5 ms·

How are the apps still not removed?

by throwuxiytayq 5y ago

classified 5y ago
Can't let the addicts go cold turkey.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted. The sooner these apps die the better off society as a whole will be.
comeonseriously 5y ago
Apple is allowing this.
BbzzbB 5y ago
Apple fighting it on a technical level or playing tough in private negotiations is one thing, but do you truly expect Apple's customers would be pleased if Tim decides in their stead that Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are off-limits? They have their own profit motives and you can be damn sure they will not hurt them in the name of a privacy crusade. Walling out small time apps with marginal use from your garden is a safe play, doing so with apps used by a crushing majority of your users is a whole different story.
- antihero 5y ago
  They don't have to take down the apps, just refuse to publish updates with the privacy violating features. This puts the ball in Facebook's court.
  - DrBenCarson 5y ago
    Exactly! 1. No updates released 2. No revenue released 3. An alert warning the user that the app is noncompliant and it’s use could result in data theft (ie think self-signed SSL in the browser) 4. Restrict all network activity from those apps to the first-party domain
- nowherebeen 5y ago
  They could just disable new device installs and allow existing users to continue using it. That would be enough to motivate them to correct behavior without causing an uproar. Existing users wouldn't even notice.
  - BbzzbB 5y ago
    Equally likely to be enough motivation for potential iPhone buyers to instead get a Pixel or whatever other top-end phones are made for Android. That seems like a more likely compass for Apple's decision making. Besides, when has there even been uproar that translated into material change of users behavior like an exodus? We're a bunch of self-selected nerds/geeks on this forum which makes us forget how much people do not give a shit about privacy issues and other wrong-doings of the FAAMGs. If they do care, the threshold is either really hard to cross or the addiction/network effect too strong to move the needle. These controversies come and go - The Social Network, Cambridge Analytica, addiction/dopamine, Social Dilemma, Chinese interference (TikTok), censorship, election manipulation, terrorism funnels and countless other issues - but users, as an aggregate, they just come. Same way they never stopped buying iPhones despite suicide nets at Foxconn's factories or coffee made with child labor. What users would care about is if you'd tell them "No, you can't use these apps with billions of users on our phones". I'm ready to be proven wrong, but I'd take a bet Apple will not act on delisting or banning updates for Facebook & Instagram, that's wishful thinking in my book. Their morale high ground PR is clearly effective however.
- vanilla_nut 5y ago
  It could be like Flash: everyone agrees it’s awful, nobody wants to lose it on their device… but if Apple cuts off a large enough share of the market, it could be enough to cut down Facebook forever.
mrweasel 5y ago
Right, if Apple is serious about privacy they should give Facebook and Snapchat two weeks to comply and then just yank the apps. No extention, no exception, comply or your app is killed.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Clearly they're only serious about privacy until it could impact the bottom line. Despite the removals only helping users in the long run, removing two of their most popular apps (Snapchat is routinely #1 overall) would result in blowback towards Apple.
  - mrweasel 5y ago
    Yep, but let us also remind our self how stupid that line of argumentation is. Apple needs to let at least Facebook track us, if they don’t Apple will lose millions of customers. Even if Apple truly want to be serious regarding privacy, the majority of their user base won’t let them.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      The vast majority of users don't really understand what's going on. All they'll know is that Apple pulled two apps that they use all the time, and they'll blame Apple for it. Yes, it's stupid, but it's the unfortunate reality. I do use Snapchat, but I would 100% support Apple pulling the app until they fall in line with proper privacy controls. Unfortunately I'm in the minority, and both Apple and Snapchat know this.
      - VRay 5y ago
        yeah, it's pretty frustrating, regular people on the street and even semi-technical people I talk to say "Oh, Apple is just as bad as all the others" They legitimately don't understand the difference between Facebook tracking every detail about your life and Apple having an account with your name on it
- jraby3 5y ago
twobitshifter 5y ago
The article says that Apple is allowing this behavior from developers - so I think the unhappiness should be addressed at Apple. Users clicked do not track but apps can still log your ip, and fingerprint you by your groups. > an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," which developers have interpreted to mean that they can still observe "signals" and behaviors from groups of users instead, enabling these groups to be shown tailored ads anyway. >Apple has not explicitly endorsed these techniques, but they allow third parties to track and analyze groups of users regardless of whether or not they have given consent to user-level tracking. In addition, Apple reportedly continues to trust apps to collect user-level data such as IP address, location, language, device, and screen size, even though some of this information is passed onto advertisers. So this makes the do not track almost worthless. Few advertisers will say show this ad to John Doe who lives at 341 maple avenue, but they will say things like show this ad to people living in Cincinnati between the ages of 20 and 30. And once you belong to enough ad groups, 6 or 7, you can be uniquely fingerprinted anyway.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >... so I think the unhappiness should be addressed at Apple. I think the unhappiness should be directed at Apple and the offending apps. There's no reason why it can't be both.

How are the apps still not removed?

classified 5y ago

Can't let the addicts go cold turkey.

bastardoperator 5y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. The sooner these apps die the better off society as a whole will be.

comeonseriously 5y ago

Apple is allowing this.

BbzzbB 5y ago

Apple fighting it on a technical level or playing tough in private negotiations is one thing, but do you truly expect Apple's customers would be pleased if Tim decides in their stead that Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are off-limits? They have their own profit motives and you can be damn sure they will not hurt them in the name of a privacy crusade. Walling out small time apps with marginal use from your garden is a safe play, doing so with apps used by a crushing majority of your users is a whole different story.

antihero 5y ago
They don't have to take down the apps, just refuse to publish updates with the privacy violating features. This puts the ball in Facebook's court.
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  Exactly! 1. No updates released 2. No revenue released 3. An alert warning the user that the app is noncompliant and it’s use could result in data theft (ie think self-signed SSL in the browser) 4. Restrict all network activity from those apps to the first-party domain
nowherebeen 5y ago
They could just disable new device installs and allow existing users to continue using it. That would be enough to motivate them to correct behavior without causing an uproar. Existing users wouldn't even notice.
- BbzzbB 5y ago
  Equally likely to be enough motivation for potential iPhone buyers to instead get a Pixel or whatever other top-end phones are made for Android. That seems like a more likely compass for Apple's decision making. Besides, when has there even been uproar that translated into material change of users behavior like an exodus? We're a bunch of self-selected nerds/geeks on this forum which makes us forget how much people do not give a shit about privacy issues and other wrong-doings of the FAAMGs. If they do care, the threshold is either really hard to cross or the addiction/network effect too strong to move the needle. These controversies come and go - The Social Network, Cambridge Analytica, addiction/dopamine, Social Dilemma, Chinese interference (TikTok), censorship, election manipulation, terrorism funnels and countless other issues - but users, as an aggregate, they just come. Same way they never stopped buying iPhones despite suicide nets at Foxconn's factories or coffee made with child labor. What users would care about is if you'd tell them "No, you can't use these apps with billions of users on our phones". I'm ready to be proven wrong, but I'd take a bet Apple will not act on delisting or banning updates for Facebook & Instagram, that's wishful thinking in my book. Their morale high ground PR is clearly effective however.
vanilla_nut 5y ago
It could be like Flash: everyone agrees it’s awful, nobody wants to lose it on their device… but if Apple cuts off a large enough share of the market, it could be enough to cut down Facebook forever.

mrweasel 5y ago

Right, if Apple is serious about privacy they should give Facebook and Snapchat two weeks to comply and then just yank the apps. No extention, no exception, comply or your app is killed.

jaywalk 5y ago
Clearly they're only serious about privacy until it could impact the bottom line. Despite the removals only helping users in the long run, removing two of their most popular apps (Snapchat is routinely #1 overall) would result in blowback towards Apple.
- mrweasel 5y ago
  Yep, but let us also remind our self how stupid that line of argumentation is. Apple needs to let at least Facebook track us, if they don’t Apple will lose millions of customers. Even if Apple truly want to be serious regarding privacy, the majority of their user base won’t let them.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    The vast majority of users don't really understand what's going on. All they'll know is that Apple pulled two apps that they use all the time, and they'll blame Apple for it. Yes, it's stupid, but it's the unfortunate reality. I do use Snapchat, but I would 100% support Apple pulling the app until they fall in line with proper privacy controls. Unfortunately I'm in the minority, and both Apple and Snapchat know this.
    - VRay 5y ago
      yeah, it's pretty frustrating, regular people on the street and even semi-technical people I talk to say "Oh, Apple is just as bad as all the others" They legitimately don't understand the difference between Facebook tracking every detail about your life and Apple having an account with your name on it
jraby3 5y ago

twobitshifter 5y ago

The article says that Apple is allowing this behavior from developers - so I think the unhappiness should be addressed at Apple. Users clicked do not track but apps can still log your ip, and fingerprint you by your groups. > an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," an unacknowledged shift that lets companies follow a much looser interpretation of its controversial privacy policy." Apple has instructed developers that they "may not derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying it," which developers have interpreted to mean that they can still observe "signals" and behaviors from groups of users instead, enabling these groups to be shown tailored ads anyway. >Apple has not explicitly endorsed these techniques, but they allow third parties to track and analyze groups of users regardless of whether or not they have given consent to user-level tracking. In addition, Apple reportedly continues to trust apps to collect user-level data such as IP address, location, language, device, and screen size, even though some of this information is passed onto advertisers. So this makes the do not track almost worthless. Few advertisers will say show this ad to John Doe who lives at 341 maple avenue, but they will say things like show this ad to people living in Cincinnati between the ages of 20 and 30. And once you belong to enough ad groups, 6 or 7, you can be uniquely fingerprinted anyway.

jjulius 5y ago
>... so I think the unhappiness should be addressed at Apple. I think the unhappiness should be directed at Apple and the offending apps. There's no reason why it can't be both.