7 ms·

I'm working for years as a developer building iOS applications. Apple got so strict the last months maybe last year it's just incredible. Lots of questions abou

by dep_b 8y ago

I'm working for years as a developer building iOS applications. Apple got so strict the last months maybe last year it's just incredible. Lots of questions about monetization and background services, they really want you to have a solid business case for background location or just don't use it. As a consumer I'm happy they take those steps though. My privacy is worth money. Either somebody sells it and gives me a "free" OS or somebody sells me an OS and I don't "sell" my privacy.

EADGBE 8y ago
They're positioning themselves to this space. It was interesting in the sense that it never was really marketed this way (by Apple); it was just the remainder product that didn't sell out your information. It's always good to sell a "feature" you've always had which costs you nothing.
- maire 8y ago
  Apple always took location privacy seriously. I remember an interview between Steve Jobs and Walt Mossberg years ago on this subject. I looked it up again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
  - parthdesai 8y ago
    Explain China then. Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.
    - Jerry2 8y ago
      Like every business operating in China, Apple has to comply with local laws. And that's what they do. Everyone else who operates in China complies with them as well. Apple also complies with US laws and laws of EU.
      - ghostly_s 8y ago
        Operating in China is a choice every one of these companies makes.
    - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
      I can’t be the only person tired of this canard, right? It’s said over and over that the benefit of Apple is an alignment of incentives in Western markets. That is to say, Apple is not faux-idealistic, they are capitalistic, and in most places that aligns with user goals. China is the exception, but for the same reasons.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Explain what with China? Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law. The only stand Apple could take here is: - Stop selling in China - Have executives go to jail Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
      - notyourday 8y ago
        So what you are saying that Apple's core beliefs are location-dependent. Personally, I think it is totally cool to have location-dependent core beliefs. I just think it is a total fan-boism not to acknowledge it.
        abc_lisper 8y ago
        Umm. No. I don’t wear the same clothes in a desert and a forest. To do so would be foolish. Imposing yourself on others when you have no power to do is not wise. I can keep my house clean but can’t expect everyone in my neighborhood to do so.
        ams6110 8y ago
        But you can choose not to visit the dirty houses. Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
        FussyZeus 8y ago
        > Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars. Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
    - fiblye 8y ago
      With China, there's literally no option aside from having their products being barred from being sold or manufactured there. The fact they're standing up for user rights when given a legal possibility is a good sign, compared to most major companies which are harvesting anything and everything even going beyond the scope of what's legally permissible.
    - hungerstrike 8y ago
      Apple is just like any other western company - their shareholders and chiefs don't really give a fuck about privacy. They only care about their bottom line. If China demanded that someone from your company sacrifice a new-born baby in order to do business there, I'm positive that we'd still have many, many western companies doing business in China.
      - SiempreViernes 8y ago
        Maybe some startups would even go to the trouble of getting late aborted featus classified as "new-born" and spin it as an "ethics enhanced feature".
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Serious in the sense that they seriously wanted it? July 2010 was when they rolled out their silent tracking of all ios 4 users in an unencrypted database on the device for up to 10 months. In a happy coincidence, a bug ensured that the (presumably untested) feature of turning of location serviced didn't actually prevent the tracking. And of course they never asked users for consent about this, except by putting something in the end of their 15000 word EULA. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tr... https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/
    - osteele 8y ago
      If Apple intended to collect locations, I would expect them to have recorded GPS (when otherwise enabled), and WiFi RSSI, instead of just cell tower RSSI. I can imagine theories that include this omission as part of deniability for a cover-up, or from a combination of incompetence and malevolence, but such theories seem overly complicated compared to the assumption of a simple log leak like Twitter's recent password logging bug. Whether these theories are too complicated depends on your priors about the evil intent of Apple's management and employees. If you already assume they're hypocrites about privacy, the location logging confirms it. I doubt it's convincing otherwise. (It's not convincing to me, unless there's a simpler story that ties it into ill intent, and that I'm just not coming up with.)
    - kalleboo 8y ago
      This was the dumbest privacy scandal ever. The database was on your phone. It wasn't sent anywhere. What good does that do Apple? What do they have to gain? It's obvious it was just a bug.
Fradow 8y ago
Do you know if they need a solid business case even if it is optional? For example, any idea if an optional "locate your device" feature would get shot down?
- dep_b 8y ago
  Yes. I had a location tracking feature that would total your mileage automatically and submit it after your ride to your bookkeeper (this is mandatory for lease cars in some countries). I really had to explain that the app also might be backgrounded because people probably would be using Apple Maps to navigate while this thing was clocking away in the background
- nsgi 8y ago
  No idea if this is Apple's policy, but I would expect apps to follow UNIX philosophy. "Locate your device" should really be a separate app rather than a fringe feature of a fart app.
stcredzero 8y ago
they really want you to have a solid business case for background location or just don't use it. I did notice that it was being used a lot, and it seemed like I had much worse battery life when using certain apps.
- photojosh 8y ago
  You can specify you want different precision in location. If you just want rough location, you'll get notified if you change location based on WiFi or cell tower switch. This uses next to no extra battery power and is sufficient for many background applications. If you want exact location, then you'll be running the GPS, which indeed uses more battery. But even so, it's not that bad. I record detailed GPS for my runs quite often with a fitness app, and it only uses 5-7% battery an hour. (Key is to make sure it's not also hitting a data connection to download maps, and that the screen is off.)
hiram112 8y ago
>Either somebody sells it and gives me a "free" OS or somebody sells me an OS and I don't "sell" my privacy. Don't forget the Windows 10 model: You're forced to buy the OEM version on any new PC, and then you still get your privacy sold by MS.
- nimbix 8y ago
  The last time I checked it was still possible to buy a computer without Windows, as well as buy Windows that can be transferred between machines. Most people just don't bother with that.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Good luck with that. Even though it is possible it is much harder than just to ignore the problem and pay the Microsoft tax. And if you're going to buy a computer without windows why would you then buy Windows separately, that's much more expensive, and people that go out of their way to buy machines without Windows likely don't run Windows at all.
    - sgnl 8y ago
      Building a gaming PC is one case where you buy the Windows OS separately from the PC (especially if you're building it part by part)
    - notjtrig 8y ago
      You can have a windows partition on a machine that is primarily Linux. First install Windows and then install Linux and there's no issue. Windows 10 today does not require a licence to operate it will not lock you out if you never activate.
mygo 8y ago
well in addition to privacy concerns, location tracking is a huge drain on the battery. And a good battery life is one of their selling points so I wouldn’t be surprised if during part of the review process some reviewers might hold the opinion that there better be a good reason why your app is using so much juice in the background.
mariodiana 8y ago
I was on the phone with Apple once, arguing about why the iOS app I put together at work shouldn't be rejected for running location services all the time. The point the representative at Apple made was that something like that needs to be primarily for the user's benefit, as opposed to it being primarily for the benefit of the people behind the app. I was able to demonstrate that to them, and the app was approved. Apple is about apps being for the benefit of the user.
- sizzle 8y ago
  Wow I might just have to turn in my Android phone. I've been using Android since the G1 flagship phone. I value privacy the older I get.
flukus 8y ago
> Either somebody sells it and gives me a "free" OS or somebody sells me an OS and I don't "sell" my privacy Linux desktops show a viable 3rd option, they are free, libre and protect your privacy (usually). The also provide the halfway point I want between the iOS model and the android model the provide a set of core well vetted apps from the store and allow me to install whatever else I want. Librem or whoever makes a mobile equivalent the linux desktop can't come soon enough.

by dep_b 8y ago

EADGBE 8y ago

They're positioning themselves to this space. It was interesting in the sense that it never was really marketed this way (by Apple); it was just the remainder product that didn't sell out your information. It's always good to sell a "feature" you've always had which costs you nothing.

maire 8y ago
Apple always took location privacy seriously. I remember an interview between Steve Jobs and Walt Mossberg years ago on this subject. I looked it up again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
- parthdesai 8y ago
  Explain China then. Apple is being hypocritical in this case. Giving in to the demands of government when it hurts their business ( if it did take privacy as seriously as HN makes it out to be, they would take a stand in China) while advocating privacy in Western world.
  - Jerry2 8y ago
    Like every business operating in China, Apple has to comply with local laws. And that's what they do. Everyone else who operates in China complies with them as well. Apple also complies with US laws and laws of EU.
    - ghostly_s 8y ago
      Operating in China is a choice every one of these companies makes.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    I can’t be the only person tired of this canard, right? It’s said over and over that the benefit of Apple is an alignment of incentives in Western markets. That is to say, Apple is not faux-idealistic, they are capitalistic, and in most places that aligns with user goals. China is the exception, but for the same reasons.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Explain what with China? Apple are legally required to follow the law of countries they do business in. In China the law requires that the government, not third party apps, gains access to additional information. Apple can limit third party app privacy violations while still following the law. The only stand Apple could take here is: - Stop selling in China - Have executives go to jail Just as if they violated US law or EU-member's law.
    - notyourday 8y ago
      So what you are saying that Apple's core beliefs are location-dependent. Personally, I think it is totally cool to have location-dependent core beliefs. I just think it is a total fan-boism not to acknowledge it.
      - abc_lisper 8y ago
        Umm. No. I don’t wear the same clothes in a desert and a forest. To do so would be foolish. Imposing yourself on others when you have no power to do is not wise. I can keep my house clean but can’t expect everyone in my neighborhood to do so.
        ams6110 8y ago
        But you can choose not to visit the dirty houses. Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. This is a similar argument we had a couple decades ago about companies doing business in South Africa, which at the time had official racial segregation policies (Apartheid). There was a popular push for divestment and it was fairly successful.
        FussyZeus 8y ago
        > Apple could choose to honor principles and not sell in China. But market share is more important. They're a corporation, their sole ethic is "to make money," full stop, that is the only reason Apple exists. To ignore China as a market would cost them millions if not billions of dollars. Tons of businesses with very ethical practices operate in and with China. China's current anti-privacy stances are unfortunate, but if we refuse to do business with them, all we're doing is giving a leg-up to Chinese corporations who don't even pretend to care about user privacy in the form of an insulated market.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    With China, there's literally no option aside from having their products being barred from being sold or manufactured there. The fact they're standing up for user rights when given a legal possibility is a good sign, compared to most major companies which are harvesting anything and everything even going beyond the scope of what's legally permissible.
  - hungerstrike 8y ago
    Apple is just like any other western company - their shareholders and chiefs don't really give a fuck about privacy. They only care about their bottom line. If China demanded that someone from your company sacrifice a new-born baby in order to do business there, I'm positive that we'd still have many, many western companies doing business in China.
    - SiempreViernes 8y ago
      Maybe some startups would even go to the trouble of getting late aborted featus classified as "new-born" and spin it as an "ethics enhanced feature".
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Serious in the sense that they seriously wanted it? July 2010 was when they rolled out their silent tracking of all ios 4 users in an unencrypted database on the device for up to 10 months. In a happy coincidence, a bug ensured that the (presumably untested) feature of turning of location serviced didn't actually prevent the tracking. And of course they never asked users for consent about this, except by putting something in the end of their 15000 word EULA. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tr... https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/iphone-tracks/
  - osteele 8y ago
    If Apple intended to collect locations, I would expect them to have recorded GPS (when otherwise enabled), and WiFi RSSI, instead of just cell tower RSSI. I can imagine theories that include this omission as part of deniability for a cover-up, or from a combination of incompetence and malevolence, but such theories seem overly complicated compared to the assumption of a simple log leak like Twitter's recent password logging bug. Whether these theories are too complicated depends on your priors about the evil intent of Apple's management and employees. If you already assume they're hypocrites about privacy, the location logging confirms it. I doubt it's convincing otherwise. (It's not convincing to me, unless there's a simpler story that ties it into ill intent, and that I'm just not coming up with.)
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    This was the dumbest privacy scandal ever. The database was on your phone. It wasn't sent anywhere. What good does that do Apple? What do they have to gain? It's obvious it was just a bug.

Fradow 8y ago

Do you know if they need a solid business case even if it is optional? For example, any idea if an optional "locate your device" feature would get shot down?

dep_b 8y ago
Yes. I had a location tracking feature that would total your mileage automatically and submit it after your ride to your bookkeeper (this is mandatory for lease cars in some countries). I really had to explain that the app also might be backgrounded because people probably would be using Apple Maps to navigate while this thing was clocking away in the background
nsgi 8y ago
No idea if this is Apple's policy, but I would expect apps to follow UNIX philosophy. "Locate your device" should really be a separate app rather than a fringe feature of a fart app.

stcredzero 8y ago

they really want you to have a solid business case for background location or just don't use it. I did notice that it was being used a lot, and it seemed like I had much worse battery life when using certain apps.

photojosh 8y ago
You can specify you want different precision in location. If you just want rough location, you'll get notified if you change location based on WiFi or cell tower switch. This uses next to no extra battery power and is sufficient for many background applications. If you want exact location, then you'll be running the GPS, which indeed uses more battery. But even so, it's not that bad. I record detailed GPS for my runs quite often with a fitness app, and it only uses 5-7% battery an hour. (Key is to make sure it's not also hitting a data connection to download maps, and that the screen is off.)

hiram112 8y ago

>Either somebody sells it and gives me a "free" OS or somebody sells me an OS and I don't "sell" my privacy. Don't forget the Windows 10 model: You're forced to buy the OEM version on any new PC, and then you still get your privacy sold by MS.

nimbix 8y ago
The last time I checked it was still possible to buy a computer without Windows, as well as buy Windows that can be transferred between machines. Most people just don't bother with that.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Good luck with that. Even though it is possible it is much harder than just to ignore the problem and pay the Microsoft tax. And if you're going to buy a computer without windows why would you then buy Windows separately, that's much more expensive, and people that go out of their way to buy machines without Windows likely don't run Windows at all.
  - sgnl 8y ago
    Building a gaming PC is one case where you buy the Windows OS separately from the PC (especially if you're building it part by part)
  - notjtrig 8y ago
    You can have a windows partition on a machine that is primarily Linux. First install Windows and then install Linux and there's no issue. Windows 10 today does not require a licence to operate it will not lock you out if you never activate.

mygo 8y ago

well in addition to privacy concerns, location tracking is a huge drain on the battery. And a good battery life is one of their selling points so I wouldn’t be surprised if during part of the review process some reviewers might hold the opinion that there better be a good reason why your app is using so much juice in the background.

mariodiana 8y ago

I was on the phone with Apple once, arguing about why the iOS app I put together at work shouldn't be rejected for running location services all the time. The point the representative at Apple made was that something like that needs to be primarily for the user's benefit, as opposed to it being primarily for the benefit of the people behind the app. I was able to demonstrate that to them, and the app was approved. Apple is about apps being for the benefit of the user.

sizzle 8y ago
Wow I might just have to turn in my Android phone. I've been using Android since the G1 flagship phone. I value privacy the older I get.

flukus 8y ago

> Either somebody sells it and gives me a "free" OS or somebody sells me an OS and I don't "sell" my privacy Linux desktops show a viable 3rd option, they are free, libre and protect your privacy (usually). The also provide the halfway point I want between the iOS model and the android model the provide a set of core well vetted apps from the store and allow me to install whatever else I want. Librem or whoever makes a mobile equivalent the linux desktop can't come soon enough.