[intergalplan]

You can't realistically keep apps from tracking users without permission unless you're rejecting apps that are discovered to be doing that. If they have network access, they can track. The behavior is too abstract to be handled with permissions alone.

[vetinari]

The apps cannot track if they have no permission to access the respective APIs that give them data they are tracking. What are they going to send via the network? Only things that the users specifically give to the app.

[zepto]

Completely false.

Each app can track user behavior within the app itself, and can send this data to an aggregator who pays for it.

That way you are tracked across all participating apps.

This was common practice until Apple banned it.

[intergalplan]

Look up what the Apple's tracking-prevention policy prevents for users that don't opt-in to tracking. You cannot ban generating device or user identifiers with OS permissions alone. Prevent using the built-in ones, sure, but fingerprinting or otherwise creating device or user IDs to share with 3rd parties and other apps? I'd love to see what a permissions model would look like that could do that automatically, at the OS level. I don't think such a thing exists. Not for any app with enough access to the system to do anything remotely useful in the first place.

[yyyk]

Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.

[zepto]

> Apple itself has the ability to reject apps with GateKeeper, without forcing everyone to use the Mac store.

This is false.

Apple can’t legally use Gatekeeper to ’reject’ apps which violate App Store policies.

[yyyk]

What's the 'legal' restriction? I don't see anything preventing them from rejecting anything they pleace.

[zepto]

Getting sued for stealing software from the users, and for interfering with the business of the suppliers, neither of whom have any agreement with Apple to let them ‘reject’ software arbitrarily.

[yyyk]

Apple would not be 'stealing' software. Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes. Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility?

They just need to time a new policy to a major release (say they make it apply only from that release on), and that would be no different then any other breaking change.

It wouldn't be popular on HN, but it's technically possible and legal. I'm sure that the Apple fans here will support it unreservedly.

[zepto]

This is total bullshit.

> Nobody promised that OSX could run any software the user wishes.

In fact they have said this publicly in interviews.

> Does Apple steal software and "interfere with the business of suppliers" every time they break backward compatibility?

Apple doesn’t force you to install operating system upgrades, and many people don’t upgrade if it will break the software they work with.

[tomjen3]

Lets suppose facebook found a way around the permissions. Would Apple ban them permanently?