4 ms·

Google Photos is not circumventing anything. It’s using a public API that was provided to developers in order to detect and react to limited permissions. If I

Google Photos is not circumventing anything. It’s using a public API that was provided to developers in order to detect and react to limited permissions. If I paid for Google Photos and they won’t let me access my stored data without handing over even more data, then that feels outrageous. But if I’m using it for free, then it’s a reminder that nothing is actually free. That business model likely can’t work as a “view only” retrieval service. (If it even works at all)

saagarjha 6y ago
> Google Photos is not circumventing anything. Yes, it is. It is attempting to induce the user to granting more access than it needs to function, circumventing the user's preferences regarding the privacy of their photos. In doing so, they fall afoul of section 5.1.1 of the App Store Review Guidelines. > It’s using a public API that was provided to developers in order to detect and react to limited permissions. It is very clear that the interaction that Google Photos has with this API is not what it was designed for. I actually advocate for the removal of this API as it is very easy to use in ways that are not appropriate (and of limited use to legitimate apps). > That business model likely can’t work as a “view only” retrieval service. photos.google.com on desktop exists. Plus, this is an entirely separate argument; regardless of the business model there are rules for what iOS apps are allowed to do and the outrage stems from that.
- cmelbye 6y ago
  Nothing is circumvented. I limited access to my photos, and Google told me that it needs full access for me to be able to “view, share, or back up” my photo library. There are no lies or circumventions here. The situation is fully transparent: They don’t want to build a “view only” experience. Apple cannot force them to build a “view only” experience. They can reject Google Photos, and Google can re-evaluate their investment. Viability of the business model is really not a separate argument. It’s intrinsic to the argument. Unfortunately, an App Store Guidelines decree does not mean that a business model becomes magically feasible. Let’s say Apple rejects Google Photos as you are suggesting. Google would likely relent and build a “view only” experience. Google can afford to lose money. A photo startup with limited funding might not have that option, and could go out of business. Is that a win?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I desire the ability to use the Google Photos app without giving it all my photos on this device. Perhaps I only want to share my camera photos and not the screenshots I take, or whatever. Google Photos gets around this by pretending that it cannot function without access to all my photos…which is basically the definition of circumvention. I am not claiming that the App Store Review Guidelines can magically make an app model feasible; instead my claim is that Apple claims that all apps on the App Store follow the guidelines and Google agrees to this so they can distribute their apps on the store. I actually strongly disagree with the situation surrounding the App Store as it is currently, but this is how it is for now and if we apply the rules consistently then Google Photos as it is now cannot be in the App Store. There is no provision that says "you can bend the rules if they are an existential threat to your business".
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

saagarjha 6y ago

> Google Photos is not circumventing anything. Yes, it is. It is attempting to induce the user to granting more access than it needs to function, circumventing the user's preferences regarding the privacy of their photos. In doing so, they fall afoul of section 5.1.1 of the App Store Review Guidelines. > It’s using a public API that was provided to developers in order to detect and react to limited permissions. It is very clear that the interaction that Google Photos has with this API is not what it was designed for. I actually advocate for the removal of this API as it is very easy to use in ways that are not appropriate (and of limited use to legitimate apps). > That business model likely can’t work as a “view only” retrieval service. photos.google.com on desktop exists. Plus, this is an entirely separate argument; regardless of the business model there are rules for what iOS apps are allowed to do and the outrage stems from that.

cmelbye 6y ago
Nothing is circumvented. I limited access to my photos, and Google told me that it needs full access for me to be able to “view, share, or back up” my photo library. There are no lies or circumventions here. The situation is fully transparent: They don’t want to build a “view only” experience. Apple cannot force them to build a “view only” experience. They can reject Google Photos, and Google can re-evaluate their investment. Viability of the business model is really not a separate argument. It’s intrinsic to the argument. Unfortunately, an App Store Guidelines decree does not mean that a business model becomes magically feasible. Let’s say Apple rejects Google Photos as you are suggesting. Google would likely relent and build a “view only” experience. Google can afford to lose money. A photo startup with limited funding might not have that option, and could go out of business. Is that a win?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I desire the ability to use the Google Photos app without giving it all my photos on this device. Perhaps I only want to share my camera photos and not the screenshots I take, or whatever. Google Photos gets around this by pretending that it cannot function without access to all my photos…which is basically the definition of circumvention. I am not claiming that the App Store Review Guidelines can magically make an app model feasible; instead my claim is that Apple claims that all apps on the App Store follow the guidelines and Google agrees to this so they can distribute their apps on the store. I actually strongly disagree with the situation surrounding the App Store as it is currently, but this is how it is for now and if we apply the rules consistently then Google Photos as it is now cannot be in the App Store. There is no provision that says "you can bend the rules if they are an existential threat to your business".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]