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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#331

Post by mcmoose75 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

alexanderdmitri wrote: post #328

mcmoose75 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not anti-competitive, but it is unfair.

The reality, though, is that this sort of behavior in VERY large, VERY influential companies is going to draw way more scrutiny than a small company getting crushed by one of the big guys.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#332

Post by Ensorceled » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

gjs278 wrote: post #323

bunderbunder wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe you’re replying to a woman?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#333

Post by landryraccoon » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

pbalau wrote: post #125

rootusrootus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.

The legal team at FB, at least back when I was there, was meant to prevent us from doing illegal things. So, this means that either Apple is wrong, or FB is wrong - as in their legal team is wrong, so they need a better one

So you've ruled out the possibility that Zuck was advised this might be a contract violation and just said fuck it, we think we'll get away with it?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#334

Post by atomical » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:19 PM UTC

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).

Do the internal apps at Facebook compete with the internal apps at Apple?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#335

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:20 PM UTC

katabatic wrote: post #306

gojomo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1099s are only required if more than $600 is paid in a year.

You are a "contractor" if you are providing services under a contract. A contract exists whenever there is a definitive agreement to exchange valuable considerations – even in the absence of a written, signed contract.

But the sign-up for these apps might have included an explicit "signing" phase! (It's even possible that FB/Google asked for participants' SSNs, just in case any payments went over $600.)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#336

Post by hnnh44 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:20 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #309

hnnh44 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't have to install any :)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#337

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #327

gojomo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incorrect. People under 18 can enter into a contract with parental permission.

Further, some stories have reported that Facebook says they acquired such parental permission for the minor participants.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#338

Post by mcmoose75 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

atomical wrote: post #334

mcmoose75 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Do the internal apps at Facebook compete with the internal apps at Apple?

"Competition" doesn't have to be narrowly defined.

In general, Apple, Google, and Facebook are 3 of the largest technology companies in the world. In general, they have areas where their interests overlap (messaging as one good example of this).

Hindering the ability of Google/ FB to develop on iOS could absolutely be seen as an anticompetitive measure by Apple.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#339

Post by ajross » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

seba_dos1 wrote: post #238

blhack wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

That's a misstatement of the principle here. I bought a thing. It's my thing, not someone else's thing. Things don't have "terms". I signed no contract. Let me use my thing.

I mean, yes, we shouldn't buy iOS devices. But we should accept that things have ad hoc vendor-controlled "rules" just because someone baked them into the things, either.

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

How so? It's not like Facebook and Google were hacking their way in here. They asked users "please run this software" and users had the option to do so. Seriously how is that any different than "please run my great jailbreak environment" or "here's a new OS for your iPhone"?

It was the behavior and marketing of these spyware things that we shouldn't like, not their mechanism.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#340

Post by johnsea » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

zapzupnz wrote: post #273

johnsea wrote: post #216

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. 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.

But Apple isn't a monopoly, and it never will be. 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 o…

There are not only monopoly rules. It seems plausible to me that there could be a rule that mobile phone/computer ecosystems above a certain threshold must grant access to the platform (under reasonable conditions).