Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Programming Apple

Developers Accuse Apple of Anti-Competitive Behavior With Its Privacy Changes in iOS 13 (techcrunch.com) 77

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
A group of app developers have penned a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, arguing that certain privacy-focused changes to Apple's iOS 13 operating system will hurt their business. From a report: In a report by The Information, the developers were said to have accused Apple of anti-competitive behavior when it comes to how apps can access user location data. With iOS 13, Apple aims to curtail apps' abuse of its location-tracking features as part of its larger privacy focus as a company. Today, many apps ask users upon first launch to give their app the "Always Allow" location-tracking permission. Users can confirm this with a tap, unwittingly giving apps far more access to their location data than is actually necessary, in many cases. In iOS 13, however, Apple has tweaked the way apps can request location data. There will now be a new option upon launch presented to users, "Allow Once," which allows users to first explore the app to see if it fits their needs before granting the app developer the ability to continually access location data. This option will be presented alongside existing options, "Allow While Using App" and "Don't Allow." The "Always" option is still available, but users will have to head to iOS Settings to manually enable it. The app developers argue that this change may confuse less technical users, who will assume the app isn't functioning properly unless they figure out how to change their iOS Settings to ensure the app has the proper permissions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Developers Accuse Apple of Anti-Competitive Behavior With Its Privacy Changes in iOS 13 More

Developers Accuse Apple of Anti-Competitive Behavior With Its Privacy Changes in iOS 13

Comments Filter:

  • These seem like pretty good changes to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:09PM (#59102714)

    The "Allow while using app" was already a really good option in place, "Allow once" just an extension of that...

    The move to making users go to explicitly enable "Allow Always" beyond just a prompt is I think a great idea, there are very few apps that truly need "Allow Always" to be on.

    What I would like to see though, is an "Allow for the day" option that would help out apps like hiking or movement trackers that you wanted to use for just a day then have them locked down again. But it's not too hard to manually go into settings and disable an app after you are done.

    • Yes yes and yes. I'm just here to mostly agree with everything you said. This is one case where I don't think Apple is getting it wrong, on the contrary, they seem to be stepping it up to help the end user. I'll be the first to call out Apple if they are screwing over the user, but when they slightly screw over semi-shade app creators in favor of users, I'm totally OK with it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )
      There aren't too many scenarios where an application should have access to location information at all times. Locking some features down a little tighter is a good thing and definitely a step in the right direction.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I originally thought that this was a much more serious issue than it actually is, but it turns out that the feature they're disabling has almost no legitimate uses. Things like turn-by-turn start using GPS in the foreground, so they don't need continuous background location permission (except, perhaps, for detecting where you left your car or learning your history to provide better suggestions). About the only apps I can think of with a strong use case for continuous background location are GPS track logg

    • Re:These seem like pretty good changes to me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:53PM (#59102920) Journal

      Now THAT would be a feature that I think all platforms should have. A time-limited permissive model for app security would be a damned useful thing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ugen ( 93902 )

      Since this post is modded up to 5 - I'll just say that "allow for the day" is an excellent feature idea! Please do send this to Apple (or may be start a petition or something :) ).

    • would seem to be the English translation of the developers' reaction. . .

    • WebOS had a setting where it'd prompt you when the application tried using it, and you could allow it for that run of the application. (so once you closed it, it would have to get permission again).

      This was useful for things like mapping websites, where you could grant it permission only when you were actually using something that should have your location, and then shut it down so it wasn't always leaking info.

      Now that iOS can let me have more than one e-mail open at a time, I just need a calendar program

    • But it's not too hard to manually go into settings and disable an app after you are done.

      It's not technically hard to do this, but it can be very challenging to remember to do this easy procedure. One could imagine another option such as always enable, but set a notification reminder to disable at the end of the day. However, that would essentially be the same as automatically disable at the end of the day.

    • Does this apply only to 3rd party apps or to Apple's apps as well?

      • Actually in reading the article further the "anti-competitive" claim seems to be because they said it doesn't apply to Apple's apps like "Find My". So Apple gives themselves special treatment, they went all out on privacy with billboards even claiming that "what you do on your iphone stays on your iphone" and then get caught sending Siri voice recordings not only back to Apple but then even providing those recordings to 3rd parties.

        The question will be whether the anti-competitive behavior is actually illeg

  • Feeding frenzy is over, at least on iOS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:10PM (#59102716)
    Dear app developers, find a new business model or go out of business. Feeding frenzy is over, at least on iOS 13. You no longer can indiscriminately collect personal location data to sell to the highest bidder.

  • I fail to see how it is Anti-Competive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:13PM (#59102724)

    Location Services on phones is one the most abused features on our device. Half of the Apps that ask for my location I reject, because it doesn't need it. And if the App does need it (such as a Maps program, ill just hit yes)

    Now these popups remind me of Microsoft Trusted Computing in the 1990's early 2000's which failed horribly, with the notable exception saying no, still has your app functioning, vs just not running at all.

    • Re:I fail to see how it is Anti-Competive (Score:4, Informative)

      by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @03:14PM (#59103038)

      Now these popups remind me of Microsoft Trusted Computing in the 1990's early 2000's which failed horribly

      Haha, no it didn't [wikipedia.org]. The scale at which M$ wanted to do it might have, such as being able to force delete documents off other systems if you flagged them as such, but make no mistake TC made it into systems. Just google, "[laptop company name] TPM" and you should get hits talking about the chips in computers. Hell, you can buy new TPMs to install for mobos, here [amazon.com] is an Amazon item page for ASUS boards. I don't know the extent to which they are used now a days, but the chips can be leveraged for RNG and cryptographic uses.

      TC didn't die. Everyone just got distracted with other things and simply forgot about it, so they just rolled it out.

    • On my Android I rarely give that permission out. However, some app can't handle the lack of permission, and whenever I use it it turns off location services all together. I have no idea what app it is, since I don't tend to notice that it's off for hours. (And don't care, since nothing is really using the location services.)

      It's a weird quirk that would be maddening if I used location services more than once every week.

    • "Anti-Competitive" is just a dog-whistle for "we're gonna sic the FTC on you if you don't bend to our will".

      Also, Apple has a $94B cash-on-hand, so Tim is probably hoping these spyware slimes sue. For the giggles.

    • It's not just location services. I had an app by a local road toll company to show your account balance etc. It wanted access to "motion and fitness sensor data" .... This is linkt app used by millions in Australia.

  • But, No. (Score:5, Funny)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:30PM (#59102806)

    Unless there is more to it than what I read, I don't see how.

    All it amounts to is informing users as to what its going on. How is that anti-competitive?

    The added friction of having to go to Settings in order to toggle a switch so an app to function can cause users to abandon apps....That said, the changes Apple is rolling out with iOS 13 don’t actually break these apps entirely. They just require the apps to refine their onboarding instructions to users. Instead of asking for the “Always Allow” permission, they will need to point users to the iOS Settings screen, or limit the apps’ functionality until it’s granted the “Always Allow” permission.

    Well too fucking bad! God forbid users have to authorize apps to track them!

    In addition, the developers’ letter pointed out that Apple’s own built-in apps (like Find My) aren’t treated like this, which raises anti-competitive concerns.

    Once again, too fucking bad. Is someone "competing" with Find My iPhone? You know, making money from their app which does what Apple does for free? Please.

    The letter also noted that Apple in iOS 13 would not allow developers to use PushKit for any other purpose beyond internet voice calls — again, due to the fact that some developers abused this toolkit to collect private user data.

    Right. So devs have demonstrated they are an untrustworthy bunch and now want to bitch about the consequences? Fuck off.

    It’s another example of how erring on the side of increased user privacy can lead to complications and friction for end users.

    What? You mean you don't get something for nothing????? Oh, the horror!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      All it amounts to is informing users as to what its going on. How is that anti-competitive?

      It's not, but the developers are hoping to get on the Spotify bandwagon and claim anything Apple does that they don't like is anti-competitive and get the lawmakers to force Apple to becoming the app wasteland that Android is. (I.e., people don't trust apps on Android anymore, at least that's the general sentiment, because of all the crap that goes on).

      That's really the big danger - while Spotify has a point, the pend

      • How about if people just learn to install apps that are reputable and don't expect the owner of the OS to hand-hold them?
        • On consumer devices, you build and design it for the lowest common denominator. Not the other way around.
          • PCs aren't consumer devices? Because PCs were never designed for people who could take care of themselves.
            • PCs were not designed for people who couldn't take care of themselves.* If you installed a virus you got a virus. Phones should be the same.
              • Why should they? Is there a specific reason other than gatekeeping?
                • They shouldn't! Which is why I'm saying phones shouldn't either. Having a phone that you can't plug into USB and simply copy files is like having a PC that locks you out as well.
                  • Phones are more ubiquitous. While I have no problem with the options being there for power users, it shouldn't be a long learning process to prevent spyware and tracking for the layperson. Out-of-box security.
                    • Fair enough, if there is a 'safety mode' then that would be fine but don't get in the way of people who know what they are doing.

                  • having a phone that you can simply plug into USB and copy files over, also means the door is open to make PWNIE-express style USB fake "chargers" that siphon your data (or worse) whenever you try charging.

                    One would need to constantly mind which USB is plugged into the phone, and avoid any convenient USB charging port available at public places.

                    That's why phone at least require to manually engage MTP or whatever.

                    I prefer slightly more secure protocols (I run GNU/Linux-based 3rd party ROMs. Sailfish OS is my

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by registrations_suck ( 1075251 )

          How about if people just learn to install apps that are reputable and don't expect the owner of the OS to hand-hold them?

          How about people learn to choose a reputable OS developer and don't expect to have to vet each and every developer who wants to develop for that OS?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          How about if people just learn to install apps that are reputable and don't expect the owner of the OS to hand-hold them?

          Show me an example that works.

          The PC is full of malware. Ransomware is everywhere, and lots of malware exist to send spam. I'm sure your inbox is testament to lots of zombie PCs sending out spam messages by the billions.

          Android has a similar problem. Google tries, which helps a lot on the Play Store. Alternative stores like what they have in China are just filled with it.

          macOS has its own

      • It was a rhetorical question (:

    • Yeah, "Allow while using app" absolutely should be the maximum a user can easily turn on, for what I think are damn obvious reasons.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwpro ( 520418 )
        I doubt you know what you're asking for. I'm sure you'll love the user experience of your map application getting backgrounded when you turn off the screen and then having to wait for gps to sync while you are trying to decide whether you need to exit at the upcoming ramp. Want to track your distance while running? sorry, gotta have that screen on and your app on in the foreground all the time if you want that esoteric feature.

  • People point fingers at government and privacy issues and they are bad, but private business and corporations are as bad or worse and people without thinking are giving up so much info about themselves.

    There needs to be a law saying people own copyright and control over their personal data. And permission has to be obtained and royalties paid for use of someone's personal data.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      LOL look at you crazy person. You don't even own your own genetics! Own your own data. What a hoot.

    • People point fingers at government and privacy issues and they are bad, but private business and corporations are as bad or worse and people without thinking are giving up so much info about themselves.

      There needs to be a law saying people own copyright and control over their personal data.

      Yeah no, not in America. SCOTUS ruled long ago that you can't copyright facts. You need some element of creativity. Your name, phone number, size of your penis, etc. are not your data. They are simply data about you. As it should be.

  • I hope if you click 'allow once' and don't use the app for a month it will come up and allow you to accept again.. Otherwise people will try the app, and then think it doesn't work when they come back to it in a month.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Arkham ( 10779 )

      "Allow once" -- would be used by an app developer to find out where you are once. If for example, I want to know what country you are in to set the default, then allow-once is perfect.

      If I plan on using the location a lot (e.g. Pokemon go) then "Allow while using the app" is appropriate. If it's an app like the "Walmart" app, then any time I click the "find the store nearest me" button then it will get an "allow once" prompt. Simple and transparent.

      Honestly I cannot think of a single case where "Always a

      • I can't imagine why I would ever use 'allow once'. I can see the utility in having a walking or jogging app, but why does Walmart or anyone need to know my location once? It's really none of their business where I am other than entering a shipping address.

  • Tim Cook's proper response (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pak9rabid ( 1011935 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @02:48PM (#59102882)
    Dear Spyware Companies,


    Fuck off,


    Kindly,


    The Cook
    • Exactly. The source article is walled and I chose not to register just to read it. I wondered who these app developers were, and hoped the article would spell it out. It just said "seven developers" in the part I could see.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      I wonder if Steve Jobs would had done the same if he was still alive today.

  • Who woulda thunkit?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The user has paid a premium for the hardware.
      Privacy is now just good marketing to keep the user feeling like they made the better hardware buy.

  • I've been quite annoyed in the past at apps which somehow manipulated Apple's sharing options, to eliminate granularity for their apps -- that is, for certain third-party apps, the only options are "Always" and "Never". In fact, I've even observed some apps tracking my location long after I had finished the task associated with my use of that app, and in annoyance, I've made a point of toggling that option down to "Never" for some of those apps, after each use. (I mean come on, people: why the heck does a f

    • I mean come on, people: why the heck does a fast food joint need to keep tracking my location all the way to work, a good thirty minutes after I've picked up my breakfast and acknowledged as much in the app?!?

      Because this is incredible business data for them!

      They want to know the route that you and the other customers take to work. If a whole lot of you are all driving by the same location which doesn't have a franchise, that's a great place to put a franchise. If a whole lot of you are avoiding a franchise, that's a sign that something is wrong with it.

      Knowing the average commute you make after purchasing your food could help them make decisions on packaging material or how the food is prepared. If the grease s

      • ... Knowing the average commute you make after purchasing your food could help them make decisions on packaging material or how the food is prepared. If the grease soaks through the bag 30 minutes after you get your food but 99% of people reach their destination before then, no sense in paying for better bags!

        There are far too many variables, and I would contend that customer commutes after leaving the store aren't really actionable data. But to address this particular data point: It does not matter to me in the least whether or not the grease is going to soak through the bag by the time I get to work... my food is gone by then. Of course, the fast food joint has no way of knowing that.

        In any event, even if I thought their reasons for wanting that data were perfectly cromulent, that still wouldn't make the priv

  • "The app developers argue that this change may confuse less technical users..." ...which is pretty much anyone using an iPhone.

    Ehud "``But it all just works'' died with Steve Jobs" Gavron
    Tucson AZ

  • Apple gets a high five! (Score:3)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @04:32PM (#59103312) Homepage
    This is an excellent change and a win for the end user, any developer that sees this move as anything less then a home-run, isn't security minded and doesn't care about user security.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close