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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#381

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

gojomo wrote: post #373

eganist wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subject…

Oof.

In this case, it's likely (IANAL, nor are you) that each individual user of the service would be described as a vendor selling access to their data. The data itself is not created for Google's (or Facebook's in that previous case) consumption. The users of the service were selling rights and were not producing anything for hire.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo...

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contracto...

---

This is becoming tedious. I'm out.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#382

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

skywhopper wrote: post #360

pier25 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mmmm, from everyone I've spoken to there, it's not something they don't pay attention to, there just hasn't been extreme violators like what Google and FB have done lately.

I mean, the program exists for a reason.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#383

Post by CobrastanJorji » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:45 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #347

jdietrich wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth bearing in mind that Google pay Apple billions of dollars a year to be the default search engine on iOS. To my eyes, Apple clearly have the upper hand in this relationship. https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3063669/google-is-...

Doesn't seem that clear to me who has the upper hand. Maybe Apple likes getting those billions? What if Google doesn't mind losing it's primo spot on Safari?

I suspect, though I am no expert, that Google would mind losing its primo spot on Safari.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#384

Post by nvrspyx » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:46 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #359

rootusrootus wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yea. That's exactly their point. The rules are the rules.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#385

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:47 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #131

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…

Well put. It is an interesting salvo in what I've started thinking of as the "data war." All three companies have a huge asset in data collection capability, and preventing the others from exploiting it is only the first skirmish among them. It will be interesting to see if Google offers to pay additional monies to Apple in order to "restore" this pipeline, and whether or not Apple will agree. In one sense, Apple alr…

>> In one sense, Apple already gives up a data feed by sending search queries to Google.

Apple does this under protest. Their top search queries are served through siri lately, and the hope is siri will replace all search so they won't need to utilize google anymore.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#386

Post by eganist » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:48 PM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #361

gojomo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a source for these stories you keep reporting happened? Because I haven't seen a single link supporting this narrative. Additionally, the minimum age for non-agricultural workers is 14 anyway, so even then they're in the wrong and can't legally hire 13-year olds as contractors or employees. There's also several other rules in the FLSA pertaining to workers under 18 including minimum wage. I have a sneaky…

They're not even producing goods or services for Google. They're selling access to data. They're selling rights.

I've never seen that relationship result in anyone being called a contractor and I've signed too many film contracts. I don't know where OP is getting this notion.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#387

Post by djohnston » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:48 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #380

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]

What else would you expect? They removed the app that was viotating tos, the other apps were in line w apples terms.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#388

Post by gojomo » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:49 PM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #361

gojomo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a source for these stories you keep reporting happened? Because I haven't seen a single link supporting this narrative. Additionally, the minimum age for non-agricultural workers is 14 anyway, so even then they're in the wrong and can't legally hire 13-year olds as contractors or employees. There's also several other rules in the FLSA pertaining to workers under 18 including minimum wage. I have a sneaky…

A contractor can be paid for piecework: compare Mechanical Turk. (And, the actual labor required to install the app, and answer any questionnaires, was probably on the order of "minutes" rather than "hours" – and thus compensated at far above "minimum wage".)

Here you can see a VentureBeat reporter – and one who is actually a member of the California State Bar of Attorneys – raise some of the same questions as I have:

https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/31/the-odd-reason-apple-kill...

Late in this article, you can see Facebook's statement that all minors who participated did so with signed parental consent forms:

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-paying-teens-to-install-a-re...

Facebook's statement: "Key facts about this market research program are being ignored. Despite early reports, there was nothing ‘secret’ about this; it was literally called the Facebook Research App. It wasn’t ‘spying’ as all of the people who signed up to participate went through a clear on-boarding process asking for their permission and were paid to participate. Finally, less than 5 percent of the people who chose to participate in this market research program were teens. All of them with signed parental consent forms."

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#389

Post by slantaclaus » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:49 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #383

afterburner wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem that clear to me who has the upper hand. Maybe Apple likes getting those billions? What if Google doesn't mind losing it's primo spot on Safari?

I suspect, though I am no expert, that Google would mind losing its primo spot on Safari.

So would I.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#390

Post by 3xblah » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

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…

Let's say you're using a Google API like Maps, and you snapshot sections of their maps and store them on your computer so you can access them anytime without making API calls.

This would sure save a lot of unnecessary network usage and bandwidth charges, not to mention it would be useful when you do not have network connectivity.

What is the reason if any why users should be prohibited from doing this?