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
Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab a company is one of the companies involved in this suit against Apple. , that’s all we need to hear to know Apple is doing the right thing.
If you are stupid enough to use any product by Kaspersky then you may as well be posting your SSN, Credit card and bank account numbers along with all all you pins on Facebook!
If you are stupid enough to use any product by Kaspersky then you may as well be posting your SSN, Credit card and bank account numbers along with all all you pins on Facebook!
Apple might have tolerated these apps at the time for a lack of an alternative. Once Apple recognised the demand for the functionality these apps provided and implemented it themselves, it may have reconsidered its policy and decided that the MDM workaround will no longer be allowed.
It would depend on the device's function and the employee's role within the company I guess, but that method you're suggesting still leaves a lot of vulnerabilities open. Your method, seems like a VM ware option, feasible as long as no data is stored on the device and no methods of screen copying are allowed through the login policies and VM ware, but not the smartest way to protect the company.
No sane company worried about IP infringement, spying, or other malicious activity would allow their employees to bring in just any device and give them unfettered access to their network. If employees don't like their personal device use scrutinized by their employer they have the option of using separate devices for work and play or finding employment elsewhere.
You can email nytnews@nytimes.com or call 844-NYTNEWS (and leave a message) to provide a correction or feedback on a New York Times story...
The gist of the NYT piece is accurate, that is the App Store is anti-competitive. These apps were approved by Apple and not removed until Screen Time was released. If Schiller is concerned about children then he will have to remove Facebook et al. or not be taken seriously.
As one of the people who wrote the original MDM standards (WAP Forum and OMA), Device Management was originally intended for either corporate management of devices or operator management of devices.
So I am with Phil on this one, in that a consumer app provider should not be using this technology as a control or monitoring channel - otherwise it could open a whole can of worms that the consumer did not envisage. Particularly as such app service providers have ownership of the DM Server itself.
Andrew
So I am with Phil on this one, in that a consumer app provider should not be using this technology as a control or monitoring channel - otherwise it could open a whole can of worms that the consumer did not envisage. Particularly as such app service providers have ownership of the DM Server itself.
Andrew
This is the 2nd time in a week that the NY Times fabricated a story out of nothing... the first being the Boeing Dreamliner article to capitalize on the 737 Max tragedy.
Bloomberg, WSJ, NY Times... these so called reputable news organizations are not above making stuff up or grossly twisting the facts in order to sell their papers. As revenue has declined and the demands of 24/7 news has put pressure on them to put out more breaking news, things have only gotten worse.
[doublepost=1556460910][/doublepost]"it was meant to be used by a company on it’s own mobile devices"
It's 'its' not 'it's'. Did Schiller really write this?
Apple isn’t perfect by any means, but I appreciate their stance on privacy. This is a big reason I stick with Apple.
You very clearly did not read the interview I linked to, no matter you can carry on defending the indefensible hypocritical Apple and it’s business practices if you want, your argument is just totally flawed, because Apple is out to fully maximise profits, so it will happily allow its users to be data mined whilst defending their privacy. It makes more money like that.
These MDMs could have been in use for ages but it’s only since they came into the public domain that Apple apparently suddenly takes action... oh and when Apple has rather conveniently got its own version...
Last edited:
A newspaper like the New York Times would never cherrypick a quote and misrepresent a source. The only logical conclusion is Phil Schiller is lying. This is an asbolute new low for Apple. Appalling. This is worse than having three camera lenses on the back of a smartphone, which ideally should have only one.
NYT used to have a credible tech writer, he moved on, they hired a buzzword writer. An example, he called the iPod a “computing platform”. I subscribe to two east coast papers, they don’t have a clue on tech. But their political reporting is good.
A pet peeve of mine is filling the tech news with game stuff. Who cares.
A pet peeve of mine is filling the tech news with game stuff. Who cares.
Another disgustingly inaccurate anti-Apple hit piece has been dismantled by the facts.
Well played MacRumors for getting the scoop on this.
Well played MacRumors for getting the scoop on this.
For your own sake, google James Forrestal.
[doublepost=1556463353][/doublepost]
So Apple mislead the developers by breaking their own rules. They probably did it because they did not want to lose to Android which offered this functionality. Once they approved the first such app they telegraphed to all developers that this was legal. People/companies then invested in development of these legal apps only to be thrown under the bus a short while later.
Apple is and always has been the arbiter of the App Store guidelines. What is and isn’t allowed is their decision. There is no definitive list of rules, no procedure for changing them and no prior consultation. What may have been allowed at some point in the past might not be anymore when new technology becomes available to the platform, whether as a native feature or a competing service by Apple. It is no secret that Apple changes the guidelines all the time. They explicitly say so in the guidelines themselves.
Whether Apple had any ulterior motives in this case is speculative. The crackdown on MSM misuse is a legitimate reason, the question whether it should have been done sooner is a matter of debate.
Nah, the only person we don’t believe is you with all your ridiculous anti-Apple bull.
That article was questionable in its accuracy when it came out, and with all the changes Apple has implemented over the years it’s even less likely any of their claims are true.
But go ahead and pretend iOS is the same today as 5+ years ago and any tricks developers used to try and profile people work as they claimed.
[doublepost=1556465386][/doublepost]
Nothing like straight up fabricating how things happened to continue to push your narrative.
You can’t have it both ways:
- When an App with malware sneaks into The App Store it’s because Apple didn’t catch it, meaning their vetting process is flawed.
- When an App (like these screen time ones) gets into The App Store, Apple intentionally allowed it in because they wanted the functionality.
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics people go through so they can take any position and twist it to a negative against Apple.
Last edited:
English is not in the core curriculum of all marketing degrees. Also, referencing just the Mac Rumors forum space, it's glaringly obvious that most people who speak the language do not have a mastery of typing it (myself included). Most people who attack someone's grammar or punctuation within their own message are usually upset with the hard truths actually contained in the message. When one cannot rebut with logic, then lashing out in some childish manner like name calling or spelling/grammar/punctuation correction seems to be the go-to method, at least here on MR.
Interesting that of the hundreds of millions of iOS users around the world, Phil replies to just one email and that person happens to be a Mac Rumors member just itching to spread the word to the editors.
If this mysterious person happened to be a non active member of any blog site, Phil's uncommonly detailed response would only be read by one person.
But that wasn't the intent.
The intent is to provide this information to a fake random emailer so as to not have to reply to any official source.
This news will be on every Apple news website shortly. Funny how that works.
If this mysterious person happened to be a non active member of any blog site, Phil's uncommonly detailed response would only be read by one person.
But that wasn't the intent.
The intent is to provide this information to a fake random emailer so as to not have to reply to any official source.
This news will be on every Apple news website shortly. Funny how that works.
Last edited:
OK ... wait. So it's OK for Apple to use this technology, and collect far more data from every user, but not other companies? That's the definition of anti-competitive behavior (masked in faux altruism). I don't think it will fly with EU authorities. It's amazing how easily it is for Apple to dupe their fan boys and girls.
He's actually replied similarly to more than one person before, addressing multiple emails sent in regards to one issue. Google Phil Schiller and the Steam Link app. Although, if he did have to just reply to only one person's email about an issue who would you choose? The random nobody who will probably delete the response or the individual whose job it is to report to a community of users who will most likely spread that information?