23 ms·
Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps
- minimaxir 8y agoI called it last thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038328), but I'm legit impressed Apple went through with it. This might open the floodgates for Apple to shut down even more certs.
- smitty1110 8y agoMore than that, I think this will result in Apple being a bit less laissez faire about what companies do with their certificates. I think they may even look to change the system, maybe make it so that enterprise certificates have to register the devices they are installed on.
- noja 8y agoExactly. I expect in future you'll need to push these apps to the official app store, but have the ability to restrict who downloads them (to registered devices, or accounts - like with the Play Store beta program).
- _bxg1 8y agoI feel less vengeful satisfaction from this one, but I respect that they're applying their rules consistently. I just hope it doesn't backfire. On a totally personal level, I'd rather Facebook feel the hurt for its audacity than Apple be forced to backtrack because they made too many enemies.
- rising-sky 8y agoSimilar concerns. I think this might, in the long term, be detrimental to Apple if companies begin to revolt against their overarching, seemingly totalitarian power regardless of if the intent is noble. As mentioned in a separate Verge article- "One giant platform declared another giant platform’s market research program inappropriate, then disappeared it with a Thanos-style finger snap" also from same article, attributed to Nilay Patel "Hi, I’m the nagging voice in the back of your head pointing out that it’s pretty intense that Apple can simply decide to prevent people from running code on their phones." Edited for punctuation
- dewey 8y agoDon’t quote text with code blocks please, it’s unreadable on mobile.
- rising-sky 8y agosorry, fixed
- hinkley 8y agoI'm on a 1080p display and it's still unreadable because you get arbitrary scrollbars that have nothing to do with browser width.
- snazz 8y agoAt least on iOS, you can scroll sideways (awkwardly) to read this kind of text.
- _bxg1 8y agoYeah, I read that article. It was a pretty bad take. Apple isn't "Thanos-snapping", it's enforcing its own terms of use which are very clearly laid out. Both Facebook and Google knowingly breached those terms, and they got caught. That's all there is to it.
- izacus 8y agoSince terms of use are something Apple makes up, I don't really see the difference. Google can make the terms of use "None of our services and any kind of services deployed on Google Cloud may ever be displayed on an Apple device" and it will have the same legitimancy. I don't know why there's so many people who think putting something in a bullet point as a policy/law just makes it somehow different.
- ceejayoz 8y agoGoogle will have explicitly accepted very specific terms at a corporate, much-reviewed-by-legal level when they got their enterprise certificate. It's not a "visiting this site means you're bound by the TOS" sort of situation.
- jdietrich 8y agoIt'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-paying-over-gbp16bn-to-apple-for-two-years-as-safaris-primary-search-engine https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3063669/google-is-...
- robarr 8y agolet’s not be naives... apple is happy getting billions of dollars from google, who use this data for exactly the same thing than facebook, and it is much less transparent to the user that the opt in from the facebok app. There are no saints here even if apple has a privacy stance far better for us users than the other two parties.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y agoThat seems to be cynicism of the rather unhelpful variant. If, as you admit yourself, Apple is far better in terms of privacy, would it not be helpful, even if they are not perfect, to praise their (relative) sainthood and bury them with money? That way, they would be reward for their strategy, might double-down on it (maybe even achieving perfection in your very smart and perpetually critical eyes), and inspire others to follow their lead.
- nostrademons 8y agoAndroid has 85% of the worldwide smartphone market. Apple doesn't exactly have the upper hand in the relationship, but they have enough leverage to make it sting if they decide not to cooperate and to force a reasonable settlement. In my mind, a reasonable settlement includes not installing spyware on users' iPhones through the enterprise development program, so it looks like they're doing precisely that.
- zapzupnz 8y ago> Android has 85% of the worldwide smartphone market I think a mistake to make here is thinking that Apple gives a toss.
- RobLach 8y agoWhat's Google going to do? Make their own phone?
- matwood 8y ago> I respect that they're applying their rules consistently. Not really. If any lone developer/small company did this, Apple would have banned the whole developer account.
- seanalltogether 8y agoFor me, this is just another reason to be unhappy with the Apple distribution model. I work with IOT devices and we have enough trouble getting Apple to approve our app store releases. We need Enterprise Certs from time to time as a release valve for the inconsistent review policies that stop us from getting into the app store in a predictable manner.
- jimbokun 8y agoMaybe not a great idea to post this where an Apple employee is likely to read it? Sounds like you just confessed to violating Apple's terms.
- beerlord 8y agoCan someone explain how Facebook or Google hiring testers willing to expose 100% of their personal usage via an opt-in, paid program impacts consumers? Why should we 'applaud' Apple for this? Isn't it perfectly reasonable for companies like Google and Facebook to run deep user testing?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y agoIf you agree that privacy has a certain value (and Google and Facebook obviously do which is why they paid for invading it) then it’s just a matter of degree from this to selling your kidney. The argument is somewhat moot, anyway. Apple has simply decided that privacy is a tenet of their value proposition, that value is reflected in their contacts granting in-house certificates, and these companies broke the terms of these contracts.
- mrep 8y ago> Apple has simply decided that privacy is a tenet of their value proposition, Yeah, that's just marketing. If they really cared, they wouldn't accept a 9 billion dollar payout per year to make Google the default search engine for IOS.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y agoSee my other comment in this thread about the ineffectiveness of blanket cynicism to either effect change or make you appear so, so smart.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoBecause Apple has frivolous restrictions on what users can do on their phones, and the violators knew this ahead of time. Rules are rules. Apple is likely shooting themselves in the foot here. These companies' IT departments will no longer be able to support iOS devices for accessing intranet resources, which means no engineers will be using iOS devices as daily drivers, which means their iOS apps will fall further behind their Android apps in quality.
- 8y ago
- rhizome 8y agoOn the other hand: screw them both. They knew the terms, they have the same ones in their own ToS/Rules/etc. I'd rather Facebook feel the hurt for its audacity than Apple be forced to backtrack because they made too many enemies. In what way does Apple have anything to fear from FB or Google, or even depend on either of them at all? Where is the "force" going to come from, their users threatening to switch to Android? I don't think these incidents would be enough to lend that eventuality any weight.
- sneak 8y agoApple does not have any obligation to enforce rules consistently from the standpoint of those it enforces against. Apple should enforce when and where will sell the most hardware. Apple is a phone manufacturer, not a government. They can and should selectively enforce to promote their brand values—some of which are security and privacy.
- dombili 8y agoI don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them. You may very well think that they're using their power sparingly and benevolently, but who is to say that will be the case next time around?
- sotojuan 8y agoIn the case of Facebook, there's no judgement or moral side to take. They broke the rules Apple set when allowing Facebook to be in the App Store and use internal enterprise certificates. Objectively, Apple's behavior was fair.
- pbalau 8y agoDid they? Please think of this: is there a minimum age for internships?
- zepto 8y agoAre you suggesting there was a child labor law violation as well as a breach of contract?
- pbalau 8y agoI'm wondering if either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team. By FB legal team I mean those people that should point out when things are not legal.
- rootusrootus 8y ago> either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.
- 8y ago
- deca6cda37d0 8y agoBig companies should be treated the same way as small developers. I'm glad Apple applies the rules to everyone :-)
- oldgradstudent 8y agoWouldn't Apple close the developer account for a violation by a small developer rather than just revoking their enterprise certificate?
- Hernanpm 8y agosound like a war declaration who follows? amazon, miscrosoft...
- gilrain 8y agoIf they’re also baldly and maliciously breaking the rules? I’d hope so.
- blueboo 8y agoPositive PR hit for Apple vs minor inconvenience for competitor/client...easy decision by Apple.
- elicash 8y agoUnless Google takes action against Apple.
- untog 8y agoOn what basis? They clearly violated the rules.
- izacus 8y ago"The rules" were not given by God, government or the people. The rules were written by the same company that enforces them and Google, Facebook or anyone else can make the same type of "Rules".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- foobiekr 8y agoWho should write the rules for the Iphone platform in your view?
- evilduck 8y agoThe rules were mutually agreed upon in their enterprise account legal contract someone signed. That legal structure is acknowledged by the government and implicitly the people. If you've done business with Google or Facebook, they behave _exactly_ the same way.
- ceejayoz 8y agoGoogle doesn't need a basis to retaliate other than "we want to". Maybe they'll yank the Apple Music app from the Android app store or something.
- vlozko 8y agoI shocked and surprised that Apple went this route. At least they’re enforcing the rules consistently. My company uses enterprise certs for internal beta/QA builds and I’d hate to see Apple change this program to make things harder for those who have been following the rules.
- saagarjha 8y ago> My company uses enterprise certs for internal beta/QA builds That's exactly how they're supposed to be used, so barring rule changes you should be fine.
- zozbot123 8y agoRumor has it that Google's subsequent requests for clarification to Apple have gone entirely unanswered, save for automated messages stating that Apple's decision on this matter should be regarded as "final" and "binding", and that no further statement from Apple should be expected.
- berbec 8y agoMaybe Google and Apple's "decision is final" bots can work it out between them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tomschwiha 8y agoI'd love to see the Google AI [1] automatically calling Apple customer support "Hello there my app is not starting. May you help me please?". Is this the achievement of machine learning and speech recognition? [1] https://youtu.be/pKVppdt_-B4 https://youtu.be/pKVppdt_-B4
- berbec 8y agoHall of mirrors tech support?
- darkpuma 8y agoIf that's true, it's feels pretty satisfying to hear that Google is on the receiving end of terrible customer service for once.
- gmueckl 8y agoWhile I derive a certain satisfaction from this thought, I am certain that these companies have actual human contacts that they can reach out to in cases like this.
- theshrike79 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- olegbl 8y agoNow I'm really curious if they're going to casually shut down doordash (afaik the doordash app for the dashers uses enterprise certs).
- dannyw 8y agoIt’s fine, dashers are contractors and contractors are expressly allowed.
- olegbl 8y agoI have a hard time seeing the distinction between people paid by Google or Facebook to share their phone usage data vs people paid by DoorDash to deliver food. You're probably right though.
- HEHENE 8y ago"Here's a $20 Amazon gift card for taking a survey" vs. "Here's a 1099 for the $1,200 you earned driving food around last year." One is a consumer, one is a contractor.
- olegbl 8y agoDo they really get 1099s? TIL Seems like this doesn't apply then.
- burlesona 8y agoI think contractors working for your company is exactly what the enterprise program is for. Basically the public at large can’t get the app, but your company has a lot more control over its distribution. IIRC they can push updates and of course deactivate it on devices of people who are terminated, that kind of thing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 8y ago
- askafriend 8y agoLet’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 consumers to use internal apps which is beyond the scope of the program. Why would the certificates not be revoked? I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out.
- jechamt 8y agoThis is the key sentiment I feel is missing from much of the discussions (and in some cases, reporting) taking place surrounding these events this week. Thank you for posting it. It's useful to discuss the philosophical implications of any tech company having too much power. To add the most to that discussion, it's helpful to understand that these actions are not directly affecting customers (aside from those who were using these enterprise apps outside their intended scope).
- mjw1007 8y agoRandom iPhone-using Google employees who use Google's internal cafe app are Apple customers, and they're directly affected. Clearly that's not a terribly big deal, and you'd imagine that Google has a lower proportion of iPhone users than many companies, but it's not nothing.
- criley2 8y agoThey're professionally affected (they can't run internal apps as part of their job) as is good and appropriate (their company violated the rules and got cut). They are not personally affected as they still have access to public versions of the apps like every other person in America.
- gwbas1c 8y agoIs it really clear? Are the people they were paying technically Google and Facebook employees / contractors?
- iamleppert 8y agoA real show of power would be Apple disabling all of Facebook and Google's public apps, and then bricking all of Facebook and Google's employees' phones.
- aylmao 8y agoI don't think Apple is going for a show of power here, just enforcing its rules. Also this would be quite detrimental for all three companies.
- jasonvorhe 8y agoAnd lose a couple of million in annual sales, for a cute little PR stunt, that would send ripples through trust in their ecosystem?
- pixl97 8y agoMillion? Google pays apple 9 billion a year to be the default browser.
- stevenjohns 8y agoExtremely happy with my decision to get an iPhone. Events like these are what is going to keep me as a customer moving forward, too. I unplugged[0] from Google Last year - went DDG for search, went to iOS, dropped gmail for fastmail, etc. As time goes on I’m continually reaffirmed that I made the right decisions. [0] I still use some Google services, like YouTube, frequently, some of my mail still goes through Gmail, albeit forwarded to my Fastmail account, and I occasionally use Maps.
- grumpopotamus 8y agoIs getting an iPhone the only reasonable path? I tried this briefly on Android, but various other apps started complaining that Play was not installed.
- stevenjohns 8y agoIt's not the only reasonable path, of course. There are heavily de-Googled versions of Android out there as well. In this case I'm voting with my dollars and paying a premium for a device made by a company that is, at least overtly, pushing for a bare minimum level of support for their customers. It certainly doesn't hurt that they're nice phones too, though.
- rootusrootus 8y agoThere are ways to do it without going to iPhone but they require a decent time commitment and some technical chops. For people who just expect their phone to work, switching to iOS is the simplest answer.
- Slippery_John 8y agoSame. I switched recently after an increasing distaste for how Google makes money and have been fairly blown away by how much better privacy is on iOS. Nearly every app that has asked for permissions has explained exactly what they're used for. I don't know if that's required, but it certainly seems prevalent. Then I can do things like only give the app permission to location data when I'm actively using it. These settings aren't buried - they are in your face when the permissions are requested. Some parts of the walled garden are annoying - having to go to the browser to buy Kindle books for example - but I think the tradeoffs of the Apple ecosystem are more than worth the benefits.
- arduinomancer 8y agoI don't get how everyone working on these apps thought there would be no issues doing this. "Yup, getting consumers to bypass the app store and side-load our app is perfectly reasonable, no issues here. No way this could possibly backfire." Only thing I could see is the PM's didn't actually understand what the enterprise certificate program was supposed to be for.
- foobiekr 8y agoGiven the common appraisal of the competence of both Facebook and Google, it is difficult to believe they just didn't understand things.
- basil-rash 8y agoI very much doubt it was a PM in charge of reading the TOS for the enterprise certificate program. When you need to sign a contract on behalf of your (multinational, FAANG) company, you get your legal team to go over it.
- javagram 8y agoThe legal team would have reviewed the TOS but they probably weren’t looped in when some PM got the idea to use the certificate for this purpose. In my own experience people often avoid consulting legal when they think they can get away with it (or don’t realize they need to), although I’m sure it varies a LOT based on company culture.
- megy 8y agoWhat? Almost any apple developer in google could sign their app with that cert, and send it to anyone that has accepted the cert.
- toasterlovin 8y agoIt's better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. And, on top of that, Facebook and Google have retaliatory power, so they know that Apple's response will be measured in a way that it wouldn't be with smaller developers.
- 8y ago
- chooseaname 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised if Apple gave Google a heads up to let them know they have to be consistent. Especially given that Google basically apologized.
- ddebernardy 8y agoCongrats to Apple for having a pair and taking a stance.
- gorkish 8y agoWhat I want to know is why these companies are using the same cert to sign apps with widely differing uses and security profiles. It seems to me that they should have a number of enterprise signing certs for each use case such as internal beta, external beta, internal utility, external utility, whatever. If the companies are signing all of their apps under the same cert then it's kind of on them for being stupid to sign critical internal apps with the same cert they use to sign these privacy violating apps; but if Apple is globally disabling all enterprise distribution certificates under the guise that the companies violated their developer agreements and NOT disabling their user-facing apps then it still seems to me they are engaging in selective enforcement. Regardless of how I feel about the ethical questions involved, I don't think this skirmish will end well.
- draw_down 8y agoI was wondering the same thing, using the same cert for such different purposes just seems like a basic tactical error. On the other hand, perhaps asking for multiple certs would cause Apple to question why they want that in the first place?
- pbalau 8y agoTo my understanding, FB is using the enterprise cert to sign internal apps (which pointed me to my last replies on this thread) and another cert to sign things for general population. I think Google does the same.
- saagarjha 8y agoYes; internal apps are signed with an enterprise certificate and App Store apps use a standard developer certificate.
- the_duke 8y agoThat was probably on purpose: the scrutiny for a Facebook enterprise account with maybe dozens of internal apps will be much lower than for a weird account which has only one or two apps but a lot of installs. Easier to hide the rule-breaking app in a swarm of legitimate ones.
- ancorevard 8y agoGot to give Apple credit for staying consistent. One thing is to break the rules Apple put down to keep iOS users safe and secure which is what Apple is targeting here, but another thing is just being stupid and unethical. Regardless of their (FB+G) cries of "they consented to it", who really thinks a 13 year old understand the technical implications of installing a root certificate on their iPhone?
- yuchi 8y agoNo root cert was involved. Apps built with an enterprise distribution profile, once correctly signed, can be installed on any device. The limit is that it must be an employee’s device. This last rule, broken by GOOG and FB, is exclusively enforced through legal actions.
- gojomo 8y agoStill, no story or commenter is quoting the exact terms that Facebook/Google are alleged to have violated. (There's an attempt here – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19044643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19044643 – but without necessary definitions of key terms which would make all the difference.) Of course, Apple has immense discretion here. Even if FB/Google lawyers can make a good case that their usage was technically compliant, Apple can still just unilaterally change the terms in short order. Public & regulatory sentiment would support them. But I'd really like to know if Facebook's and Google's actions were plausibly compliant, under the actual language of the Enterprise agreement, at the time Facebook and Google (and likely others) pursued this strategy.
- javagram 8y agoThey weren’t. See the terms at https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060 “solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users, or as otherwise expressly permitted in Section 2.1(f).” https://github.com/nicwise/apple-agreements/blob/master/apple-developer-program-enterprise-agreement.txt https://github.com/nicwise/apple-agreements/blob/master/appl... 2.1(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); and
- gojomo 8y agoThank you for a link to a readable version of the agreement! It looks to me like "Permitted Users" includes "contractors" like those in a compensated research panel, and thus the Facebook/Google uses are plausibly enabled under the program.
- Deimorz 8y agoTeenagers being paid with gift cards are absolutely not plausibly considered "contractors".
- HelloFellowDevs 8y agoSo what's the play here for Apple?
- draw_down 8y ago"Enforce our rules"
- gilrain 8y agoTrying to get corporations to respect the agreements they make.
- CGamesPlay 8y agoA friend of mine suggested this might have been something they were saving for a PR boost, for example offsetting the FaceTime passive surveillance bug they had this week.
- myguysi 8y agoPartly a PR move in light of the recent FaceTime bug
- RosanaAnaDana 8y agoBegun, the Chrome war has.
- imagiko 8y ago> Apple’s move to block Google’s developer certificate comes just a day after Google disabled its Screenwise Meter app following press coverage So Apple got to know it's terms are being violated after the press attention? Did they already know/is there a way they can detect this is happening? If not, then there could certainly be smaller players who have been routinely abusing this contract? I am trying to understand if Apple knew of this beforehand and are trying to avoid a PR disaster, or were caught off guard(which is scarier imo).
- pixl97 8y agoGood question. I use an Apple agreement like this to push apps via MDM, and I don't remember seeing anything about Apple monitoring for this. At the same time what would apple monitor for? How would they know if iPhone serial #75346345346 doesn't belong to an employee and how would they know what BusinessApp401 is, that doesn't get sent to their headquarters.
- dawhizkid 8y agoAt least with Google it doesn't look like they were hiding anything (e.g. the app is clearly from Google and not some random intermediary).
- Varcht 8y agoThere are over 100,000 Google and Facebook employees, just a small percentage of them with good old fashion loyalty to their companies could explain the amount offended here.
- shhehebehdh 8y agoAs a googler, I’m not offended. “Abide by the terms of your agreements,” or, as Stranger Things would put it, “friends don’t lie.” That being said, I am in popcorn mode to see what act of contrition apple will demand. I would also loooove to know how this clusterfuck came about. But I guess we will never know that. I doubt this crosses Sundar’s desk, but I would be curious to know where the buck did stop. Was counsel involved or did a couple of teams just adopt a better to seek forgiveness stance?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- delfinom 8y ago> or did a couple of former teams huehuehue
- ummonk 8y agoWon’t speak for others but I’m one FB employee and also an iOS user. I’m not offended by Apple’s move.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- quest88 8y agoI haven't seen any people offended by it. I know some people are disappointed because of internal apps that are no longer accessible, e.g. dogfood builds, transportation app, apps to contact security, identification app, etc.
- mcgwiz 8y agoThis is a godsend for Apple's PR, now that attention is no longer focused on Group FaceTime.
- zapzupnz 8y agoYeah, this is pretty clear cut. Apple has rule. Facebook and Google agree to rule. Facebook and Google violate rule. Apple enforces rule. This isn't some grey area where the details are difficult to ascertain. Everything is pretty clear; the enterprise app distribution service is most assuredly not for distributing apps that break the App Store rules to customers. This isn't difficult to understand, so I'm struggling to see where people are trying to find some sort of detail to exonerate two well-known, repeated rule breakers, violators of personal privacy, and altogether companies who think their size puts them above reproach. I mean, when Apple makes a big screw up, everybody leaps on it, even when it's just based on unconfirmed (and sometimes fabricated, like the journalist reporting on conditions in the Foxconn factories) reports; but if it's Facebook or Google, somehow they're underdogs with clean records, deserving of the benefit of the doubt? I don't swallow it. How about we all just pass judgement equally upon the big companies, Apple included, for their foibles? But let's also take into account when these companies have been caught red-handed before, and if the best punishment we could muster was a slap with a wet bus ticket, let's not umm and ahh about why they think they can get away with their behaviour, and not be at all surprised when finally someone takes a stand on their own territory.
- Despegar 8y agoIf you're Facebook or Google you're used to being able to dictate terms to others. But there's always a bigger fish and in this case it's Apple. They're outraged because they have no recourse. What they usually do to users or partners, dictate take-it-or-leave-it terms, is being done to them. They can't even complain to antitrust regulators because Apple is only lord of its own kingdom (which doesn't have market dominance).
- taurath 8y agoThere's plenty of recourse - politics-like fights in the court of public opinion. Nice vulnerability you've got there, it'd be a shame if it started to go to the press instead of being disclosed to you first.
- 8y ago
- CivBase 8y agoI've never published an iOS app before. What exactly does a "developer certificate" do and why does it affect their ability to distribute internal apps in particular?
- saagarjha 8y agoThere are two certificates that are important here, with different requirements and capabilities. First, you have normal developer certificates, which you can use to submit apps to the App Store. On the other hand, you have enterprise certificates, which can be used to distribute apps outside of the App Store (and without Apple's review), and these are supposed to only be used for company use (such as internal beta testing or apps). Google and Facebook used their enterprise certificate to distribute an app to external users, most likely because the app would be rejected from the App Store, so Apple revoked their enterprise certificate.
- reneberlin 8y agoPopcorn-time extended. 3 of the big 5 in a dispute about "lawful behaviour" and "ethical (ab)use of tech possibilities" Kindergarden, at it's best. What everyone is still unclear about is: how will this play out for them - and for Apple especially, of course. We can only speculate. And order another ton of popcorn.
- rdiddly 8y ago"Banning spree" is a bit much, isn't it? If two instances of something constitute a spree, I guess I went on a "handwashing spree" on my last trip to the bathroom earlier.
- rekshaw 8y agoApplocalypse!
- superkuh 8y agoLooks like Google has a taste of it's own medicine. It's been deplatformed.
- roenxi 8y agoIt isn't relevant here if Apple is justified or not, if Google is trustworthy or not or if terms of service are enforceable or not. This is what might be called a classic Stallman effect, where it has been pointed out since the mid-90s that if you don't have a few basic freedoms [0] then at some point an external party will shut you down for reasons you don't like. Google is in a lousy strategic position on this one because they gave up software freedom because Apple didn't seem like a threat at the time. They are lucky their internal apps were not being particularly targeted, I suppose. This is why a good military plans on capabilities, not intents. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- DannyBee 8y agoFrom: https://www.axios.com/google-also-finds-itself-unable-to-use-internal-1548971518-9bbd477c-90b9-4d30-a405-8a4e7282c38b.html https://www.axios.com/google-also-finds-itself-unable-to-use... "What they're saying: Google confirmed it is being impacted: "We're working with Apple to fix a temporary disruption to some of our corporate iOS apps, which we expect will be resolved soon." In a statement, Apple said "We are working together with Google to help them reinstate their enterprise certificates very quickly."
- GeekyBear 8y agoGoogle immediately admitted that they were aware that what they had done violated those terms. >A Google spokesperson told The Verge, “The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple’s developer enterprise program — this was a mistake, and we apologize. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18204064/apple-google-monitoring-phone-usage-screenwise-meter https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18204064/apple-google-mon...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoAnd so they should be fully understanding why Apple enforced them. Furthermore, the terrifying level of abuse of the Screenwise program has been going on a really, really long time: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/google-paying-users-to-track-100-of-their-web-usage-via-little-black-box/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/02/google-paying-users-... It's hard to tell exactly how long the iOS app has been available, but I found version 7.x of the Android app all the way back in 2015 on APKmirror (it's archive only goes back so far). So presumably the mobile app strategy has been around a long time.
- vilhelm_s 8y agoHow is that "terribly abusive"? People are getting paid to participate, to me that seems like a higher level of informed consent and more ethical than other forms of user tracking.
- _underfl0w_ 8y agoI believe the parent was referring to Google having "abused" Apple's Enterprise Cert program - which is the central crux of both this article and the majority of commentary here on HN.
- ehsankia 8y agoI don't think so, the article linked talks about the other ways the program worked. That specific one refers to the free router they would send users. That has nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- taurath 8y agoRegardless of the reason behind the move, the fact that Apple is MAKING the moves against the 2 largest ad companies seems a bit like a war declaration. They could have told Google "Get rid of this app or we kill your cert" but the fact that they did so without any negotiations means its past a shot across the bow, its a full attack. I expect we'll see a LOT of Apple Vs Google/FB in the near future - Google/FB's business model is what is under attack here, and I'd bet it'll be fought in terms of public privacy breaches, bugs, and other embarrassments rather than direct marketing. Welcome to politics silicon valley, its gonna suck.
- partiallypro 8y agoI understand that Google and Facebook both violated Apple terms, but does it not seem a tad bit anti-competitive in the same vein?
- lsiebert 8y agoOn the one hand, I get what Apple is doing. On the other hand, the walled garden's walls are showing. I'm curious what the TOS actually says, is there a link?
- 8bitsrule 8y agoThinking back on history, interesting that Apple's old nemesis MS is not one of the names involved here. Not a 'friend' of any of them, but on my intuitive ethic-ometer Apple (barely) retains the top position.
- burlesona 8y agoApple and Microsoft are practically buddies in this stuff, they both make money primarily by selling products and services to customers, and have relatively less overlap in their target markets than they ever have. Meanwhile FB and Google make money by mining users for data and selling ads. It’s a pretty different business.
- dekhn 8y agoGooglers should be asking: did the folks who did this go through privacy and security review, because I'm really surprised this was approved.
- iainmerrick 8y agoWhat I really like about both the Facebook and Google scenarios here is that Apple's response causes inconvenience for the developers (the party at fault) but not for end users. Facebook's app still works fine, it's just Facebook employees who are affected. Before Apple's response, it seemed like Facebook might get away with it because their app is so big and important -- blocking the app would hurt a large fraction of Apple's own customers. But Apple's response is a clever way to show that, hey, they're big and important too! A large fraction of Facebook's employees use iPhones, not just for developing the iPhone app, but for general work purposes, because the iPhone is a great product. (I wonder how many of those employees will now switch to Android, though...)
- doener 8y ago„Google is correct, there does not appear to be any Root Certificate install for their app. pretty substantial difference. I also notice a phrase completely absent from Facebook’s replies: ‚We apologize‘“ https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090761957194502150?s=21 https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1090761957194502150?s=21
- dewiz 8y agoIt should be a user choice whether not to trust apps. iOS should say “this app violates Apple agreements blah blah do you want to continue using it?”
- _bxg1 8y agoUPDATE: "Facebook’s internal iOS apps have since resumed functioning, as the social network said this afternoon that Apple had restored its enterprise certificate. Similarly, both Apple and Google’s statements make it clear that the companies are working together to fix Google’s issues." [siggghhh]
- djohnston 8y agoWhat else would you expect? They removed the app that was viotating tos, the other apps were in line w apples terms.
- _bxg1 8y agoThey revoked Google's certificate after they'd already taken down their app. This was supposed to be punishment for crossing the line; apparently it was just a fluffy PR move.
- stetrain 8y agoRevoking the certificate deals with the apps that have already been signed with that certificate. Google taking it down doesn't remove it from the devices where it has already been installed or prevent it being distributed by other means. Revoking the certificate does. In both cases Apple has reached an agreement to issue new enterprise certs for both companies. They can now use those certs for their approved purposes. If Apple finds that those certs are being used for disallowed activity they can revoke them again. I don't really see any issue with that.
- _bxg1 8y agoAh. Thanks for clarifying. I thought they were just un-revoking the other one, which would've made this a pretty empty wrist-slap.
- djohnston 8y agoi think the moment Apple moves beyond stopping the violation to "punishing offenders" is the moment anti trust suits become likely. they need to tread lightly and they know it.
- chj 8y agoAnother horror story of Apple's totalitarian control. Some people say that what Big Apple is doing is necessary for their security and privacy needs. This sort of blind trust, while incurable, waits for a major scandal to kill itself.
- userbinator 8y agoIndeed. The authoritarianism in the comments here is rather disturbing. I am baffled at how everyone seems to be so keen on putting Apple's nooses around their own necks.
- chj 8y agoGuess that most of the HN audience are not hackers any more.
- dkrich 8y agoSo now it comes out that Apple is working to “quickly reinstate Google’s enterprise certificates” but won’t work with Facebook? By now it should be fairly obvious that Apple hates Facebook for a very good reason- Facebook is Apple’s single biggest threat. I’m completely convinced this has nothing to do with privacy or protecting users, it just makes for a convenient excuse. If people slowly start replacing iMessage with WhatsApp or messenger, that creates a bridge to leave iOS for Android since Apple’s software is one of the main features of the phone. If you become less reliant on the software the hardware suddenly becomes a commodity. This whole episode is giving me pause about staying in the iOS ecosystem. Beyond that I think some antitrust litigation is going to hit Apple soon.
- arkbird 8y agoMost of EU already uses Whatsapp. If NA jumps ship for Whatsapp/FB messenger Apple's gonna be in trouble.
- rootusrootus 8y agoI doubt Apple sees Facebook as any kind of threat. There is already a far more plausible messaging bridge from iOS to Android called Hangouts and it hasn't really been effective for that. People aren't staying with iPhone because they're trapped by imessage.
- dkrich 8y agoAgree to disagree. Messenger and WhatsApp are more advanced and combine the social dynamic to chats. They’ve also made a lot of headway in competing with FaceTime. Which apps would Apple have a distinct advantage of it loses iMessage and FaceTime? Edit: to elaborate I don’t mean a direct bridge to android, rather a substitute for iMessage that’s available on iOS and Android which makes switching relatively painless.
- rootusrootus 8y agoIn my experience, it is not a tech problem. Equivalents absolutely exist. They may even be superior, although us tech folk tend to focus on features and not usability, and then we are surprised why regular folk don't like what we've built. In any case, when I switch out of the iPhone world, a solid half my contacts are unavailable to chat with except by old-school texts, and no equivalent for FaceTime. Some family members I switched over to Hangouts, but since they only use it for me, they forget about it, or how it works. Every iPhone can do iMessage and FaceTime out of the box. That is a meaningful advantage for Apple, I think. Making something good enough that your users don't want to go find something 'better' and then making it 100% universal makes a strong ecosystem.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kevintb 8y agoHilarious! Good on Apple, I hope they continue doing this for all the other companies doing the same.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 8y agolook at the teams go
- asdf333 8y agoSo Does that mean that you currently cannot write an app for yourself on iOS without first getting it approved by apple?
- mistercow 8y agoNo, why would it mean that?
- asdf333 8y agoAh ok. I don't do iOS development so I don't know how it works. So if I just write an app for myself I can run it for my own phone indefinitely without going through the app store is that right? Seems like if you could do that, Facebook and Google could just do that for their internal apps? I am genuinely just curious how it works.
- enra 8y agoI wonder if Apple will ban their own internal apps that they use in Apple Park and Apple Stores.
- mesozoic 8y agoThe war has begun
- glitchc 8y agoIt's so entertaining to watch this unfold. Very exciting!
- zmmmmm 8y agoOn the one hand it sounds like it was legitimate enforcement of their policies. On the other hand, it might be stupid for Apple to do it because it highlights that they are running a walled garden and any fortune 500 could - rightly or wrongly - find their line of business application shut down arbitrarily by Apple on any given day. Who wants to be in that position?
- tokyodude 8y agoApple is likely going to be sued by FB and Google and eventually they will lose the control over their platform. Yes the terms are in the TOS. Those terms should be illegal. Same as say non-competes are illegal in some places. No company should have that kind of power. And, before you say it's the same as some company turning off your net based account, no it is not. For example if you upload porn to flickr and they delete your account in that case you're using flickr's servers. In this case Google is using phones owned by Googlers and other customers to run software by Google. Apple is not involved at all here unlike the example flickr case above. Apple should not be allowed to reach into another company and kill it. AFAICT Google and FB did nothing wrong here. Those apps were test apps. How else are you supposed to beta test something? Tons of software does this. You build an app, you offer beta program. You had out codes for the beta users. Beta testing with direct employees is not useful because employees are no representative of actual users.
- ViViDboarder 8y agoApple offers a program for doing public betas: https://developer.apple.com/testflight/ https://developer.apple.com/testflight/ Google and Facebook appear to have used a different method of distribution than this and thus violated their terms.
- jn4 8y agoFB, G clearly violated the ToS of the Enterprise Acc (no public distribution of such Apps) and Apple has rightly suspended their enterprise distribution cert. But Apple has been selective in enforcing this rule. If I recall, for many years Uber's driver App was distributed as an enterprise app. Uber has always claimed that drivers are not employees and so this was in clear violation of the ToS. Imo, Uber's use case was legit. During early days Uber probably did not wish to have 2 Apps in the App Store to avoid customer confusion. Or maybe they were actively updating the Driver App and did not want to add days of App review holding up every update. Apple should change their ToS and allow such use cases in some form. At times this would get misused (like FB/G) but opening up the walled garden to enable such "private" apps to be easily distributed can make iOS a more interesting platform. In any case they always have the final kill switch of revoking an Enterprise Cert for malicious use.
- watertom 8y agoIF you really want to get scared about content theft, you should read the terms of service for Grammerly. Their plug in scans everything data input window and by using the service you agree to the following: "By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services." If you were to write a book online using Grammerly they would have the full rights to what you wrote, and they could sell it themselves and not pay you a cent. If you work for a company that uses Grammerly any IP typed into a windowd monitored by Grammerly also becomes their property. Two years ago I looked into an enterprise license because I had so many employees using it, after reading the terms of service and speaking with their General Counsesl where he essentially gave the "my way or the highway speech","we own it all, and we can do what we want with it" I scrubbed the software and plugins from all our company computers. Run from Grammerly
- sidcool 8y agoApple seems to have restored both FB and Google certificates: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/31/apple-ban-google-data-app/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/31/apple-ban-google-data-app/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/31/mess-with-the-cook/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/31/mess-with-the-cook/
- sidcool 8y agoIf Google does this on iOS, what does it do on Android? I get jitters even thinking about it. Anyone knows about this?
- miguelmota 8y agoIf you play on Apple's territory then you must follow Apple's rules. Seems pretty clear cut.