Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
IIRC dev certs expire quickly, by design
Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
391–400 of 667 posts
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#392Earlier 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
It's as central an example of mansplaining as I've ever seen; Mansplaining just means "I'm too stupid to understand your point, so I'm going to throw in a non sequitur gendered insult".
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
No root cert was involved. Apps built with an enterprise distribution profile, once correctly signed, can be installed on any device. The limit is that it must be an employee’s device. This last rule, broken by GOOG and FB, is exclusively enforced through legal actions.
The root certificate was for intercepting traffic, not installing the app.
Sorry! Missed the point entirely
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a developer with a Mac and the knowledge how to do this. That is a very limited subset of iPhone users.
People who want to run their own code on their smartphone are probably already a very limited subset of all users.
If it were possible, many more companies would sidestep the app store like how Fortnite did that with the android play store.
The only reason Fortnite used Apple's app store is because Apple has made it practically impossible to side load apps.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Users with spyware should be dealt with by their admins.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#396Let’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…
It’s more about a single massive company having such in-depth control over billions of personal mobile devices. That’s a worrisome situation.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So they’re going to build their own search engine? Siri doesn’t do anything outside of your own data.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so they should be fully understanding why Apple enforced them. Furthermore, the terrifying level of abuse of the Screenwise program has been going on a really, really long time: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/google-paying-users-... It's hard to tell exactly how long the iOS app has been available, but I found version 7.x of the Android app all the way back in 2015 on APKmirror (it's archive only goes ba…
How is that "terribly abusive"? People are getting paid to participate, to me that seems like a higher level of informed consent and more ethical than other forms of user tracking.
I believe the parent was referring to Google having "abused" Apple's Enterprise Cert program - which is the central crux of both this article and the majority of commentary here on HN.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#399Earlier 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…
> I signed no contract.
True, but you entered in a contract with the app developer and they are bound by one with Apple.
Apple’s right to act on iOS devices is in virtue of them being a service provider to google more than the company that sold you your phone
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
how is this possibly mansplaining
It's as central an example of mansplaining as I've ever seen; Mansplaining just means "I'm too stupid to understand your point, so I'm going to throw in a non sequitur gendered insult".
At least as I understand it, it more means explaining things to the person you're talking to as if they don't know anything about the conversation topic, even though you have no particular reason to do so.
It doesn't necessarily have to be done by a man or directed at a woman. That's just how it tends to go. And obvs is a bit more fraught when it is going that way.