virtualbox to run macOS. They also have some links to the macOS installer, but there are also plenty of torrents around with disk images of macOS.

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

#356

Post by meowface »

wj wrote: post #334
rusk wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you serve the ads yourself or do you defer to third party ad networks? I have no problem with the former, but with the latter I think it's very hard to control what gets displayed, and you're also opening your users up to various attack vectors. There has got to be a niche available for somebody to do plain old non-evil advertising??? EDIT $15,000 a year sounds like a tremendous amount of money to run a web site i…

He said user content so that might be users uploading images, audio, or video with the associated storage and bandwidth costs not to mention workers for generating thumbnails.

I'm the grand-parent poster and not the parent, but yeah, my user-content sites don't cost anywhere near that much. Storage is probably the biggest cost, and that still doesn't cost much. I'm not really sure how a site like that could cost that much unless you're getting absurd amounts of traffic, or are using some poorly optimized software; though I also don't know the nature of the site or the content.

If my costs were anywhere close to that I think I'd have no choice but to suck it up and place some ads as well. As it is, community donations cover our costs just fine, but pretty much 100% of that revenue - which is all of our revenue - goes to infrastructure cost. We don't make any profit, but that was never the intention when creating the sites.

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

#357

Post by meowface »

robomartin wrote: post #267
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 problem I have with the anti-advertising crowd is that none of them take their philosophy to the required ethical conclusion: Stop using free ad-supported resources. Google and Facebook are easy examples of this. The position would be far more ethically aligned if they unplugged from all ad-supported products and services.

That's not how I think about it, though. It's not about the principles of a website using ads or issues with advertising companies. I just personally don't want to see them. If I'm using a Google service, I generally see no or almost no ads because I use uBlock Origin, so I'm not bothered at all. And I actually do subscribe to YouTube Premium because there's no decent way to block ads in the mobile apps, as far as I know.

I do like Google's services, and I do understand they couldn't exist without ads, so I know there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance there. But for me, if I can block the ads, then I'm not going to complain. The only time I boycott a site is if they lock you out of the site if they detect you're using an ad blocker. (I'm okay with small messages politely suggesting you turn it off if they don't otherwise restrict access to the site. I always ignore them, though.)

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

#358

Post by Jyaif »

andygates wrote: post #320
robomartin wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with the anti-advertising crowd is that none of them take their philosophy to the required ethical conclusion: Stop using free ad-supported resources. Google and Facebook are easy examples of this. The position would be far more ethically aligned if they unplugged from all ad-supported products and services.

"Pay for the ad-free version" is pretty common. I don't see that option in these services.

https://contributor.google.com

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

#359

Post by tomaskafka »

jeffwass wrote: post #53
mc32 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube would be well advised to follow this model for videos intended for kids and anything on YouTube Kids outside of iOS.

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.

Would you let your children read random tabloid crap and ad flyers? No, you'd build a safe library filled with interesting, educational and valuable books.

So why won't you do this with digital media? An okay NAS costs about a same as year YT subscription, and there is a lot of great content.

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

#360

Post by rchaud »

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…

> If ads had never been allowed, would search be more like AOl's keywords?

Not sure how that's related to ads. I've been online since 1996, and AOL wasn't available in my country, although did get those AOL trial diskettes with my copy of C&C: Red Alert.

Xcite, Yahoo, Altavista, Askjeeves and others simply had a search box and an alphabetical directory of sites. I didn't hear about Google until 1999 when I came across a Time Magazine article about it, and there were ads on the internet well before then.

Post reply on HN