121–130 of 667 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true only in the most technical of senses. Practically, Apple has near complete control over what is allowed to execute on an iOS device.
Excluding technical users, Google Play Services is the same. And their grip only tightens over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I read that article. It was a pretty bad take. Apple isn't "Thanos-snapping", it's enforcing its own terms of use which are very clearly laid out. Both Facebook and Google knowingly breached those terms, and they got caught. That's all there is to it.
If you think they're "very clearly laid out", can you quote the relevant sections, and definitions, from the terms that make it so? I've been searching, and asking, and not seen them yet.
> "Internal Use Application" means a software program (including extensions, media, and Libraries that are enclosed in a single software bundle) that is developed by You on a custom basis for Your own business purposes (e.g., an inventory app specific to Your business) for specific use with an Apple-branded product running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and/or macOS, as applicable, and solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users, or as otherwise expressly permitted in Section 2.1(f). Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, specifically excluded from Internal Use Applications are any programs or applications that may be used, distributed, or otherwise made available to other companies, contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application), distributors, vendors, resellers, endusers or members of the general public. For the sake of clarity, Internal Use Applications do not include third-party applications even if some customization has been done.
There's other damning bits later in the license agreement, including:
> You must provide clear and complete information to users regarding Your collection, use and disclosure of user or device data, e.g., a description of Your use of user and device data in the Your Internal Use Application.
and
> Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 3.3.9, You and Your Internal Use Application may not use the Network Extension Framework, or any data or information obtained through the Network Extension Framework, for any purpose other than providing networking capabilities in connection with Your Internal Use Application (e.g., not for using an end-user's Internet traffic to serve advertising or to otherwise build user profiles for advertising).
I feel less vengeful satisfaction from this one, but I respect that they're applying their rules consistently. I just hope it doesn't backfire. On a totally personal level, I'd rather Facebook feel the hurt for its audacity than Apple be forced to backtrack because they made too many enemies.
Not really. If any lone developer/small company did this, Apple would have banned the whole developer account.
I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them. You may very well think that they're using their power sparingly and benevolently, but who is to say that will be the case next time around?
But in reality, to yield this kinda of power, you MUST apply it equally and fairly. Apple has been far from a fair arbiter in its app platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm wondering if either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team. By FB legal team I mean those people that should point out when things are not legal.
> either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.
I don't get how everyone working on these apps thought there would be no issues doing this. "Yup, getting consumers to bypass the app store and side-load our app is perfectly reasonable, no issues here. No way this could possibly backfire." Only thing I could see is the PM's didn't actually understand what the enterprise certificate program was supposed to be for.
So what's the play here for Apple?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth bearing in mind that Google pay Apple billions of dollars a year to be the default search engine on iOS. To my eyes, Apple clearly have the upper hand in this relationship. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3063669/google-is-...
Android has 85% of the worldwide smartphone market. Apple doesn't exactly have the upper hand in the relationship, but they have enough leverage to make it sting if they decide not to cooperate and to force a reasonable settlement. In my mind, a reasonable settlement includes not installing spyware on users' iPhones through the enterprise development program, so it looks like they're doing precisely that.
I don't get how everyone working on these apps thought there would be no issues doing this. "Yup, getting consumers to bypass the app store and side-load our app is perfectly reasonable, no issues here. No way this could possibly backfire." Only thing I could see is the PM's didn't actually understand what the enterprise certificate program was supposed to be for.
I very much doubt it was a PM in charge of reading the TOS for the enterprise certificate program. When you need to sign a contract on behalf of your (multinational, FAANG) company, you get your legal team to go over it.
In my own experience people often avoid consulting legal when they think they can get away with it (or don’t realize they need to), although I’m sure it varies a LOT based on company culture.