No they wont. Are you saying people will stop buying iPhones because of no Uber?
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.
Tim Cook Threatened to Remove Uber From the App Store Over iPhone Tagging Tactics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And you don't know if this hasn't happened before, as you only know this one time as it's been reported. so don't go making assumptions you can't prove.
For you, I don't have the app and won't use them.
It's better than other Nav/ poi apps.
[doublepost=1493039305][/doublepost]
It could happen.
That was one of the worst blunders Apple has had.. How in the world do you take away a mapping service and replace it with a MUCH inferior product. Here in NYC people were PISSED off that transit was gone, apple should have warned regular Joes/Marys that this would be removed with the update to IOS6 I think it was.
Falls on Tim Cook and its unacceptable. Forstall took the fall but it was more than just him.
That being said apple maps now is not that bad. I use it to track where I parked my car.
With the exception of the last paragraph, this is the same tone deafness, that caused the rise of Uber. Taxi companies refused to change practices, as technology evolved. Taxi companies wanted you to use a phone to "call" a ride. Well, they semi got what they wanted. Their possible clientele now use their phones to order. Just not to order Taxis.
Not saying you're right or wrong, but this kind of practice happens daily in multiple businesses, governments, etc.
Like I said, people need perspective.
Google forced Apple's hand and replacing maps was a bitter pill that was easier to swallow earlier than later.
I don't know about you, but google maps on iOS 5 was practically unusable for me. At least I got turn by turn on my 4s with iOS 6.
At the end of the day, what I feel remains of utmost importance is that Apple remains in a position of strength so it can have plenty of leverage against competitors.
After all, I see myself an Apple user for a good many years to come, and I am perfectly comfortable putting up with some short-term inconvenience in order for Apple to retain bargaining power, if it means I will benefit in the long run.
And these apps need iOS. If uber, Facebook or Spotify disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't switch platforms for an app.
“So, I’ve heard you’ve been breaking some of our rules,” Mr. Cook said in his calm, Southern tone. Sounds just like Steve.
Different kettle of fish. Its one thing replacing Google Maps as the default mapping service on iOS, removing Google Maps from the App Store and effectively blocking its use on the platform is quite another.
Yep.
But lots of people would. Make no mistake it is very much in Apples interests to ensure these Apps stay on the App Store.
A bit hard on taxi drivers? Once a week I have to go to NJ, and used to take the local taxi from the train station, now I take Uber or Lyft -- the difference in quality couldn't be any more striking, the professionalism, the clean cars, knowing how to get to the destination - I will certainly not take one of the local NJ taxis ever again.
I do understand your negative feeling about Uber, but Lyft (and in larger cities like NYC other competitors as well, not to mention subways) do exist.
I can't talk for anyone other than me, my family my friends, don't know how you can.
I agree. But I feel it's also important that Apple is able to assert its authority when the need arises and not let these apps run roughshod over the rules just because the companies think they are beyond reproach simply because of their size and clout. Else, what's the point of rules if you aren't going to enforce them? And letting these apps run rogue will simply mean a worse user experience for Apple users in the long run.
People liken Apple to a walled garden. Well, at least this garden is well tended to and weeded timely and bugs squashed.
Which brings me back to my original point - perspective. We can have nice things like Apple Pay precisely because we give Apple the authority to bargain with other stakeholders such as banks. Sure, we weren't first, but see how far we have come today.
I can't speak for others, but if push came to shove and the Uber app was suddenly banned on iPhones, it's a price I am willing to pay if it means the integrity of the iOS platform is preserved. Let those who wish to defect to android detect all they wish. I know where I stand on such matters.
That's what I was thinking. There's so much wrong with this article. First, it makes it seem like they are grabbing and storing the actual UDID, which I don't think is possible, unless through some private API, in which case that would have been a violation of the TOC anyway and grounds for removal from the app store.
If they were using identifierForVendor, they were getting *a* UUID (not *the* UUID) and storing it in defaults (this is how you would go about storing any bit of information you wish to survive an app delete, and even that method isn't guaranteed) -- this is perfectly acceptable and normal behavior for an app.
But secondly, since when is 'fingerprinting' == taking a UUID (which the device provides you) and storing it? My definition of fingerprinting would be to somehow get hashes of various (preferably unique or at least low collision-potential) values supplied by the hardware and then creating a profile based on those, and storing that. You know... kind of like a 'fingerprint'. Storing a UUID isn't fingerprinting... it's more like 'name taking'.
But I guess the article would sell less clicks if it weren't sensational.
Daringfireball's take on the matter.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/uber_identifying_and_tagging_iphones
https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/uber_identifying_and_tagging_iphones
This is an example where Apple needs uber and Uber needs Apple. There's no way Apple would can the uber app. If they did, every iPhone user that used uber would buy an Android phone.
Some apps are more important than the platform. I believe uber is one of them. It would be like Photoshop being banned from Mac. Never gunna happen.
Some apps are more important than the platform. I believe uber is one of them. It would be like Photoshop being banned from Mac. Never gunna happen.
Excellent article written by the NY Times. Although I have both Uber and Lyft apps installed on my phone, the next time I need a ride, I'm more inclined to call a Lyft, even if I have to wait an extra couple of minutes.
As I'm sure most people are, I'm definitely not a fan of Kalanick's shady and deceptive business practices.
As I'm sure most people are, I'm definitely not a fan of Kalanick's shady and deceptive business practices.
No, they wouldn't. Deleting Uber from the App Store would have inconvenienced Apple's customers. It's easy to ban a small-time developer, not so easy when your customers would be heavily impacted.