This ran in the New York Times on Thursday. I was on the road, but left it in my queue to post this morning.

This is opinion from the New York Times Editorial Board, doubling down on their (in my opinion) poorly thought through hatchet piece attacking Apple for taking down apps that used mobile device management for ways in which it was never intended.

This feels like the Times Editorial Board was caught on the wrong side of the MDM argument, and switched gears to find another avenue of attack.

At the heart of this new (old) argument:

Even if we take Apple at its word that it was only protecting the privacy and security of its users by removing screen-time and parental-control apps, the state of the app marketplace is troubling. Why is a company — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of user privacy and security?

As a reply to this, consider this response op-ed from Macworld’s Michael Simon:

The Times’ point that Apple shouldn’t be “the most zealous guardian of user privacy and security” just doesn’t hold water. What if the developer of one of these parental control apps had been caught using its permissions to spy on what kids were watching and reading? That would have made much bigger headlines than a handful of disgruntled developers. Apple users take privacy seriously, and they want to know there’s a gatekeeper in place.

I’m not a fan of the timing of the New York Times op-ed, coming on the heels of its wrongly logicked argument about MDM. Feels like a vengeance move.