216

PM: You know that screen that pops up at the start of the app asking for permission to access health data?

Me: Yeah the iOS HealthKit permission screen. What about it?

PM: Can you take that out. I don't think people are going to agree to it. I want people to use the app.

Me: Well we can't do that, apple says if we want to use HealthKit we have to ask for permission. We shouldn't be touching that data without permission anyway.

PM: Oh no permission is fine I get that, but is it not implied by downloading the app, its clearly a health app. I really don't want people to download it and then uninstall it because they don't like this.

Me: Not really, not everyone will know what data is needed, some of it might be sensitive to them.

PM: Nah I don't buy into that. I asked 5 of my friends on the golf course at the weekend and 3 of them said they wouldn't agree to it, thats 60% of our user base, we can't have that.

Me: ... ok, well I don't agree that your 5 friends is a fair sample to judge the whole world by, either way we have no choice.

Pm: No this isn't going to fly, can we not build our own HealthKit that doesn't have this kind of permission screen? Maybe we could start our own, and invite our partners to use it?

Me: ... no

Pm: why not? We'll have legal draw up something we put in the terms and conditions.

Me: ... it will take months to build for all the different types of devices we have, if they even let us get access to them, and then we will have a different standard to everyone else.

Pm: ... no your not seeing the big picture, i'll run the idea up the ladder.

**It was approved up the ladder, and subsequently cancelled when they realised the scale of the work involved which is both a "thank god" and a "wtf" moment**

Comments
  • 33
    This sounds a lot like my co’s idiotic thoughts.

    Glad the fucks up the ladder saw sense when they realised replacing that kind of built in infrastructure is ridiculous... especially when legal would have had a world of fun trying to justify that kind of data collection under an implicit opt-in.
  • 17
    Oh yes, the popular "We can do that by ourselves"-syndrome of PMs, especially those without technical background. They just don't know how much effort is needed to develop even the smallest feature and it's easier to discuss internally forever than just tell the customer that some things are not possible.

    I would not have discussed it that far in this situation. The system needs the user to give the permissions, if someone wants to discuss it, then they should discuss it with Apple or Google.
  • 5
    yet this is exactly what Google Play apps used to do, and still do for network access! They should file a bug with the app store.
  • 2
    im soooo fuckn glad my pm is a dev like me and this kind of crap doesnt make it to the requirements list
  • 1
    Sometimes they treat us devs like cattle.
    I wish they can see that they are the only asses in the room. Fuckers.
  • 2
    I swear some people have no logic to the things that come out of their mouths. So you want to consent by action with no notice to user. Great. You open the WiFi at Starbucks and use it to access your email unsecured. Someone hacked you and stole your identity. But they say Starbucks didn’t let them know the network was unsecured. Well, it’s implied because you’re in public
  • 0
    Why would someone download a health related app and then not allow health kit permission in the first place. That's like downloading a camera app and then permit access to camera.
Add Comment