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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#351

Post by mcmoose75 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #342

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…

I imagine they're going to have a pow-wow with Google/FB execs and/or legal where they will all agree that the rules really are the rules and Google/FB will promise not to break them again, and Apple will restore the certs. Probably in less than a week. Apple has made their point, and there are good reasons to maintain a cordial relationship.

That sounds right- they may also ask for other PR concessions, like very publicly admitting they violated the terms of the agreement and re-committing to being good citizens of the iOS developer community.

One sort of "rubbing their nose in it" term could be something like a large donation to some sort of privacy advocacy group or similar.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#352

Post by twtw » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:27 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.

Does sideload still work? I recall they enabled the ability for anybody to load apps via Xcode around iOS 7, but haven't kept up to date with latest versions. Did this stop working on newer iOS versions?

I sideload stuff on my phone quite frequently.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#353

Post by briandear » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #339

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)

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 s…

> Things don't have "terms".

Technically correct. But software running on "things" has terms. It's called a license. When you buy a movie, you don't own the film. You own the right to use that film in accordance with the license.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#354

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:28 PM UTC

eganist wrote: post #324

gojomo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A person who enters an agreement to provide something of value (here, data) for something else of value (here, a small monthly payment, perhaps as gift cards) has entered a contract, and is a contractor.

(Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#355

Post by briandear » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:28 PM UTC

q3k wrote: post #315

curt15 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Gbus is presumably developed internally, what prevents the employees from installing the program via Xcode?

Not everyone at Google has a Mac? Nobody wants to reinstall GBus every 3 days?

Why would you have to reinstall it every 3 days?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#356

Post by benologist » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

Despegar wrote: post #213

zapzupnz wrote: post #167

Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Apple has rule. Facebook and Google agree to rule. Facebook and Google violate rule. Apple enforces rule. This isn't some grey area where the details are difficult to ascertain. Everything is pretty clear; the enterprise app distribution service is most assuredly not for distributing apps that break the App Store rules to customers . This isn't difficult to understand, so I'm strugglin…

If you're Facebook or Google you're used to being able to dictate terms to others. But there's always a bigger fish and in this case it's Apple. They're outraged because they have no recourse. What they usually do to users or partners, dictate take-it-or-leave-it terms, is being done to them. They can't even complain to antitrust regulators because Apple is only lord of its own kingdom (which doesn't have market domi…

If anything Google should be grateful Apple's support isn't as deliberately-shit as their own fake support system, they may yet resolve this instead of being banned for life.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#357

Post by SubuSS » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #291

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.

Of course you should. It's my device, I should be able to do what I want with it. The default should be protected but root should be available.

I don't understand: Do you expect to be able to run any programs you want on the micro-controller on your washing machine?

That's what Apple is doing here. Pushing iPhone as a commodity, not a replacement for your macbook. This way they get the benefits of controlling the experience as much as they want. (I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that many people are fine with commodity phones and don't care for the loss of configurability).

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#358

Post by damgoodpoint » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

51lver wrote: post #343

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.

You're not wrong, you're just in the wrong place. Apple is the sysadmin and the phone holders are the users. They WANT apple looking out for them. Anyone who says otherwise stupidly wasted $1000 when they could have bought any number of unlockable devices for that money. I say this with an unlocked and de-googled android phone next to me, and several hacked arm devices at home. I OWN THEM, with no doubt, so I agree w…

Never made this connection — genius

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#359

Post by briandear » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #342

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…

I imagine they're going to have a pow-wow with Google/FB execs and/or legal where they will all agree that the rules really are the rules and Google/FB will promise not to break them again, and Apple will restore the certs. Probably in less than a week. Apple has made their point, and there are good reasons to maintain a cordial relationship.

> they will all agree that the rules really are

You mean like the terms of the Enterprise agreement? The terms that were already agreed to?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#360

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

pier25 wrote: post #210

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've worked on enterprise iOS apps that were also shared to some of our customers. I've always felt super paranoid about it and thought Apple would shut us down... Seeing what's going on with Facebook and Google I guess Apple didn't pay much attention to this.

If anything I think the fact that this has gone under the radar for so long is a pretty good indication that Apple has no data about what apps are being run via this program. Although abuse like this will probably flare up some arguments internally over whether they should more aggressively track activity in iOS.