4 ms·

I think the wording is poor here but this basically appears to boil down to 'you cannot ask for a bunch of personal information from users for no valid reason'.

by msy 16y ago

I think the wording is poor here but this basically appears to boil down to 'you cannot ask for a bunch of personal information from users for no valid reason'. Which seems entirely reasonable and a good use of Apple's power to stop the harvesting of personal information. But lets not let that get in the way of a good outrage session.

vaksel 16y ago
I think all this will do, is just get the people to add one tiny functionality that meets this requirement.
dejb 16y ago
> But lets not let that get in the way of a good outrage session. I know it's an old argument and many people don't like to be reminded of it, but for some people, each an every one of these 'total platform rejections' represents an outrage.
- lolhn 16y ago
  You don't have a god given right to develop for the iphone anymore than you have one to develop for an xbox, a wii, or your in-dash nav system. Nobody has to support you. If this shit outrages you, your life is going to be very miserable, for no reason. Though it does seem that you keep the outrage down by being DEEPLY hypocritical about which things bother you, so that's a start.
- dejb 16y ago
  Wow people are sensitive. Of course it's perfectly fine for the Apple apologists to rehash their justifications on each and every instance of this. But for somebody to reaffirm the basic problem with the app store model is deserving of censure. What a place of intelligent debate this is.
recoiledsnake 16y ago
Why do people get all defensive when it's Apple making a mistake? Even if you what you wrote is accurate, Apple is at fault here because Read It Later does require an account to sync the lists, and only needs a username/password to create an account. That's barely any personal information. It's extremely defensive fanboys like you that muddy the debate. 'OMG people are raging on poor poor Apple, must defend and downvote!'
aphyr 16y ago
Uhh, the article states it's only a username and password required. That's not really personal information, and it's for a valid reason. I say, outrage session approved. Especially for an app already in the store, whose explicit purpose is account specific!
- prime0196 16y ago
  The Facebook and Twitter apps are actually web services that require a username/password and their apps are merely extensions of their website. Does his app have a standalone service that would justify a username/password? Or would it be equivalent to forcing me to register to play a game like Plant vs Zombies, which has no functionality that would justify password protecting it.
  - aphyr 16y ago
    TFA: "Read It Later is a simple account-based service. Read It Later does not collect ‘personal’ information, you just need a username and password to create an account. The account allows you to sync your reading list between your iPhone, iPad, computers, and browsers."

by msy 16y ago

vaksel 16y ago

I think all this will do, is just get the people to add one tiny functionality that meets this requirement.

dejb 16y ago

> But lets not let that get in the way of a good outrage session. I know it's an old argument and many people don't like to be reminded of it, but for some people, each an every one of these 'total platform rejections' represents an outrage.

lolhn 16y ago
You don't have a god given right to develop for the iphone anymore than you have one to develop for an xbox, a wii, or your in-dash nav system. Nobody has to support you. If this shit outrages you, your life is going to be very miserable, for no reason. Though it does seem that you keep the outrage down by being DEEPLY hypocritical about which things bother you, so that's a start.
dejb 16y ago
Wow people are sensitive. Of course it's perfectly fine for the Apple apologists to rehash their justifications on each and every instance of this. But for somebody to reaffirm the basic problem with the app store model is deserving of censure. What a place of intelligent debate this is.

recoiledsnake 16y ago

Why do people get all defensive when it's Apple making a mistake? Even if you what you wrote is accurate, Apple is at fault here because Read It Later does require an account to sync the lists, and only needs a username/password to create an account. That's barely any personal information. It's extremely defensive fanboys like you that muddy the debate. 'OMG people are raging on poor poor Apple, must defend and downvote!'

aphyr 16y ago

Uhh, the article states it's only a username and password required. That's not really personal information, and it's for a valid reason. I say, outrage session approved. Especially for an app already in the store, whose explicit purpose is account specific!

prime0196 16y ago
The Facebook and Twitter apps are actually web services that require a username/password and their apps are merely extensions of their website. Does his app have a standalone service that would justify a username/password? Or would it be equivalent to forcing me to register to play a game like Plant vs Zombies, which has no functionality that would justify password protecting it.
- aphyr 16y ago
  TFA: "Read It Later is a simple account-based service. Read It Later does not collect ‘personal’ information, you just need a username and password to create an account. The account allows you to sync your reading list between your iPhone, iPad, computers, and browsers."