3 ms·

With multiple app stores Apple will lose some ability to force app vendors to follow good privacy practices. For example, if Facebook violates Apple’s privacy p

by oivey 6y ago

With multiple app stores Apple will lose some ability to force app vendors to follow good privacy practices. For example, if Facebook violates Apple’s privacy policy now they can’t be on iOS. In a world of multiple stores Facebook can just move themselves to a 3rd party store. The current set up makes it so that Facebook is available AND they are limited in how much information they can siphon off from you. If it becomes the norm to use app stores that enforce no standards, then a lot of the privacy protections for using iOS will be gone.

viraptor 6y ago
As long as the Apple appstore rules and support are reasonable, there's going to be a balance where being in the default appstore is very profitable / better than potential gain from use abuse. Phrased differently, if it becomes Apple's goal to be the appstore of choice for publishers and the safest option for customers, we all win. Apple will always have control over what the apps can ultimately do using their APIs. If they don't expose "read all contacts without explicit confirmation" then even third party store apps won't be able to achieve that.
greatgib 6y ago
I understand your argument, but it considers that Apple is a philanthropic altruistic entity, that has only your best interest in mind when deciding for its "rules". But, Apple (same as Google) are companies and not foundations. Their only "legal" purpose is to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders. Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store? And if the App Store has so much "privacy" value, why do you think that people will accept to install another AppStore? So, there is no risk of the problem that you describe. Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people? And you see positively their action mostly based on their marketing propaganda, ie that they protect and take care of you. But, for real, they will not hesitate to censor apps or features that are competitors to them, or that threaten their revenues. And worse, so far they are all scared of possible antitrust issues, but otherwise, the day they will have all the market locked, they will racket everyone as much as possible. Think about it, some people say that the current appstore "fees" are rights because they need to pay for the service and co. But now, look at Apple financials, their margins, and you can see that very few companies in the world have their level of wealth with hundreds of billions of cash pilling up! Also, one day, the boss of the company can decide that anything he don't like (ex. Blue candies) will be banned. And the world would have to accept it unilaterally. To conclude, I would like to paste this nice quote that I just saw on internet: << ‘The main effects of monopoly are to misallocate resources, to reduce aggregate welfare, and to redistribute income in favour of monopolists.’ (Harberger, 1954: 2) >>
- judge2020 6y ago
  > Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people? I have relinquished that decision to them. There's obviously no market research in this topic but the fact that people only go to the App Store to download apps and need an iCloud account to do so makes it pretty apparent that Apple is running things on their phone. People don't see that as a problem but only because it hasn't directly impacted them, or it has only impacted them in a way that is, in itself, disingenuous (ie piracy) or otherwise not something <society> would back them up on (the break from that being Epic Games' lawsuit where they were removed for offering direct payment - society/their player base is indeed going "yay Epic" and supporting them).
- oivey 6y ago
  > Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store? Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).
ViViDboarder 6y ago
We shouldn’t have to rely on Apple, a private company, to regulate tracking of users. There should be actual regulations protecting us such that we’re not at the whim of Apple. GDPR and CCPA have made significant impacts on user privacy. Also, Apple can keep enforcing it at the API level and prevent access to identifiable device information, tighten app sandboxes, etc.
Siira 6y ago
"Privacy" is a set of tradeoffs that different people/companies make differently. People who care about Apple's privacy choices can stick to their store, and forgo apps that aren't there. (Besides, Apple gives Chinese users' data to the CCP. There is no reason to believe that they aren't/won't do the same with other demographics. Apple has both supply and demand ties to the CCP.)

by oivey 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago

As long as the Apple appstore rules and support are reasonable, there's going to be a balance where being in the default appstore is very profitable / better than potential gain from use abuse. Phrased differently, if it becomes Apple's goal to be the appstore of choice for publishers and the safest option for customers, we all win. Apple will always have control over what the apps can ultimately do using their APIs. If they don't expose "read all contacts without explicit confirmation" then even third party store apps won't be able to achieve that.

greatgib 6y ago

I understand your argument, but it considers that Apple is a philanthropic altruistic entity, that has only your best interest in mind when deciding for its "rules". But, Apple (same as Google) are companies and not foundations. Their only "legal" purpose is to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders. Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store? And if the App Store has so much "privacy" value, why do you think that people will accept to install another AppStore? So, there is no risk of the problem that you describe. Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people? And you see positively their action mostly based on their marketing propaganda, ie that they protect and take care of you. But, for real, they will not hesitate to censor apps or features that are competitors to them, or that threaten their revenues. And worse, so far they are all scared of possible antitrust issues, but otherwise, the day they will have all the market locked, they will racket everyone as much as possible. Think about it, some people say that the current appstore "fees" are rights because they need to pay for the service and co. But now, look at Apple financials, their margins, and you can see that very few companies in the world have their level of wealth with hundreds of billions of cash pilling up! Also, one day, the boss of the company can decide that anything he don't like (ex. Blue candies) will be banned. And the world would have to accept it unilaterally. To conclude, I would like to paste this nice quote that I just saw on internet: << ‘The main effects of monopoly are to misallocate resources, to reduce aggregate welfare, and to redistribute income in favour of monopolists.’ (Harberger, 1954: 2) >>

judge2020 6y ago
> Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people? I have relinquished that decision to them. There's obviously no market research in this topic but the fact that people only go to the App Store to download apps and need an iCloud account to do so makes it pretty apparent that Apple is running things on their phone. People don't see that as a problem but only because it hasn't directly impacted them, or it has only impacted them in a way that is, in itself, disingenuous (ie piracy) or otherwise not something <society> would back them up on (the break from that being Epic Games' lawsuit where they were removed for offering direct payment - society/their player base is indeed going "yay Epic" and supporting them).
oivey 6y ago
> Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store? Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).

ViViDboarder 6y ago

We shouldn’t have to rely on Apple, a private company, to regulate tracking of users. There should be actual regulations protecting us such that we’re not at the whim of Apple. GDPR and CCPA have made significant impacts on user privacy. Also, Apple can keep enforcing it at the API level and prevent access to identifiable device information, tighten app sandboxes, etc.

Siira 6y ago

"Privacy" is a set of tradeoffs that different people/companies make differently. People who care about Apple's privacy choices can stick to their store, and forgo apps that aren't there. (Besides, Apple gives Chinese users' data to the CCP. There is no reason to believe that they aren't/won't do the same with other demographics. Apple has both supply and demand ties to the CCP.)