It's amazing how many here are applauding Apple and overlooking this very important point.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Phil Schiller Lays Out Apple's Case for Cracking Down on Screen Time Monitoring Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Edit: Ignore me. This is wrong.
If you weren’t sure: Yes, these same tools are what Facebook was found using earlier this year to surreptitiously offer shady iOS software outside of the App Store. It has been found since that numerous businesses use MDM to circumvent App Store restrictions to offer gambling, porn, and data collection software.
Apple now sees it as necessary to crack down on this unauthorized use of MDM, if you use it not-internally for mostly innocuous reasons you’ll probably still run in to trouble.
If you weren’t sure: Yes, these same tools are what Facebook was found using earlier this year to surreptitiously offer shady iOS software outside of the App Store. It has been found since that numerous businesses use MDM to circumvent App Store restrictions to offer gambling, porn, and data collection software.
Apple now sees it as necessary to crack down on this unauthorized use of MDM, if you use it not-internally for mostly innocuous reasons you’ll probably still run in to trouble.
Last edited:
Awful sensationalism journalism from NYT and anyone who picked the story.
But clicks sell, who cares about the facts. Shameful.
The whole idea that Apple would block these apps to favour their own Screen Time makes no sense to begin with:
Screen Time is FREE. Apple isn’t making any money out of it.
These third party apps were NOT free and by removing them Apple is losing money. No AppStore 15-30% cut anymore.
But clicks sell, who cares about the facts. Shameful.
The whole idea that Apple would block these apps to favour their own Screen Time makes no sense to begin with:
Screen Time is FREE. Apple isn’t making any money out of it.
These third party apps were NOT free and by removing them Apple is losing money. No AppStore 15-30% cut anymore.
No system can 100% prevent apps that contains malicious code or invasion to privacy. I'm sure Apple has a standard procedure of app review, and this process needs to balance between risk and efficiency. Given the App Store's scale, if everything is thoroughly reviewed by humans, probably it will be very hard to release new apps or release app updates.
Here’s a copy of a letter I just wrote to the Times newsroom. We’ll see if/how they respond.
Dear Editor,
I have a concern about an article appearing today’s Times, “Apple Cracks Down on Apps That Fight iPhone Addiction” by Jack Nicas. I would very much appreciate your reading and responding to the brief article I’ve linked below from MacRumors, which includes the full text of an email from Phil Schiller, Apple SVP, to one of their readers who expressed concern about Apple’s removal of screen limiting apps.
Nicas’s article included only a terse and fairly generic statement by an Apple spokesperson, but, according to Schiller, did not include the entirety of Apple’s response. If it had, the NYT reader would have read that Apple removed the apps not as part of a clandestine anticompetitive campaign, as Nicas obviously wants his readers to conclude, but because the removed apps utilize a feature called MDM, which grants these apps total surveillance of all iPhone activities, intended only for captive devices in an enterprise environment and a clear potential privacy concern.
One could be forgiven for concluding that Nicas didn’t really want to present the full picture, but instead wanted to generate outrage against Apple and/or sympathy for developers who may well have violated Apple’s terms of service. If Apple did, as Schiller claims, have a legitimate (and understandable) reason to remove these apps, the only remaining issue is that Apple may have had poor communication with some developers in removing their apps. And now I wonder if that’s true either.
Not only would I appreciate a response, but I believe that I and all your readers are owed one.
The link is below.
Sincerely,
I have a concern about an article appearing today’s Times, “Apple Cracks Down on Apps That Fight iPhone Addiction” by Jack Nicas. I would very much appreciate your reading and responding to the brief article I’ve linked below from MacRumors, which includes the full text of an email from Phil Schiller, Apple SVP, to one of their readers who expressed concern about Apple’s removal of screen limiting apps.
Nicas’s article included only a terse and fairly generic statement by an Apple spokesperson, but, according to Schiller, did not include the entirety of Apple’s response. If it had, the NYT reader would have read that Apple removed the apps not as part of a clandestine anticompetitive campaign, as Nicas obviously wants his readers to conclude, but because the removed apps utilize a feature called MDM, which grants these apps total surveillance of all iPhone activities, intended only for captive devices in an enterprise environment and a clear potential privacy concern.
One could be forgiven for concluding that Nicas didn’t really want to present the full picture, but instead wanted to generate outrage against Apple and/or sympathy for developers who may well have violated Apple’s terms of service. If Apple did, as Schiller claims, have a legitimate (and understandable) reason to remove these apps, the only remaining issue is that Apple may have had poor communication with some developers in removing their apps. And now I wonder if that’s true either.
Not only would I appreciate a response, but I believe that I and all your readers are owed one.
The link is below.
Sincerely,
Yeah, basically any device that the company gives (lends to) you is a spy device. These MDM profiles record everything you do on the phone and the company is able to analyse it. And who knows what do the enterprise apps do?
He’s absolutely dead on, and I hope he also provided that response to the Times so they can correct their article. Editing the original statement to the point it lost his valid counter argument is unacceptable, and I hope the editor has a word with the writer(s).
re: the apostrophe, he got users’ and consumers’ right, so I’m guessing the “it’s” error for the possessive was actually an autocorrect error he didn’t notice/correct. Happens to me all the time, I’ll write “its” and it’ll autocorrect to “it’s”. Usually I notice, sometimes I don’t.
Hope so. Aside from the grammar, he was absolutely dead on and eloquent.
The problem with some people involved in journalism is their fight for attention.
MacRumors does that every day.
Current example:
When corporations throw unconscionable **** on the market (the funny foiled beta phones), Apple is portrayed as to be not innovative.
Food for the too many agressive trolls here. It always annoys me.
It's a general problem on how to deal responsible with informations. Even the MR Editorial needs less misleading 'experts'. But I know, it's a free country....
MacRumors does that every day.
Current example:
When corporations throw unconscionable **** on the market (the funny foiled beta phones), Apple is portrayed as to be not innovative.
Food for the too many agressive trolls here. It always annoys me.
It's a general problem on how to deal responsible with informations. Even the MR Editorial needs less misleading 'experts'. But I know, it's a free country....
Last edited:
They also approved an "anti-virus" app last year that charged a $400/month subscription fee.
I submitted a game a few weeks ago and it was approved within a day. There is no way they went through the whole thing that fast. I think it's just overworked people operating on auto-pilot and with all the recent bad actor app news, Apple needs to tighten up or revamp the approval process.
Yes, it is a cogent statement; I hope he also provides/has provided it to the Times.
I expect the Times to respond; they don’t seem to have an issue with corrections/retractions when they get something wrong.
Nothing wrong with that. Let market forces prevail. The devs will soon find out just how many people think their app is worth $400/month. Kind of cute of them to try. Got to admire the ba££$. At least they’re not maybe spying on kids.
“But for some users who had come to prefer the capabilities of these apps such as cross-platform compatibility with Android devices in their households and more robust app controls, Apple's Screen Time feature feels like a step backward.”
**** ‘em.
If you need apps to even remotely attempt to parent and raise a child, you should be neutered and you existing kids put up for adoption, because you’ve failed at adult life.
**** ‘em.
If you need apps to even remotely attempt to parent and raise a child, you should be neutered and you existing kids put up for adoption, because you’ve failed at adult life.
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m assuming you don’t have children. It’s a wee bit more complex than that.
Man that’s crazy!!!!
As a regular dude, I can’t believe that one of these companies can just put out an MDM and get info like that without even asking (or if they do ask, they definitely are being slick bc I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that asked me direct)
I’m SOOOOOOO happy Apple cares about us.
If Apple didn’t do something, people like me who don’t know much tech stuff would be spied on basically and who knows what else.
Proud to be using iPhone.
It’s an old phrase, it’s from a video game. Originally “All your base are belong to us”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
I'm ok with a free market but the app didn't actually do anything. It was just straight up fraud. It advertised with $1.99/month as a trial and in the fine print listed the $400/month. Something like that, I don't remember exactly but it was a story on here last year. Point is, let people spend their money how they wish but at least give them what they bought.
It was well written and pointed out that Apple does a poor job of communicating with App Store developers who rely on it for their business. I kind of doubt you read the article because one of the developers shares how he replied to their request to fit the guidelines, in which they invited him to reply with questions, and they completely ignored him until it was too late and they removed it from the App Store, even after the developer removed MDM integration.