NYT did a bad job taking skeevy developers at their word without verifying claims. I expect better from them. This is the kind of bad journalism you’d normally see from Bloomberg or Business Insider.
This is actually standard operating procedure from the news outlets today. When I read this issues originally, i thought there were more to this than what was being implied which Apple only removed them because it competed with Apple's build-in solution. The media wonders why people no longer trust them, it does not take long for people to realize there is missing information in a story.
NYT is reporting on developers’ problems with Apple. NYT is giving voice to these developers. There is nothing in this article that says otherwise. NYT is NOT claiming this is an investigative piece by NYT, it’s just reporting. You’re not supposed to believe it just because it appeared in the paper. NYT’s only responsibility in its role of reporting is to accurately report what, in this case, these developers are saying. This, I think, they have done.
Now, Apple has responded to the report. We have Apple’s take on the issues. We know more, or at least we have the positions of both sides. What is the truth the remains.
Both could be telling the truth: Apple did reject based on use of MDM, and developers were not given enough information by Apple about what rules the developers had broken — that is, use of MDM for public facing apps.
NYT is not required to do the thinking for you.
Actually, how about holding the reporter to a little higher standard like do not go to print until they heard Apple's side of the story. Or maybe go do some research on what Apple's terms of use are and see if the developers had some sort of ax to grin and they were just complaining about something a developer should have known in the first place.
I actually do my own thinking and critical analysis of information, however, I expect someone who is reporting information they have all the facts not just one side. They are support to be the fact checkers and the readers are not suppose to fact check the fact checkers.
NYT did a bad job taking skeevy developers at their word without verifying claims. I expect better from them. This is the kind of bad journalism you’d normally see from Bloomberg or Business Insider.
This is actually standard operating procedure from the news outlets today. When I read this issues originally, i thought there were more to this than what was being implied which Apple only removed them because it competed with Apple's build-in solution. The media wonders why people no longer trust them, it does not take long for people to realize there is missing information in a story.
NYT is reporting on developers’ problems with Apple. NYT is giving voice to these developers. There is nothing in this article that says otherwise. NYT is NOT claiming this is an investigative piece by NYT, it’s just reporting. You’re not supposed to believe it just because it appeared in the paper. NYT’s only responsibility in its role of reporting is to accurately report what, in this case, these developers are saying. This, I think, they have done.
Now, Apple has responded to the report. We have Apple’s take on the issues. We know more, or at least we have the positions of both sides. What is the truth the remains.
Both could be telling the truth: Apple did reject based on use of MDM, and developers were not given enough information by Apple about what rules the developers had broken — that is, use of MDM for public facing apps.
NYT is not required to do the thinking for you. ...
... I also think Apple's at fault. They continue to make these sudden decisions without notice to developers and consumers. For years, these apps have been using MDM to control user's screen time, and people have valued them. Anyone the least bit experienced in development would know this. Now Apple decides to pull these apps by enforcing a policy they never did previously without providing any alternative. It's maddening, and it really shows a lack of thought about how the app store is run. If they really wanted to pull these apps, Apple at least should have issued an advisory saying that things were changing, and ideally should have implemented an API that could accomplish the same things without the privacy implications.
Didn't Apple announce this months ago when identified FaceBook using it improperly and shut it down? ... But, yeh, in either case, consumers suffer. Apple needed to have front ended this better.
How easy is it for developers to know if their applications are using APIs that 1) are not "public" or 2) that should only be used for "Enterprise" applications? From the comments made by the developers that are quoted in the NYT article, it's difficult, and made more difficult by generic statements from Apple that an application violates Guideline 2.5.1.
Guideline 2.5.1 is essentially useless. It doesn't help a developer isolate what API they are using that violates this generic prohibition. According to the developers interviewed for the NYT article and some developers' comments on AppleInsider, Apple doesn't give sufficient notice. I believe the developers' complaints.
Schiller finally came clean with the something more specific -- the apps should not have been using the MDM API. Looking over the list of APIs that Guideline 2.5.1 points to, I have no idea in which set of listed APIs the MDM API is housed. I've only used a very small subset of APIs myself and I've never noticed Xcode warning me that I've used a restricted API (probably because I never have).
I'd certainly like to hear from experienced Apple developers on how they know which APIs can be used and which cannot be used for public-facing apps, and which are only appropriate for enterprise-facing apps. From one other article, Schiller mentioned that Apple has only been checking for inappropriate use of APIs since 2017. This tells me quite pointedly that Apple does not have an automated system for identifying API usage.
The fault lies with Apple, it seems. They need to enhance Xcode to give developers notice.
This article never explains how they made it on the App Store in the first place. How did they get through the review process?
Because we know Apple process is not 100% perfect. The App initial may have complied and the App evolved over time and added functionality which fell into the violation of terms of use as it too evolved over time. Once an App has been in the store for a period of time, Apple is not screening every single App submission as they do when it is completely new. Developers know this.
Apple expects Developer to take responsibility for their apps and when the Terms of Use are updated they expect Developers and their legal representation to review the changes and address any noncompliance. That is the ideal world.
as we now know Apps exist on the store for long periods of time which are not meeting the Terms of Use, and no one cares, then one day someone takes notice and brings it to Apple's attention and they finally take action. People get upset and claim they are being singled out and they did nothing wrong and everyone else did something wrong. That is the actually world we live in.
NYT did a bad job taking skeevy developers at their word without verifying claims. I expect better from them. This is the kind of bad journalism you’d normally see from Bloomberg or Business Insider.
This is actually standard operating procedure from the news outlets today. When I read this issues originally, i thought there were more to this than what was being implied which Apple only removed them because it competed with Apple's build-in solution. The media wonders why people no longer trust them, it does not take long for people to realize there is missing information in a story.
NYT is reporting on developers’ problems with Apple. NYT is giving voice to these developers. There is nothing in this article that says otherwise. NYT is NOT claiming this is an investigative piece by NYT, it’s just reporting. You’re not supposed to believe it just because it appeared in the paper. NYT’s only responsibility in its role of reporting is to accurately report what, in this case, these developers are saying. This, I think, they have done.
Now, Apple has responded to the report. We have Apple’s take on the issues. We know more, or at least we have the positions of both sides. What is the truth the remains.
Both could be telling the truth: Apple did reject based on use of MDM, and developers were not given enough information by Apple about what rules the developers had broken — that is, use of MDM for public facing apps.
NYT is not required to do the thinking for you.
Actually, how about holding the reporter to a little higher standard like do not go to print until they heard Apple's side of the story. Or maybe go do some research on what Apple's terms of use are and see if the developers had some sort of ax to grin and they were just complaining about something a developer should have known in the first place.
I actually do my own thinking and critical analysis of information, however, I expect someone who is reporting information they have all the facts not just one side. They are support to be the fact checkers and the readers are not suppose to fact check the fact checkers.
Yeh, that's a very good point. And, intentionally or not: "The best way to lie is to tell part of the truth" is a saying that still stands and has become a bastion of the propaganda sites.
NYT did a bad job taking skeevy developers at their word without verifying claims. I expect better from them. This is the kind of bad journalism you’d normally see from Bloomberg or Business Insider.
This is actually standard operating procedure from the news outlets today. When I read this issues originally, i thought there were more to this than what was being implied which Apple only removed them because it competed with Apple's build-in solution. The media wonders why people no longer trust them, it does not take long for people to realize there is missing information in a story.
NYT is reporting on developers’ problems with Apple. NYT is giving voice to these developers. There is nothing in this article that says otherwise. NYT is NOT claiming this is an investigative piece by NYT, it’s just reporting. You’re not supposed to believe it just because it appeared in the paper. NYT’s only responsibility in its role of reporting is to accurately report what, in this case, these developers are saying. This, I think, they have done.
Now, Apple has responded to the report. We have Apple’s take on the issues. We know more, or at least we have the positions of both sides. What is the truth the remains.
Both could be telling the truth: Apple did reject based on use of MDM, and developers were not given enough information by Apple about what rules the developers had broken — that is, use of MDM for public facing apps.
NYT is not required to do the thinking for you. ...
... I also think Apple's at fault. They continue to make these sudden decisions without notice to developers and consumers. For years, these apps have been using MDM to control user's screen time, and people have valued them. Anyone the least bit experienced in development would know this. Now Apple decides to pull these apps by enforcing a policy they never did previously without providing any alternative. It's maddening, and it really shows a lack of thought about how the app store is run. If they really wanted to pull these apps, Apple at least should have issued an advisory saying that things were changing, and ideally should have implemented an API that could accomplish the same things without the privacy implications.
Didn't Apple announce this months ago when identified FaceBook using it improperly and shut it down? ... But, yeh, in either case, consumers suffer. Apple needed to have front ended this better.
How easy is it for developers to know if their applications are using APIs that 1) are not "public" or 2) that should only be used for "Enterprise" applications? From the comments made by the developers that are quoted in the NYT article, it's difficult, and made more difficult by generic statements from Apple that an application violates Guideline 2.5.1.
Guideline 2.5.1 is essentially useless. It doesn't help a developer isolate what API they are using that violates this generic prohibition. According to the developers interviewed for the NYT article and some developers' comments on AppleInsider, Apple doesn't give sufficient notice. I believe the developers' complaints.
Schiller finally came clean with the something more specific -- the apps should not have been using the MDM API. Looking over the list of APIs that Guideline 2.5.1 points to, I have no idea in which set of listed APIs the MDM API is housed. I've only used a very small subset of APIs myself and I've never noticed Xcode warning me that I've used a restricted API (probably because I never have).
I'd certainly like to hear from experienced Apple developers on how they know which APIs can be used and which cannot be used for public-facing apps, and which are only appropriate for enterprise-facing apps. From one other article, Schiller mentioned that Apple has only been checking for inappropriate use of APIs since 2017. This tells me quite pointedly that Apple does not have an automated system for identifying API usage.
The fault lies with Apple, it seems. They need to enhance Xcode to give developers notice.
I would suspect that it is mutually shared: A developer under the gun to get something up and running that works well is too often willing to cut corners an cheat a little -- because their goal is to get a working product up and running by the due date. What happens after is of much less importance.
That is why quality shops who care about the long term, often have structured code walkthroughs prior to implementing a program to identify sloppy code.
But I agree with you that Apple could have done a better job. |
I don't think there are any saints here. But I'm glad that Apple bit the bullet and is cleaning this mess up.
I do still suspect that they got rid of apps that competed with their new feature even though the existed prior to that feature. It's a pretty classic example of "moving the goal posts." Thank you for that link, an interesting read!
Comments
Actually, how about holding the reporter to a little higher standard like do not go to print until they heard Apple's side of the story. Or maybe go do some research on what Apple's terms of use are and see if the developers had some sort of ax to grin and they were just complaining about something a developer should have known in the first place.
I actually do my own thinking and critical analysis of information, however, I expect someone who is reporting information they have all the facts not just one side. They are support to be the fact checkers and the readers are not suppose to fact check the fact checkers.
Apple expects Developer to take responsibility for their apps and when the Terms of Use are updated they expect Developers and their legal representation to review the changes and address any noncompliance. That is the ideal world.
as we now know Apps exist on the store for long periods of time which are not meeting the Terms of Use, and no one cares, then one day someone takes notice and brings it to Apple's attention and they finally take action. People get upset and claim they are being singled out and they did nothing wrong and everyone else did something wrong. That is the actually world we live in.
That is why quality shops who care about the long term, often have structured code walkthroughs prior to implementing a program to identify sloppy code.
But I agree with you that Apple could have done a better job. |
I don't think there are any saints here. But I'm glad that Apple bit the bullet and is cleaning this mess up.