[droob]

BOOOOOooooooooo. I'm tired of this game of whack-a-mole I have to play on my home screen. If I've learned anything as a modern user it's not to let any app become a part of your routine. It's not worth the hassle when they cash out.

[Kiro]

> For those of you that use the Moves app – the Moves experience will continue to operate as a standalone app, and there are no plans to change that or commingle data with Facebook.

What exactly is your problem?

[Torn]

'There are no plans' is PR speak for 'there are no current plans'.

Facebook is a data company, I'm sure they'd LOVE an accurate source of where their users have been, how they're moving around, etc. And then to sell-on that data to third parties, offer targeted advertisements in real time.

[tsunamifury]

In sorry, but did you ever imagine this wasn't the future for moves anyhow?

If you are given a free service you better expect targeted ads at some point.

[pilif]

Moves wasn't free.

[tmarthal]

Moves.app was free up until November of last year when they released version 2.0. Here are the release notes http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/moves/

[what_ever]

Did they change the model recently? Or were they charging for their APIs? I don't remember they charging the users.

[pilif]

I paid CHF 3 for the app. It was free for quite a while but at some point they started charging for it. Now granted, that was a one off purchase, but considering that most of the logic could actually be done in the app itself, and the server could be used as just a data store, I'd say these CHF 3 would go quite a long way in paying for that.

[ahknight]

Facebook and their historical lack of concern for people's data privacy. If FB or Google buy something, about a third of the users will leave (nearly) overnight to avoid getting caught in the data trap.

[renaudg]

Can you elaborate using undisputable facts the "historical lack of concern for people's data privacy" ?

It is a widely assumed belief that I have never seen backed up with hard facts.

User data being FB & Google's crown jewels and competitive advantage, you bet that they are concerned about not leaking it to anyone at all...

[bertil]

> It is a widely assumed belief that I have never seen backed up with hard facts.

‘Privacy’ or even ‘Data’ are not even remotely well defined enough for those statements to have a clear meaning. However, many people have felt betrayed when using Facebook.

Some of it — potentially the majority of cases — have to do with the fact that the service is new, and the lack of understanding led to many context collapses: there are many situations to consider, but all involve three people knowing each other, one having authority over a second, but not a third. Classic case involve a teenage child, a parent and a common friend or relative. The relative reveals inadvertently something. This is far more disempowering to non-users mentioned by friends, or whose photo was taken.

Facebook was openly careless about those cases, manu legitimate — Mark Zuckerberg went up to publicly justify his disregard by saying that people shouldn’t have things to hide to their friends, a callous statement if there is any.

There are many more problematic cases, where the person feeling betrayed was attentive and knowledgable, but Facebook changed the way they handle privacy without clear warning, and something that wasn’t became visible. This is the case of profile pictures, for instance. You have important social information there; some people assumed that their photo with their significant other would remain as private as their set it, but that changed, without recourses. There are many more similar issues, related to poor explanations of updates.

There is no way the wordings chose for most updates came form considerate product managers.

There are more examples, generally to the overall attitude: ‘better ask for foregiveness than permission’, rephrased as (and plastered all over their headquarter as essential values): “Move fast, break things”. When it comes to privacy, you can’t get the cat back in the bag.

Company motto, public statements by the Founder-CEO, presentation of privacy-impacting updates… that’s plenty of proof for who would take five minutes to care looking.

I know for a fact that people at Facebook care about those — just they haven’t cared enough, repeatedly; and those cases where well documented.

[chadwickthebold]

You just answered your own question. It is generally accepted that Facebook and Google derive a large source of their revenue from advertisement, which is in such high demand at these companies precisely because they control so much of your personal data.

It isn't so much of a leap of reasoning to think that a company willing to sell some information about you isn't willing to go further than you'd like them to. Again, it's not that we're worried about them 'leaking' it - we're worried about how they're going to sell and make money off of it.

[mccolin]

While I agree with your concerns, I think you are overestimating the level of concern the average user has for privacy. I imagine power users make up a far smaller chunk of the user base than 1/3.

[thenomad]

Do you have some data on that? I'd be somewhat surprised to hear that 1/3 of all WhatsApp users had now left, for example.

[dan1234]

Plans change. Why would Facebook buy them if not for the data?

It's not like Facebook is in need of new users and the app itself isn't especially novel from a technical POV.

[ar7hur]

FB hired the team they don't give a damn about the users or the data.

[lhc-]

If FB hired them for the team, though, there's no reason to keep the app around. Those people would be moved into new roles and the app would be sunset.

[ar7hur]

Let's see 6 months from now if the app is still around -- personally I bet it won't.