3 ms·

Can you quote the relevant terms? Depending on exact definitions, the people in an outside compensated "research panel" could be seen as "employed by" the comp

by gojomo 8y ago

Can you quote the relevant terms? Depending on exact definitions, the people in an outside compensated "research panel" could be seen as "employed by" the company doing the research. There's consideration being exchanged for services rendered.

wsy 8y ago
You pay employees with gift cards?
- tzs 8y ago
  I've actually suggested, not fully seriously, that my employer give us the option of taking part of our pay in Costco gift cards. A Costco member can buy and load gift cards, and then give them to a non-member, and that card will admit the non-member to Costco stores and allow them to buy things there on the card. Some of us wouldn't use Costco enough to justify buying a membership, but would like to use them occasionally, and this gift card hack would allow that.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Wouldn't that be a loophole big enough to drive a few million trucks through?
- garyb2 8y ago
  Sure would. If that would pass, I would simply create a club, let everyone join up and call them members of my organization and ship apps through it, bypassing Apple, the 30% and App Store review all in one shot. Considering how I've been treated at the hands of the iTunes support team, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Perhaps, which is why the exact terms, as they are now written or might be amended, would be interesting to know.
pcwalton 8y ago
I don't think lawyering over the terms is what's important here. Instead what matters is whether Apple thinks it is better for its business to pull Google's enterprise cert. Apple holds all the cards here. If it wants to punish Google over this, it will, and Google won't be able to do a thing about it, terms or no terms.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Apple has immense discretion here, of course. But a punitive enforcement action with potentially large spillover effects, in impairing other apps, is being discussed. Whether that's considered justified, and even whether such an action might create a legal/antitrust liability for Apple, could depend on the actual terms/definitions Apple provided. In the long run, Apple can adjust their terms subject only to a few legal and market checks. But in the short term, Apple should respect the terms they've offered, contractually, to other entities.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    I don't think antitrust is relevant in this case, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. In fact, if anyone does, it's Google, since Android accounts for 75% of mobile phones worldwide [1]. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
    - gojomo 8y ago
      Antitrust enforcement doesn't require an absolute monopoly, just abuse of market power in anti-competitive ways. Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store.
      - briandear 8y ago
        True, kind of — it depends on the definition of “market power.” There is a dominant market share test used by the courts, generally a market share over 50% is required while some courts require a much higher percentage. Here is the better explanation from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... > Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store. That irrelevant. Best Buy also has a 100% monopoly control of Best Buy stores. That doesn’t mean that Best Buy has a monopoly on consumer electronics stores, nor does Apple have a monopoly for computer app stores. True, Apple does have a monopoly when it comes to the iOS App Store.. but no more of a monopoly than Baskin Robbins has for ice cream sold by Baskin Robbins. That doesn’t mean you can’t by non-Baskin Robbins ice cream somewhere else, nor does it require Baskin Robbins to sell Hagen-Daz. If you want to be a sell your stuff at a store, you have to follow the rules of that store and pay the commission. Just like there are other places to buy computer software for a mobile device, there are other places to buy ice cream.
gojomo 8y ago
Kind of disappointing that so many people just want to downvote this thought, but no one can quote (or even seems to care about) the actual terms that Google (and Facebook) are alleged to have violated. All hail arbitrary Apple, unbound by contract or law! Save us from ourselves, Tim Cook!
- cmsj 8y ago
  This is a fairly pointless comment, but since you asked, it's Section 2.1 of https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_Agreements__Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program/Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program_License_Agreement_20181019.pdf https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_A... which you may need to be a registered Apple Developer to view. So, a relevant quote: "Apple grants you...license to.... (f) Allow Your Customers to use Your Internal Use Applications on Deployment Devices, but only (i) on Your physical premises and/or on Your Permitted Entity’s physical premises, or (ii) in other locations, provided all such use is under the direct supervision and physical control of Your Employees or Permitted Users (e.g., a sales presentation to a Customer);"
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Thanks! But, depending on the definitions of 'Employees' and 'Permitted Users' (and perhaps 'Permitted Entity'), that section's wording doesn't necessarily make the Facebook/Google use prohibited. FWIW, I am a paid-up, registered member of the Apple Developer program, but still can't access that page, as it is apparently limited only to enterprise developers. So I can't check the definitions/details myself. That limitation also helps me understand why so few, here or in the journalistic coverage I've seen, seem willing to quote the exact section violated. Those curious and willing to answer perhaps cannot access the formal wording, whereas those with the rights to access the terms may fear they'd be violating some obscure provision of their Apple agreements by merely quoting it.

by gojomo 8y ago

wsy 8y ago

You pay employees with gift cards?

tzs 8y ago
I've actually suggested, not fully seriously, that my employer give us the option of taking part of our pay in Costco gift cards. A Costco member can buy and load gift cards, and then give them to a non-member, and that card will admit the non-member to Costco stores and allow them to buy things there on the card. Some of us wouldn't use Costco enough to justify buying a membership, but would like to use them occasionally, and this gift card hack would allow that.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Wouldn't that be a loophole big enough to drive a few million trucks through?

garyb2 8y ago
Sure would. If that would pass, I would simply create a club, let everyone join up and call them members of my organization and ship apps through it, bypassing Apple, the 30% and App Store review all in one shot. Considering how I've been treated at the hands of the iTunes support team, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
gojomo 8y ago
Perhaps, which is why the exact terms, as they are now written or might be amended, would be interesting to know.

pcwalton 8y ago

I don't think lawyering over the terms is what's important here. Instead what matters is whether Apple thinks it is better for its business to pull Google's enterprise cert. Apple holds all the cards here. If it wants to punish Google over this, it will, and Google won't be able to do a thing about it, terms or no terms.

gojomo 8y ago
Apple has immense discretion here, of course. But a punitive enforcement action with potentially large spillover effects, in impairing other apps, is being discussed. Whether that's considered justified, and even whether such an action might create a legal/antitrust liability for Apple, could depend on the actual terms/definitions Apple provided. In the long run, Apple can adjust their terms subject only to a few legal and market checks. But in the short term, Apple should respect the terms they've offered, contractually, to other entities.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  I don't think antitrust is relevant in this case, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly in smartphones. In fact, if anyone does, it's Google, since Android accounts for 75% of mobile phones worldwide [1]. [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Antitrust enforcement doesn't require an absolute monopoly, just abuse of market power in anti-competitive ways. Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store.
    - briandear 8y ago
      True, kind of — it depends on the definition of “market power.” There is a dominant market share test used by the courts, generally a market share over 50% is required while some courts require a much higher percentage. Here is the better explanation from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... > Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store. That irrelevant. Best Buy also has a 100% monopoly control of Best Buy stores. That doesn’t mean that Best Buy has a monopoly on consumer electronics stores, nor does Apple have a monopoly for computer app stores. True, Apple does have a monopoly when it comes to the iOS App Store.. but no more of a monopoly than Baskin Robbins has for ice cream sold by Baskin Robbins. That doesn’t mean you can’t by non-Baskin Robbins ice cream somewhere else, nor does it require Baskin Robbins to sell Hagen-Daz. If you want to be a sell your stuff at a store, you have to follow the rules of that store and pay the commission. Just like there are other places to buy computer software for a mobile device, there are other places to buy ice cream.

gojomo 8y ago

Kind of disappointing that so many people just want to downvote this thought, but no one can quote (or even seems to care about) the actual terms that Google (and Facebook) are alleged to have violated. All hail arbitrary Apple, unbound by contract or law! Save us from ourselves, Tim Cook!

cmsj 8y ago
This is a fairly pointless comment, but since you asked, it's Section 2.1 of https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_Agreements__Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program/Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program_License_Agreement_20181019.pdf https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_A... which you may need to be a registered Apple Developer to view. So, a relevant quote: "Apple grants you...license to.... (f) Allow Your Customers to use Your Internal Use Applications on Deployment Devices, but only (i) on Your physical premises and/or on Your Permitted Entity’s physical premises, or (ii) in other locations, provided all such use is under the direct supervision and physical control of Your Employees or Permitted Users (e.g., a sales presentation to a Customer);"
- gojomo 8y ago
  Thanks! But, depending on the definitions of 'Employees' and 'Permitted Users' (and perhaps 'Permitted Entity'), that section's wording doesn't necessarily make the Facebook/Google use prohibited. FWIW, I am a paid-up, registered member of the Apple Developer program, but still can't access that page, as it is apparently limited only to enterprise developers. So I can't check the definitions/details myself. That limitation also helps me understand why so few, here or in the journalistic coverage I've seen, seem willing to quote the exact section violated. Those curious and willing to answer perhaps cannot access the formal wording, whereas those with the rights to access the terms may fear they'd be violating some obscure provision of their Apple agreements by merely quoting it.