Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

theverge.com

421–430 of 667 posts

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Leaving aside whether that's something to reasonably get upset about (how are people supposed to know exactly which facts are known to every single reader of their comment?), the way you're describing it seems pretty identical to the now-mostly-anachronistic expression of being "jewed" out of some money. The fact that the target of the slur doesn't have to be Jewish doesn't make it better; in fact, it kind of makes it worse. Hell, at least my example has its roots in a time when casual racism/sexism were accepted _pro forma_, and the term is slowly dying out. It seems to me your example is even less excusable.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#422
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.

Since Gbus is presumably developed internally, what prevents the employees from installing the program via Xcode?

60,000+ employees makes this unrealistic.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#423
post #29
post #4

I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them. You may very well think that they're using their power sparingly and benevolently, but who is to say that will be the case next time around?

There is nothing new about this model, of selling a device with optional software bought later from the vendor. It’s how games consoles have worked, from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Switch, even cars work this way with optional after market ‘performance packs’ that are just software tweaks. VTech used sell toys like mini laptops for children, with little software ‘disks’ you could buy with educational games on the…

True, but to be fair, phones are a way bigger market and 1 of the practically only 2 operating systems is doing it which is why it is such a huge complaint.

I don't complain about my Xbox because I can buy a computer that can run most the same games where I can do anything I want (not to say I don't want to be able to do anything but phones are a much bigger market with only 1 real competitor which does allow you to side load apps)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, I'm not saying this isn't warranted necessarily, just that it's punitive not preventative.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#425

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.

Yes it is, but if you're worried about that then this is a valuable lesson on why you should steer clear of apple products. Google knew this was the case and took the risk anyway, so they only have themselves to blame.

It's not just apple either. Using facebook, gmail, anything in the cloud and/or anything hosted, basically anything not under your control exposes you to the same risk. Most people don't care until it becomes a problem for them and by then it's too late.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#426
post #339

Earlier 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.

Facebook and Google did sign it and distributed their software based on it.

> It's not like Facebook and Google were hacking their way in here.

They literally did (in the legal sense).

But of course, it's a battle of two evils here. Both sides can just nuke each other if you ask me, I won't miss them ;)

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#427
post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

You didn't, but the users of apps discussed here did. There's no App Store involved.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google blocking this kind of thing in android would be quite hard to near impossible...

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android isn't a "totally open platform". By default you can only install apps from the Play Store and Google exercices a fair amount of editorial control over apps.

On the latest android its a huge pain to install fdroid. The only way I could find was installing the system fdroid package through the recovery thing because android doesn't just allow you to install 3rd party apps, you have to get an existing app to request permission to install 3rd party apps and none of the default ones do so unless you already have fdroid you can't install it. Really unethical.

On my Pixel 3: Settings / Apps & Notifications / Advanced / Special app access. From there you can whitelist, e.g., Chrome to allow the installation of 3rd party apps.

IIRC Chrome even asks you if you want to enable that setting once you download an APK file.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#430
post #343
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…

I mostly agree - except people want Apple products for other reasons too.

There are quite a few Apple users who like the hardware, the operating system, apps which are iOS-only, and the integration with other Apple devices - some of whom also want to run their own choice of software as well.

There's no alternative which has equivalent benefits, if that's what you're looking for.

(NB, I don't use an Apple phone personally).

Post reply on HN