The makers of the top-rated wellness app for iPhone have lashed out at Apple for removing it from the App Store. And it is calling Apple’s explanation for this action “misleading.”
They’re being kind.
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
As you may have seen, The New York Times recently published an explosive story that is all-too-familiar to those who follow Apple: After releasing its own digital wellness functionality in iOS, Apple began systematically removing established digital wellness apps from its App Store. This is a classic Apple strategy by which it removes competition to protect its own products and services.
Apple responded to the report by claiming that the Times left out a key detail: The digital wellness apps it removed were using Mobile Device Management (MDM) technologies that Apple says are reserved only for its enterprise customers. This violated its terms of service and users’ privacy, Apple claimed.
As it turns out, Apple’s statement is misleading, and not all of the digital wellness apps that it removed from the Store use MDM technologies. But now the makers of the OurPact mobile app—which does use MDM—are accusing Apple of further abuse.
“Apple’s statement is misleading and prevents a constructive conversation around the future of parental controls on iOS,” the firm notes in a blog post. “We want to take the opportunity to set the record straight about MDM for our loyal users and the many families looking for solutions to guide healthy digital habits. Our hope is that Apple will work with developers in this space so that families continue to have a wide selection of parental controls to choose from.”
OurPact has always used MDN since its launch in 2012, and Apple never complained about its use until it launched its own digital wellness functionality in iOS in 2018. Apple itself extended MDM to include use by children and teachers in schools, OurPact notes.
“OurPact’s core functionality would not be possible without the use of MDM,” OurPact explains. “It is the only API available for the Apple platform that enables the remote management of applications and functions on children’s devices. We have also been transparent about our use of this technology since the outset, and have documented its use in our submissions to the App Store.”
But now Apple is claiming that its MDM technology, which is used by many millions of users, is somehow a risk to privacy and can be used by hackers to steal personal information when in fact it is designed specifically to prevent those issues. Contrary to Apple’s public statements about MDM, this technology cannot see personal data, and cannot transmit it to OurPact or any other party. How do we know this? That’s what Apple’s documentation says.
In other words, Apple is now lying about its reason for removing digital wellness apps from the Store.
It’s also lying about other facts in this episode. “Apple’s public statement claimed that they gave developers 30 days to modify their apps in line with their guidelines, even though their guidelines make no mention of MDM,” OurPact says. “We did not receive any notice before OurPact’s child app was removed by Apple. More importantly, there is no way for any company offering a parental control app to remove MDM functionality and still have a viable product.”
Apple has also not just ignored OurPact’s requests for dialog, it has simply refused to discuss the issue.
“Given that there are no privacy issues with properly vetted MDM apps like OurPact being on the App Store, we humbly request that we are reinstated and allowed to continue providing our million users with the service they love and depend on,” the firm concludes. “We remain committed to solving this problem, and we implore Apple to recognize they have a responsibility to support and encourage the growth of this industry.”
Apple’s a great company, folks. That’s the story, anyway.
m_p_w_84
<p>Apple seriously needs an anti-trust case against it.</p><p><br></p><p>And, looking back, it did Microsoft and it's customers a world of good.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425450">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>The App store isn't part of iOS. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#425501">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>That is an Appeal to Extremes. He isn't saying or implying that the App store is an all or nothing proposition. </p><p><br></p><p>With respect to ant-trust laws, monopolies are one of the areas antitrust laws cover but by no means all. The Sherman Act identifies monopolies, collusion, product bundling/tying, refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, dividing territories, conscious parallelism, predatory pricing and misuse of patents/copyrights as potentially anti-competitive practices. For example the anti-trust action taken against Apple and book publishers wasn't based on anyone being a monopoly it was based on collusion. </p><p><br></p><p>I'm not saying the App Store is in violation of the Sherman Act. I don't have the legal expertise required to do so. I'm also guessing that most, if not all, of people that toss around the term on these forums don't either. That said it is worth being informed enough to know that anti-trust covers more than monopolies. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425501">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>You can be assured that anything I didn't say I'm not saying. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#425508">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>have an upvote from me… butt hurt apple fans that doesn't like the truth, already started to down vote you</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425633">In reply to msorrentino:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't think Microsoft prevented anyone from installing competing browsers although it may have prevented people from making the competing browser the default browser.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425687">In reply to bbennett40:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't remember exactly how it worked which is why I said "may have". Given that I had no reason to change the default browser in that era probably explains why my memory isn't very certain.</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#425969">In reply to sonichedgehog360:</a></em></blockquote><p>exactly, and the worst part is that most people (mainly apple fanboys) complains when it's up to ms, but give their *** when it's about their beloved apple</p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#425632">In reply to msorrentino:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>classic apple style</p>
wocowboy
Premium Member<p>Not a word regarding the potential privacy implications as regarding children with the use of these apps by unscrupulous developers, a very telling omission from this article. You can do better, Paul. OurPact’s statement “Given that there are no privacy issues with properly vetted MDM apps” is accepted as truth without question, which is not the case according to Apple’s statement, but that isn’t mentioned by Paul or taken into consideration in this hit piece on Apple. Apple is assumed to be acting wrongfully in their actions and OurPact is assumed to be completely innocent. I think the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425688">In reply to wocowboy:</a></em></blockquote><p>Isn't MDM Apple's baby and isn't everything in Apple's store supposed to be vetted?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425733">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p>The value proposition to a company for discouraging or blocking competing services can be subtle and nuanced. Microsoft didn't charge for Internet Explorer so there was no reason to consider any dark motives for it to make IE the only default browser? Nothing for Netscape to complain about?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425781">In reply to bzero22:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sorry but in my experience when someone starts their statement by claiming that other people commenting are ignorant (or some other insulting claim) what follows usually isn't worth reading. </p>
dontbe evil
<blockquote><em><a href="#425733">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>I stopped reading at "not defending apple" … by an apple fanboy</p>
dontbe evil
<p>what a surprise /s</p><p><br></p><p>apple style</p>