3 ms·

I find the decision of the scorned developers to file with the European Union’s competition office amusing considering the Union's incredibly strong stance on i

I find the decision of the scorned developers to file with the European Union’s competition office amusing considering the Union's incredibly strong stance on individual data privacy. iPhones contain so much personal data on-device that Apple is absolutely responsible for protecting that data from illegitimate access. Using MDM which is clearly intended for enterprise management is an illegitimate use-case. Period. The argument that their ability to use MDM APIs in the past and earn revenue due to a gap in Apple's vigilance dictates that they should be able to continue unimpeded is a logical fallacy. Apple is under no obligation to offer unfettered API access to these companies just because they were filling a market need that Apple didn't want to pursue. You can tell if Apple wasn't under a market demand obligation to offer MDM to enterprises, they would cut that too. One of the value props of the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem is that Apple exerts this level of control and editorializing on the platform. The result of which is easily seen when comparing the quantity of data mining apps on Android vs iOS. I'm sure if I was one of these scorned developers, I would feel abused even victimized by Apple. Unfortunately that is a biased perspective. Apple is doing the right thing for consumers and end-users by blocking these apps. The reporting on this was atrocious and seems to be a result of the recent competitive chatter about sandboxed computing platforms like iOS. Broader discussions around anti-competitive behavior on these platforms are needed, but this wasn't the poster-child.

scarface74 7y ago
And the thing is Apple is not banning parents from buying something like AirWatch - a legitimate MDM software/service ($4.95 per device per month) - where the parents are in complete control of the profiles installed on their kids devices.
- gowld 7y ago
  Is AirWatch in the non-enterprise market? What are the differences between the legitimate apps and the others? Is the difference publicized by Apple somewhere? Granting access to sensitive data via an app, under stringent but fair conditions, would be a compromise. For example, implementing a controlled device mode, where the "spy" data is on-device only, and spy mode is clearly notified in the status bar, or what-have-you, so the person being monitored knows the rules at all times they are on device.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    There is nothing stopping you from using AirWatch for personal use. It’s a per device service. The difference is that you as the end user controls the maintenance of the profiles and control over the data being sent. From the press release “No one, except you, should have unrestricted access to manage your child’s device.”.
simion314 7y ago
Why not let the users decide, do Apple consider the users incompetent ? Edit: Is Apple offering similar applications? if yes are they using private APIs to implement the features?
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  If you honestly believe that users make informed decisions when they click through a EULA, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Maybe if these companies presented the privacy trade offs in a user-understandable way - but that would interfere with their popularity/monetization.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Make the UI more clear then a regular EULA, like when you want to allow a webpage or application your microphone or camera you get a clear warning, do you also consider that it will be fine Apple not allowing you to use the webcam on third party applications because users are naive.
jimmaswell 7y ago
Whatever Europe's crazy data privacy laws, it's ridiculous they'd apply to the case of a parent keeping track of their kids. The kid's right to wander into crazy elsagate videos and have covert online conversations with predators unsupervised is more important than the parent's right to protect their kid, and Apple is justified in ripping the monitoring capability out of parents' hands? Is that what you're saying? Hopefully the parents either switch to Android if such a thing is still possible on Android or just get them flip phones with no data plan intended only for emergency calls. Where they can get a list of sent/received calls at the end of the month from the cellphone company at least, I assume.
- geofft 7y ago
  On an ethical argument (not a what-does-the-law-say-now argument), it seems defensible for kids (over a certain age, perhaps) to have reliable channels that their parents can't monitor. It's how you realize your family is abusive and get help when they are (the same arguments apply to people in abusive romantic relationships having their own digital root-of-trust that their partner doesn't have access to). It's how you find out that other people are queer too and it's not just you when your parents won't tell you anything. Your argument also has merit, and I don't know where the balance is, but I don't think it's entirely one or the other.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Over a certain age, yes, probably starting at high school. Sex ed and history classes should go over LGBT stuff and teachers/guidance counselors are supposed to be avenues for getting help for abuse, not that these two things work out right all the time in practice.
- sjwright 7y ago
  Please be careful to separate the principle from the implementation. What the app developers had done was unquestionably against the developer terms. They would have known it was wrong. And Apple was right to stop them. These apps were dodgy. They effectively became a new and incredibly convenient vector for an app developer to spy on children. It's disgusting that people defend them.
canuckintime 7y ago
> I find the decision of the scorned developers to file with the European Union’s competition office amusing... Apple is under no obligation to offer unfettered API access to these companies just because they were filling a market need that Apple didn't want to pursue. The crux of the complaint is that Apple is pursuing this market need with Screentime introduced at the same time Apple started banning these competitor apps from developers
- geofft 7y ago
  Yes, that's the complaint, but it's not a convincing one. Apple doesn't make money from Screen Time; it's a default part of iOS, with no subscription fees, and everyone with a compatible device gets iOS upgrades themselves for free (and Apple's been really good about compatibility in the last few releases). Apple saying "We wish that third parties were not abusing MDM to provide this feature, but we recognize the feature is important, so we'll just implement it ourselves and only kill the third-party apps once our thing works" is an entirely coherent thought process. It is exactly what Apple would do if the are genuinely motivated by user privacy/security and genuinely not motivated by trying to be anti-competitive towards these apps.

scarface74 7y ago

And the thing is Apple is not banning parents from buying something like AirWatch - a legitimate MDM software/service ($4.95 per device per month) - where the parents are in complete control of the profiles installed on their kids devices.

gowld 7y ago
Is AirWatch in the non-enterprise market? What are the differences between the legitimate apps and the others? Is the difference publicized by Apple somewhere? Granting access to sensitive data via an app, under stringent but fair conditions, would be a compromise. For example, implementing a controlled device mode, where the "spy" data is on-device only, and spy mode is clearly notified in the status bar, or what-have-you, so the person being monitored knows the rules at all times they are on device.
- scarface74 7y ago
  There is nothing stopping you from using AirWatch for personal use. It’s a per device service. The difference is that you as the end user controls the maintenance of the profiles and control over the data being sent. From the press release “No one, except you, should have unrestricted access to manage your child’s device.”.

simion314 7y ago

Why not let the users decide, do Apple consider the users incompetent ? Edit: Is Apple offering similar applications? if yes are they using private APIs to implement the features?

AlexandrB 7y ago
If you honestly believe that users make informed decisions when they click through a EULA, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Maybe if these companies presented the privacy trade offs in a user-understandable way - but that would interfere with their popularity/monetization.
- simion314 7y ago
  Make the UI more clear then a regular EULA, like when you want to allow a webpage or application your microphone or camera you get a clear warning, do you also consider that it will be fine Apple not allowing you to use the webcam on third party applications because users are naive.

jimmaswell 7y ago

Whatever Europe's crazy data privacy laws, it's ridiculous they'd apply to the case of a parent keeping track of their kids. The kid's right to wander into crazy elsagate videos and have covert online conversations with predators unsupervised is more important than the parent's right to protect their kid, and Apple is justified in ripping the monitoring capability out of parents' hands? Is that what you're saying? Hopefully the parents either switch to Android if such a thing is still possible on Android or just get them flip phones with no data plan intended only for emergency calls. Where they can get a list of sent/received calls at the end of the month from the cellphone company at least, I assume.

geofft 7y ago
On an ethical argument (not a what-does-the-law-say-now argument), it seems defensible for kids (over a certain age, perhaps) to have reliable channels that their parents can't monitor. It's how you realize your family is abusive and get help when they are (the same arguments apply to people in abusive romantic relationships having their own digital root-of-trust that their partner doesn't have access to). It's how you find out that other people are queer too and it's not just you when your parents won't tell you anything. Your argument also has merit, and I don't know where the balance is, but I don't think it's entirely one or the other.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Over a certain age, yes, probably starting at high school. Sex ed and history classes should go over LGBT stuff and teachers/guidance counselors are supposed to be avenues for getting help for abuse, not that these two things work out right all the time in practice.
sjwright 7y ago
Please be careful to separate the principle from the implementation. What the app developers had done was unquestionably against the developer terms. They would have known it was wrong. And Apple was right to stop them. These apps were dodgy. They effectively became a new and incredibly convenient vector for an app developer to spy on children. It's disgusting that people defend them.

canuckintime 7y ago

> I find the decision of the scorned developers to file with the European Union’s competition office amusing... Apple is under no obligation to offer unfettered API access to these companies just because they were filling a market need that Apple didn't want to pursue. The crux of the complaint is that Apple is pursuing this market need with Screentime introduced at the same time Apple started banning these competitor apps from developers

geofft 7y ago
Yes, that's the complaint, but it's not a convincing one. Apple doesn't make money from Screen Time; it's a default part of iOS, with no subscription fees, and everyone with a compatible device gets iOS upgrades themselves for free (and Apple's been really good about compatibility in the last few releases). Apple saying "We wish that third parties were not abusing MDM to provide this feature, but we recognize the feature is important, so we'll just implement it ourselves and only kill the third-party apps once our thing works" is an entirely coherent thought process. It is exactly what Apple would do if the are genuinely motivated by user privacy/security and genuinely not motivated by trying to be anti-competitive towards these apps.