[HN Gopher] Apple to Ban Apps That Reward Users for Enabling App...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple to Ban Apps That Reward Users for Enabling App Tracking
Author : nojito
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-04-27 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| enzanki_ars wrote:
| I wonder if there is an added benefit to this policy in terms of
| required geolocation for access. As in, will Apple prevent apps
| from requiring geolocation for access to content such as the MLB,
| NFL, or other apps that will only show content specific to your
| market area.
|
| > "[...] and you can't withhold functionality or content or make
| your app unusable until people allow you to track them."
|
| Per that reading, it would seem like the MLB and NFL apps would
| be banned from requiring location access before the live streams
| are playable, which could finally progress some of these insanely
| stupid TV blackout rules once and for all... Though, unless Apple
| will also apply this to IP based geofencing, there would still be
| a long way to go before TV blackout rules are gone from streaming
| services....
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > unless Apple will also apply this to IP based geofencing
|
| The only way Apple can prevent IP based tracking or location
| (or anything keyed off IP addressing) is to proxy all user
| traffic (iCloud VPN, if you will).
| sneak wrote:
| No, because huge apps like league sports and Facebook sell
| iPhones. They do what they can, but they ultimately can't
| actually ban MLB or Facebook from the store, or people will
| sell their iPhone and buy a different phone.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| Apple can and will do that. See Fortnite:
|
| https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-US/fortnite-c75/battle-
| roy...
| [deleted]
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I wanted to answer this by saying others were being unfair
| and Fortnite doesn't seriously compare to the MLB or
| Facebook, but man, I'm surprised at how much revenue it
| actually brings in. Apparently $1.8 billion in the last non-
| Covid year. That's still quite a bit less than MLB's $19
| billion or Facebook's $86 billion, but a lot more than I
| expected. I still don't think Fortnite is going to have
| century plus staying power or drive five generations of
| inherited fan bases, but impressive nonetheless. Actually
| makes me wonder if Apple would really go that far.
| enzanki_ars wrote:
| You say that, but they also have set a precedent of doing
| that before with the Fortnite and plenty of other apps trying
| to subvert their arguably harsh In-App Purchase rules. I
| agree though, they try to ban the MLB, NFL, or other video
| apps with blackout rules based on geolocation, there could be
| a lot of people doing exactly what you suggest. Now, all of
| the apps could get rid of their app experience and go to a
| webapp only experience and circumvent the rules that way.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Fortnite is a completely different ball game compared to
| Facebook.
|
| What else can you do on your mobile if they ban social
| networks?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Isn't monetary rewards the correct incentive though? Paying
| people (or discounting) shares the value-add of tracking back to
| the tracked.
|
| Apple trying to keep people from willingly and knowingly accept
| tracking seems like they're being too paternalistic.
| PurpleFoxy wrote:
| The problem is that "reward users for accepting tracking" very
| easily becomes "punish users who reject it". The reward will be
| getting back the stuff you had before this change so you are no
| better off.
|
| Apple believes that everyone should have access to privacy.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| While 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| Both are banned, so it's not clear what you are cynical
| about.
| gruez wrote:
| IAPs are banned?
| zepto wrote:
| For that, yes.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Making services not-free (by de-incentivizing alternative
| methods of profitability) is certainly good for apple.
| vmception wrote:
| I would prefer a solution that had revocable consent and a
| record of it that was transferred to all the data brokers. The
| only prohibition on rewards being that the reward cant be on
| nullifying the revocable nature of the consent.
|
| In this model the data brokers can be sanctioned for using data
| they are no longer allowed to use.
| [deleted]
| whomst wrote:
| I believe gating features or giving preference to tracking/not-
| tracking is a violation of GDPR
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-27 23:02 UTC)