Did Apple Just Kill Social Apps? (nytimes.com) 78
Apple's iOS 18 update has introduced changes to contact sharing that could significantly impact social app developers. The new feature allows users to selectively share contacts with apps, rather than granting access to their entire address book. While Apple touts this as a privacy enhancement, developers warn it may hinder the growth of new social platforms. Nikita Bier, a start-up founder, called it "the end of the world" for friend-based social apps. Critics argue the change doesn't apply to Apple's own services, potentially giving the tech giant an unfair advantage.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Assholes need to stop monetizing my friendships.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:4, Informative)
Grapheneos started doing this several years back in response to whatsapp. It's really obnoxious about the way it demands access to all of your contacts. Though they've done this to other "all or nothing" accesses as well, e.g. you can grant apps access only to specific files. You define scopes for e.g. contacts and storage that effectively mask everything but what you allow, then assign those scopes to whatever apps. The app will think it has full access even though it doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good (Score:3)
I don't know about ios, but grapheneos you can, you just name your scopes. The app can't tell the difference so it can't play hardball and try to penalize you in any way like whatsapp does if you don't give it access to your contacts. Only thing you have to do is add somebody to its scope before you can call or message them for the first time.
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
Access to my contacts is why I haven't used WhatsApp EVER. I have people ask for my WhatsApp and I tell them I don't have it and aren't interested in adding it, and they look at me like I'm some sort of weird boomer. Okay, so I am a weird boomer, but that is irrelevant to this subject ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh. I've actually never had anyone ask me for a WhatsApp contact.
WhatsApp takeup is highly regional. In some countries you would be unable to function without WhatsApp, like literally, airlines use the WhatsApp API to distribute tickets, people by default Whatsapp message exclusively without ever asking - first type of contact, never send SMSes, businesses list whatsapp numbers instead of their fixed telephone lines, etc. etc.
Re: Good (Score:2)
They can call you but you can't call them if you don't give it access to your contacts. Initially this is the way I was doing that, but refrained from ever calling anybody. Then when I found out grapheneos provides a way to do this without root (and a number of other things like call recording) I just switched to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Access to my contacts is why I haven't used WhatsApp EVER.
Same... or rather nearly the same. In my case I haven't been able to use WhatsApp, because I refuse to give it access to my contacts. Although that's the end of the journey.
That started when I installed the app on my laptop, and it told me to "scan this QR code on your phone". If I had had a smartphone I wouldn't have needed to install it on my laptop...
Fast forward to my phone carrier switching off 2g, thus sending me a new sim so I can still make calls, send texts etc. Old phone can't take new sim, so I f
Re: (Score:3)
I used to use WhatsApp, before FB bought it.
Now I use it again, for one contact. I was lucky. I had a new phone with no contacts, so I allowed WhatsApp to access contacts, added her, and then removed the access in the settings.
But then: I just added her on LINE and deleted WhatsApp again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope this helps.
Much appreciated, thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Access to my contacts is why I haven't used WhatsApp EVER. I have people ask for my WhatsApp and I tell them I don't have it and aren't interested in adding it, and they look at me like I'm some sort of weird boomer. Okay, so I am a weird boomer, but that is irrelevant to this subject ;-)
You can use Whatsapp without giving it access to you contacts... at least on Android. I use WA Business for things I do in South America that I deliberately keep that separate from my contacts.
Erm... this would be for things like Rappi (local equivalent of Deliveroo/Just Eat) or my taxi driver. I'm not an international drug Czar (I prefer the term Pharmaceutical Kaiser anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
You can work around this by using Android's Work Profile feature. There's an open source app called Shelter that sets it up and makes it easy for you to use.
Basically you have a complete secondary profile that you can install apps into, but launch them from your normal home screen, get notifications etc. The secondary profile has its own contacts list, settings, user files etc. So you can put apps like WhatsApp in there, only add contacts you want it to see, and it won't have access to your real files eithe
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use distinct email addresses for every business I interacted with, and they pretty much stopped widely sharing email lists well over 15 years ago. I don't bother with it these days, though all those legacy addresses do give me early warning someone is about to be in the news because of a data breach.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been hoping for this feature for a long time, especially after seeing how they limit apps' access to selected pictures in your photos.
This feature along makes it worth buying a new iPhone if my current phone cannot upgrade to iOS 18.
Privacy hostile apps like WhatsApp can take what they deserved.
Re: (Score:1)
Look, I fully agree with you (and not only friendships, but also colleagues, business contacts and service providers like specialist doctors, all of which I have in my phonebook, and by simple association can already generate a picture of my life.)
But let's look at reality here. It costs money to (and shareholders demand profits from) providing a free app to people. Unfortunately IMHO the worms are already out of the can in regards to free apps, because the gr
Don't get my hopes up (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this wouldn't kill social apps, this would kill apps harvesting your address book and put you in the loop. So the headline is bullshit.
Second, I really wish they would kill social apps.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
facebook et all are still coasting on millienals' contacts being freely accessible until ~2012
It's going to be increasingly difficult to start a new social network without the ability to wholesale import their hundreds of contacts and build an advertisin-I mean social empir- I mean network with that information.
Apple is doing nothing new here, boomers were supremely successful at pulling the ladder up after them, why wouldn't they have learned from that?
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers didn't pull up the ladder after them. The world changed.
Don't worry GenXers, the GenZers will blame you for whatever ladder you pulled up after you (when the world changed), as the Boomers are now all over 60 and not relevant to anything "modern". Probably AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers didn't pull up the ladder after them. The world changed.
Bullshit. The world changed, and who do you think changed it? Who controlled the economy in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s? Who do you think still has the most seats in Congress? Boomers are like 20% of the population now but have over 48% of the seats in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit Indeed.
The world changes. Its how progress works. We used to have truly free internet unruled by anyone, those stupid Boomers took that away!!! Just like cars took away horses for transportation, just like PCs took away the Mainframe. Just like ....
Guess what The world changes, every generation. I pity the generation that changes nothing, for they will have failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't get my hopes up (Score:5, Funny)
Betteridge's law of headlines fits perfectly here.
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Re:Don't get my hopes up (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this wouldn't kill social apps, this would kill apps harvesting your address book and put you in the loop. So the headline is bullshit.
Also, I'm pretty sure those apps always have to ask for permission to the address book, usually in the context of, "to help you find your friends on our network". I always opt out of that, so they've gotten zero contacts from me from the get go.
Being able to select a subset of my contacts to share with the app would be excellent! And it would actually INCREASE the number of contacts I've shared with various apps.
Re: (Score:3)
It really needs to be an OS controlled interface. Hopefully Apple and Google can create something so an app can request access to a contact and it pops up a system app that lets you share which ones you want.
For example, I wanted to transfer a ticket to a show I bought with a friend, but to do that, the TicketMaster App needs an email/contact info. The option currently is to allow access to your entire contacts list for the one email. I ended up just typing in the email.
Re: (Score:2)
It really needs to be an OS controlled interface. Hopefully Apple and Google can create something so an app can request access to a contact and it pops up a system app that lets you share which ones you want.
Absolutely agree. Also, I'm fairly certain that ancient versions of Cyanogenmod (open source Android fork) has such features. You could mock most, if not all, of those sort of calls - fake a GPS location to an app, pretend to give bluetooth access and hide all devices (or expose only those you wish), etc.. Just saying, this sort of thing is not only theoretically possible, and not only has it been tried somewhere, but it's already been done on Android. I happened to do a quick google on faking GPS location,
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the expression "don't threaten me with a good time" is apt.
Re: Don't get my hopes up (Score:2)
What would all those poor schoolchildren do without socials, eh? Instead of trying to build their cyber images in a relentless social rat race they would actually have to start paying attention and learning. Oh no, no, no! We can't have that!
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Any social network that relies on knowing my contacts without my permission deserves to fail. I see no downside at all.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No social network needs this, unless you count WhatsApp as a social network in which case it absolutely requires it.
Re: (Score:1)
It also doesn't. WhatsApp works without phone book access, you only need to use a special URL to add new numbers and won't see the names of your contacts. But you can chat.
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't. WhatsApp works without phone book access
Only partially. WhatsApp cripples the app when you deny it access to your phone book. It turns all chats heading into phone numbers, refusing to even show the name the other side put into WhatsApp, which you know the app had because that name still shows in the notification when you got a message.
Also, broadcast messages from known contacts (i.e. people you are already chatting with) won't be delivered to you if you blocked access to your phonebook, which
made no sense at all.
Just try to block phonebook ac
Re: (Score:2)
The first one stands to reason from the app itself. The chat list literally gets the names from your address book. I can understand why they wouldn't have programmed a different behaviour just for those who denied access.
Re: (Score:1)
WhatsApp originally did not require access to the address book.
It only was apples policy that contact data should be stored in the address book - aka - contacts.
Which makes sense.
But now every damn app, and it does not matter if it is Android or iOS, wants access to your contacts.
So the web site behind it, might it be Linkedin or a dating site, can trace your contacts.
Why the funk would anyone voluntarily give a dating site access to your contacts? So your ex wife instantly knows: oh you are on that site ..
Re: (Score:2)
Work as in provide a minimum of functionality yes. Work as in works like WhatsApp? No. WhatsApp in the way it normally works does not keep a separate address book. There's a reason when you click add contact that it directs you to your phone's address book. Reminder the app was literally designed as an extension to Apple's contacts lists by providing online visibility before it became a chat app. It was literally created around the idea of accessing the address book.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a reason when you click add contact that it directs you to your phone's address book. Reminder the app was literally designed as an extension to Apple's contacts lists by providing online visibility before it became a chat app. It was literally created around the idea of accessing the address book.
That does not make any sense.
It always was a chat app.
But originally it did not require access to the contacts, unless you clicked "add contact".
Now it requires access, and does not even start/open if you
Planning their own social app then? (Score:2)
Re:Planning their own social app then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Planning their own social app then?
Apple has tried and failed before [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
#eWorldRefugee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple already tried their hand at a social network. That it was totally forgotten about is the sum total of their success in the realm.
Now, that was almost 15 years ago, and involved iTunes, which they've largely abandoned...but I don't think they would really need to go down that road. iMessage has a good amount of elements of a social network; add in public group chats, and you've basically got a hardware-specific Whatsapp.
Apple makes their money off software and media sales in the App Store; unless they'
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple did try to create a new social app after putting this restriction in place, and it didn't abide by the same restrictions, they would deserve a visit from anti-trust.
As long as they don't do both of the above, I like the idea of selective contact sharing - "grant access to all of contacts" has caused me to refuse to install a lot of things.
Sounds Like a Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I often want to share selective contacts and not the whole book. I'm glad one company, at least, is making this easier. I hope others will follow.
Don't like the sensationalized title on this story. One person's "Killing Social Apps" is another person's "Restoring Privacy and Control".
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anybody grant a social app permission to harvest contacts in the first place?
Instant gratification. Once someone joins they want to see activity.
Re: (Score:2)
For a while you could give Facebook your IMAP credentials to harvest your contacts and several of my acquaintances jumped in with both feet.
"Trust me, bro".
Re: (Score:2)
"Trust me, bro".
"Dumb fucks."
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anybody grant a social app permission to harvest contacts in the first place?
For the most part it's because the app asks for it and people just don't think.
Re: (Score:2)
WhatsApp wants to do this as a means of providing you with a contacts list.
I rarely use the app, but I've had to use it a few times to get in touch with folks in other countries. But grant WhatsApp access to my contacts? Not a chance! So unfortunately I've lived with half a dozen unlabeled chats in the app that I just know who they are.
So in my particular situation, I think I welcome the change the Apple has made - I am fine with selectively granting a few contacts to WhatsApp (since those other folks alr
Re: (Score:1)
Because the app wont run otherwise, and the hot girl you want to date is only on that app (and to stupid to install another app - bottom line, she is not that hat, but your erection disagrees)
Stop monetizing my private business (Score:4, Informative)
This is long overdue. We all know that these "social apps" have been exploiting our information in many ways. We're tired of it. If the developers are upset over this change, they are free to find another job--write something that doesn't exploit the public. Do honest work.
Makes slightly me more likely to try them (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't do social apps. Never made a FB account, stopped using Xitter after some asshole ruined it, am not even sure what other ones there are now.
If I could actually control what data they could harvest, I would be more likely to try them. As is, I never even look because I know exactly what kind of shenanigans to expect.
I still probably don't care about your wizzy new social whatever. But control over personal data would take it out of the automatic No category for me.
Re: (Score:1)
whatever (Score:1)
Sharing your contacts with social apps is wild.
Can I get ... (Score:2)
Show me his contact list.
Sharing the hate (Score:3)
The worst offender was, a few years ago, LinkedIn asking for access to your email account so it could scrape all your emails. The only thing more crazy than that request was some people probably gave them access. The repeated requests when I did not give access really pissed me off at the time.
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. (Score:2)
While Apple touts this as a privacy enhancement, developers warn it may hinder the growth of new social platforms.
So, we've got us one of them win-win situations here. Cool.
Except, social media apps will absolutely still exist. The difference is that they'll have to find ways to actively seek out information other than just, "You happen to know some dumbass who has no problem sharing any information you've ever given them." Thinking these companies will just disappear in a puff of wish fulfillment just because you cut off one tiny little bit of their data-suck? No. You're removing about 1/3rd or less of their data-suck
Advantage Apple's own Services? (Score:3)
Which ones? The phone dialer? Mail? Messages? The whole reason I put those people in my contacts was so I could use it with those.
LOL (Score:2)
LOL, cry about it, parasites.
\o/ (Score:1)
That's great - time to switch to iOS so I can install the LinkedIn app!
Less data for the dataminers (Score:2)
No, it will not hinder anything legitimate.
Having to add people by handle but by sending your address book to a commercial company was totally normal, then came WhatsApp and went the evil route. Some other apps adapted, thinking they could catch up to WhatsApp if they abandoned user handles in favor for mobile numbers. They didn't.
Apple didn't kill social apps. They saved user's privacy.
Betteridge (Score:3, Insightful)
Call a waaaaambulance... (Score:2)
Nikita Bier, a start-up founder, called it "the end of the world" for friend-based social apps.
Too bad Nikita. I guess you'll have give up being a parasite and get an honest, ethical job. You know, one that doesn't involve raping people's privacy for huge profit.
If, that is, you're fit for any other kind of job. But no, I'm guessing that you're utterly incapable of even understanding how and why you're engaged in an evil practice.
And the problem is? (Score:2)
Social apps, aka social media, is a scourge on our society. Anything to push back against it is a positive thing in my book. I'm not remotely an Apple fan, but good for them!
Who even? (Score:2)
Who even clicks allow access to contacts in an app? The only thing I do that for is my phone or email app.
Re: Who even? (Score:2)
Why would your email app need phone numbers for?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, but my email contacts are in the same place
That does not kill social apps. (Score:1)
This is the correct way to do it.
I seriously do not want that my 400 contacts in my phones contact app, suddenly get a message just because I installed another social/chat app.
It was always super annoying that some apps actually _require_ access to the contacts, otherwise they do not work.
bullshit (Score:2)
Let's call out the obvious bullshit:
Nikita Bier, a start-up founder, called it "the end of the world" for friend-based social apps
Nah. If your app were really "friend-based", it wouldn't care.
If your app is working by inflating its numbers by counting every stranger I once added to my contacts and then promptly forgot about, then this will put an end to that.
Great move, Apple !
Should never have been possible (Score:2)
It is an amazing missuse of data. I couldn't believe the first time an apo tried to that. W
How was it even legal?