Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 667 posts

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#301

Post by duskwuff »

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…

There's a lot more in the program agreement I didn't include. These are just a few of the highlights I happened to notice.

> ...though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose.

They could not. The primary purpose of the Facebook and Google research apps was not to provide a VPN service; as such, using VPN services was a violation of the program terms. The use cases mentioned -- "to serve advertising or to otherwise build user profiles for advertising" -- are examples of prohibited use cases, not the full extent of the prohibitions.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#302

Post by burlesona »

olegbl wrote: post #230
dannyw wrote: post #212

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.

I think contractors working for your company is exactly what the enterprise program is for. Basically the public at large can’t get the app, but your company has a lot more control over its distribution. IIRC they can push updates and of course deactivate it on devices of people who are terminated, that kind of thing.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#303

Post by [deleted] »

shhehebehdh wrote: post #250
Varcht wrote: post #159

There are over 100,000 Google and Facebook employees, just a small percentage of them with good old fashion loyalty to their companies could explain the amount offended here.

As a googler, I’m not offended. “Abide by the terms of your agreements,” or, as Stranger Things would put it, “friends don’t lie.” That being said, I am in popcorn mode to see what act of contrition apple will demand. I would also loooove to know how this clusterfuck came about. But I guess we will never know that. I doubt this crosses Sundar’s desk, but I would be curious to know where the buck did stop. Was counsel…

[deleted]

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#304

Post by adamselby »

gojomo wrote: post #231
adamselby wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I'm sure they're all filing Form 1099.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#305

Post by _bxg1 »

klodolph wrote: post #57
_bxg1 wrote: post #21

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…

I'm not sure I quite understand your complaint about the Mac's App Store. I want to have free reign on my workstation, but part of that is I want to be able to limit the amount of access that programs have. The big difference with the App Store, from my perspective, is that I know that the applications are sandboxed, signed, and someone out there can revoke the code signing certificate. This is basically what I want,…

It briefly looked like they would move towards requiring software to come from the App Store. They did add the warning you see the first time you open any application that you downloaded from the internet, which is still there. That alone isn't problematic, but if they'd truly locked down macOS they would have alienated all of the programmers who use Macs. Thankfully, they seem to have dropped that idea.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#306

Post by katabatic »

gojomo wrote: post #231
adamselby wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paying a random consumer $20 does not make them a contractor. Do you think they all got 1099s?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#307

Post by bryant »

gojomo wrote: post #239
eganist wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 retu…

Yeah, I think you're missing what happened.

> Google’s private app was designed to monitor how people use their iPhones, similar to Facebook’s research app.

Googling this, I don't see references to 1099, W2, or Corp to Corp contracts which might help anyone say it's "internal." Paying someone for a service does not make them a part of internal operations of a company.

It's this Screenwise Meter app which got the certificate nixed, and with it, any other apps on that cert were shattered. The aforementioned app was a non-internal app used in a production capacity, which falls out of the bounds of test/dev/internal apps enforced by the contract.

Tl;Dr: Google had in service a production application using a developer/internal cert. This caused the cert to fall in scope for revocation.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#308

Post by hk__2 »

mcmoose75 wrote: post #290
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…

I agree that Google & FB violated the terms of the agreement they had with Apple. I think an interesting question is: What is Apple's best move from here? I would suggest that Apple should leave Google/ FB blocked for ~1-2 weeks, to remind them who's boss on the iOS platform. However, I would argue it'd be smart for them to switch them back on after that- there's a chance that this looks anticompetitive to regulators…

Why would Apple enforce its rules for only 1-2 weeks? The rules are the rules; they aren’t doing anything bad here.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#309

Post by saagarjha »

hnnh44 wrote: post #292
saagarjha wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I despise native apps. Why?

Drains batteries. Consumes storage space. Requests unnecessary access to my personal files and contacts. Difficult to shut down. Push notifications. I want NONE of this. The last straw for me was when Facebook messenger pocket dialed a "friend" I hadn't talked to in 7 years. Not only was it something I had no use for, it was outright invasive.

Nice apps don't do this. You don't have to install the bad ones?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#310

Post by dragonwriter »

olliej wrote: post #296
wlesieutre wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you pay 13 year olds in $20 gift cards and call them a contractor?

Did they get w2s and 1099s? Did FB did employment authorization verification? Did fb verify that the contracts were in fact signed by authorized guardians? A minor signing a contract has no meaning - so no “employment” contract would be valid.

> A minor signing a contract has no meaning - so no “employment” contract would be valid

This is generally false. Minors generally can make valid contracts, though such contracts are usually voidable by the minor prior to execution. [0]

[0] without otherwise endorsing the site as an authority, the discussion here provides a good general coverage of the issue: https://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/

Post reply on HN