What are we talking about?
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 5:37 am
Many people play online from their computer, or more simply on their smartphone via an application to pass the time in a waiting room or on public transport. Still others use applications on social networks to stay in touch with those around them. All will recognize themselves in the following two situations. On the one hand, downloading the game or application requires giving access to browsing data (via cookies on the computer) or to smartphone data (geolocation, contacts, call history, multimedia files, etc.). On the other hand, the application can take advantage of the vulnerability of the user, who has become "addicted" to the game, to sell them the options necessary for their progress in the game or to collect a greater quantity of personal data with a view to reselling them.
Ethics Question: The Controversial Business Model of Mobile Apps
Are these games as free as they claim? (source Nextpit )
The lucrative business of mobile apps
While most online applications are free, they still generate huge revenues. For example, GlobalData estimates that the mobile gaming industry will be worth $272 billion by 2030. The tactics of the manufacturers indonesia phone data are always the same: they consist of getting users to adopt the application and relying on positive word-of-mouth to maximize the number of downloads and users, and thus become popular on mobile download platforms. Once the application is popular, the goal is to make money. Two major options are then available to the company managing the application: either offer part of the content for sale (for example, it becomes mandatory to buy items to progress in a game); or exploit through advertising or resell users' personal data, which constitutes the essential part of the economic model of most social networks.
Little transparency, lots of addiction
Even though the GDPR attempts to regulate the use of personal data, the management of mobile applications by manufacturers raises many ethical questions in practice. Indeed, when installing applications, the user gives access to personal data – more or less important from a privacy point of view or more or less relevant to the service provided by the application – and accepts the general conditions of use (CGU), without reading them exhaustively in most cases. However, has the user really given his consent? In addition, the use of certain applications plunges users into states close to addiction. In fact, the application will take advantage of the addictive nature of the game to trigger impulsive “in-app” purchases. Thus, the user with an appetite for the application, wanting to discover more options, may feel a form of oppression, i.e. a psychological state that degrades his capacity for rationality. Implementing tactics that create this psychological state raises obvious ethical questions.
Ethics Question: The Controversial Business Model of Mobile Apps
Are these games as free as they claim? (source Nextpit )
The lucrative business of mobile apps
While most online applications are free, they still generate huge revenues. For example, GlobalData estimates that the mobile gaming industry will be worth $272 billion by 2030. The tactics of the manufacturers indonesia phone data are always the same: they consist of getting users to adopt the application and relying on positive word-of-mouth to maximize the number of downloads and users, and thus become popular on mobile download platforms. Once the application is popular, the goal is to make money. Two major options are then available to the company managing the application: either offer part of the content for sale (for example, it becomes mandatory to buy items to progress in a game); or exploit through advertising or resell users' personal data, which constitutes the essential part of the economic model of most social networks.
Little transparency, lots of addiction
Even though the GDPR attempts to regulate the use of personal data, the management of mobile applications by manufacturers raises many ethical questions in practice. Indeed, when installing applications, the user gives access to personal data – more or less important from a privacy point of view or more or less relevant to the service provided by the application – and accepts the general conditions of use (CGU), without reading them exhaustively in most cases. However, has the user really given his consent? In addition, the use of certain applications plunges users into states close to addiction. In fact, the application will take advantage of the addictive nature of the game to trigger impulsive “in-app” purchases. Thus, the user with an appetite for the application, wanting to discover more options, may feel a form of oppression, i.e. a psychological state that degrades his capacity for rationality. Implementing tactics that create this psychological state raises obvious ethical questions.