Europe's GDPR coincides with dramatic drop in Android apps Europe's data protection regime has reduced the number of apps available in Google Play by "a third," increased costs, and reduced developer revenues, according to a study published Monday. And with higher costs, fewer apps are being created, to the detriment of consumers and the mobile app economy, it claims. "At the start …
-> There's very few quality apps
I've long had thoughts about this. There are good apps on the Play Store, but are there really millions (actual millions) of high quality apps? I have probably about 60 apps which I installed, some of which I use regularly and others less so.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a 'typical' Android user. I have about four photo/photo editing apps, several Google apps, a couple of GPS apps, a banking app, a few network apps (CIDR Calculator - I'm lazy), and about a dozen more specialist apps. Who has time to actually look at n million apps? If there were 10,000 photo apps on the Play Store (maybe there are), who has time to look at them all? The 9,999 most popular of those 10,000 apps could be the best photo app ever and few people would know about it.
Whatever the benefits of GDPR’s privacy protection, it appears to have been accompanied by substantial costs to consumers
They've overlooked the fact that it's effectively a zero-sum game - either the consumers pay with their hard-earned cash, or they pay with their hard-to-keep privacy.
Arguably consumers pay more with the "free" model, losing time and mental processing as they steer round the ads
"Some of the authors received financial support from the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, through the research program ‘Strengthening Efficiency and Competitiveness in the European Knowledge Economies’ (SEEK). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research."
The SEEK program closed in 2021.
Hm. I know there was a dramatic push by Google to kill apps that didn't specifically target the latest OS. Two of the very best weather radar and storm tracking apps were victims. There was also a couple useful star chart apps that were killed too. Another one was a GPS app that showed satellite position and signal strength in a very useful manner, as well as providing a way to pull the latest AGPS correction factor.
The latest Google App Store requirements are very draconian, and designed to push people to the latest phones by turning older phones with older OSes into abandonware.
I think this would explain the drop in apps better than the GDPR.
They have recently decided to enforce getting their grubby little paws on revenue from in app digital purchases. They want their 30% cut.
As a casualty of this, one can no longer buy digital downloads on Amazon. Think music and Kindle books. Instead, you have to leave the app and use the website (and there's no link to directly open a product in the website). For sales of content that Google isn't hosting or has anything to do with.
So, remind me who is stifling innovation and reducing customer choice? Given this change happened recently, I find the timing of the release of this report to be rather suspicious.
If apps are disappearing because the GDPR makes it more difficult for script kiddies to monetize their games by selling users' information, I say more power to the GDPR. I doubt the "researchers" can come up with a single example of an innovative app among all those that have vanished.
As a US Android user, the innovative apps I use are often from the FOSS community (and, to be fair, Google and Microsoft, although I try and avoid those).
"the GDPR makes it more difficult for script kiddies to monetize their games by selling users' information"
There's also another angle. Even where data monetisation is not part of the picture, complete ignorance of the obligations under the legislation is extremely common. I find many organisations on all scales that have either zero or a grossly incorrect understanding of the GDPR - simply in my experience because they haven't taken the trouble to find out about it - it's just another perfunctory 'compliance'.
This post has been deleted by its author
What a load of bollocks. The diminshed choice to have your privacy fucked over by a pletohora of useless apps, whose sole aim was to install at many trackers as they possibly could on you phone in order to sell your warez to the highest bidder.
They'd might as well title the paper - an unintended consequence of the GDPR was that the googles androi app store's shelves was cleared of a lot of useless malignant shite.
Agreed
From the article
> Our main argument is basically compliance with the law implies costs for a developer that hadn't adhered to [GDPR and related data protection] principles before the regulation kicked in,"
So GDPR creates cost for those with poor data handling practices, and some of those developers would rather give up than comply?
Sounds like a win to me
In most EU States those apps were already doing illegal data gathering since the local laws already required more or less the same provisions the GDPR made EU-wide using a common framework. The fines may have become bigger under GDPR.
So basically they made money breaking the laws. GDPR eventually just made clear to them all what they couldn't do already, and made easier to identify and fine them.
If their only business model was surreptitious data hoarding and ads slinging there was less choice for the users,and more costs for them as they were forced to pay with their data without any control.
It would be surely simpler to build cars and houses without respecting safety or pollution regulations - there are good reasons why it can't be done. Having a larger choice of dangerous things is not good at all for users.
Anyway this another attempt from the data gathering industry - where a lot of researchers make money too - to try to make people believe privacy is bad for them, while the reason it's just it hinders easy money for those who can master the data.
-> They'd might as well title the paper - an unintended consequence of the GDPR was that the googles androi app store's shelves was cleared of a lot of useless malignant shite.
I agree with your point, but wouldn't an Android user have to install this 'useless malignant shite' in the first place? If it is useless, what does that say about the person installing it?
Is there such a thing an an app with a fully clear and understandable privacy policy that doesn't use vague language such as "certain data will be collected" and "may be shared with our partners" and relying on trying to pass it off as "anonymous" and uses no libraries that perform their own data collection?
This, of course, is talking about apps with such policies. Many just embed standard advertising libraries that do all the nasties, but because it's not them doing it, they don't bother saying anything. They may not know, or care if they did.
All of which means, the end user starts in a disadvantaged position and it only gets worse from there.
The malignant part of it is usually well hidden. Most users don't have the ability to determine whether this new "cool looking app" will be selling all sorts of tracking data to the highest bidder.
Maybe stop blaming the victims of malignant developers and bad software?
@"GDPR AND THE LOST GENERATION OF *INNOVATIVE* APPS"
Apparently, not only did 1/3rd of apps not exist due to GDPR, but those apps would have been innovative if they had existed. App doing innovative things, that the other 3 million apps don't do.... yet the paper doesn't cite an example of lost innovation, or even attempt to explain how GDPR made that innovative app impossible to make.
Oh fuck off.
There's gold in users data, there's always some company that can make money from selling people's private data, that money is extracted from those users directly or directly, which is why they don't give their consent.
If you remove the "innovative" claim, which you did not attempt to justify, what are you left with?
@"Under GDPR, app developers face the cost of complying with rules that require consent for data gathering, transparent data processing, purpose limitation, accuracy, limited retention, confidentiality, and accountability."
Without GDPR, app developers would be free to gather as much data as they can grab off the users device, in secret, keep it forever and sell it to whomever for whatever purpose. Apparently what millions of apps were doing and would rather not have to explain themselves to their users with a simple dialog. Those apps added nothing innovative to the market that the users wanted and were prepared to sacrifice their privacy for. i.e. a free market *informed* choice. Is a stalker a stalker, if the person doesn't know they're being followed? Does that make it better? No, it makes it worse.
If anything EU should look over the pond at the Republican Taliban laws they're pushing at State level post Roe v Wade. Privacy rights need to be much stronger than GDPR. The Taliban want a blanket ban on abortion from conception (Louisiana), and death penalty for women who have an abortion (Louisiana , Georgia, Idaho), criminal prosecution of women who seek abortions (Alabama), make it a crime to cross state lines for an abortion (26 states passing laws criminalizing abortion). Imagine how the location data can be used to track women who go to an abortion clinic in another state, or how a period tracking app might be used to prosecute women whose skip a period, or how the use of the baby emoji has life or death consequences.
Consent wouldn't be enough, the Taliban would simply pass laws compelling consent. The fact the data was collected at all, would make it available to them.
It's not difficult to see how women will be murdered by the Taliban due to their location data.
You could argue (as Amy Coney Barrett did) that its economy, the US needs a ‘Domestic Supply Of Infants’ for the Adoption industry, apparently women are baby farms, working for the adoption industry for free, against their will. If they won't take those babies to term, they should be murdered for non-compliance. Not that adoption is there for unwanted pregnancies carried to term, but that the women exist to feed the adoption industry to supply kids to childless couples. i.e. innovative business.
Just as you can claim that the "innovative" benefit from apps that were not worth making, is somehow worth the loss of privacy that scrapping GDPR would enable.
But I would argue that women should be able to trust EU sourced apps with their private data. Data that potentially could cost them their lives.
Without GDPR, app developers would be free to gather as much data as they can grab off the users device, in secret
No, all that was banned in most EU countries (including the UK) before GDPR. GDPR just standardised the process & the potential penalties. It made the whole issue much more obvious, which is probably it's biggest success.
for leaving the EU ..
"those nasty rules"
And indeed they were spot on. Imagine not being able to eat radioactive food because of some pencil jockey in Brussels removing our freedoms.
Now free of the tyranny of rules Fukoshima Fries (that cook themselves I believe) are on the UK menu.
Hey, nobody's forced to eat radioactive food. Everyone has a free choice if they want to eat radioactive food or not. And if you like having that choice, you're going to love the innovative disruption brought about when the new food labelling laws come in.
Is there any reason to buy an app, ever? I have never seen a need, add in the screen filling dross that plagues mobile web use already, and it appears that someone is actively campaigning to make mobile use unpleasant. I have a free Google application or two, and a few from banks/financial bodies for authentication, and that is about that. There is the point about possible market saturation, is there still something not already, served/abused/blanketed, delete as required?
"but if one's app is something nobody would ever pay for, probably the app is useless."
That's a bizarre statement, that apps "probably" have no worth unless they're monetised.
Most of the apps on my phone are free and useful, whether it's BBC Sound podcasts, MET office, parking apps, controlling features on my car, banking, booking/managing hotels/holidays/flights..... the list is endless.
I'd only ever considering buying an app if the cost is the initial purchase, and never for in-app purchases or loaded with ads. My daughter gets by on the google play-pass for a fixed monthly fee.
Yes, a really bizarre thing to say. I started working on apps with the Nokia 770 (over 15 years ago!). I put a lot of effort into the GPE personal organizer app, and many users of the 770 found it extremely useful.
It was completely free. Maintained and developed by a small group of people. And certainly not useless - in fact it was pretty critical to making the 770 a viable product for Nokia and leading to the followon Internet Tablet products.
I have an Android app of the Oxford Spanish-English dictionary which cost 15 GBP back about 12 (?) years ago when I got my first Android phone and which I have used far more than my hardback copy of the same dictionary (acquired 14 years ago for a similar price). I also paid for Locus Map after using the free version for several years, because I wanted to support the developers.
Is there any reason to buy an app, ever?
Yes
It costs {someone} to create an app, and to support it, and to update it every time the vendor (Google or Apple) update their OS and break stuff for the sake of breaking stuff. That cost can be paid for in (roughly) one of three ways :
1) The developer does it out of the goodness of their hearts. yes, it happens, hence all the FOSS software around. great, but you are relying on the generosity of someone to give you their time for nothing.
2) You pay directly. That way there's an incentive - make a decent product at a decent price and (many) people will pay for it.
3) You get it "free" - but in reality it's tracking you and your habits left, right, and centre, plus back and front for good measure. Personally I don't like that model, because I put some value on my privacy. The big problem is, so many players on the internet have used this model that too many people are conditioned to getting free lunches. There's an old saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So when I look on my phone, I do see that the most frequently used ones are ones I paid real money for.
Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/23/anonymised-data-never-be-anonymous-enough-study-finds
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/17/uk-spy-agencies-intelligence-mi5-mi6-law-data-sharing-tribunal
......and MUCH more where those three came from!!!!
Like this:
Link: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/22/anomaly-six-phone-tracking-zignal-surveillance-cia-nsa/
GDPR is (still) a joke!!!!
Perhaps it should have been specified as "Useless to the User". These types of apps are very useful - to the creator, the advertisers, and the publisher, but not so much the user.
And here's the thing, they "Innovate the truth" when describing it, so that it appears useful(to the user) and then fails to deliver. If they are willing to ignore privacy law (as stated in TFA) and the ethics of informed consent, then why would these shovel-ware "developers" pause at truth in advertising?
@Swarthy
"Perhaps it should have been specified as "Useless to the User". These types of apps are very useful - to the creator, the advertisers, and the publisher, but not so much the user."
That is what I meant, if its of no use to the user why would the user download them? They would be filtered out by the natural lack of use of the useless.
"And here's the thing, they "Innovate the truth" when describing it, so that it appears useful(to the user) and then fails to deliver."
Quickly reviewed as crapware and deleted. I agree with you that there are people who will produce such garbage but as with other garbage in life will be binned and ignored.
Quickly reviewed as crapware and deleted.
The harm here is where an app purports to be one thing, but turns out to be another. For example, where a user wants to download a well known app, but accidentally mistypes the name when searching, and downloads the "lookalike" app which actually has a malware payload. They might realise pretty quickly that it is not the genuine app, but has this happened before they have entered their user credentials? If it's a knock-off banking app, have they given the malware authors access to their bank account, for example.
The only innovation going on here is innovation in scamming people, finding new, or more polished ways to trick someone into parting with something valuable. Such social engineering is only becoming more sophisticated.
Where GDPR comes into play, is to tackle the market of "knock-off" apps that may be just as functional as the app they copy, but also surreptitiously act as data-hoovers. Whilst these were previously only immoral, they are, under GDPR, illegal. This means the app store has to take them down, and the authors can be pursued in a court. It's not a perfect mitigation, but with everything in the security world, it's about reducing attack surface, and having multiple mitigations. It's about the direction of travel, not the destination.
@Loyal Commenter
"The harm here is where an app purports to be one thing, but turns out to be another. For example, where a user wants to download a well known app, but accidentally mistypes the name when searching, and downloads the "lookalike" app which actually has a malware payload."
And this has what to do with what? Malware by itself isnt permitted yet still exists. Mistyping is a common user error that wont be stopped either. Look alike apps? I will assume they exist (not an issue I run into but can believe) how does this change anything?
"If it's a knock-off banking app, have they given the malware authors access to their bank account, for example."
But this is already outlawed.
"The only innovation going on here is innovation in scamming people"
From the sound of it you mean the criminal elements and so we can forget regulation as they already ignore the law.
"Where GDPR comes into play, is to tackle the market of "knock-off" apps that may be just as functional as the app they copy, but also surreptitiously act as data-hoovers."
GDPR is about knockoff apps? I thought it was about data protection.
You talk a lot about things being illegal, but argue against regulations, such as GDPR, which are used to bring laws into being*.
You do understand that the GDPR regulation is what makes that slurping up of people's data illegal, so that there is a deterrent to doing so? Of course criminals will ignore the law, until they get caught, but this is what makes those things illegal in the first place.
Either you accept that GDPR is there to prevent people from doing something that is undesirable (or punish them when they do it anyway), or you are arguing that those things should be legal (in which case you'll have to explain why you think they are not immoral), or you are arguing that all laws are useless because people will break them anyway, in which case I invite you to study criminology to understand why that argument is nonsense.
Of course, I get the real sense that the only reason you are arguing the toss here is that GDPR is an EU regulation (brought in by unanimous agreement, I should add, and not forced upon anyone), and you are ideologically opposed to the idea of trans-continental cooperation. I'm not going to bother arguing someone down from their religious beliefs, because life is just too short to bother with sophistry.
@Loyal Commenter
"You talk a lot about things being illegal, but argue against regulations, such as GDPR, which are used to bring laws into being*."
Kill, cheat and steal are illegal. You spent an amount of your comment talking about malware stealing. GDPR isnt about stealing its about the collection of data and how to store it as legal hoops with fluffy ideas of what is personal data (the context issue).
"You do understand that the GDPR regulation is what makes that slurping up of people's data illegal, so that there is a deterrent to doing so?"
This relates to GDPR more than your previous comment but if people cared it would be a deterrent. Because people didnt care (see facebook and twitter etc) so now it must be regulated. Except it adds hoops for the kid coding in their bedroom but the corporations have rooms of legal people to meet and fight the GDPR regs. Look at the comment from Justthefacts over who is actually hit by this-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/05/09/gdpr_europe_apps/#c_4457656
A big company goes to court and loses, so appeals and wins, so another appeal and loses, another appeal and wins. Who can afford to do this? Not the victims of heavy regulation.
"Either you accept that GDPR is there to prevent people from doing something that is undesirable (or punish them when they do it anyway), or you are arguing that those things should be legal"
No. Hell no. False choice which is highly incorrect. I can accept the intent is to prevent/punish people doing something undesirable. I dont have to agree things should be legal just because regulation inflicts harm or causes the bad behaviour (as some regulation actually does). If you have the angelic vision of regulation as never wrong then you need to go to N.Korea and get your hair cut. For the good of the people.
"Of course, I get the real sense that the only reason you are arguing the toss here is that GDPR is an EU regulation"
Its also UK regulation now (we aint in the EU but still apply it). So no not because its EU regulation but because it again raises the bar for entry. Do you recall recently the push for more kids to get into coding. How many of them have a "dedicated data protection professional"? How many of them shall we fine for not interpreting the context of what is or not personal data the same way as a regulator who cannot define it?
"you are ideologically opposed to the idea of trans-continental cooperation"
Eh? How the hell do you come to that conclusion? You are entirely wrong to the extreme.
"I'm not going to bother arguing someone down from their religious beliefs, because life is just too short to bother with sophistry."
I can understand why you dont want to continue. You made up a fictional dream of my beliefs and dont want to argue with the character in your head. But your previous comment wasnt even about the same topic but malware and already criminal behaviour. Probably is a good idea for you to take a break, reread the comments and see if you can drop the fictional character in your head. He doesnt sound anything like me.
Regulation gets in the way of innovation... is this even in question?
That question is framed in such a way that ignores any nuance.
Regulation is a trade-off between innovation and bad actors. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need regulations against murdering people (we call this a "law", you might have heard of them). Unfortunately, people who would kill you and sell your body parts for profit exist.
The same applies in the economic sphere. We have regulations to stop bad actors. This is a trade-off against absolute freedoms that those who think about it realise are necessary for society to function. For example, we don't allow insider-trading, or monopolies that stifle competition.
Not allowing people to siphon off personal data that can be used to harm or disadvantage the subject, for profit, or otherwise, is a pretty good example of a regulation that we need in order to mitigate against this well identified harm.
The alternative to regulation is anarchy, and a free-for-all where a tiny minority of people accumulate all the wealth through force and dominate and destroy any dissenters (which is also a pretty good definition of a certain political ideology popular in the early 20th century). Open literally ANY history book to see how accumulating wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority turns out.
So yes, in the simplistic sense, regulation does "get in the way of" innovation. That necessary trade-off is the relatively minor cost of regulation against the much higher cost of not regulating in terms of societal harm. Since everyone* has to live within society, the regulations are for the benefit of everyone.
*Exceptions do apply. Society should also see anyone who is rich enough to live outside of society's norms as harmful.
@Loyal Commenter
"That question is framed in such a way that ignores any nuance."
It does if you clip my comment removing a fairly important part. I responded to someone talking about useless apps which I point out we dont need to regulate them away if they are of no use. The part you quote is just the simple fact,
"In a perfect world, we wouldn't need regulations against murdering people (we call this a "law", you might have heard of them). Unfortunately, people who would kill you and sell your body parts for profit exist."
True. Just as in a perfect world regulation wouldnt cause deaths due to restricting life saving innovation.
"We have regulations to stop bad actors. This is a trade-off against absolute freedoms that those who think about it realise are necessary for society to function. For example, we don't allow insider-trading, or monopolies that stifle competition."
The intent is to stop bad actors. The success of such regulation being highly variable. Interestingly I recommend the TV series 'Free To Choose'. A little dated but illuminating.
"The alternative to regulation is anarchy, and a free-for-all where a tiny minority of people accumulate all the wealth through force and dominate and destroy any dissenters (which is also a pretty good definition of a certain political ideology popular in the early 20th century). Open literally ANY history book to see how accumulating wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority turns out."
While not advocating zero regulation (anarchy) I dont see where that sits with totalitarian, single party, martial law society under a dictator (fascism which is worryingly close to communism). Both highly regulated with government interference.
"So yes, in the simplistic sense, regulation does "get in the way of" innovation."
Which was the point and so we agree. No hidden agenda just a simple statement of fact.
"That necessary trade-off is the relatively minor cost of regulation against the much higher cost of not regulating in terms of societal harm."
And this may be an acceptable trade off in this case or not. We wont know what has been lost but we can speculate at gains as is the normal bias of assessing regulation.
"Since everyone* has to live within society, the regulations are for the benefit of everyone."
As the Kims will attest peasants! Regulation is always for the benefit of everyone. Such is the regulated haircut. For western (and various other) examples try that TV show. Its available on youtube! While regulation may be posed for positive reasons its outcomes can often be harmful or even opposite the intent.
Innovation in the sense of figuring out how best to "track all private data and sell it to the highest bidder" is useless to everyone except the app developer. That's what the GDPR is attempting to stop. According to the study, it appears to do just that.
"What do schools teach?" indeed.
@AC
"What the hell did your school teach?"
History. Which is because humans have survived centuries. I guess someone forgot to mention all the health and safety officers who made that possible.
Although I am interested in the death by app idea! Could probably make a B film out of it. Neanderthals running from an app until the enforcers arrive with regulations!
@AC
"Arts & Humanities grad? That figures."
American by chance? I only ask because here in the UK school is what you do before higher education (leave at 16) before you choose your graduation path. Did your schooling not involve any history?
I know your just trolling but the fact that you offer yourself as entertainment and I am in the mood for some amusement.
"Under GDPR, app developers face the cost of complying with rules that require consent for data gathering, transparent data processing, purpose limitation, accuracy, limited retention, confidentiality, and accountability."
Treating customers as human beings with rights clearly costs too much to be economic!
However, considering the generally perfunctory (and in many cases downright unlawful) implemententation of these requirements, I suspect that the actual cost of 'compliance' is much less than the authors of this paper assume.
Nevertheless, at least here in Blighty, the government is apparently trying to 'liberate' businesses from these responsibilities by changing the law in aid of 'growth' and 'progress'.
If you don't collect anything you don't need any GDPR compliance.
The problem arises **only** for those who decide to gather personal user information that falls and GDPR. Thus it's a full self-inflicted cost. They can simply decide to remove all the PII gathering code, and sell the applications for money. As Apple and Google manage the sale procedures, they also don't have to take care of those data unless they want to know who bought what.
Or also because Apple and Google have removed many apps because they don't comply with their policies or because of security issues?
The report writes:
> One in seven of the developers reported having removed an app from the market due to new requirements and costs, and one in eleven reported choosing not to launch a developed app.13
And footnote 13:
> 13 One of our survey respondents wrote ‘Removed several small apps completely in order to minimize the risk and because of the uncertain as well as non-transparent legal situation.’
Wow. One respondent!
I guess that a few years after Hammurabi first inscribed a law against theft on a stone pillar, plenty of thieves must have complained about the sharp decline in innovative stealing techniques.
If a business model works by exploiting consumer rights, it is not "a good idea being stifled by the government". It's simply not a viable business model, and the company proposing it ought to fold or not even start in the first place.
"And with higher costs, fewer apps are being created, to the detriment of consumers and the mobile app economy, it claims."
Volume != quality.
The only people to whom this is detrimental are those whose business model is one of scraping up personal data and selling it on, in the guise of providing a copycat app. I'd be willing to wager that there is not one single innovative, original app that does this. Stopping the flood of crapware is certainly not to the detriment of the consumer. If anything, it makes it a little easier to find the wood for the trees.
GDPR does not stifle competition in any way. Actually encourages real competition hindering easy money making by writing copycat apps - often trying to deceive users with their names - that do something badly (or nothing at all, as some AV apps were find to do) but as soon as installed start to pilfer data.
"Competition" for example is not the Chinese tat you find on Amazon where they quickly copy items to sell bad made copies at a fraction of the price - wholly ignoring IP.
@LDS
"GDPR does not stifle competition in any way"
Yes it does. Its extra hoops to jump through to provide something to market. So yes it will. You can consider it a good thing and even think its necessary but it is a trade off. School kid in the basement throwing something together will also have to meet all regulations just as the big business with a room full of lawyers. In this very article-
Olejnik said. "This year the EU Commission will be updating more than a dozen of EU Competition laws, and I expect these updates to reflect the importance of privacy."
""Competition" for example is not the Chinese tat you find on Amazon where they quickly copy items to sell bad made copies at a fraction of the price - wholly ignoring IP."
Such a bad example. Since it was competition which massively advanced the Chinese economy left behind considerable decades due to central control blocking competition from within and without. Being so poor that abiding IP was far too expensive and as a result improving the quality of life for so many absolutely poor people and now have a reasonable quality of life.
GDPR is only a hoop to jump through if you were going to collect personal data, without a good reason to do so.
If you need to collect such data, and have a legitimate reason for doing so, you only need to be able to say why you are doing so, and delete the data after you no longer need it.
Most apps don't need to collect personal data at all, so no hoop.
For example, most of the apps on my phone don't need to, or ask to, know my name. If they did start asking for such information, or permissions that they don't obviously need, it's a big old red flag.
@Loyal Commenter
"GDPR is only a hoop to jump through if you were going to collect personal data, without a good reason to do so."
You should have stopped where the comma is- "GDPR is only a hoop to jump through if you were going to collect personal data". That is when you need to jump through this hoop. Which requires knowing what is considered personal data. If you want a laugh consolidate this (https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is-personal-data)-
That’s a concern, because if organisations don’t meet their compliance requirements, they risk data breaches and disciplinary action. and The issue is that the Regulation doesn’t provide a definitive list of what is or isn’t personal data. It is up to organisations to correctly interpret the GDPR’s definition:
But what it does do is provide a job! The "dedicated data protection professional". How many school kids writing an app in their bedroom have those?
"If you need to collect such data"
What data? Apparently context is everything, you must figure out if the data needs to comply but even personal data may or may not be 'such' data. Make sure to check with your "dedicated data protection professional".
"Most apps don't need to collect personal data at all, so no hoop."
I assume you mean apps in existence? Because we dont know what apps dont exist due to this extra hoop. We cant know. How can we know what we dont have?
"If they did start asking for such information, or permissions that they don't obviously need, it's a big old red flag."
As in you would block giving them permission and wouldnt provide the information they asked for? Or as a lot of us did (and do) with things like facebook... we lie. Sounds self solving doesnt it.
Let's start with the applicability of your comment to the subject in hand.
My comment had the simple observation, that quality and volume are not the same thing. Large volumes of poor quality goods do not make them high quality. Your response to this was a non sequitur.
Then I'll move onto whether you understand economics very well, if you think Ayn Rand is a positive example. You probably think market regulation is a bad thing (for anyone other than the kleptocrats being regulated).
@Loyal Commenter
"My comment had the simple observation, that quality and volume are not the same thing."
Which is half correct. I added the other half. Not to particularly snark at you but because its the often forgotten yet highly important part.
"Then I'll move onto whether you understand economics very well"
Not a claim I make, I do however try to keep aware of the basics.
"if you think Ayn Rand is a positive example"
Never read them.
"You probably think market regulation is a bad thing (for anyone other than the kleptocrats being regulated)."
A highly dangerous thing which can often be used for bad. Something often applied with good intentions and the opposite outcomes.
That's the same false equivalence of the paper that volume equals competition. The paper, however, says fewer apps but that does mean there is no competition, just fewer competitors. And in many markets there is an optimal number of competitors: adding more just means spreading resources more thinly. There are plenty of examples of this: TV channels, mobile phone networks, etc.. Oh, and all these markets are regulated.
@Charlie Clark
"That's the same false equivalence of the paper that volume equals competition." and "just fewer competitors"
Logically following your less competition against the fact that competition increases quality is not to refute my comment but to argue for lower quality.
"And in many markets there is an optimal number of competitors"
Which ones? What is this optimal number or how do we find it without letting the market determine the number? Is it a static number? Do we have to stop a new contender until a #'slot' is vacated (sounds like monopoly)?
"adding more just means spreading resources more thinly. There are plenty of examples of this: TV channels, mobile phone networks, etc.."
I dont know what you are trying to prove when you use these examples which have shown more competition improves things. Maybe you have a point I have missed but these seem to demonstrate the opposite of what you were saying.
"Oh, and all these markets are regulated."
All markets are. And? Again you seem to be trying to make a point but I dont see what.
I'm an app developer, since GDPR I have not decreased the number of apps I publish nor have I seen reduced developer revenues. My costs have not increased and I am not creating fewer apps.
Presumably the apps which are not being created would be GDPR breaching, privacy invading data hoarders in which case the mobile economy is better off without them.
"If this goes on in the long run, and if the EU or the app market doesn't find a solution for this problem, then seven to ten years down the road, the app market will be a third less valuable,"
7 to 10 years from now the app market may not even exist anymore, as we know it.
So, what's the point?
... to one-by-one test and evaluate 3+ million apps. Then sitting down and weeping like Alexander, there were no more worlds to conquer; beating one's tiny fists against the air and cursing that wretched GDPR, for having robbed you of millions more to enjoy...
The paper does some quantative analysis to come up with some qualitative results. This is flawed methodology but beloved by some economists who find it difficult to get other data. There is also the flawed premise that more is better. In fact, in many markets this leads to an equilibrium known as "more of the same", ie. less information because there is less profit to be shared.
But the biggest problem with the conclusion is that is regurgitates Silicon Valley's most pernicious mantra: regulation is evil and the best markets have the least regulation.
There are plenty of examples that this is not only untrue but that proper regulation provides more choice and lowers costs. For example, safety requirements in road vehicles are mandated. Not only does this mean fewer road deaths but it also, in many countries at least, reduces the risk to companies because the state indemnifies them to a certain degree if their products meet safety standards. However, modern investors only seem to care about profits today because if a company has any problems they can just sell their stock; it's the inverse of the principal / agent problem. Shareholders are not liable so the worst that can happen to them is company bankruptcy. That might sound bad, but losing equity is a damn sight cheaper than having to accept liability.
You seem to have an idea that all the GDPR baddies are evil spammers. They’re really not. Here’s a website that actually tracks *who got prosecuted* for GDPR.
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
Let’s take a quick look through, to see what type of organisations are on it, shall we? A corner store shop; the City of Reyjavik; Belgian National Railway company; a Norwegian Municipality; a couple of hospitals; a doctor; a dental clinic; a cafe; a taxi firm (5 employees). I’m barely cherrypicking at all - that’s ten out of the first twenty on the list of 1158. The main thing that really connects these “villains” is being poorly run public utilities, and exactly the sort of companies that we *shouldn’t* spend public money prosecuting.
Your mental model of what this is really about, and who is affected, is just totally broken. You really think that the greatest evil in the world is being committed by two hospitals, a dental clinic, and a GP? *The City of Reyjavik*?! This is a modern witch-hunt. It’s not based in reality at all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
