Hacker News Reader

Comment by krichman | Hacker News Reader

False analogy. The camera and microphone aren't readily available to non-running apps, whereas push notifications are. Push notifications can also interrupt other running applications.

Allowing them globally is a far greater burden on users than asking once when the app opens the first time. If your app cannot work without push it needs to fail gracefully, end of story.

View on HN

I don't think it's a false analogy. I didn't not try to argue that the burden is equal, just that granular control can always come with benefits. For some apps, "failing gracefully" means not delivering a large part of the app's value, and that's a shame.

I believe that there are better ways to solve this problem, and that educating users to delete apps, and thereby educating developers to be conservative with their notifications is part of the solution.

The problem is, "value" is defined differently by the app maker and myself. "You got some coins!" at 4am isn't valuable to me.

One man's "not delivering a large part of the app's value" is another's "not pestering me outside of the hour in the evening I want to use it".

Anecdotally, there is not one single app that I have which I would like to give me push notifications, although a few I use daily would like to. You would force me and others like me to delete them? I'd switch to Android immediately.

There's already a solution for the problem. It's to inform users that your app has more functionality with push notifications on. Not asking Apple to impose policy on their users that restricts their already limited freedom with the device. What we are discussing is a UI failure on your part, not an iOS failure.

"Educating developers to be conservative" is not going to happen. You're thinking of your own app delivering value but forgetting sociopathic actors like Path who feel free to send your entire contacts list to themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com