191–200 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.
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.
Apple’s market aligns with the most profitable markets for Google.
Got to give Apple credit for staying consistent. One thing is to break the rules Apple put down to keep iOS users safe and secure which is what Apple is targeting here, but another thing is just being stupid and unethical. Regardless of their (FB+G) cries of "they consented to it", who really thinks a 13 year old understand the technical implications of installing a root certificate on their iPhone?
No root cert was involved. Apps built with an enterprise distribution profile, once correctly signed, can be installed on any device. The limit is that it must be an employee’s device. This last rule, broken by GOOG and FB, is exclusively enforced through legal actions.
Let’s say you’re using a Google API like Maps, and you violate terms by snapshotting sections of their maps and storing them on your severs so you can serve static maps without making API calls. They’d shut down your API access immediately Google and Facebook both knew the terms. They both knew that the Enterprise Distribution Program was for internal use only. They still put ads out in the wild to recruit regular co…
>I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out. I don't understand why they were so happy when this happened to Facebook but now they are offended because it happened to Google. Oh wait, yes I do understand why. o:-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060 The terms are very clear. Apple wants to control distribution of apps, the enterprise program is only supposed to be for employees or for end users using under the direct personal supervision of an employee as part of an in office test. The conditions are clearly defined.
Ah yes, but at what point does paying someone for work make them an employee? Given that the users of the app in question were being paid by Google, one could argue they are employed... or at least are contractors. On the other hand, given the users did not have the rights generally associated with being an employee or a contractor... and they were not even getting minimum wage... But at that point IANAL and courts w…
Google or FB isn't going to touch that with a 10 foot pole, and no there is no need for courts to decide, they don't want these users considered employees or contractors in any way. Also monetary compensation is very common in some research industries without said people being contractors or employees. Simply put Google and FB F*up big time in violating the TOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what basis? They clearly violated the rules.
Google doesn't need a basis to retaliate other than "we want to". Maybe they'll yank the Apple Music app from the Android app store or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement, linked from https://developer.apple.com/terms/ (Apple ID login required), makes it VERY clear that the Enterprise Program is intended "for in-house, internal use applications". This point is reiterated multiple times throughout the introduction, and is later made more explicit: > "Internal Use Application" means a software program (including extensions, media,…
I don't see the definition of "Internal Use Application" as clearly prohibiting app usage by these research panels – paid contractors of FB/Google. And, the disclosures to panel members may have met the "clear and complete information" clause.
But the limits on the "Network Extension Framework" usage might be a violation. I suspect FB/Google were effectively building "user profiles for advertising" with this data... though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose.
Let’s say you’re using a Google API like Maps, and you violate terms by snapshotting sections of their maps and storing them on your severs so you can serve static maps without making API calls. They’d shut down your API access immediately Google and Facebook both knew the terms. They both knew that the Enterprise Distribution Program was for internal use only. They still put ads out in the wild to recruit regular co…
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?
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-...
let’s not be naives... apple is happy getting billions of dollars from google, who use this data for exactly the same thing than facebook, and it is much less transparent to the user that the opt in from the facebok app. There are no saints here even if apple has a privacy stance far better for us users than the other two parties.
If, as you admit yourself, Apple is far better in terms of privacy, would it not be helpful, even if they are not perfect, to praise their (relative) sainthood and bury them with money?
That way, they would be reward for their strategy, might double-down on it (maybe even achieving perfection in your very smart and perpetually critical eyes), and inspire others to follow their lead.