|
|
|
|
|
by Apocryphon
1433 days ago
|
|
I don't think it's a rules update thing. It's more like review didn't uncover this behavior. (In the past Uber had gone all the way to use geofencing to evade reviewers and regulators.) Maybe this could've been only uncovered through long-term testing by reviewers who actively use the app day to day. Maybe they need such a process that does that. > Sounds like a success story, imagine the alternative scenario where there was no review process and Uber could get away with this entirely. It'd say 60-40. The 40% downside is that Apple deigned to go through with actually pulling Uber from the store, even just for a few days. Do you think they'd do anything even remotely similar over the notifications permission leak you cited? > How does having more granular alerts actually solve this issue? More restrictive and more transparent handling of permissions. Maybe this mechanism was caused by Uber bundling some sort of library that led to permissions leak. Perhaps the OS could expose that permission being triggered. |
|
I don't think you've thought this all the way through. Once a user grants me permission to send them push notifications because they want to know when their ride shows up, you can't really stop me from pushing them ads through the same channel.