3 ms·

Why do we need to be awful? Here is a simple rule: No is an option, unless it's really not an option. If it's not an option, you need to be very clear about why

Why do we need to be awful? Here is a simple rule: No is an option, unless it's really not an option. If it's not an option, you need to be very clear about why (in the app application process maybe), otherwise your app gets declined. i.e. if tiktok/ig asks for permissions on camera and microphone, no is an option, because you don't need either to use either. If parts of your app can feasibly be used by a user without certain permissions it is on you to design the app in a way where that is possible. No camera or microphone enabled? Conditionally disable the functionality that would require those. To make this simpler, the burden is on the asker. If you are not clear or trying to be clever, the answer is no. If that sounds draconian, keep in mind, that the app creator has the option to completely forgo this additional step by creating an app that makes permissions optional. Focusing on enforcing that would make a petty army race unnecessary, and it's the better call for humans anyway.

dweinus 3y ago
Sounds good, but enforcing it how? The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store. I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store Sounds good to me, though I think there should be a second component, which would be app sdks: Make designing with conditional permissions in mind a first class citizen, and create clear guidelines, as to how to do that, and why you really, really should do that. > I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already. Alas, this is probably where legislation would so some convincing (see gdpr)
- cmdli 3y ago
  Apple already enforces this, at least to some extent. If you just tell the user “you cannot use our app without allowing us to track you”, your app will get denied from the App Store. Apple is incentivized to do this because they get their value charging access to the ecosystem, and so it’s in their incentive to make sure their ecosystem is nice to users.

dweinus 3y ago

Sounds good, but enforcing it how? The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store. I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already.

jstummbillig 3y ago
> The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store Sounds good to me, though I think there should be a second component, which would be app sdks: Make designing with conditional permissions in mind a first class citizen, and create clear guidelines, as to how to do that, and why you really, really should do that. > I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already. Alas, this is probably where legislation would so some convincing (see gdpr)
cmdli 3y ago
Apple already enforces this, at least to some extent. If you just tell the user “you cannot use our app without allowing us to track you”, your app will get denied from the App Store. Apple is incentivized to do this because they get their value charging access to the ecosystem, and so it’s in their incentive to make sure their ecosystem is nice to users.