Another horror story of Apple's totalitarian control. Some people say that what Big Apple is doing is necessary for their security and privacy needs. This sort of blind trust, while incurable, waits for a major scandal to kill itself.
Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
411–420 of 667 posts
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#412I 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.
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-...
To be fair, they also paid Mozilla tons to be the default search engine on Firefox and that didn’t work out so well for Firefox.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
See my other comment in this thread about the ineffectiveness of blanket cynicism to either effect change or make you appear so, so smart.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.
It's called "siri suggested website" or "siri knowledge" when I search in Safari.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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 peop…
In safari, when you enter terms into the search bar, the "google suggestions" is separate from "siri knowledge" or "siri suggested website" which they surface at the top. It looks like Apple generates that independent of google
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#416Let’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.
This is Apple, where people pay more to have LESS features.
They are anti consumer and anti developer, buying from them is bad capitalism.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Here's Apple's Enterprise terms definition of "Permitted Users":
“Permitted Users” means employees and contractors of Your Permitted Entity who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
If the research panel subjects were under a written agreement to only use the app in the manner it was intended – such as keeping aspects of its use confidential, or disabling it when other non-compensated others were using their devices – doesn't that match the definition? Or are you claiming some other "circular" bootstrapping of extra fuzzy limitations on what "Permitted Users" are?
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> you entered in a contract with the app developer
... wat? No, I didn't. It's easy to imagine I "must have", but in fact there's no signature, no negotiation nor in many cases any consideration.
Ah, but you say: I must have signed a contract to use the app store that I downloaded the app from, and that must constrain me to honor the terms of the app that I downloaded, which is constrained by Apple's contract with the developer.
Except, no, I didn't do that either. The whole thing is a house of cards. There is absolutely no principle behind this regime, it's just something we've all come to accept because it's technically possible and because "usually" the power granted to hardware vendors hasn't been abused.
But it has bad side effects too, and it's really important that we as a community not lose sight of the fact that locked down devices are really, really bad.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If the washing machine was internet connected, then yes. If not, I'd still like the JTAG interface intact.
Now, _will_ I do that? Probably not, but my opinion is that as the owner of the device, I should have the ability to do so if I so choose.
Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But Google already broke Apple's TOS, so it seems like Apple still has grounds to revoke their license.