Apple’s Geolocation Threat: Defining “Beneficial,” Apple Style

Written by Evan Schuman
February 11th, 2010

Apple this month posted a stern-sounding warning on its developer pages: make sure your geolocation efforts are designed with the user—and not an advertiser—in mind.

“If you build your application with features based on a user’s location, make sure these features provide beneficial information. If your app uses location-based information primarily to enable mobile advertisers to deliver targeted ads based on a user’s location, your app will be returned to you by the App Store Review Team for modification before it can be posted to the App Store.”

At a glance, that sounds like a fine consumer-oriented focus, but let’s delve a bit deeper. Apple is by no means coming out against geolocation. Said the memo: “The Core Location framework allows you to build applications which know where your users are and can deliver information based on their location, such as local weather, nearby restaurants, ATMs and other location-based information.”

The problem is how Cupertino is defining both the good (“provide beneficial information”) and the bad (“deliver targeted ads”). Who’s to say that a cleverly targeted ad doesn’t, in fact, potentially provide beneficial information?

Let’s say, for example, that a consumer is walking down the streets of Manhattan as he reads his iPhone screen. He’s using a retail search app and looking for a local store that has a particular style and size of shirt. It just so happens that one of the top answers is 40 feet north of the consumer’s current location. Is it beneficial for the app to scream, “FYI. Store #2 just happens to be one door north. May I point the way? I can also show you a 50-percent off discount coupon for that shop.”

No problem with that interaction; the consumer was explicitly looking for that piece of clothing in a brick and mortar. Let’s change the scenario slightly. The same consumer is now walking down Madison Ave. looking at a sports news iPhone app. While reading about last night’s game, the app notices that the consumer is 40 feet away from a top-notch sporting goods store. It’s not as clean as the first example, but the consumer is—worst-case scenario—going to decline the info and forget about it. At best, he might find it very helpful.

Now, what if that consumer is looking at that sports news app and the phone realizes it’s 6 o’clock and proceeds to put up discount coupons for two sports-themed steak restaurants that are extremely close by?

Apple could have banned geolocation use unless it’s something the consumer specifically seeks, but it chose not to. Could the company be planning its own geolocation advertiser move?


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.