Phil Schiller Lays Out Apple's Case for Cracking Down on Screen Time Monitoring Apps

[MacRumors]

Earlier today, a report from The New York Times highlighted Apple's removal of a number of App Store apps that had allowed users to monitor usage of their devices or those used by their children. The report suggests that Apple's move to pull the apps is related to having rolled out its own Screen Time feature in iOS 12 that competes in some ways with these apps, raising concerns over anticompetitive behavior.

Over the past year, Apple has removed or restricted at least 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps, according to an analysis by The New York Times and Sensor Tower, an app-data firm. Apple has also clamped down on a number of lesser-known apps.

In some cases, Apple forced companies to remove features that allowed parents to control their children's devices or that blocked children's access to certain apps and adult content. In other cases, it simply pulled the apps from its App Store.

The report quotes several developers who had their apps removed, including one who says the removal came "out of the blue with no warning." Apple is facing several complaints related to the moves, with a pair of developers filing with the European Union's competition office and Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab filing an antitrust complaint in that country.

The New York Times shared a brief statement from an Apple spokeswoman saying that Apple treats "all apps the same," including ones that compete with Apple's own features like Screen Time. The spokeswoman stated that the affected apps "could gain too much information from users' devices."

After reading the article, MacRumors reader Zachary Robinson emailed Tim Cook to express concern over the situation, and earlier today he received a thorough response from Phil Schiller outlining that Apple's removal of these apps is due to their use of Mobile Device Management (MDM) technology to monitor everything that happens on the user's phone.

Schiller notes that MDM technology is intended for enterprise users to install on company-owned devices, giving them easy access to and control over those devices for management purposes. The alternative usage of MDM technology by third-party developers for screen time monitoring or parental controls raises significant privacy and security concerns, however, and Apple has moved to address those issues.

The full email from Schiller, which appears to be authentic based on our examination of the included headers:

Thank you for being a fan of Apple and for your email.

I would like to assure you that the App Store team has acted extremely responsibly in this matter, helping to protect our children from technologies that could be used to violate their privacy and security. After you learn of some of the facts I hope that you agree.

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf. Apple has long supported providing apps on the App Store, that work like our ScreenTime feature, to help parents manage their children's access to technology and we will continue to encourage development of these apps. There are many great apps for parents on the App Store, like "Moment - Balance Screen Time" by Moment Health and "Verizon Smart Family" by Verizon Wireless.

However, over the last year we became aware that some parental management apps were using a technology called Mobile Device Management or "MDM" and installing an MDM Profile as a method to limit and control use of these devices. MDM is a technology that gives one party access to and control over many devices, it was meant to be used by a company on it's own mobile devices as a management tool, where that company has a right to all of the data and use of the devices. The MDM technology is not intended to enable a developer to have access to and control over consumers' data and devices, but the apps we removed from the store did just that. No one, except you, should have unrestricted access to manage your child's device, know their location, track their app use, control their mail accounts, web surfing, camera use, network access, and even remotely erase their devices. Further, security research has shown that there is risk that MDM profiles could be used as a technology for hacker attacks by assisting them in installing apps for malicious purposes on users' devices.

When the App Store team investigated the use of MDM technology by some developers of apps for managing kids devices and learned the risk they create to user privacy and security, we asked these developers to stop using MDM technology in their apps. Protecting user privacy and security is paramount in the Apple ecosystem and we have important App Store guidelines to not allow apps that could pose a threat to consumers privacy and security. We will continue to provide features, like ScreenTime, designed to help parents manage their children's access to technology and we will work with developers to offer many great apps on the App Store for these uses, using technologies that are safe and private for us and our children.

Thank you,

Phil

Apple's dedication to privacy and security is well-known, so it's unsurprising the company took steps to address concerns related to how these apps were monitoring device usage. 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.

Article Link: Phil Schiller Lays Out Apple's Case for Cracking Down on Screen Time Monitoring Apps

 

[edolecki]

Makes sense.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Good job, Apple. I knew the article was poorly written and slanted to paint an inaccurate picture of, and actions from Apple.

 

[1144557]

MDM can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Lots of ability to spy on someone by the company, who many abide far less data as is.

Not a great implementation to trust for family/kids letting some company having device access.

 

[cmaier]

Bad enough when MDM is used for its *intended* use (screw you, MobileIron!)

 

[WhoDaKat]

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf.

Honestly this kind of irks me at the NYT. How do you write an article on something like this and leave out part of the companies statement that at best exonerates them and at worst at least explains their actions. The NYT is supposed to have journalistic integrity. Way to feed fuel to "someones" fire. I'd support a complete ban from the App Store when any app can access my kids location without permission.

 

[ouimetnick]

That's a really well written and explained response Phil provided. I agree with them 100% on this decision.

 

[0947347]

I was appalled when Amazon Fire was asking me my child’s personal detail, just to be able to use a child profile. I dislike very much this kind of behaviour.

So I was glad Apple introduced Screen Time, so I let my child use iPad instead

 

[warp9]

Meanwhile, at Facebook:

ALL YOUR KID ARE BELONG TO US.

 

[Ladybug]

I have to side with Apple on this one. You can never be too careful where children are concerned and this MDM technology is probably not necessary to begin with. Let the developers create apps without the MDM and submit those for approval.

 

[mariusignorello]

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf.

Honestly this kind of irks me at the NYT. How do you write an article on something like this and leave out part of the companies statement that at best exonerates them and at worst at least explains their actions. The NYT is supposed to have journalistic integrity. Way to feed fuel to "someones" fire. I'd support a complete ban from the App Store when any app can access my kids location without permission.

Doesn’t matter what topic the NYT “journalists” cover. They can’t stick to the facts and provide a true report of the story. Their bias bleeds into everything they write.

 

[Rogifan]

I had a feeling there was more to this story. Seems like every time something like this comes up once we get the whole story it’s not nearly as bad as the original story portrayed, or just shows Apple was right to do what they did.

 

[Hieveryone]

Man I love Apple.

That is all.
[doublepost=1556418100][/doublepost]

I had a feeling there was more to this story. Seems like every time something like this comes up once we get the whole story it’s not nearly as bad as the original story portrayed, or just shows Apple was right to do what they did.

I mean that’s the thing. On one hand you’ve got some people who say “Apple won’t let screen time apps rah rah....

But btw we got that MDM hehehe”

 

[LaraCroft835]

"Apple's Screen Time feature feels like a step backward."
Not long ago there wasn't this feature and Im sure Tim and Co will further improve on it as IOS rolls out further.

Again MSM looking to bash Apple without honest reporting.

 

[jinnj]

MDM can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Lots of ability to spy on someone by the company, who many abide far less data as is.

Not a great implementation to trust for family/kids letting some company having device access.

My employer was trying to enforce that all users with iPhones on their network must provide MDM access.

I have to side with Apple on this one. You can never be too careful where children are concerned and this MDM technology is probably not necessary to begin with. Let the developers create apps without the MDM and submit those for approval.

MDM is a needed feature of iOS but not in this case.

 

[bluespark]

The fact that some screen time apps remain seems to validate Schiller's statement, and the use of MDM by third parties is obviously something Apple should manage. Sounds like this situation is something other than what it initially appeared to be.

 

[kildraik]

Clarification on the details was a great move from Phil.

I am unimpressed with the NYT story, having just read it. Unfortunately, this is what I’ve been doing with news stories like this, because they always end up being partial-truths that get clarified by Apple later on, due to poor reporting.

It’s definitely an opinion piece with little investigation. Very sad.

Apple for the win.

 

[13astion]

“Phil Schiller Lays Out Apple's Case for Cracking Down on Apps Using MDM Technology for Illegitimate and Potentially Dangerous Purposes”

Fixed it for ya...

 

[PickUrPoison]

Doesn’t matter what topic the NYT “journalists” cover. They can’t stick to the facts and provide a true report of the story. Their bias bleeds into everything they write.

Very disappointed that the Times edited Apple’s statement to apparently make it more anti-Apple and clickbait-friendly. The developers who pretended that this happened out of nowhere and because it conflicts with Apple’s own ScreenTime feature should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[MRrainer]

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf.

Honestly this kind of irks me at the NYT. How do you write an article on something like this and leave out part of the companies statement that at best exonerates them and at worst at least explains their actions.

Most "journalists" these days have the article written already (or at least a concept of it in their heads) before doing much fact-checking and investigating.

Then, a stock-photo is added and some selective quotes to make them fit the headline.

We realize this in this case because we track Apple news very closely.

But now pause a minute and think about all the other articles in the NYT. Do you think they got better research and better representation of all the parties involved?
Do you really think this is an isolated case?

 

[Hieveryone]

I’m no expert, but am I the only one who thinks MDM almost sounds like a malware or a virus or at least similar in some ways to what a malware or virus could do?????

 

[Sedulous]

The question is why did these “apps” get approved on App Store?

 

[PickUrPoison]

Most "journalists" these days have the article written already (or at least a concept of it in their heads) before doing much fact-checking and investigating.

Then, a stock-photo is added and some selective quotes to make them fit the headline.

We realize this in this case because we track Apple news very closely.

But now pause a minute and think about all the other articles in the NYT. Do you think they got better research and better representation of all the parties involved?
Do you really think this is an isolated case?

I think we’ll have to wait to see the response from the Times. Errors are typically corrected. I’d expect them to update their article with Schiller’s statement, assuming he provides it to them (right now it’s just hearsay, but it certainly seems legit).

 

[kwikdeth]

what's the game pictured?

 

[Baymowe335]

Phil is 100% dead on here.

Also, this isn’t a grammar post, but I’m seriously wondering if Phil doesn’t know the difference between “it’s” and “its.”