4 ms·

Always the same apple bashing for doing what their users would or will probably like

_qulr 6y ago
Where do you see Apple bashing in the article? It was an article targeted at app developers, offering them advice on how to adapt to the new rules.
- simonh 6y ago
  The Apple bashing is in the title and in the text, calling this a "def-facto ban" by Apple. No it's not, it's giving the option to the users. The fact that users generally abhor and detest this sort of tracking and want nothing to do with it is hardly Apple's fault.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    In the same way that people bash the EU for cookie banners, people will bash Apple for extra work on both sides ( developer and user) to comply with new, better rules around privacy.
    - random5634 6y ago
      I bash the EU constantly for cookie banners because they are an example of something that is SO ANNOYING that USERS absolutely hate them. Apple and the EU's approaches to privacy and security are diametrically opposed. Apple has reasonable technical defaults, and is not to intrusive. EU is massive annoyance and intrustion, and limited technical competence. My guess - if you let users flip a bit in their browser to never have to see a cookie popup again with an auto agree to all forms of tracking, a huge number would do it. The EU has done more to damage the attention people pay to privacy and security than almost anyone out there. They seem to not realize that: 1) Users have control over cookies, persistence etc via their browser directly, which would be a great place to start making changes. 2) Popping up a notice for every damn innocuous and obvious use of a cookie is totally annoying to just about everyone. 3) THe amount of time wasted on cookie policies alone is just nuts. The mismash is ridiculous. ICO, CNIL, German and Spanish DPA, UK and EU laws on cookies.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    If, as you say, the preference of users is obvious and predictable, and Apple gives an option to users with a completely predictable outcome that will prevent analytics SDKs from being viable, then I think it's fair to say that this is a de facto ban. Whether that's good or bad is a subject for separate debate. But the main question of the article is whether developers can still use these SDKs, and the author speculates that it will no longer be possible for developers to use them. That sounds like a de facto ban to me. Again, I'm not even commenting whether that's good or bad. If you read other comments here, some people would be very happy with an outright explicit ban. Are they "Apple bashing"? No, of course not. I still don't see how talking about a de facto ban is bashing, it's just a natural consequence of the iOS changes, at least according to the article author.
    - simonh 6y ago
      "But the main question of the article is whether developers can still use these SDKs, and the author speculates that it will no longer be possible for developers to use them." OMG. I can't believe you just wrote that, you're just proving my case for me. Yes, developers will be able to use whatever SDKs they like, Apple won't lift a finger to stop them, in fact it's extremely simple for developers to use those SDKs. Not impossible at all. All they will have to do is indicate third party tracking in the App description and present an opt-in dialog. But apparently, this option of letting users decide appears to be literally inconceivable. Under the new rules "...it will no longer be possible to use them". No rhetorical device is too contrived to direct the responsibility to Apple rather than the people actually choosing not to enable tracking - users.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        From the article: "In the coming weeks, iOS 14.5 will require apps that engage in “3rd Party Tracking” to ask explicit permission, which most users will opt out of." If most users opt out, then an analytics SDK becomes effectively useless. You're ranting about the possibility of using an analytics SDK - which nobody is denying, because it's a "de facto" ban, not a "de jure" ban. But an analytics SDK that gathers almost no analytics is not even worth having. So in effect, it's a ban. > All they will have to do is indicate third party tracking in the App description and present an opt-in dialog. Oh, that's all. And then get no analytics. But they can still "use" the analytics SDK... to do nothing. You know, I don't even have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. I have no horse in this race. But I've got no problem with the phrase "de facto ban". It seems like a reasonable description of the situation. And again, some people would love a de jure ban, so it's not like the author of the article is using a "naughty" word.
jeroenhd 6y ago
I strongly dislike Apple's business practices, the vendor lock-in they continue to create and the way they design their software and hardware, but this is undoubtedly a move in the right direction. As a user, I want to have the option to globally disable all tracking. Random advertiser IDs every time one is requested, no sharing of vendor IDs, just quit it. Gather your statistics from people who don't care about privacy or people too tech-illiterate to disable the checkbox, but don't force your terrible tracking down the customer's throat. Or rather, disable the tracking by default, make it opt-in per app. If your app is crap but useful enough, people will want to improve it. Now, if Apple did that, all the Silicon Valley startups around app optimisation would cry foul, Facebook and Google would sue Apple and there'd be a massive PR campaign against Apple, so they can't do ever what I'd like them to do. Lots of developers seem to act as if they have a god-given right to track people to gather analytics rather than doing some costly end-user research. These were probably the same developers who proclaimed that the GDPR would end all computing as we know it because now they have the legal obligation to care about their customers' privacy.

Where do you see Apple bashing in the article? It was an article targeted at app developers, offering them advice on how to adapt to the new rules.

simonh 6y ago
The Apple bashing is in the title and in the text, calling this a "def-facto ban" by Apple. No it's not, it's giving the option to the users. The fact that users generally abhor and detest this sort of tracking and want nothing to do with it is hardly Apple's fault.
- sofixa 6y ago
  In the same way that people bash the EU for cookie banners, people will bash Apple for extra work on both sides ( developer and user) to comply with new, better rules around privacy.
  - random5634 6y ago
    I bash the EU constantly for cookie banners because they are an example of something that is SO ANNOYING that USERS absolutely hate them. Apple and the EU's approaches to privacy and security are diametrically opposed. Apple has reasonable technical defaults, and is not to intrusive. EU is massive annoyance and intrustion, and limited technical competence. My guess - if you let users flip a bit in their browser to never have to see a cookie popup again with an auto agree to all forms of tracking, a huge number would do it. The EU has done more to damage the attention people pay to privacy and security than almost anyone out there. They seem to not realize that: 1) Users have control over cookies, persistence etc via their browser directly, which would be a great place to start making changes. 2) Popping up a notice for every damn innocuous and obvious use of a cookie is totally annoying to just about everyone. 3) THe amount of time wasted on cookie policies alone is just nuts. The mismash is ridiculous. ICO, CNIL, German and Spanish DPA, UK and EU laws on cookies.
- _qulr 6y ago
  If, as you say, the preference of users is obvious and predictable, and Apple gives an option to users with a completely predictable outcome that will prevent analytics SDKs from being viable, then I think it's fair to say that this is a de facto ban. Whether that's good or bad is a subject for separate debate. But the main question of the article is whether developers can still use these SDKs, and the author speculates that it will no longer be possible for developers to use them. That sounds like a de facto ban to me. Again, I'm not even commenting whether that's good or bad. If you read other comments here, some people would be very happy with an outright explicit ban. Are they "Apple bashing"? No, of course not. I still don't see how talking about a de facto ban is bashing, it's just a natural consequence of the iOS changes, at least according to the article author.
  - simonh 6y ago
    "But the main question of the article is whether developers can still use these SDKs, and the author speculates that it will no longer be possible for developers to use them." OMG. I can't believe you just wrote that, you're just proving my case for me. Yes, developers will be able to use whatever SDKs they like, Apple won't lift a finger to stop them, in fact it's extremely simple for developers to use those SDKs. Not impossible at all. All they will have to do is indicate third party tracking in the App description and present an opt-in dialog. But apparently, this option of letting users decide appears to be literally inconceivable. Under the new rules "...it will no longer be possible to use them". No rhetorical device is too contrived to direct the responsibility to Apple rather than the people actually choosing not to enable tracking - users.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      From the article: "In the coming weeks, iOS 14.5 will require apps that engage in “3rd Party Tracking” to ask explicit permission, which most users will opt out of." If most users opt out, then an analytics SDK becomes effectively useless. You're ranting about the possibility of using an analytics SDK - which nobody is denying, because it's a "de facto" ban, not a "de jure" ban. But an analytics SDK that gathers almost no analytics is not even worth having. So in effect, it's a ban. > All they will have to do is indicate third party tracking in the App description and present an opt-in dialog. Oh, that's all. And then get no analytics. But they can still "use" the analytics SDK... to do nothing. You know, I don't even have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. I have no horse in this race. But I've got no problem with the phrase "de facto ban". It seems like a reasonable description of the situation. And again, some people would love a de jure ban, so it's not like the author of the article is using a "naughty" word.

jeroenhd 6y ago

I strongly dislike Apple's business practices, the vendor lock-in they continue to create and the way they design their software and hardware, but this is undoubtedly a move in the right direction. As a user, I want to have the option to globally disable all tracking. Random advertiser IDs every time one is requested, no sharing of vendor IDs, just quit it. Gather your statistics from people who don't care about privacy or people too tech-illiterate to disable the checkbox, but don't force your terrible tracking down the customer's throat. Or rather, disable the tracking by default, make it opt-in per app. If your app is crap but useful enough, people will want to improve it. Now, if Apple did that, all the Silicon Valley startups around app optimisation would cry foul, Facebook and Google would sue Apple and there'd be a massive PR campaign against Apple, so they can't do ever what I'd like them to do. Lots of developers seem to act as if they have a god-given right to track people to gather analytics rather than doing some costly end-user research. These were probably the same developers who proclaimed that the GDPR would end all computing as we know it because now they have the legal obligation to care about their customers' privacy.