4 ms·
I don’t think it’s “pay $0.99 to remove ads” that’s the problem. It’s more about “Share your contacts for 500 gems” or “enable location tracking and we’ll give
by KMnO4 6y ago
I don’t think it’s “pay $0.99 to remove ads” that’s the problem.
It’s more about “Share your contacts for 500 gems” or “enable location tracking and we’ll give you access to all these cool filters”.
N.B. Snapchat recently stopped doing this. You can now use filters that don’t require location when location is turned off. I wonder if Apple stepping in is the reason why.
- zzo38computer 6y agoWhile I agree that such thing such as “Share your contacts for 500 gems” or “enable location tracking and we’ll give you access to all these cool filters” should not be allowed in the app store, they should not require that only apps from the app store can be used; you should be allowed to freely install your own (by using special menus or whatever). However, I would also have design the system that you can easily fake these data, so even if it does say "share your contacts for 500 gems", they will not know if the data is legitimate or not. (This capability might be useful for testing purposes too, perhaps.)
- gruez 6y ago>I don’t think it’s “pay $0.99 to remove ads” that’s the problem. >It’s more about “Share your contacts for 500 gems” or “enable location tracking and we’ll give you access to all these cool filters”. while this is definitely pro-privacy, my cynical take is that this is also better for apple. If you offer an IAP apple gets their 30% cut, but if it's some sort of ad/data broker deal they don't.
- zepto 6y agoBoth are banned, so it’s not clear what you are cynical about.
- vineyardmike 6y agoMaking services not-free (by de-incentivizing alternative methods of profitability) is certainly good for apple.