That's exactly the criticism of Apple. Apple is giving them a method to do so, when that should not be provided because it causes this kind of problem and is otherwise a betrayal of the user.
That's not how things should work.
Apple should not be the arbiter of whether a business model you want to engage in is legal or not. That's what courts of law are for. I would strongly oppose Apple unilaterally deciding which apps can-, and which cannot-, use the geofencing feature.
Go to the government, and have the government compel Apple to restrict certain apps if that is your desire, but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
> Go to the government, and have the government compel Apple to restrict certain apps if that is your desire, but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
This is exactly the argument against what Apple is doing. They're compelling the user's device to enforce geo-restrictions against the user's wishes. They're acting as a government when there is no law requiring the user to respect arbitrary -- and inaccurate -- geofencing restrictions.
No.
The DEVELOPERS are compelling the user. Which is what should happen. The user should be given options by the developers, not Apple.
What should happen is the user gets to do whatever they want with their device and the developers get to suck it up if they don't like it. Developers should have zero power over users.
Our computers are meant to empower us, not to enforce idiotic developer policies that nobody cares about.
> Apple should not be the arbiter...I would strongly oppose Apple unilaterally deciding which apps can-, and which cannot-, use the geofencing feature... Apple to restrict certain apps...but for them to do that on their own is completely out of line.
As opposed to all the other Apple decisions?
By the way, which law requires Apple to provide geofencing to a health insurance app such it can't even be installed outside a particular country, and ties its hands completely on the matter?