Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 667 posts

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#461

Post by philwelch »

blhack wrote: post #214
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…

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.

So jailbreak it. Meanwhile, Apple should be able to ship whatever operating system it thinks its users want, and those users should be able to keep it if they want.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#462

Post by [deleted] »

robertAngst wrote: post #416
blhack wrote: 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.

This is Apple, where people pay more to have LESS features. They are anti consumer and anti developer, buying from them is bad capitalism.

[deleted]

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#463

Post by RandomBK »

SubuSS wrote: post #446
RandomBK wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

how does connectivity matter in relation to ability to custom program?

On second thought, it doesn't. I just wanted a easy way to distinguish complex IoT devices from simpler ones.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#464

Post by AndrewKemendo »

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.

Not sure what kind of "in-depth control" you're referencing.

This change did nothing to individual phones.

This simply prevents two organizations from deploying applications to phones with specific certificates. That's all.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#465

Post by bastawhiz »

pier25 wrote: post #210
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'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 you're sharing your apps with customers for very benign purposes, I doubt they'd care. For instance, if you were giving customers access to your business's data or some sort of internal app that provides functionality that you wouldn't want to make public. That seems very reasonable, and might not even be outside the ToS (IANAL, and I haven't read them).

In both Google and Facebook's cases, they were using it to distribute apps to the public at large (i.e., users with whom they have no business relationship) simply because they couldn't get the apps into the app store to begin with because they would otherwise violate Apple's rules. So not only were they flagrantly disregarding the ToS of their enterprise certs, they were doing so in order to violate Apple's rules for app distribution. Less than great.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#466

Post by Legogris »

SubuSS wrote: post #357
driverdan wrote: post #291

Earlier 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…

JTAG interfaces on washing machines are not that uncommon, so this is absolutely a thing.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#467

Post by emiliosic »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #362
driverdan wrote: post #291

Earlier 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.

And you can. You just can’t do what you want with your _customer’s_ device, according to Apple’s TOS.

However you could get a developer license and load anything you want on your phone. Granted it's not for everybody, but if you're so incline to sideload apps on your phone you can pretend to be a developer (Meaning you just need to know enough to use the tools available, not in a demeaning way).

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#468

Post by abtinf »

taurath wrote: post #252
Despegar wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're Facebook or Google you're used to being able to dictate terms to others. But there's always a bigger fish and in this case it's Apple. They're outraged because they have no recourse. What they usually do to users or partners, dictate take-it-or-leave-it terms, is being done to them. They can't even complain to antitrust regulators because Apple is only lord of its own kingdom (which doesn't have market domi…

There's plenty of recourse - politics-like fights in the court of public opinion. Nice vulnerability you've got there, it'd be a shame if it started to go to the press instead of being disclosed to you first.

Such an action would result extraordinary liability for a company. Public discovery would likely lead to consumer lawsuits, shareholders suits, replacement of the CEO, and shuffling of the board of directors. Not to mention possible criminal/civil penalties that pierce the corporate veil.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#469

Post by manigandham »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #464
manigandham wrote: post #396

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.

Not sure what kind of "in-depth control" you're referencing. This change did nothing to individual phones. This simply prevents two organizations from deploying applications to phones with specific certificates. That's all.

They can control what happens on your phones and affect what apps can and cannot run. That's rather invasive.
Post reply on HN