611–620 of 667 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sure about that? IIRC this came as part of the combined developer program in 2015.
Yup. I side loaded an app yesterday onto my phone running iOS 8.4.1.
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 agree that Google & FB violated the terms of the agreement they had with Apple. I think an interesting question is: What is Apple's best move from here? I would suggest that Apple should leave Google/ FB blocked for ~1-2 weeks, to remind them who's boss on the iOS platform. However, I would argue it'd be smart for them to switch them back on after that- there's a chance that this looks anticompetitive to regulators…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything that smells anticompetitive is kind of a dangerous dance- by preventing two of their largest competitors from developing on their platform I think they'd be inviting some regulatory scrutiny (even though FB/ Goog DID violate the agreement).
Do the internal apps at Facebook compete with the internal apps at Apple?
- Utilities that are only useful to employees of those companies (cafeteria menus, shuttle schedules, resources for salespeople on the go, etc.).
- Pre-release/testing (aka dogfood) versions of the apps they distribute to the public, for employees to use and find bugs on before they make it out to normal users.
Neither of those are pools that Apple wants to play in.
...and I guess there's a third category:
- Apps used gain "competitive intelligence" and spy on users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1099s are only required if more than $600 is paid in a year. You are a "contractor" if you are providing services under a contract. A contract exists whenever there is a definitive agreement to exchange valuable considerations – even in the absence of a written, signed contract. But the sign-up for these apps might have included an explicit "signing" phase! (It's even possible that FB/Google asked for participants' S…
Apply some common sense here. A contractor charges money for their time. $20/mth is what I’ve read they were paid. That means anything more than 2 hours of work is breaking minimum wage laws.
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 object to them doing it, but I do object to the fact that they have the ability to do it. IMO, it is very, very wrong that Apple is judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Also, in today’s world, this potentially could be disastrous, not only for the company affected, but also for the world at large, for example if Google depends on internal apps for informing employees about emergencies such as “hacking l…
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…
Would you be ok if Google blacklisted your domain in the Chrome browser for violating those mapping API terms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't seem that clear to me who has the upper hand. Maybe Apple likes getting those billions? What if Google doesn't mind losing it's primo spot on Safari?
I suspect, though I am no expert, that Google would mind losing its primo spot on Safari.
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…
Once the reasoning boils down to offense I know I am dealing with either intentional hostility or stupidity. Regardless of which of those is the problem I stop wasting energy thinking about it.
For people confused or further offended by this sentiment I suggest reading Principles by Ray Dalio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And what about the manufacturer? Why should it be their legal responsibility to satisfy your whims for programmable interfaces?
Not to mention what you're mentioning that what you're suggesting will make the iPhone incredibly insecure.
Big companies should be treated the same way as small developers. I'm glad Apple applies the rules to everyone :-)