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

321–330 of 667 posts

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#321

Post by jfrn »

johnsea wrote: post #262
briffle wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty poor argument. I can think of multiple reasons they should be able to immediately revoke a certificate (or an app) 1. It finds the certificate has been compromised 2. it finds a publisher introduced malware in an update to their app If some app decides to include a crypto-miner, that burns up your battery, your sure going to want apple to yank that from all the phones, as quick as possible, not sit t…

I didn't argue this specific case. I said in general, Apple should not be allowed to have such power. (Laws need to be adapted/modernized to cover the current mobile ecosystems) It's my device, if I am fully informed and decide to run a crypto-miner application I should be able to do so. If I want to run 'In A Permanent Save State' [1], Apple shouldn't be allowed to censor this (not that I would agree with the subsum…

It is your device. Nothing is stopping you from jailbreaking it on your property and time. You knew that the device was designed in such a way that would not be easy, but if that bothers you than why did you pay Apple for the thing in the first place?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#323

Post by gjs278 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #270
seba_dos1 wrote: post #238

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)

More than a couple of us know Apple's terms and agree to them quite enthusiastically. The perennial mansplaining around this issue mildly baffles me. Apple acting as a gatekeeper for iOS has been a well-known thing for a decade now. Coming to a place like this and preaching as if people don't understand Apple's terms is frankly insulting.

how is this possibly mansplaining

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#324

Post by eganist »

gojomo wrote: post #272
Macha wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The "specifically excluded from..." section you quote is preceded by "Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein". 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".

What makes them a contractor here? You seem pretty fixed on this point.

They're being paid for a product (their data). By what I'm gathering, I could define Netflix as my contractor for delivering my team streamed movies for $n per month... which isn't true unless a more specific relationship e.g. a c2c is put in place.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#325

Post by BinaryIdiot »

rdiddly wrote: post #198
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…

To add to your point, even if there were no such "term" governing that particular use of the "service," if I'm the owner of the API and I find out those API keys are being used to spy on my users, don't I treat this as the security breach that it is, and revoke those keys on that basis?

In general I agree with your point but I think these terms help Apple's case because it's easier to argue against definitions of spying, harder against terms of service. Especially when Google so strictly enforces all of their terms. I mean, good luck getting reinstated on just about any of Google's APIs.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#326

Post by shhehebehdh »

hk__2 wrote: post #308
mcmoose75 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From a practical standpoint, it’s hard to picture apple permanently preventing google from e.g. dogfooding Google Maps for iOS. I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility, but I don’t see it as likely.

I wouldn’t even look at it from an anticompetitive angle or anything like that. This is a matter of what’s best for apple and its users. They should absolutely do what’s needed to ensure that their terms are obeyed. But permanently banning google is not “what’s needed.” What’s needed is merely to demonstrate that the behavior will not be tolerated going forward. I imagine discussions between corporate lawyers and perhaps a reasonably sized bond would be sufficient to demonstrate google’s sincerity in not repeating the error.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#327

Post by mynameisvlad »

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.

Further everyone's points about a form 1099 and how paying consumers doesn't make them a contractor, I also want to add that people as young as 13 were being targeted by these programs. Everyone under 18 is unable to sign a contract and therefore can't be a contractor, anyway.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#328

Post by alexanderdmitri »

mcmoose75 wrote: post #313
hk__2 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Anything that smells anticompetitive is kind of a dangerous dance- by preventing two of their largest competitors from developing on their platform I think they'd be inviting some regulatory scrutiny (even though FB/ Goog DID violate the agreement).

Isn't it anti-competetive in general then that big players get more protection from consequences via this logic?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#329

Post by CPLX »

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…

There's absolutely nothing anti-competitive about this from a legal standpoint whatsoever.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#330

Post by gojomo »

bryant wrote: post #307
gojomo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cert…

I know that's the fuzzy reasoning that's being reported. But the actual terms of Apple's agreement seem to allow "Permitted Users" who are "contractors". Contractors aren't just those issued 1099's: it's anyone "under contract".

If the mechanism for bringing participants into "Screenwise Meter" involved a contracted payment, it plausibly matches some of the expressly permitted uses, in the Apple Enterprise terms. (If it included an express written contract that limited the participants' use of the app, it further matches certain explicit requirements of the Apple terms.)

(There's another clause about using a specific "Network Extension Framework" that seems like a bigger problem for Facebook/Google, depending on what they likely did with that API and the info retrieved. But these clauses, about "internal use" and "permitted users", seem fully compatible with an internal-research-program using a panel of compensated research-subjects.)

Post reply on HN