Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Apr 2010 10:42 UTC
Apple While we were al busy getting knickers in twists over section 3.3.1 of the new iPhone developer agreement, Apple hoped to sneak another, possibly more far-reaching change past us. All Things Digital, however, got hold of section 3.3.9, which could effectively kill all third party ad networks - granting an insurmountable advantage to Apple's own iAd network.
Order by: Score:
Apple - Find the bully in you
by exigentsky on Thu 15th Apr 2010 10:58 UTC
exigentsky
Member since:
2005-07-09

That should be their new slogan given recent developments. It's too bad because I like many of their products.

Edited 2010-04-15 10:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple - Find the bully in you
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:07 UTC in reply to "Apple - Find the bully in you"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

That should be their new slogan given recent developments. It's too bad because I like many of their products.


Some of their products are nice if you make abstraction of lock ins, dictatorship, monopoly, Apple being jerks and trying to screw customers and developers altogether.

If they will persist in thei current behavior, I will never ever buy any goddam Apple product nor I will develop anything for their shitty platforms.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apple - Find the bully in you
by kristoph on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:50 UTC in reply to "Apple - Find the bully in you"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple restricting the sharing of your device ID with third party app's is a MUST HAVE privacy feature. Do you REALLY want random apps on your system sharing information about you?

If you want to bitch about something bitch about the fact that Apple is using your device ID, don't bitch about the fact that it's restricting it.

]{

Reply Score: 1

Apple digging a hole for itself?
by r_a_trip on Thu 15th Apr 2010 11:07 UTC
r_a_trip
Member since:
2005-07-06

How many restrictions can Apple foist on the developers and users, before the "Ooh, shiny!" and "young, hip and trendy" marketing doesn't outweigh the negatives from the Stalinistic rule from Cupertino anymore?

Meanwhile, the competition is flourishing unfettered by anticompetitive clauses.

Reply Score: 6

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

A LOT!

Most people are stupid and don't give a damn.

Reply Score: 9

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A LOT!

Most people are stupid and don't give a damn.


I don't know about that.

When it comes to Apple's restrictions, I would bet on people to find a way around it to do what they need to.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/ipad-printing-solved/

;)

Edited 2010-04-15 13:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

If they do it slowly it's the "frog in slowly heated water" syndrome.

Reply Score: 3

marine6680 Member since:
2010-04-15

Quite alot actually. Most users do not frequent sites like this, or even research a product before they buy. More still do not care how locked in devs are, or how limited the product is for them and everyone. Usually because they don't care to know and find out, and/or will not accept the fact because the product is their "precious". Most consumers today have no clue if what they buy is the biggest/best or at least best for them, they simply buy what is the perceived "it thing/cool new device" or what they thing makes them seem better as a person from simply owning. It would be like a farmer buying a new tractor based on its color, and not its capabilities, and if that particular model is suited to their crop or farming style.

Reply Score: 2

dharknes Member since:
2009-03-01

Quite alot actually. Most users do not frequent sites like this, or even research a product before they buy. More still do not care how locked in devs are, or how limited the product is for them and everyone. Usually because they don't care to know and find out, and/or will not accept the fact because the product is their "precious". Most consumers today have no clue if what they buy is the biggest/best or at least best for them, they simply buy what is the perceived "it thing/cool new device" or what they thing makes them seem better as a person from simply owning. It would be like a farmer buying a new tractor based on its color, and not its capabilities, and if that particular model is suited to their crop or farming style.


Consumer Reports is one of the best sell mags around, there a 1000s of review sites, and even the nightly news feels compelled to weigh in on the quality of a product. Consumers today are better informed then they ever have been. I agree there are some who select products are social, ideological, or religious reasons but they're in the minority.

Right now the AppStore is the largest source of mobile apps. It's easy and convenient to use for both users and devs. Apple's hardware and software is first rate and the UI is simple enough to allow non-techies to fully utilities it. So based on that I'd say Apple is currently the best game in town.

Reply Score: 3

marine6680 Member since:
2010-04-15

I think a lot of people research in retrospect. How many people bought the Ipad on day 1, and then the next couple days when reviews were few and just being released.

Reply Score: 1

So you like online surveillance?
by Kondor337 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 12:34 UTC
Kondor337
Member since:
2006-09-16

1.) Did you actually read section 3.3.9? I think that section is fantastic. I hate the fact that on the web, you're constantly monitored by ad networks. They know where you're from, what computer you own, which sites you visit, what you're searching for on the internet, etc. etc. It's horrible. On mobile phones, it's even worse. Apps could potentially submit your exact location to some ad network. (On some phones you must allow the app to access your location, but maybe you want the app itself to know where you are, but don't want the ad networks to know.) And you cannot check whether an app spies on you.
Section 3.3.9 is exactly what I would have wished for. Apps may not transmit ANY personal information whatsoever to anyone without my explicit consent. And I can revoke my consent and all already collected personal information has to be deleted. That's a good thing and nothing to criticize Apple for. (Except if you are an ad network and like to spy on users because that's your business model.)

2.) Of course, if these restrictions do not apply to apps using iAd and they will happily transmit personal information to Apple, then that's bad. But the bad thing about it is that Apple itself doesn't respect your privacy with their iAds and not that they don't allow everyone to spy on you.

3.) Where did you find the information that these policies do not apply to iAds. (It's not that I don't believe you but I really would like to know the exact rules for iAds.)

Reply Score: 8

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Logic?

Of course they don't apply to Apple. The TOS is between Apple and the dev. Apple is no third party and Iads will of course track every click you do.

Apple controls and stores everything you do on a iNoControl device (Ads, notifications, Itunes, etc.)

Far worse then Google, because Apple usally has your Credit Card number and knows exactly who you are.

Reply Score: 1

Kondor337 Member since:
2006-09-16

Logic? Of course they don't apply to Apple. The TOS is between Apple and the dev.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's not really easy for me to write in English. Of course this SDK license itself does not apply to Apple, but Apple could still respect your privacy in the same way even if they're not contractually obligated to do so.

Apple is no third party and Iads will of course track every click you do.

Tracking clicks is no problem at all. The problem is that every user is tracked just by visiting sites (or using apps) that contain ads.

Apple controls and stores everything you do on a iNoControl device (Ads, notifications, Itunes, etc.)
Far worse then Google, because Apple usally has your Credit Card number and knows exactly who you are.

They store everything I do? Notifications? Really? How do you know?

Reply Score: 1

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's not really easy for me to write in English. Of course this SDK license itself does not apply to Apple, but Apple could still respect your privacy in the same way even if they're not contractually obligated to do so.


Because they are kind hearts and they care very much about their users? You got to grow up.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They store everything I do? Notifications? Really? How do you know?


Have you seen the Genius feature on Apple's products? Where do you think they get that info from? That is done by mining all details about you.

All push notifications are tracked 100% of the time, since they do come from Apple's servers...

Reply Score: 2

panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

They store everything I do? Notifications? Really? How do you know?

Exactly, how can you be sure they don't (unless you jailbreak and void warranty or possible even brick your iDevice).

Reply Score: 2

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14


Section 3.3.9 is exactly what I would have wished for. Apps may not transmit ANY personal information whatsoever to anyone without my explicit consent.


Except that a) this agreement is between Apple and developers, not developers and you, and b) if you actually read the section, it says they're not allowed to do so without *Apple*'s consent. The user is in no way mentioned.

Reply Score: 3

Kondor337 Member since:
2006-09-16

YOU should read the entire section 3.3.9, not just the little snippet that's concerned with device data.

MY consent, not Apple's.

Reply Score: 1

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Apps may not transmit ANY personal information whatsoever to anyone without my explicit consent.


Not YOURS, APPLE'S consent. You don't have any goddamn right. Try and read again CAREFULLY.

Reply Score: 2

Kondor337 Member since:
2006-09-16

YOU should read the entire section 3.3.9 CAREFULLY, not just the little snippet that's concerned with device data.

MY consent, not Apple's.

Reply Score: 1

marine6680 Member since:
2010-04-15

1.)Section 3.3.9 is exactly what I would have wished for. Apps may not transmit ANY personal information whatsoever to anyone without my explicit consent.

2.) Of course, if these restrictions do not apply to apps using iAd and they will happily transmit personal information to Apple, then that's bad. But the bad thing about it is that Apple itself doesn't respect your privacy with their iAds and not that they don't allow everyone to spy on you.


OK, you need to re-read that section. In no way does it say these programs can not transmit data without your consent. It just prevents them from doing so without Apple's permission, which Apple will not give most likely. This is not a move to increase privacy for the user, it is to prevent competition with IAd. Apple does not care to protect your privacy, they just want to kill off competition.

Apple has a tight control over their products, under the guise of improving user experience. While that may be a side effect of that control, I do not believe it to be the real reason. I believe the real reason is because Apple can not stand the idea of another company/person making money off of their products, especially if it is in an area that they themselves could easily be doing. "Someone can write a small app that collects ad data and can sit back and rake in money? We can't have that, we should be getting all that free money." I believe the only real reason Apple even allows 3rd parties to develop apps for their products, is because they know that they could never develop/provide the myriad of different apps needed to satisfy all their users needs and desires.

Edited 2010-04-15 19:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

dharknes Member since:
2009-03-01

OK, you need to re-read that section. In no way does it say these programs can not transmit data without your consent. It just prevents them from doing so without Apple's permission, which Apple will not give most likely. This is not a move to increase privacy for the user, it is to prevent competition with IAd. Apple does not care to protect your privacy, they just want to kill off competition.

Apple has a tight control over their products, under the guise of improving user experience. While that may be a side effect of that control, I do not believe it to be the real reason. I believe the real reason is because Apple can not stand the idea of another company/person making money off of their products, especially if it is in an area that they themselves could easily be doing. "Someone can write a small app that collects ad data and can sit back and rake in money? We can't have that, we should be getting all that free money." I believe the only real reason Apple even allows 3rd parties to develop apps for their products, is because they know that they could never develop/provide the myriad of different apps needed to satisfy all their users needs and desires.


Section 3.3.9
Point 1, I'm allowed to collect and use data only to support my application. Collecting or using data for some other purpose will get me banned. I'm okay with that.

Point 2, I'm allowed to provide or disclose that data to 3rd parties for providing services or functionality for my application but only if I receive express user consent. I'm okay with that.

"You may only provide or disclose User Data to third parties as necessary for providing services or functionality for the Application that collected the User Data, and then only if You receive express user consent."

Maybe I'm miss interrupting the "only if You receive express user consent".

So at this point I can collect anything I need for my application, but I can only provide or disclose that information after I've gotten the user to okay it. I'm okay with that.

Point 3, limits access to Device Data unfortunately this excerpt doesn't define Device Data so we don't know exactly what that is. But I feel it's safe to assume Device Data is not User Data since Apple is differentiating them. So I'm not allowed to collect Device Data and disclose it to a 3rd party for processing or analysis. I'm okay with that.

Point 4, I have to tell users what I'm doing with their data. I'm okay with that.

Point 5, I have to take steps to not loose their data. I'm okay with that.

Two things,
1) I don't see how this prevents me from putting banner ads, either home grown or from other ad networks, in my apps. As long as I don't collect user or device information. If I need to collect user information I first need get their permission and second tell them what I'm using the information for.
2) I don't see how making devs accountable for the information they collect is a bad thing for users.

I don't disagree that Apple is acting in Apple's best interest. Apple is a business trying to squeeze as much money as it can out of the iPhone. They wouldn't be a good company if they were. But that doesn't mean it hurts the end user. Sometimes Apple's best interest is also the user's best interest.

Apple has done some nasty stuff but this is FUD.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

1) I don't see how this prevents me from putting banner ads, either home grown or from other ad networks, in my apps. As long as I don't collect user or device information. If I need to collect user information I first need get their permission and second tell them what I'm using the information for.


It will be like people have been saying about using other programming languages to create iPhone/iPad/iPod apps. Steve weighed in decisively and confirmed the worst FUD.

I actually agree with you on this point, that technically people will find a way of getting over the issue, but how long will your user use your application after he/she sees a message telling them that you are collecting data about them? Using iAds you will not need to display that.
How will the ad networks like that often they loose all data that allowed them to serve up relevant ads? And location is very much Device Data, so say good bye to geo aware ads.

Reply Score: 2

marine6680 Member since:
2010-04-15

Not that I want ads in my apps, but... If that entire restriction also applied to Apple, I could see your point. Yes this does protect you from 3rd parties gathering and transmitting data without permission. Thing is, targeted ads need the info, and non-targeted ads are about pointless, because its very hit and miss (mostly miss) with providing an ad that suits the users interests. On the outside, this policy seems to protect users, but only from 3rd party data miners, not Apple's data mining. Apple will mine data and use it to make money and without your consent. The only thing this clause does is prevent 3rd parties from making ad money. This monopolizes ad revenue for Apple only. Because how many people are going to allow data mining when asked? Not many I would bet. Besides, the dev agreement states you must ask for permission to transmit app relevant data only, like posting comments to websites etc. Any other use of transmitted data must get Apple's permission, and info about said use must be at minimum made available in the apps privacy policy. Few people take time to actually read, or read well, privacy policies and user agreements. Once again, Apple is exempt from all of that, and can gather all the data it wants for whatever reasons it wants.

It still boils down to the fact that Apple's main goal is not protecting users from gathering of device use, web search data, and other data gathering, but preventing competition in the business models that use such data.

Reply Score: 1

Spyware
by gee4orce on Thu 15th Apr 2010 12:52 UTC
gee4orce
Member since:
2010-04-15

I'm amazed that there hasn't been any fuss kicked up over analytics spyware that's embedded in a lot of Apps. People would go apoplectic if this kind of thing was phoning home from desktop apps, and yet in mobile apps it's somehow become acceptable - even though there's the potential there to gather far more sensitive data such as geolocation, sms and call history.

A lot of companies seem to regard mobile apps in the same light as websites - both in the nature of their development and the way in which they are build and operated. Web site analytics are perfectly acceptable to most people as all you're doing is analysing someone's progress through pages that are served from your website, so you are not gathering data that you would not otherwise have. What right does anybody have to know how often and in what manner I use an application I've downloaded and installed on my own device.

No doubt this will be blow in to an 'Apple is evil and restrictive' story, whereas the way I see it they are actively protecting the privacy of their users.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Spyware
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 15th Apr 2010 12:56 UTC in reply to "Spyware"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No doubt this will be blow in to an 'Apple is evil and restrictive' story, whereas the way I see it they are actively protecting the privacy of their users.


...by making sure only Apple is allowed to spy on you...? I'm sorry, I don't follow. If apple really were interested in privacy, then this rule would apply to EVERYONE, including Apple.

Edited 2010-04-15 12:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Spyware
by Kondor337 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Spyware"
Kondor337 Member since:
2006-09-16

...by making sure only Apple is allowed to spy on you...? I'm sorry, I don't follow. If apple really were interested in privacy, then this rule would apply to EVERYONE, including Apple.

Obviously you know that Apple will not apply this rule to iAds. Then please tell me how you know this.
Is there any iAd description from Apple that includes this information?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Spyware
by _txf_ on Thu 15th Apr 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spyware"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

No there is no rule. It isn't stated anywhere. this means that they can do what they want until they specifically state what they will or will not do. Seeing as they have moved to produce ads why would they not use the same methodology everyone else uses. This is especially as it is what advertisers expect and want as

no_advertisers == no_iads

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Spyware
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Apr 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spyware"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Obviously you know that Apple will not apply this rule to iAds. Then please tell me how you know this.
Is there any iAd description from Apple that includes this information?


Does apple ask your explicit permission when collecting data to suggest music? Nope. I don't think the will change there also.
Because "To serve you and present the most relevant advertisements we need to collect data on you".
Remember that we are bashing Google exactly for that?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Cody
by Cody Evans on Thu 15th Apr 2010 13:40 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

The release of the iPad and the recent new restrictions make me think of this Star Wars quote:

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

Reply Score: 8

Comment by JrezIN
by JrezIN on Thu 15th Apr 2010 14:45 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

By the time Apple acquired the mobile ad firm and rumors started to appear about it's new mobile ad network, the first thing that came to my mind was some kind of "the only ad network to be permitted" in the platform, and looks like it was the case...
...also, it doesn't make anyone more privacy safe, because Apple itself can do any kind of dubious things with your data... well, not only them, but anyone who apple approves.

...But in a long run, there may be larger implications. No game services besides Apple's, nor any kind of complex and social services...

In barely 25 years, the original Macintosh ad because the biggest irony of all... (even more than: http://i.imgur.com/0pSlB.jpg ).

Not sure if even a new CEO could make Apple a better (in the "don't be evil"-way) company, it looks like it's beyond any hope.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by JrezIN
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by JrezIN"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Not sure if even a new CEO could make Apple a better (in the "don't be evil"-way) company, it looks like it's beyond any hope.


Isn't it an irony that some nice OSes like BeOS and OS/2 died, but Apple will manage to spread its poison on a large group of users and on many platforms?

Edited 2010-04-15 17:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by JrezIN
by dragossh on Fri 16th Apr 2010 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by JrezIN"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

That's what happens when you try to compete fairly, not be a bully and sue everyone out of existence and also try to focus on an "internet appliance."

Speaking about IA, I wonder if BeIA would have been a success today with 3G and WiFi everywhere.

Reply Score: 1

New slogan
by fretinator on Thu 15th Apr 2010 15:05 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Greatly insane!

Reply Score: 4

Comment by dacloo
by dacloo on Thu 15th Apr 2010 15:37 UTC
dacloo
Member since:
2006-07-22

As an iPhone games developer I'm really starting to dislike Apple.
They are creating this whole nasty ecosystem where everything is controlled by Apple. And if you're not Applish, they ban you.
We've seen this before and we called it Microsoft.

Android gets more and more interesting...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by dacloo
by Kroc on Thu 15th Apr 2010 15:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by dacloo"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

When have Microsoft ever banned you from using whatever development tool you wanted?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by dacloo
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by dacloo"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


We've seen this before and we called it Microsoft.


Come on! MS doesn't anything to do with it. They own just an operating system. They not dictate the hardware platform and what apps you are entitled or not to install. Nor do they dictate what APIs and tools the developers are allowed to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dacloo
by umccullough on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dacloo"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Come on! MS doesn't anything to do with it. They own just an operating system. They not dictate the hardware platform and what apps you are entitled or not to install. Nor do they dictate what APIs and tools the developers are allowed to use.


Except they do on the XBox ;) I'm not sure I see much distinction between what gaming consoles have been doing for years, and what Apple is doing now.

I pretty much refuse to buy game consoles for the same reason. I love to pick up the older ones for a couple bucks at yard sales... long after some company out there cares enough to tell me what I can or can't do with them.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by dacloo
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Apr 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dacloo"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Except they do on the XBox ;) I'm not sure I see much distinction between what gaming consoles have been doing for years, and what Apple is doing now.


Even as a hardened Linux user, you can't blame Microsoft for the market that is like that. Nintendo and Sony have an even tighter control. It's because the games on those devices have to correspond to certain standards. And most console games are integrated and thought through quite well(i.e frame rate problems just don't exist on those systems).

Just compare the ports of the same games to PC... Most are just badly ported and released.

Reply Score: 2

antitrust law
by JoeBuck on Thu 15th Apr 2010 16:14 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

... is the answer to "Well, I guess it's Apple platform. If they can kill the competition by simply adding a line to the secret developer agreement, why not do it?" Apple's going to be spending a lot of time in court, since Google and others are unlikely to swallow this kind of thing without a fight.

Reply Score: 2

Please read the section!!!
by JPowers27 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 16:18 UTC
JPowers27
Member since:
2008-07-30

1) User data may not be sent to 3rd parties without the user approval.

2) User data may only be used for purposes to support the application.

3) Device data may never be sent.

The section refers to both "User Data" and "Device Data". Device Data is thus different from User Data.

I don't see anything in the section that would kill 3rd party Ad Networks. The only requirement is you can't tell the Ad Network what equipment and OS you are running on; and also, you can't send information to allow targeted advertising unless you have the user's approval first.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Please read the section!!!
by darknexus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "Please read the section!!!"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You're leaving out one little detail: iAd will not be subject to the same restrictions. This, in effect, allows the user to deny all other ad networks except Apple's. This is getting ridiculous. I hate ads and I'm hating Apple's business practices too. Now the two have combined...

Reply Score: 4

Screw Apple!
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:02 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third party without Appleā€™s prior written consent.


And the poor human being who bought the Device doesn't matter at all. All that it matters is Apple's consent. Not consent of the actual owner. Apple acts like device owners and developers are slaves on Apple's plantation.

Edited 2010-04-15 17:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Enough it's enough
by twitterfire on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:26 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I hereby officially and solemnly declare that I removed any trace of Mac Os X from my computer and I installed Ubuntu on it 'till I buy another Windows 7 license. As for the old iPod Touch I used to own, I donated it today to a poor boy in the neighborhood. I don't have any relationship/connection to Apple and its poisonous world whatsoever.

And tomorrow I will mail to Apple my Os X upgrade DVD in the hope that Steve J. will shove it in his ....

Edited 2010-04-15 17:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Insane?
by dharknes on Thu 15th Apr 2010 18:26 UTC
dharknes
Member since:
2009-03-01

Are you people insane? Did you actually read that section? It's a user protection section. It prevents apps from dumping your address book and sending it where ever. Apps have already done this. The section clearly state that the User (Owner) of the device has the final say in what information can be used. Apple does retain the right to approve device data collection. But device data is not User data isn't stuff like OS level, RAM size, yet. There are several failed assumptions here.

1) The assumption that iAd or Apple will be exempt from this rule. It may or may not we don't know. But with only 1 example all of Apple's AppStore apps do follow that developer agreements.

2) The analytics we're talking about are really demographics. This is personal data, potentially private data. Online ad networks don't need and shouldn't have any data I haven't granted them access to.

3) Google is somehow less evil then Apple. Google is the largest online ad agency in the world. And I seem to remember something about Google retaining the right to data mine you gmail, google docs, and calendar. Pretty much anything on their system, for more targeted ads.

4) This somehow hurts end users? As a user I'm protected from a 3rd party uploading my information without my permission. I could really care who's putting the ad in the apps I use. The devs need to realize a couple things. Devs don't and shouldn't have control of the platform. The platform doesn't exist to make devs happy it exists for the users, and at this point both section 3.3.1 and 3.3.9 make a better experience for the user.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Insane?
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Apr 2010 22:35 UTC in reply to "Insane?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The platform doesn't exist to make devs happy it exists for the users, and at this point both section 3.3.1 and 3.3.9 make a better experience for the user.


Those 2 sections will effectively limit the number of quality content available for iPhone/iPad and ban anything other than iAds from mobile advertising on iPhone/iPad. Pure and simple. You can rationalize it the way you want, but it will boil down to that.
(FYI: OMG! Pirates and a bunch of others will be in breach of section 3.3.1 if enforced)

Reply Score: 3

Nonsense
by kristoph on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:47 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The whole premise of the article is nonsense.

Apple is saying you cannot send the device ID to a third party without Apple's permission. That's great! This is a MUST HAVE privacy feature.

Frankly, the thing we should be pissed off at is not that Apple is not sharing our device ID but that it's not letting us opt-out from Apple using it.

Anyway, nothing prevents or limits 3rd party advertising platforms, nothing prevents the advertising platforms from establishing their own ID's through a cross app cookie, like, you know, how it's done on the web.

I hate how OSNews has gone to the Trolls.

]{

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:17 UTC
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

Mafia protection rackets are supposed to protect you from bad things. Good. But they subject you to the Mafia's enforcement of it's monopoly on bad things. Not good.

I think the fundamental issue here is that if all these rules were consistently enforced, then yes, no app could share this data unless that was expressly the purpose of the app (Geo-Location Coupon App).

But as we know, Apple doesn't consistently enforce it's own rules, so we certainly EXPECT Apple-approved apps to violate the "good" parts of 3.3.9 while getting their written consent to share device data, e.g. in concert with iAd. We already know Apple works like that and don't consistently apply their rules across the board, but uses them like New Orleans ordinances against "manhandling a sandwich" to target those outside Apple's circle of interests.

p.s. Nobody has commented on the name of the article's author yet: Peter Kafka? :-)

Edited 2010-04-15 21:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Passive data collection
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:57 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

These people don't need to send much device data. A plain request/response would not be in conflict with the section of the agreement, as it looks from the first glance.

Here's a get-out point for the developers - don't send device data, send some installation data(application data is not device data*).

*- but that is probably defined in the agreement, witch I have not read.

Reply Score: 2

Much Ado About Nothing
by tbutler on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:31 UTC
tbutler
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just blogged about this (http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1532.html).

Why is everyone assuming a prohibition on using unique device identifiers has an correlation to ad analytics? If the program requests the ad directly -- and not through a proxy -- the advertiser will still get an IP address. Likewise, if a user is logged in, the server can still know that kind of stuff.

In other words, this just insists iPhone apps cannot be spyware. Ads can continue to operate as they do on web sites. As to Apple's own practices, I assume we will find out more about those as they update their own privacy policies and license agreements.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Much Ado About Nothing
by tyrione on Fri 16th Apr 2010 00:32 UTC in reply to "Much Ado About Nothing"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I just blogged about this (http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1532.html).

Why is everyone assuming a prohibition on using unique device identifiers has an correlation to ad analytics? If the program requests the ad directly -- and not through a proxy -- the advertiser will still get an IP address. Likewise, if a user is logged in, the server can still know that kind of stuff.

In other words, this just insists iPhone apps cannot be spyware. Ads can continue to operate as they do on web sites. As to Apple's own practices, I assume we will find out more about those as they update their own privacy policies and license agreements.


Correct, but all things Apple on OSNews is TeaParty'ish quite often.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Much Ado About Nothing
by kristoph on Fri 16th Apr 2010 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Much Ado About Nothing"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Ha! That's a perfect analogy, but is Thom Glen Beck or Sarah Palin ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Much Ado About Nothing
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 16th Apr 2010 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Much Ado About Nothing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Palin.

Reply Score: 1

Apple == AOL with better marketing
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 16th Apr 2010 14:49 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

You have have to laugh at the iApologists who use the defense of "it's Apple's device/service, they can do whatever they want with it". That's the exact same reasoning that AOL, and its apologists, used to defend AOL's absurd Terms of Service (and their enforcement of it).

Reply Score: 2