Developers must explain themselves to Apple internal review bodies…

Apple's recent demand for developers on its proprietary platform to explain their use of certain APIs has raised concerns about the company's lack of reciprocity in trust. While Apple expects developers and users to trust them, they are not offering the same level of trust in return. By requiring developers to exclusively use their provided APIs and now demanding explanations for API usage, Apple is exerting further control over the development process.

Apple claims that this initiative aims to discourage app makers from engaging in digital fingerprinting to track users. However, the manner in which this requirement is being implemented raises questions about Apple's intentions. Developers will soon be required to provide valid reasons, chosen from a limited list, to request device data such as system boot time, available disk space, and user default settings. This move restricts the freedom of developers and adds another layer of scrutiny to their work.

Furthermore, Apple's documentation suggests that undisclosed reasons not on the official list may be considered through a petition process. Developers are concerned that this mechanism could be exploited by Apple to further its anti-competitive agenda, potentially driving developers towards more open systems.

The extent to which Apple will verify declared reasons against actual application code remains unclear. However, if Apple does choose to investigate, developers' stated reasons for API usage could facilitate the identification of non-compliant code.

In summary, Apple's requirement for developers to explain their use of APIs raises concerns about the company's lack of reciprocity in trust and its potential to exert control over the development process. This move has been perceived by some developers as another tool in Apple's anti-competitive toolbox, potentially driving them towards more open systems. The transparency and fairness of Apple's review process, as well as its handling of user complaints, remain important factors to consider in evaluating the impact of this requirement