OurPact says Apple's MDM comments are misleading, compares Apple's claims in defense of removing apps that use MDM with quotes from Apple's documentation
Apple Removed OurPact From the App Store. Here's What You Need to Know. — On Saturday, April 27th, The New York Times exposed …
Context & Ripple Effects
This is round three of a fight that went public over one weekend. On April 27, a New York Times analysis found Apple had removed or restricted 11 of the 17 most-downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps, and that two developers had already taken an antitrust complaint to the EU. Phil Schiller then defended the move in emails to users, arguing the apps abused an MDM feature intended only for enterprises and created privacy and security risks.
OurPact — itself removed from the App Store — now answers that defense by putting Apple's claims side-by-side with quotes from Apple's own documentation, calling them misleading. The dispute matters because it tests whether Apple's stated technical rationale survives contact with its published docs, and it fed directly into the pressure that produced Apple's eventual reversal letting parental-control apps use MDM and VPN again.
First-order effects
- OurPact turns a private removal into a public credibility fight: instead of appealing quietly, it challenges the factual basis of Apple's Schiller email defense that the apps misused an enterprise-only feature.
- The other developers caught in the same sweep — including those behind the EU antitrust complaint — get a documented counterargument they can cite against Apple's security-and-privacy justification.
Second-order effects
- If Apple's documentation does support consumer use of MDM as OurPact contends, the EU complaint gains concrete evidence that the removals were anti-competitive rather than safety-driven, raising the cost of Apple holding its position.
Third-order effects
- The episode establishes a template for App Store disputes: developers answering platform justifications with the platform's own published rules, shifting removal fights from private appeals toward public and regulatory arenas — the same dynamic later visible in how Apple managed its DMA response.
The trend: App Store gatekeeping disputes are migrating from silent removals and private executive defenses to public evidence battles that regulators can act on.