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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#371

Post by mynameisvlad » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:37 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #354

eganist wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> (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.)

Source. Now. Because I highly doubt this is accurate. I have never heard of someone having to file a 1099 for purchasing services, of any kind. Hell, half of everyone's time would be spent filing 1099s because as a society we spend far more than 600 dollars with any one company over the course of a year literally all the time.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#372

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:38 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #364

torstenvl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Then cite one. The only provision I see that's close to what you're talking about is the definitions section, which provides that Permitted Users include "contractors . . . who have written and binding agreements with You . . . to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use " It's quite the stretch to say that this language, which by its text limits contractors to authorized uses, somehow expand…

The immediately preceding sentence reads: "Internal Use Applications or Passes developed using the Apple Software may only be deployed to and used by Your Employees or Permitted Users for internal use purposes or for limited use by Customers on Deployment Devices on Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) physical premises or in other locations when the use is under Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) direct supervision and…

> "Is it being used by 'Permitted Users', which is elsewhere defined as including 'contractors'?"

It is not defined elsewhere as including contractors. It is defined elsewhere as including contractors who use it for authorized purposes. The bootstrapping you're attempting here is circular reasoning.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#373

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:38 PM UTC

eganist wrote: post #341

gojomo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Kids as young as 13 were sought for this. They can't sign a contract. They can't become contractors. Why do you keep fighting this? It doesn't even seem like devil's advocate anymore. :/ --- it's anyone "under contract". It's not. I'm not an employment lawyer, but that's definitely not true. At all. Under any circumstances. If you need help with it, check this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-v…

That's false: minors can enter a contract with parental permission, and some of the coverage has Facebook saying they had parental permission for all underage participants.

But further, even if it was a violation if minors were involved, that'd leave open the question of whether use by contracted adults was compliant under the terms. (And supposedly the Google app wasn't offered to minors.)

And, paid research subjects meet the legal definition of contractor, as outlined here or elsewhere:

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=939

Simply insisting "definitely not true" is not convincing.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#374

Post by Jare » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

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.

> they aren’t doing anything bad here

By making this problem last long they aren't doing anything useful either.

- Bad case, they never restore certificates to G/FB and they end up losing all their employees to Android, with likely ripple effects in their tech sphere of influence.

- Worst case, G/FB retaliate by removing their apps from iOS and it's all out war with everyone losing.

- Best case, they restore them tomorrow with some fanfare and handshakes, but thousands of smaller companies now have been reminded Apple may actually shut them down if they misbehave.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#375

Post by briandear » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #123

_bxg1 wrote: post #3

I feel less vengeful satisfaction from this one, but I respect that they're applying their rules consistently. I just hope it doesn't backfire. On a totally personal level, I'd rather Facebook feel the hurt for its audacity than Apple be forced to backtrack because they made too many enemies.

> I respect that they're applying their rules consistently. Not really. If any lone developer/small company did this, Apple would have banned the whole developer account.

[citation needed]

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#376

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:40 PM UTC

ken wrote: post #348

ce4 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To downvoters: That point is valid. It's the golden cage that allowed them to do of course good things this time. This argument is the old one against a walled garden and it still stands.

The point may be valid, but it's not what this discussion is about. Apple didn't cut off a user for running unauthorized software on their iPhone. They cut off Google for using a paid enterprise service to distribute their software in violation of its TOS.

That loses a bit of the nuance. Apple cut off Google distributing software within apple's TOS after Google had already stopped breaking the TOS.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#377

Post by mikeryan » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #171

mikeryan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except as set forth in Section 2.1, You may not use, distribute or otherwise make Your Internal Use Applications available to Your Customers or to any third parties in any way (excluding Your Internal Use Application that is for use on macOS) It’s behind the developer wall but the whole thing is here. https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_A...

Thanks! But note that section 2.1 expressly allows deployment to "Permitted Users", and "Permitted Users" is defined to include "contractors... who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use". Compensated members of these apps' research panels are quite literally "contractors" of FB/Google, and possibly even under written contra…

Look you're welcome to continue arguing this but ultimately this is a Terms of Service, not a contract. Apple can clarify this point at their discretion and even Google has now admitted in the wrong.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#378

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:41 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…

Is this true of people who voluntarily signed up to be paid for data collection? It's like saying that Nielsen panelists need to be protected from Nielsen by Vizio. (Insert standard caveat about the degree to which kids' autonomy is in the hands of their parents).

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#379

Post by politician » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:43 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…

Do you run your own firmware on the baseband processor?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#380

Post by _bxg1 » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:44 PM UTC

UPDATE: "Facebook’s internal iOS apps have since resumed functioning, as the social network said this afternoon that Apple had restored its enterprise certificate. Similarly, both Apple and Google’s statements make it clear that the companies are working together to fix Google’s issues."

[siggghhh]