Given Apple doesn't collect user data other than what Apple equipment they own and the like what am I missing?
I wonder how that is supposed to work I f the data is anonymized and automatically deleted. I’m also curious to know if that means something like location data is expected to be shared. Will I, as a user, be able to opt out of this data sharing with third parties?
This is light on details but I’m not sure how this benefits or protects users.
Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Obviously Apple can't provide anything it doesn't collect, and obviously Apple has to collect a minimum amount of data, such as your name, address, billing information, etc. This is the data that would be shared with developers. Apple will not be sharing photos of your cat with every developer.
The rationale is that the customers also belong to the developer, and developers should know who their own customers are.
Given Apple doesn't collect user data other than what Apple equipment they own and the like what am I missing?
I wonder how that is supposed to work I f the data is anonymized and automatically deleted. I’m also curious to know if that means something like location data is expected to be shared. Will I, as a user, be able to opt out of this data sharing with third parties?
This is light on details but I’m not sure how this benefits or protects users.
Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Obviously Apple can't provide anything it doesn't collect, and obviously Apple has to collect a minimum amount of data, such as your name, address, billing information, etc. This is the data that would be shared with developers. Apple will not be sharing photos of your cat with every developer.
How do you know that? I didn’t see any mention of only my personally identifiable data being shared.
The rationale is that the customers also belong to the developer, and developers should know who their own customers are.
Why should developers know who I am? When I buy orange juice at the grocery store does Tropicana get notified that I purchased it, along with my name, address and billing information? No. Tropicana is doing just fine without that information. What is the reason developers “need” it?
If what you say is true, how does it benefit or protect me?
Oh c’mon, AppleInsider, what a ridiculous headline. GDPR clearly applies, so User data isn’t a possibility. Aggregate data is more realistic, and less unreasonable.
Oh c’mon, AppleInsider, what a ridiculous headline. GDPR clearly applies, so User data isn’t a possibility. Aggregate data is more realistic, and less unreasonable.
Wrong, GDPR ensures your data is only used for the purpose it was originally collected. The EU would argue that ‘purpose’ doesn’t restrict ‘who’ gets your data if its for the same purpose. This is all part of the EU’s push-back against them USA to establish itself as a rival.
Perhaps those of you in the USA now realise why the people of Britain voted to leave the EU. At its heart the organisation is deeply anti-American.
I want to contol who gets my personal data, not on basis of some industry white-list, but on my own trust in companies! For example, if Facebook is white-listed, because they was quick to remove their data collecting “features” following their relevation and just stating it was a bug.. thus courts found them not guilty? I don’t trust these companies any further, no matter how authorities are considering them. This is another EU bs, wish my country had balls to exit this union! Czexit!
I wonder how long these companies would have to boycott the EU before they changed their minds? I still see people complaining that US media companies that didn’t want to try and figure out how to comply with the GDRP have simply blocked EU countries. Can you imagine the outcry if EU citizens woke up one morning to find that Google.com was blocked along with GMail. It would be fun anyway.
You're singing my song. I wonder if the EU would get the message if the four companies that the EU is targeting (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google) decided to join up in their own "union" and boycott the EU by stopping the sale of all their products and services in that region. For this to be most effective it would have to be sudden and without warning, with no stated return date. (Everyone reading this will say "why would they want to lose money?" but it's actually a strategy to GAIN money by preventing the EU and future tyrants from micromanaging their corporate policies. It's called "short term pain for long term gain.")
It has to be 100.0% legal for these four companies to decide to stop selling to the EU. Nobody can force anyone to sell anything anywhere that they don't want to.
Given Apple doesn't collect user data other than what Apple equipment they own and the like what am I missing?
Apple collects user data. Where do you think your name, address, and credit card info come from?
Supposition and speculation!
I use Apple products every day of the year, have for 30+ years, and I guarantee you that Apple does NOT have my name, address or credit card information.
Given Apple doesn't collect user data other than what Apple equipment they own and the like what am I missing?
I wonder how that is supposed to work I f the data is anonymized and automatically deleted. I’m also curious to know if that means something like location data is expected to be shared. Will I, as a user, be able to opt out of this data sharing with third parties?
This is light on details but I’m not sure how this benefits or protects users.
Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Obviously Apple can't provide anything it doesn't collect, and obviously Apple has to collect a minimum amount of data, such as your name, address, billing information, etc. This is the data that would be shared with developers. Apple will not be sharing photos of your cat with every developer.
The rationale is that the customers also belong to the developer, and developers should know who their own customers are.
WRONG WRONG WRONG! Spoken like a magazine or newspaper publisher.
The minute Apple gives out personal user information to developers or publishers is the day I walk and suggest others boycott the Apple Store. Currently, app users only have to give their personal information to one single party, Apple. What you suggest would be the wild west again, with dozens or hundreds of totally unregulated companies in control of massive amounts of personal data, strongly motivated financially to aggregate that data with others and then de-aggregate it and sell to marketers, data brokers, governments, and anyone else with deep pocketbooks.
For me personally, the amount of data that Apple has is nearly zero, and is nothing personally identifiable, but for most people it's substantial.
It's NOT the cat photos that are valuable, it's the other stuff you mention: your name, address, ph#, billing information, plus what kinds of apps you use, where you use them, who you play games with, etc., the list goes on. Users are often careless with this kind of data and then wonder how they end up seeing all kinds of personalized advertising and other manipulation techniques. Apple can never, ever, ever start giving out user data to developers without destroying all the trust they've built with their user base over all these years.
I wonder how long these companies would have to boycott the EU before they changed their minds? I still see people complaining that US media companies that didn’t want to try and figure out how to comply with the GDRP have simply blocked EU countries. Can you imagine the outcry if EU citizens woke up one morning to find that Google.com was blocked along with GMail. It would be fun anyway.
You're singing my song. I wonder if the EU would get the message if the four companies that the EU is targeting (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google) decided to join up in their own "union" and boycott the EU by stopping the sale of all their products and services in that region. For this to be most effective it would have to be sudden and without warning, with no stated return date. (Everyone reading this will say "why would they want to lose money?" but it's actually a strategy to GAIN money by preventing the EU and future tyrants from micromanaging their corporate policies. It's called "short term pain for long term gain.")
It has to be 100.0% legal for these four companies to decide to stop selling to the EU. Nobody can force anyone to sell anything anywhere that they don't want to.
It is 100% legal for them to do that? It's also 100% stupid, because of the amount of money they'd lose, and surrendering the markets would give their competition a massive boost. Sure, there would be a bit of political blowback, but there's already significant discontent with the power and practices of US multinationals among the citizenry of the EU, so it wouldn't amount to much; there are good alternatives to Amazon, Google and Facebook. If the big companies made such a brazen attempt to steer the political conversation. then they'd simply be cut out, and possibly wouldn't be allowed back in even if they later changed their minds.
I wonder how long these companies would have to boycott the EU before they changed their minds? I still see people complaining that US media companies that didn’t want to try and figure out how to comply with the GDRP have simply blocked EU countries. Can you imagine the outcry if EU citizens woke up one morning to find that Google.com was blocked along with GMail. It would be fun anyway.
You're singing my song. I wonder if the EU would get the message if the four companies that the EU is targeting (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google) decided to join up in their own "union" and boycott the EU by stopping the sale of all their products and services in that region. For this to be most effective it would have to be sudden and without warning, with no stated return date. (Everyone reading this will say "why would they want to lose money?" but it's actually a strategy to GAIN money by preventing the EU and future tyrants from micromanaging their corporate policies. It's called "short term pain for long term gain.")
It has to be 100.0% legal for these four companies to decide to stop selling to the EU. Nobody can force anyone to sell anything anywhere that they don't want to.
No one is forcing anyone to sell anything.
What you are suggesting wouldn't be a problem for the EU. None of the companies have ever had any obligation to sell here.
If they decide to however, they know under what rules they have to do it and those rules change over time to reflect new habits and realities.
If they pulled out they would instantly be replaced by EU companies or other companies from elsewhere. They would take a financial hit of epic proportions and probably lose those users forever.
This EU proposal is simply a revision of an existing directive to bring it up to date and even goes through a process of public consultation. In fact, the companies are also consulted.
I can guarantee you that most of the people here have not even read the proposal.
Most EU directives are good for consumers which is why our consumer protection and food protection legislation, for example, largely offers us far more protection than their US counterparts.
I wonder how long these companies would have to boycott the EU before they changed their minds? I still see people complaining that US media companies that didn’t want to try and figure out how to comply with the GDRP have simply blocked EU countries. Can you imagine the outcry if EU citizens woke up one morning to find that Google.com was blocked along with GMail. It would be fun anyway.
You're singing my song. I wonder if the EU would get the message if the four companies that the EU is targeting (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google) decided to join up in their own "union" and boycott the EU by stopping the sale of all their products and services in that region. For this to be most effective it would have to be sudden and without warning, with no stated return date. (Everyone reading this will say "why would they want to lose money?" but it's actually a strategy to GAIN money by preventing the EU and future tyrants from micromanaging their corporate policies. It's called "short term pain for long term gain.")
It has to be 100.0% legal for these four companies to decide to stop selling to the EU. Nobody can force anyone to sell anything anywhere that they don't want to.
I can guarantee you that most of the people here have not even read the proposal.
Most EU directives are good for consumers which is why our consumer protection and food protection legislation, for example, largely offers us far more protection than their US counterparts.
I have and it's not "just about data" in the strictest sense. It also suggests that the preloading of first-party apps would be prohibited. That might include things like Apple Maps, Apple Photos, Safari, Mail, Weather, or any of the other two dozen apps Apple preloads to your iPhone.
Instead, new buyers would choose which apps they want as their defaults from a wider selection that includes third-party providers. Some EU competition authorities believe that will give developers and smaller companies more opportunity to compete with the big boys and become financially successful.
This, from the union that forced strict data protection laws on its citizens and any business operating in the union a few years ago. Hippo-critical at the least.
This is why I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was OK with this proposal
"Tech firms with the potential to act as gatekeepers "shall not pre-install exclusively their own applications nor require from any third-party operating system developers or hardware manufacturers to pre-install exclusively gatekeepers' own application," according to Reuters. The draft also mandates that gatekeeper companies will also not be permitted to use data collected on their platforms to target users unless that data is also shared with rival firms.
There's something in the draft for every major US tech firm to object to, it seems. Apple and Google in particular are likely to object to the provisions limiting preinstalled apps on hardware, as both iPhone and Android devices come complete with a whole suite of integrated first-party programs that you may or may not ever be able actually to delete. Apple is also highly likely to object to a provision that would effectively prohibit gatekeeper firms from blocking side-loading or alternative app stores or payment methods—the entire heart of the current dispute between Epic and Apple."
Comments
Seriously why is this so hard to understand? Obviously Apple can't provide anything it doesn't collect, and obviously Apple has to collect a minimum amount of data, such as your name, address, billing information, etc. This is the data that would be shared with developers. Apple will not be sharing photos of your cat with every developer.
The rationale is that the customers also belong to the developer, and developers should know who their own customers are.
Perhaps those of you in the USA now realise why the people of Britain voted to leave the EU. At its heart the organisation is deeply anti-American.
For example, if Facebook is white-listed, because they was quick to remove their data collecting “features” following their relevation and just stating it was a bug.. thus courts found them not guilty? I don’t trust these companies any further, no matter how authorities are considering them.
This is another EU bs, wish my country had balls to exit this union! Czexit!
It has to be 100.0% legal for these four companies to decide to stop selling to the EU. Nobody can force anyone to sell anything anywhere that they don't want to.
What you are suggesting wouldn't be a problem for the EU. None of the companies have ever had any obligation to sell here.
If they decide to however, they know under what rules they have to do it and those rules change over time to reflect new habits and realities.
If they pulled out they would instantly be replaced by EU companies or other companies from elsewhere. They would take a financial hit of epic proportions and probably lose those users forever.
This EU proposal is simply a revision of an existing directive to bring it up to date and even goes through a process of public consultation. In fact, the companies are also consulted.
I can guarantee you that most of the people here have not even read the proposal.
Most EU directives are good for consumers which is why our consumer protection and food protection legislation, for example, largely offers us far more protection than their US counterparts.
Instead, new buyers would choose which apps they want as their defaults from a wider selection that includes third-party providers. Some EU competition authorities believe that will give developers and smaller companies more opportunity to compete with the big boys and become financially successful.
"Tech firms with the potential to act as gatekeepers "shall not pre-install exclusively their own applications nor require from any third-party operating system developers or hardware manufacturers to pre-install exclusively gatekeepers' own application," according to Reuters. The draft also mandates that gatekeeper companies will also not be permitted to use data collected on their platforms to target users unless that data is also shared with rival firms.
There's something in the draft for every major US tech firm to object to, it seems. Apple and Google in particular are likely to object to the provisions limiting preinstalled apps on hardware, as both iPhone and Android devices come complete with a whole suite of integrated first-party programs that you may or may not ever be able actually to delete. Apple is also highly likely to object to a provision that would effectively prohibit gatekeeper firms from blocking side-loading or alternative app stores or payment methods—the entire heart of the current dispute between Epic and Apple."