271–280 of 667 posts
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Eve…
And, other sections of the terms (just before that) expressly enable "a software program… for Your own business purposes… and solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users" – where, as noted, "Permitted Users" also was defined to include "contractors".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service ? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Your comment might make sense of Apple were some sort of government entity, but it isn't; it was completely Facebook and Google's decision to abide by Apple's terms and conditions, something that will have been pored over by legal team upon legal team. This is not something…
> Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Because they became too big. It's the right of e.g. the EU to allow them to operate. Or better said, the law could be changed to disallow operation if certainy conditions are not met. Apple then has the choice to either adapt or leave the EU market.
You're talking like the EU has one set of rules for companies from its members and another for others, but that isn't the case. The EU treats all monopolies equally; Apple isn't close to a monopoly.
Of the actors involved here, Google is the one that the EU is most concerned about.
Apple is only acting on their own turf, their services. Their reach is not far spread outside of the iOS landscape, heavily dwarfed by Google's Android at something like 85% share.
I'm curious what the TOS actually says, is there a link?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s fine, dashers are contractors and contractors are expressly allowed.
I have a hard time seeing the distinction between people paid by Google or Facebook to share their phone usage data vs people paid by DoorDash to deliver food. You're probably right though.
One is a consumer, one is a contractor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to feel that way, and I used Android for years for that reason. But since switching to an iPhone, I've found that what I really want from my phone is not a totally open platform, but a tool that's simple, secure, and effective. Something I don't have to mess with, something I can trust to do its job and respect my privacy and be pleasant to interact with. They tried going that direction a bit with macOS when t…
Honestly that's my feeling as well, but even for workstations, it has begun to dawn on me that spending time configuring the minutiae of various settings and flags and plists etc just isn't worth my time. I just want a workstation that's simple, secure, and effective in getting things done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
According to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
According to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.