8 ms·

This seems entirely legitimate. Facebook were using Apple's support for enterprise distribution based on having a corporate certificate on your device, designed

This seems entirely legitimate. Facebook were using Apple's support for enterprise distribution based on having a corporate certificate on your device, designed to allow distributing internal apps that don't make sense on the App Store proper, to distribute an app to their users - presumably because they knew it wouldn't make it through the approval process for doing distribution using TestFlight, which is what is meant to be used for this sort of app release.

epaga 8y ago
Yes, this is the optimal measured response from Apple. They're treating Facebook the way they'd treat any other company that did this. It's also a step up from the warning they gave with the whole Onovo thing. Strike two...
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  To be clear, this app that was just removed WAS just a reskinned Onavo app - same code and "ONV" class prefixes, etc.: https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090394419902197761 https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090394419902197761 Facebook got caught, and then they tried to use their enterprise cert to get around App Store review because they knew it would get rejected.
  - edraferi 8y ago
    Pathetic.
  - dabockster 8y ago
    I give it a week until Facebook starts using some sort of exploit to get Onavo onto iPhones. Probably guessing it will be a Safari exploit based on past history. That's when the real fireworks will begin.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      Please elaborate on this.
  - jug 8y ago
    Business Insider has a leaked memo and internal discussions and even many Facebook employees agree this was stupid and shooting themselves in their foot. I quote “When will we learn?”
    - abricot 8y ago
      Link: https://www.businessinsider.in/leaked-memo-facebook-scrambling-to-do-damage-control-with-pissed-employees-after-apple-blocks-its-internal-apps/articleshow/67764301.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/leaked-memo-facebook-scrambli...
- ianamartin 8y ago
  It's really not how Apple would treat any other company. Any other company would get banned from the app store permanently. I do agree that this is measured. The question is how long, if ever, before Apple grants them a new cert. If Apple lets them back into the Enterprise Developer Program, this is a few days of inconvenience. If they keep them out, this effectively kills their apps on the iOS app store because FB can't effectively work on the apps internally.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    I do hope they'll let them suffer for a few days.
    - magduf 8y ago
      I hope they'll drag it on indefinitely, and maybe the two will have a giant war of sorts. This is one of those cases where I don't like either side, so I'm happy to see them having a destructive fight.
    - jug 8y ago
      I hope they get an automated reply where they can apply for a new certificate and await approval. Then being put in some queue for a month.
  - Illniyar 8y ago
    It does not preclude test flight or just installing it through a developer machine. The vast majority of app developers don't use an enterprise account to test beta releases.
    - erobbins 8y ago
      Facebook's development process for iOS (and android) is dependent on having most/all employees dogfood beta releases and report bugs that can be ignored. This breaks that pretty badly, and now users in the wild will have to report bugs before they can be ignored.
rock_hard 8y ago
Wonder what’s gonna happen to Google and others who distribute their research apps the same way? https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573812?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346 https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757381...
- zwily 8y ago
  I’m guessing this will stop, unless Google has a special agreement in place.
- kefabean 8y ago
  I’m guessing Apple has more to lose getting in to a battle with Google. There’s a fair degree of co-dependency between the two organisations.
  - zuck9 8y ago
    How so? A world without Google would have shitty search initially but would exist perfectly fine. iOS/Windows, Safari/Firefox, Apple Maps, iCloud Mail/Outlook, Vimeo already exist and soon a decent search engine would surface.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      Also a significant proportion of searches are being addressed by Apple's Search service. And Apple has shown with Maps that they are capable of building a decent competitor to Google.
    - mtgx 8y ago
      Well, for one, Google pays Apple a ridiculous $12 billion a year for having Google search by default in Safari: http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng... I'm guessing Tim Cook is not ready to give that up in the name of "fighting for privacy." Otherwise he'd have already made DuckDuckGo the default search engine. There's no doubt in my mind Steve Jobs would've kicked Google out, but Tim Cook is much more of a bean counter to make such a move.
3chelon 8y ago
It seems Apple have been trying to occupy the moral high ground on privacy for quite a long time now. It's relatively easy for them to differentiate themselves from the other big tech companies, because Apple's products cost so much that, for once, you are not the product. Unless FB and Big G start charging for their services, I don't see how they can change their behaviour.
- Cyclone_ 8y ago
  Very true, I think that even if Fb and G were to start charging it wouldn't work since people are so used to them being free
  - ranchpredictor 8y ago
    Would you even believe them? Haha
- reaperducer 8y ago
  It seems Apple have been trying to occupy the moral high ground on privacy for quite a long time now It's easy to occupy the high ground when everyone else is in the gutter.
  - 3chelon 8y ago
    That is a very good point.
  - agigao 8y ago
    good one.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  Even if Facebook starts to charge for their service I wouldn't touch any of their properties with a ten foot pole. I assume that they gladly take my cash to then nevertheless sell me out to the highest bidder. They knowingly stole money from kids (via their parents credit cards) and did so knowingly and for years. They did just about everything possible to keep the stolen loot, including trying to automate their disputes on charge backs. [1] This carcinogenic pustule of a company is unredeemable and is unable to learn anything. Money and growth is the only goal to be achieved. Fuck all consequences! Why would I ever trust such a company with money and believe they're not lying to my face. [1] https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-game-playing-kids-and-their-parents-out-of-money/ https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-...
philipodonnell 8y ago
I wonder if the $20 payment was so that Facebook could plausibly claim they _were_ distributing internal apps to employees? I'm sure "employees" is defined loosely enough in the agreement to include "contractors", and the bar there is pretty low, getting paid pretty much makes you a contractor.
- bashinator 8y ago
  Minors generally not legally able to be held to a contract.
- r00fus 8y ago
  I'd bet if you look at their internal FIN system these "employees" weren't listed as 1099 vendors.
bogomipz 8y ago
For someone who isn't as familiar with the mobile development can you say how do beta testing services like Applause, BetaBound and uTest differ from TestFlight? Is it just that latter are verified to be compliant with the App Store's TOS?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Yes. Other testing services which rely on enterprise distribution are technically against the rules, although Apple usually turns a blind eye to them unless they're doing something actively malicious.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    So are Applause, BetaBound and uTest be considered enterprise distribution then?
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      I have not used these services, but it's very likely that they are since that's basically how all beta testing outside of TestFlight works.
      - droussel 8y ago
        You can use Ad Hoc deployments, which is what I used to do on TestFlight before it got acquired by Apple.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        This requires registering UDIDs, right?
        droussel 8y ago
        Yes, it does. For testing, in smaller business, this is fine however as you can register up to 100 devices. Enterprise certificates were much easier to use in big enterprise thought even if they weren't really "meant" for that purpose.

epaga 8y ago

Yes, this is the optimal measured response from Apple. They're treating Facebook the way they'd treat any other company that did this. It's also a step up from the warning they gave with the whole Onovo thing. Strike two...

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
To be clear, this app that was just removed WAS just a reskinned Onavo app - same code and "ONV" class prefixes, etc.: https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090394419902197761 https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090394419902197761 Facebook got caught, and then they tried to use their enterprise cert to get around App Store review because they knew it would get rejected.
- edraferi 8y ago
  Pathetic.
- dabockster 8y ago
  I give it a week until Facebook starts using some sort of exploit to get Onavo onto iPhones. Probably guessing it will be a Safari exploit based on past history. That's when the real fireworks will begin.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Please elaborate on this.
- jug 8y ago
  Business Insider has a leaked memo and internal discussions and even many Facebook employees agree this was stupid and shooting themselves in their foot. I quote “When will we learn?”
  - abricot 8y ago
    Link: https://www.businessinsider.in/leaked-memo-facebook-scrambling-to-do-damage-control-with-pissed-employees-after-apple-blocks-its-internal-apps/articleshow/67764301.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/leaked-memo-facebook-scrambli...
ianamartin 8y ago
It's really not how Apple would treat any other company. Any other company would get banned from the app store permanently. I do agree that this is measured. The question is how long, if ever, before Apple grants them a new cert. If Apple lets them back into the Enterprise Developer Program, this is a few days of inconvenience. If they keep them out, this effectively kills their apps on the iOS app store because FB can't effectively work on the apps internally.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  I do hope they'll let them suffer for a few days.
  - magduf 8y ago
    I hope they'll drag it on indefinitely, and maybe the two will have a giant war of sorts. This is one of those cases where I don't like either side, so I'm happy to see them having a destructive fight.
  - jug 8y ago
    I hope they get an automated reply where they can apply for a new certificate and await approval. Then being put in some queue for a month.
- Illniyar 8y ago
  It does not preclude test flight or just installing it through a developer machine. The vast majority of app developers don't use an enterprise account to test beta releases.
  - erobbins 8y ago
    Facebook's development process for iOS (and android) is dependent on having most/all employees dogfood beta releases and report bugs that can be ignored. This breaks that pretty badly, and now users in the wild will have to report bugs before they can be ignored.

rock_hard 8y ago

Wonder what’s gonna happen to Google and others who distribute their research apps the same way? https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573812?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346 https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757381...

zwily 8y ago
I’m guessing this will stop, unless Google has a special agreement in place.
kefabean 8y ago
I’m guessing Apple has more to lose getting in to a battle with Google. There’s a fair degree of co-dependency between the two organisations.
- zuck9 8y ago
  How so? A world without Google would have shitty search initially but would exist perfectly fine. iOS/Windows, Safari/Firefox, Apple Maps, iCloud Mail/Outlook, Vimeo already exist and soon a decent search engine would surface.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Also a significant proportion of searches are being addressed by Apple's Search service. And Apple has shown with Maps that they are capable of building a decent competitor to Google.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Well, for one, Google pays Apple a ridiculous $12 billion a year for having Google search by default in Safari: http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng... I'm guessing Tim Cook is not ready to give that up in the name of "fighting for privacy." Otherwise he'd have already made DuckDuckGo the default search engine. There's no doubt in my mind Steve Jobs would've kicked Google out, but Tim Cook is much more of a bean counter to make such a move.

3chelon 8y ago

It seems Apple have been trying to occupy the moral high ground on privacy for quite a long time now. It's relatively easy for them to differentiate themselves from the other big tech companies, because Apple's products cost so much that, for once, you are not the product. Unless FB and Big G start charging for their services, I don't see how they can change their behaviour.

Cyclone_ 8y ago
Very true, I think that even if Fb and G were to start charging it wouldn't work since people are so used to them being free
- ranchpredictor 8y ago
  Would you even believe them? Haha
reaperducer 8y ago
It seems Apple have been trying to occupy the moral high ground on privacy for quite a long time now It's easy to occupy the high ground when everyone else is in the gutter.
- 3chelon 8y ago
  That is a very good point.
- agigao 8y ago
  good one.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
Even if Facebook starts to charge for their service I wouldn't touch any of their properties with a ten foot pole. I assume that they gladly take my cash to then nevertheless sell me out to the highest bidder. They knowingly stole money from kids (via their parents credit cards) and did so knowingly and for years. They did just about everything possible to keep the stolen loot, including trying to automate their disputes on charge backs. [1] This carcinogenic pustule of a company is unredeemable and is unable to learn anything. Money and growth is the only goal to be achieved. Fuck all consequences! Why would I ever trust such a company with money and believe they're not lying to my face. [1] https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-game-playing-kids-and-their-parents-out-of-money/ https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-...

philipodonnell 8y ago

I wonder if the $20 payment was so that Facebook could plausibly claim they _were_ distributing internal apps to employees? I'm sure "employees" is defined loosely enough in the agreement to include "contractors", and the bar there is pretty low, getting paid pretty much makes you a contractor.

bashinator 8y ago
Minors generally not legally able to be held to a contract.
r00fus 8y ago
I'd bet if you look at their internal FIN system these "employees" weren't listed as 1099 vendors.

bogomipz 8y ago

For someone who isn't as familiar with the mobile development can you say how do beta testing services like Applause, BetaBound and uTest differ from TestFlight? Is it just that latter are verified to be compliant with the App Store's TOS?

saagarjha 8y ago
Yes. Other testing services which rely on enterprise distribution are technically against the rules, although Apple usually turns a blind eye to them unless they're doing something actively malicious.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  So are Applause, BetaBound and uTest be considered enterprise distribution then?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I have not used these services, but it's very likely that they are since that's basically how all beta testing outside of TestFlight works.
    - droussel 8y ago
      You can use Ad Hoc deployments, which is what I used to do on TestFlight before it got acquired by Apple.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        This requires registering UDIDs, right?
        droussel 8y ago
        Yes, it does. For testing, in smaller business, this is fine however as you can register up to 100 devices. Enterprise certificates were much easier to use in big enterprise thought even if they weren't really "meant" for that purpose.