3 ms·

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 (a

by 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

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.