Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#231

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

adamselby wrote: post #100

gojomo wrote: post #81

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 very first paragraph of "Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement": "Your company, organization or educational institution would like to use the Apple Software (as defined below) to develop one or more Internal Use Applications (as defined below) for Apple- branded products running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and/or macOS, and to deploy these Applications only for internal use within Your company, organizatio…

While I've seen other potentially-applicable sections quoted elsewhere, a traffic-research app used by paid contractors of a company would seem to meet both the "Internal Use Application" definition, and the "Permitted Users" definition.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#232

Post by kodablah » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #219

kodablah wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, one could reasonably say Apple actively tries not to obtain too large of a market percentage to avoid laws affecting monopolies.

You think so? I think they don’t chase market share, but not to avoid anti-trust issues.

Their entire locked-in software model around OS, dev tooling, browser engine, app store, etc would be subject to legal challenges. True it may not be the primary reason they keep a low market share, but it's definitely a benefit and discourages shooting too high.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#233

Post by BuckRogers » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

jimmy1 wrote: post #174

kodablah wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, one could reasonably say Apple actively tries not to obtain too large of a market percentage to avoid laws affecting monopolies.

> In fact, one could reasonably say Apple actively tries not to obtain too large of a market percentage to avoid laws affecting monopolies. I would say rather to avoid laws it's to avoid appearing as a commodity and losing its "fashion" or "hip" status. If everyone has an iPhone suddenly it is less desirable to own an iPhone.

Yeah, I feel that way about my microwave too. Your analogy may have applied at one point in time but not now.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#234

Post by Macha » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #197

duskwuff wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Thanks, and now we're getting somewhere! 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 pro…

> 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.

Even if you make the argument that the users of this app are paid contractors of FB/Google, they are not 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", so it still seems pretty clear cut.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#235

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

From: https://www.axios.com/google-also-finds-itself-unable-to-use...

"What they're saying: Google confirmed it is being impacted: "We're working with Apple to fix a temporary disruption to some of our corporate iOS apps, which we expect will be resolved soon."

In a statement, Apple said "We are working together with Google to help them reinstate their enterprise certificates very quickly."

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#236

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #171

mikeryan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except as set forth in Section 2.1, You may not use, distribute or otherwise make Your Internal Use Applications available to Your Customers or to any third parties in any way (excluding Your Internal Use Application that is for use on macOS) It’s behind the developer wall but the whole thing is here. https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_A...

Thanks! But note that section 2.1 expressly allows deployment to "Permitted Users", and "Permitted Users" is defined to include "contractors... who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use". Compensated members of these apps' research panels are quite literally "contractors" of FB/Google, and possibly even under written contra…

13 year olds aren't really contractors, they're random users that they've selected to market research on.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#237

Post by GeekyBear » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

Google immediately admitted that they were aware that what they had done violated those terms.

>A Google spokesperson told The Verge, “The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple’s developer enterprise program — this was a mistake, and we apologize.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18204064/apple-google-mon...

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#238

Post by seba_dos1 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #214

askafriend wrote: post #43

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…

Because lots of people still think that if you own a piece of hardware, you should be able to run whatever code you want on it.

That's right. That's why you shouldn't buy iOS devices. If you do, you agree to Apple's terms.

(also, what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actually a different story, not related to this news)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#239

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

eganist wrote: post #162

gojomo wrote: post #81

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.

I'll contribute to the pile. You're looking for the "Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement" — I found it in ten seconds. The only production applications allowed on the cert are internal applications ("Internal Use Applications developed for macOS can be distributed under this Agreement using an Apple Certificate or may be separately distributed.") Or applications under development (2.1 Permitted Uses…

The link to the developer agreement is helpful, thanks. (The previous link someone had sent me couldn't be viewed by me, even as a paid-up member of the Developer program.) But none of what you quoted specifically restricts use by a company's contracted research panels.

--

Added in response to edit: The links to Quora/StackExchange, however, miss the point. Anyone who's entered a contract to provide a service in return for compensation is a 'contractor', both in legal terms, and in layman's terms. Facebook's description of their on-boarding, especially, suggests there was sufficient "meeting of the minds", mutual agreement, and exchange-of-valuable-considerations as required for a contract to exist:

Facebook statement via " rel="nofollow">https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-paying-teens-to-install-a-re...:

"Key facts about this market research program are being ignored. Despite early reports, there was nothing ‘secret’ about this; it was literally called the Facebook Research App. It wasn’t ‘spying’ as all of the people who signed up to participate went through a clear on-boarding process asking for their permission and were paid to participate. Finally, less than 5 percent of the people who chose to participate in this market research program were teens. All of them with signed parental consent forms."

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#240

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

seanalltogether wrote: post #149

_bxg1 wrote: post #3

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.

For me, this is just another reason to be unhappy with the Apple distribution model. I work with IOT devices and we have enough trouble getting Apple to approve our app store releases. We need Enterprise Certs from time to time as a release valve for the inconsistent review policies that stop us from getting into the app store in a predictable manner.

Maybe not a great idea to post this where an Apple employee is likely to read it?

Sounds like you just confessed to violating Apple's terms.