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

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#651

Post by kd0amg » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

Zanni wrote: post #640

landryraccoon wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge making an HTTP GET request and then receiving a document does not involve agreeing to any TOS, implicitly or otherwise. If the server didn’t want to send the data over an authenticated channel, then why does it send the data?

My mailbox opens and closes for my mailman to collect outgoing mail and deposit incoming mail. But anyone can open it. That doesn't mean I want them to, or that they are allowed to. But if my mailbox doesn't want to allow access to private information, then why does it open for unauthorized individuals? Because physically securing it would be a pain in the ass, most people are honest, and if I can keep my mail safe t…

A request is communication with certain semantic content, which pulling on a mailbox handle lacks. There is no general understanding among people nor specific agreement between you and some other party that pulling on your mailbox handle is how to ask you for access to your correspondence.

This is not the case for HTTP. A network protocol is an agreement about the meaning of certain clusters of bytes sent over a network. When someone operates an HTTP server, a reasonable person could conclude that they take HTTP messages to mean what HTTP says they mean. A lot of cases get more interesting because there is also something generally understood to mean, "Please don't access the following resources by automated scraping, independently of whether my server decides to grant those requests."

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#652

Post by hnnh44 » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #454

hnnh44 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your argument as a whole. My device is little more to me than something to run a web browser. I despise native apps. Facebook and Googles apps can - and should IMO - be run from a browser without crossing over into my personal contacts and photos. Apple has zero authority over who I contact or what content I access over the web. With any luck, this drives development back towards the web. I haven't ha…

What are you disagreeing with? I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts and gave an opinion of the consequences of those actions.

> there isn't a software distribution channel apart from the one sanctioned from up high.

I'm disagreeing with the premise that you have to develop for their platforms and distribute for it. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. While there may be some apps that _couldnt_ operate on the web, 99% of apps don't fall into this.

Facebook. Instagram. WhatsApp. Gmail. Google maps. Pinterest. These can all be done in a mobile friendly way in browser. They're intentionally not done because of "performance" and the fact that apps want deeper access to the device.

I don't want any or those apps getting access to my GPS. Or my files. Or my contacts. Id rather take additional steps to upload a picture, or type in my "from" address rather than auto-GPS.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#653

Post by eganist » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #625

josho wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it could easily be less than 2 hours of effort per month to install/update the app and answer occasional questionnaires. But even if, outlandishly, a minimum wage violation, if they’re being paid under a contract, they’re ‘contractors’. (And if they’re under any sort of confidentiality agreement or other conditions on their app usage, they fit under the Apple terms’ concepts of “Permitted Users” and “Internal Use…

They're selling rights to data. They're not producing work or materials for hire. Anywhere I or anyone else has made this point you haven't responded.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#654

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 3:06 PM UTC

hnnh44 wrote: post #652

cptskippy wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you disagreeing with? I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts and gave an opinion of the consequences of those actions.

> there isn't a software distribution channel apart from the one sanctioned from up high. I'm disagreeing with the premise that you have to develop for their platforms and distribute for it. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. While there may be some apps that _couldnt_ operate on the web, 99% of apps don't fall into this. Facebook. Instagram. WhatsApp. Gmail. Google maps. Pinterest. These can all be done in a mobi…

I was speaking in specifically about native applications and not Web Browser based applications. Taking what I said out of context to get on your soap box and expose the dangers native applications is disingenuous and doesn't add credence to your opinion.

You're setting your argument up for failure before you even present it when it's foundation is a clear and intentional misinterpretation of someone else's words.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#655

Post by mikeryan » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #412

jdietrich wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a mixed bag, but those fees from Google have been the primary source of revenue and supported the Mozilla Foundation for a some time. Ultimately I think the Mozilla Foundation is in a better position with those revenues then without.

From "The State of Mozilla 2017" https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/11/27/state-of-mozilla-20...

Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the deal negotiated with Google in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath which required ongoing payments to Mozilla that remain the subject of litigation.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#656

Post by morpheuskafka » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

kngspook wrote: post #608

morpheuskafka wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employees would each have to spend $100 on a developer membership (sharing them is a good way to get more revokes).

No, that's not necessarily for loading an app on to your device. It's only necessary for broader distribution.

You can only sideload up to a certain number of apps (3 IIRC), only for seven days at a time, and only using certain APIs (cannot for example use notifications), all of which would pose serious limitations.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#657

Post by driverdan » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

I don't use a washing machine controller as a general purpose computing device. I don't install apps on a washing machine and would never buy one that had that feature. It's not a reasonable comparison.

That said, I doubt washing machine microcontrollers use signed code. It's easier to modify them than your phone which is completely backwards.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#658

Post by gojomo » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #649

gojomo wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. (And, it's interesting that his resume reports him as active through 2017.) But still, a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant, compared to anonymous commenters who are just insisting by repetition "but that's not a 'contractor'!" Is it your reasoned argument that an indiv…

> Not really disingenuous; from looking at his resume, I hadn't noticed his bar membership had expired. Ok, I'll remove you from the disingenuous. He stays though because he should definitely mention it on his CV. > a legal degree, one-time certification, and some legal practice are kind of relevant Yep, he's definitely probably got more standing than anonymous commenters. But that's a low bar. He didn't practice con…

"Quite clear" is not an argument, it's an empty assertion.

IANAL, but I know the rough outlines of US contract and employment law as a frequent party to contracts, occasionally to disputes, and as a US person who has both contracted others and been a contract worker.

If you have a contract (which doesn't even have to be written), you're a contractor. Full stop. And, an agreement to provide payment in return for performing certain actions (like installing an app, leaving it running, answering questionnaires, maintaining confidentiality, etc) is a contract, even if it's a clickthrough agreement. Ergo, compensated research panelists are 'contractors' in the eyes of the law.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#659

Post by CodeWriter23 » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

kngspook wrote: post #592

emiliosic wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think you even need a developer license. IIRC, I think if you just plug your iPhone into Xcode, you can load whatever code you want on to it.

You don't have to pay but you do have to register to get to the tools download.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#660

Post by xd1936 » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #533

xd1936 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company-on-company support is an entirely different thing from customer support. These are developers with direct lines to one another. Google isn't filing a support ticket at an Apple Store.

Tell that to GSuite customers. The service can be... spotty.

I am one of said customers.

I think our support that we get is probably quite different than the support Apple gives to the developers of Google and Facebook, who make most of the top 10 apps downloaded from the App Store.