36 ms·

> the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this Could you please quote the relevant section of the

• simonh 6y ago
  Sure, fourth paragraph: "Apple is also enacting a de-facto ban on these free analytics SDKs. The setup looks like this:"
  • _qulr 6y ago
    Is it accurate to say that your only evidence that this article constitutes "Apple bashing" is the word "ban"? If so, that seems hypersensitive and defensive IMO. A "de facto ban" is not a "de jure ban", so it's already a pretty weak statement.
    • threeseed 6y ago
      It's not a de-facto ban either. In fact it's not a ban. Period. Advertisers could invest time and money in explaining to users what their data is being used for and the benefits it brings. Making it seem like Apple is preventing analytics by simply asking users what they want is disingenuous at best.
      • _qulr 6y ago
        Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."
        • Spivak 6y ago
          I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around, write down everything they do, and then use it to send them ads. Guess that means the new rule isn't toothless after all.
          • _qulr 6y ago
            > I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously believe I'm defending the "death" option? But if we continue with this analogy, it's important to remember that Apple has been allowing "death" in its App Store for 12 years and is only now getting around to asking users whether they want death. Moreover, the App Store "race to the bottom" intentionally undermined the previous business model of selling upfront paid software. App Store devalued software and propped up the alternative of making everything free and turning customers into products. Apple has a lot of "blood" on its hands in this matter. I personally install Little Snitch on my Mac to block apps from phoning home. Yet Apple doesn't allow a similar tool on iOS. So I don't buy Apple's "privacy" BS for one second, because they don't allow me to protect my own privacy.
            • simonh 6y ago
              Then why are you complaining about them implementing privacy controls?
              • _qulr 6y ago
                I'm not. I'm complaining about the claim "It's not a ban! It's not a ban! Apple isn't doing anything!" This whole argument seems like a variation of "Guns don't kill people, [X] does." If Apple puts a (metaphorical) gun in every user's hand and points them at the analytics SDKs, it seems ludicrous to claim that Apple has nothing to do with the analytics SDKs getting killed. Regardless of whether or not they deserve to be killed. At the very least, it's passive-aggressive, if not incitement to "violence". Now, the article says, "Apple did not – and from a legal perspective likely can’t – explicitly ban the Google Analytics, Flurry, Facebook, and Firebase SDKs." I'm not clear on what legal perspective the author means. Antitrust? In any case, from your perspective, why wouldn't Apple ban them if it could? There are plenty of things that Apple does ban in the App Store, without giving the user a choice. I still don't get why you think "ban" is a dirty word.
        • simonh 6y ago
          Yes a choice is being made. Yes it’s killing scummy tracking behaviour. It’s the users making the choice though, not Apple.