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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#401

Post by sonnyblarney » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:58 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…

"I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out."

Because there should be no 'terms' as to what software you can install on your devices.

BMW can make 'terms' so that if you mess with your audio system, it's not under warranty, but otherwise it's your car.

Also - 'the terms' are never very clear, and they can change on a dime.

Apple feeling some competitive heat? 'Just change the terms'!

Consider the collusion opportunities:

You want to use an Android - you have to give everything to Google. Don't like the terms? Apple colludes and does the same!

All of this is starting to get very close to anti-competitive kind of stuff, both between the big powers - and among consumers.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#402

Post by 51lver » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

politician wrote: post #379

51lver wrote: post #343

Earlier 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…

Do you run your own firmware on the baseband processor?

I play in firmware whenever I have the opportunity, absolutely. SPI is fun!

Do you?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#403

Post by ehsankia » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

_underfl0w_ wrote: post #398

vilhelm_s wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think so, the article linked talks about the other ways the program worked. That specific one refers to the free router they would send users. That has nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#404

Post by gorkish » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:00 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #138

gorkish wrote: post #74

What I want to know is why these companies are using the same cert to sign apps with widely differing uses and security profiles. It seems to me that they should have a number of enterprise signing certs for each use case such as internal beta, external beta, internal utility, external utility, whatever. If the companies are signing all of their apps under the same cert then it's kind of on them for being stupid to s…

There are terms and conditions that apply to the enterprise cert which are different than those of the standard developer cert. Some of the conditions are relaxed (e.g. wrt the lack of oversight on what you are pushing to your enterprise users) but your enterprise only gets one cert that covers all apps you distribute with these relaxed terms and conditions. If one of your developers pisses in the pool by using the c…

OK I did not understand they only issued one cert.

Still, with a company the size of Google you'd still think they would have multiple certs under different legal entities even if they werent doing anything wrong.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#405

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:00 AM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #385

ChuckMcM wrote: post #131

Earlier 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.

Siri isn't a search engine, it is a front end to a search engine[1]. That used to be Bing but now it is Google (see: http://fortune.com/2017/09/25/google-bing-default-iphone/)

There was a time when the Siri folks approached Blekko (which was an actual search engine with its own index, crawler, and ranking Etc. to discuss partnering with Apple (personally I think they should have bought us :-)) But, according to people who should know, there was a cultural mental block at Apple about providing web services at the time. The biggest thing like that they had done was Apple Maps and it was a 'mixed' success. Apple didn't see itself as being a search company.

I used to point out that Microsoft had a phone (Nokia), an operating system (Windows Phone), and a search engine. Google had a phone (Nexus), an operating system (Android), and a search engine. Apple had a phone (iPhone) and an operating system (iOS).

Since that time Microsoft dropped the OS and phone, and Apple never did build a real search engine.

[1] More precisely it is a front end to a simple knowledge base, a local index of things on your device, and when those things are exhausted an internet search engine.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#406

Post by askafriend » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:00 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #396

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…

It’s more about a single massive company having such in-depth control over billions of personal mobile devices. That’s a worrisome situation.

There are 2 massive companies, not a single one and Google has far more marketshare globally with Android.

Details matter. Don’t leave them out.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#407

Post by politician » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

51lver wrote: post #402

politician wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you run your own firmware on the baseband processor?

I play in firmware whenever I have the opportunity, absolutely. SPI is fun! Do you?

I don't; but the world is a better place because of people that have that skillset.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#408

Post by gorkish » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

megy wrote: post #263

gorkish wrote: post #74

What I want to know is why these companies are using the same cert to sign apps with widely differing uses and security profiles. It seems to me that they should have a number of enterprise signing certs for each use case such as internal beta, external beta, internal utility, external utility, whatever. If the companies are signing all of their apps under the same cert then it's kind of on them for being stupid to s…

> It seems to me that they should have a number of enterprise signing certs for each use case such as internal beta, external beta, internal utility, external utility, whatever. Then you need each user to install each cert.

For actual enterprise users you probably have a distribution profile set up and are pushing them out anyway. For outside users, they would selectively install the cert for the app they use one by one. Anyway it still strikes me as poor operational practices whether or not they were going to do anything nefarious.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#409

Post by mrep » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #186

beerlord wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain how Facebook or Google hiring testers willing to expose 100% of their personal usage via an opt-in, paid program impacts consumers? Why should we 'applaud' Apple for this? Isn't it perfectly reasonable for companies like Google and Facebook to run deep user testing?

If you agree that privacy has a certain value (and Google and Facebook obviously do which is why they paid for invading it) then it’s just a matter of degree from this to selling your kidney. The argument is somewhat moot, anyway. Apple has simply decided that privacy is a tenet of their value proposition, that value is reflected in their contacts granting in-house certificates, and these companies broke the terms of…

> Apple has simply decided that privacy is a tenet of their value proposition,

Yeah, that's just marketing. If they really cared, they wouldn't accept a 9 billion dollar payout per year to make Google the default search engine for IOS.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#410

Post by SteveNuts » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

3xblah wrote: post #390

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?

Because they don't own the pictures, plain and simple.