[ad_1]
Rather watch than read? Click play on the video above!
"Apple's attacking applications that fight against the addiction to the iPhone."
This is not the onion. This is not Saturday Night Live. This is a headline of the New York Times, the Gray Lady, the reference document.
The Times could also have easily used a different title:
"Apple removes spyware likely to target children from the App Store."
It's just as absurd but no less accurate. I do not know if it would attract fewer clicks, but I know the Times just should not be in this area. He should not act for an instant for any Aaron Sorkin informing readers, tell the truth to the idiot.
Now, I hate the term false news. I hate that. It is a political and non-informative construction. It's only lazy, sensationalism, and the best and the only way to handle it is not to reject it because it's just as lazy, but to check it out, to submit it to a careful review and see how much he stands up.
The times are
Here's how the Times establishes this:
They all tell a similar story: they launched apps that helped people limit the time spent with their children on the iPhone. Then, Apple created its own screen tracker. And then, Apple has made it very difficult to stay in business.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, to stick with the theme. After, because of that. It's a classic saying. Well, in fact, a classic logical fallacy. The Times associates these two sentences to avoid declaring that Apple has removed applications because Apple has launched its own version of the feature, but also to strongly imply that Apple has done just that.
If that is true, why not just say it? If that's not true, why not just say why Apple has removed the apps. If the Times does not know, why not just that?
Over the last year, Apple has removed or restricted at least 11 of the 17 most-frequently-downloaded parental control and screen time apps, according to an analysis by The New York Times and Sensor Tower, a company specializing in the application data. Apple has also cracked down on a number of lesser known apps.
In some cases, Apple has forced companies to remove features that allow parents to control their kids 'devices or block kids' access to certain apps and adult-only content. In other cases, he simply extracted the apps from his App Store.
Some application makers with thousands of paying customers have closed their doors. Most others say their future is under threat.
"They pulled us randomly, without warning," said Amir Moussavian, managing director of OurPact, the best app for iPhone with parental controls, with more than three million downloads. In February, Apple withdrew the application, which accounted for 80% of OurPact's business figure, from its App Store.
"They systematically kill the industry," said Moussavian.
The creators of on-screen applications are the latest companies to suddenly find themselves in competition with Apple and at the mercy of the titan of technology. By controlling the iPhone App Store, where companies find some of their most lucrative customers, Apple has unusual power over the fortunes of other companies.
Now, there is a legitimate discussion to be made on App Stores and platforms, and I've had Nilay Patel du Verge with me a few weeks ago to do just that. This is a potentially more important discussion, affecting the hearts of many modern economies, as if Walmart had own brands and held an unusual power over the fortunes of other companies.
But this particular piece does not seem interested in that, because, I do not know, not confused enough?
The Time includes a brief statement from Tammy Levine of the PR App Store, which says:
Apple has removed or modified applications because they could get too much information from users' devices. She added that the timing of moving Apple was not related to the introduction of similar tools.
Then this fascinating part:
In response to this article, Philip W. Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of global marketing, said in emails to some customers that Apple's "acted extremely responsibly in this case, thereby helping to protect our children from technologies that may violate their privacy and security. "
The email Apple
Fascinating that this part was obviously added after the publication of the article, while I could not find an update tag for this purpose, but also in that it omits something from Of the Schiller – Schiller email, the senior vice president of Apple. President of Global Marketing and whose portfolio includes much of the App Store. Here is what email published by MacRumors had to say:
Unfortunately, the New York Times article you refer to does not share our full statement and does not explain the risks to children if Apple had not acted on their behalf.
Now, as I said in the last column, I'm wrong all the time. One of the things I learned very early is that when I get a statement from anyone or any company, I have the full statement as is. This is the only way to ensure that I present the facts as accurately as possible.
If I think there is something wrong, misleading or totally false in the statement, I will say it too, but I will not change or change a statement. Never.
So, it's a heavy burden for Apple and, if it's accurate, a damn thing for the Times to be wrong.
The press room
What was the full statement of Apple at the time? As long as the Times has not published it, we do not know it. But Apple has since released its own statement in its own newsroom, so we can look at it, including the explanation of the reasons – the risks – mentioned Schiller.
It's long, so I will not quote it in full, but I will put a link with the full article and Schiller's letter, in the description below. But I will draw a few things, starting with the title.
The facts about parental control apps
It's just about anything a company can commit because it can appeal to something in a way that puts its own credibility into play and therefore has a lot of impact. It's a much smaller scale, but similar to what Apple did to Bloomberg in response to their Big Hack story, something that Bloomberg did not have the integrity of. back up or retract a few months later.
Apple opens this way:
Apple has always thought that parents should have tools to manage the use of their children's devices. That's why we created and continue to develop Screen Time. Other apps from the App Store, including Moment Health's Balance Screen Time and Verizon Smart Family, allow parents to balance the benefits of technology with other activities allowing young minds to learn and grow.
And, really, I think that's just about the worst way to open it. No other app currently allowed on the App Store actually allows to offer similar functionality in a convenient and efficient way.
My assumption is that Apple does what Apple usually does: introduce Screen Time as an integrated feature, feed it to the dog, adjust it if necessary, then a year or two later, introducing an API – an application programming interface – that other applications can use to securely, reliably and privately exploit the same data and provide alternative implementations and value-added services.
Schiller, in his letter, says almost as much:
we will work with developers to offer many apps on the App Store, using safe and private technologies for us and our kids.
This may seem extremely slow, especially for developers and customers who want more and be different now, now, now, but it is also something else – responsible. And that's what you need to be when you manage a platform and are responsible for hundreds of millions of customers and all the possible repercussions of the error.
And here is the essence of the Apple explanation:
We recently removed several parental control apps from the App Store for one simple reason: they endanger the privacy and security of users. It is important to understand why and how it happened.
Over the past year, we have learned that many of these parental control apps use a highly invasive technology called Mobile Device Management, or MDM. MDM allows a third party to control and access a device and its most sensitive information, including the location of the user, the use of the application, the email accounts, camera permissions and browsing history. We began exploring this use of MDM by non-enterprise developers in early 2017 and updated our guidelines on this basis in mid-2017.
So, basically, to provide screen-like services, these applications were abusing Apple's MDM system. These are the systems that big companies use to manage the phones of all their employees and all the data that the company, not the workers, want to control. And taking full control of the registered devices, these screen time applications actually become the owners of all these devices and have access to all the data – including location and activity data – of all who use them.
Does this mean that companies were abusing this control? No, but that does not mean that they should have it either. Already.
Apple says as much:
Parents should not have to exchange their fears about using their children's devices against privacy and security risks, and the App Store should not be a platform to force that choice. No one but you should have unlimited access to manage your child's device.
Apple gave developers who missed MDM 30 days to change. Some did it. The others do not. Apple removed those who did not do it.
The fallout (up to now)
The Times quotes a developer who said that Apple had never explained the exact changes needed nor the reasons for them, and that it was all very nebulous, confusing and frustrating. If that is correct, it is terrible. In this kind of situation, excessive communication is the only decent remedy for everyone involved.
If Apple had not removed the apps, however, there is a very real possibility that the Times, and / or another ad, have shown themselves as out of breath as an article entitled: Apple is not acting on the abuse of the App Store, puts the privacy of children at risk.
We know it because we saw them precisely. Many times.
Regarding the anti-competitive charges, the timing could certainly seem shady, occurring almost a year after Apple launched their own Screen Time feature.
while the timing seems absolutely suspicious given that Apple's Screen Time debuted last year and that this is happening now, not at some point before, Apple says
Apple has always supported third-party apps on the App Store that help parents manage their kids' devices. Contrary to what the New York Times reported this weekend, it is not a question of competition. It's a security issue.
In this category of applications, and in each category, we are committed to providing a competitive and innovative application ecosystem. Many extremely successful applications offer similar features and services to Apple's in categories such as email, maps, email, music, web browsers, photos, note-taking apps. , contact managers and payment systems, to name a few. We are committed to providing a place for these applications to thrive, as they enhance the user experience for all.
Can we believe that? WhatsApp is on the App Store. Google Maps is too. Even independent applications such as PCalc, Fantastical and Halide, to name a few, have not only shown that you can absolutely compete with Apple on the App Store, but that you can totally launch their applications.
Again, it's unfortunate that developers have to wait until Apple provides them with a secure way to compete on the screen, but Apple will internally delay the features until they get it. can also use them privately and securely.
For Apple, it's a must.
The time spent in front of a screen is not perfect. Far from there. People, especially in cross-platform families, have real and legitimate problems, as do people who want options other than those provided by Apple.
There is also a separate argument about better parental control that simply does not allow access to a device, except for very short periods of time under very specific circumstances, and not having your device with you. you all the time, everywhere, including and especially your room at night.
But it's something completely different for us to fight and follow up in the future.
I know some of you are going to complain that I'm talking about coverage again instead of the problem, but forget that support is the message, the blanket, for many people, the blanket ends up being the problem, especially when talking about a massively mainstream pub like the New York Times.
This shapes the opinion, the discussion, the perspective, everything. That's why I think it's so important to deal with how these issues are treated, even when addressing them themselves.
Yes, it's a pity for developers whose apps have been removed, especially when these apps have been installed for a long time. It affects their livelihood and the lives of their employees and their families. But, developers have always been and will always come after customers. And if there is anything to blame Apple here, it is that he does not recognize that these applications are abusing the management of mobile devices and require them to modify or delete them earlier. .
Aside from that, the only thing that really matters is that no one should monitor your kids' iPhone apart from you.
main
This article may contain affiliate links. See our disclosure policy for more details.
[ad_2]
Source link