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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#561

Post by mithr » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #469

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe this is actually only true under very specific circumstances -- namely, enterprise certificates, which are used to distribute apps directly to employee devices, without going through the app store. If they decide to revoke a regular developer certificate, the apps already distributed through it are not affected in any way.

They can control which apps can and cannot run as long as those apps are intended for internal use by enterprises. That seems reasonable imo, given that these apps are also not subject to any approval process.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#562

Post by 3xblah » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #517

3xblah wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your reasoning. The question is why every time the user wants to look at a map she needs to let Google know, using computer network access for which the user must pay. Paper maps or maps stored on physical media do not have this requirement. The map company may "own the map" but the purchaser can look at the map anytime she wants, without any ongoing expense to keep the map company abreast of her trave…

Users wouldn't be prohibited from doing this for much the same reason people aren't prohibited from making personal copies of pages from books they own. If you take a picture of Google Maps and then host it on your website without approval/paying Google and get caught you'll be hearing from their copyright lawyer.

If the website can be accessed by others.

I could take a picture of a map and share it on my LAN via httpd so all my computers can access it. I am the only user on the LAN.

It is not the "website" aspect that would implicate copyright, it is the redistribution, e.g., via a website on the public internet.

My original question is being misunderstood. It is not about copyright or what rights Google has in maps. It is a question about why Google attempts to force users to contact them every time the user looks at a map.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#563

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:30 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #366

briandear wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things don't have "terms". Technically correct. But software running on "things" has terms. It's called a license. When you buy a movie, you don't own the film. You own the right to use that film in accordance with the license.

You're conflating things. Your example is about copyright, not licenses. Copyright doesn't constrain use, it constrains distribution (though there's a parallel argument there about DRM and things like DVD region codes, etc...). The question you're sidestepping is whether a license can say "you can't run your own software on your own thing". Obviously it can be implemented to do so given the way computers work, but it…

It can.

IBM has had contracts for decades that govern use of your software on the hardware you bought from them. You buy CPU hours or the right to use a certain amount of the computer for a specific timeframe. One place I worked at had a mainframe that they could not use for production workloads unless a disaster declaration was made.

They’ve been litigated and are valid.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#564

Post by watertom » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:30 AM UTC

IF you really want to get scared about content theft, you should read the terms of service for Grammerly. Their plug in scans everything data input window and by using the service you agree to the following:

"By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services."

If you were to write a book online using Grammerly they would have the full rights to what you wrote, and they could sell it themselves and not pay you a cent.

If you work for a company that uses Grammerly any IP typed into a windowd monitored by Grammerly also becomes their property.

Two years ago I looked into an enterprise license because I had so many employees using it, after reading the terms of service and speaking with their General Counsesl where he essentially gave the "my way or the highway speech","we own it all, and we can do what we want with it" I scrubbed the software and plugins from all our company computers.

Run from Grammerly

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#565

Post by pertymcpert » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:30 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #373

eganist wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids as young as 13 were sought for this. They can't sign a contract. They can't become contractors. Why do you keep fighting this? It doesn't even seem like devil's advocate anymore. :/ --- it's anyone "under contract". It's not. I'm not an employment lawyer, but that's definitely not true. At all. Under any circumstances. If you need help with it, check this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-v…

That's false: minors can enter a contract with parental permission, and some of the coverage has Facebook saying they had parental permission for all underage participants. But further, even if it was a violation if minors were involved, that'd leave open the question of whether use by contracted adults was compliant under the terms. (And supposedly the Google app wasn't offered to minors.) And, paid research subject…

You're embarrassing yourself.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#566

Post by stetrain » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #513

djohnston wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you expect? They removed the app that was viotating tos, the other apps were in line w apples terms.

They revoked Google's certificate after they'd already taken down their app. This was supposed to be punishment for crossing the line; apparently it was just a fluffy PR move.

Revoking the certificate deals with the apps that have already been signed with that certificate. Google taking it down doesn't remove it from the devices where it has already been installed or prevent it being distributed by other means. Revoking the certificate does.

In both cases Apple has reached an agreement to issue new enterprise certs for both companies. They can now use those certs for their approved purposes. If Apple finds that those certs are being used for disallowed activity they can revoke them again.

I don't really see any issue with that.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#567

Post by hesarenu » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

zapzupnz wrote: post #119

nostrademons wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android has 85% of the worldwide smartphone market. Apple doesn't exactly have the upper hand in the relationship, but they have enough leverage to make it sting if they decide not to cooperate and to force a reasonable settlement. In my mind, a reasonable settlement includes not installing spyware on users' iPhones through the enterprise development program, so it looks like they're doing precisely that.

> Android has 85% of the worldwide smartphone market I think a mistake to make here is thinking that Apple gives a toss.

Maybe they should exist China and don’t give up keys to iCloud to Chinese govt.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#568

Post by hesarenu » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

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.

With focus on privacy Apple successfully reducing users wanting freedom. The marketing now seems to indicate that if you want freedom then you loose privacy.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#569

Post by mathnmusic » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:40 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #558

ajross wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook and Google did sign it and distributed their software based on it. I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not talking about how Facebook and Google's spy kits were licensed to the end users or about their compliance with Apple's own vendor license. I was pointing out that the principle here is that I (and Facebook and Google) should have the ability to write and distribute software for you (and me…

What kind of principle is that it without rules? Free speech doesn’t allow libel and slander. Free assembly doesn’t allow riots. Without a framework for meaningful justice, the high minded principle is just a race to the bottom. I should be able to have the freedom to choose a platform where I have some protection against the various bad actors out there. Without Apple, the only options we have is non-participation,…

It's not "without rules". The rules are just democratically determined (i.e. laws).

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#570

Post by kd0amg » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:42 AM UTC

aasasd wrote: post #548

burtonator wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data wars is an understatement. Facebook is AMAZINGLY litigious on its data. Do this. Create a fake company and say you wrote a spider to index Facebook public profile data and that you have like say 100GB .... Watch how fast you get sued by Facebook. Mind you this is public data that EVERYONE can see...

> public data that EVERYONE can see The entire concept of law is based on the premise that not everything that is physically possible should be permitted.

The web makes things interesting in that OP's hypothetical company only has that data because Facebook willingly gives it to everyone who asks. It would be obviously wrong if they were using some exploit to trick Facebook's servers into divulging secrets.