If you think they're "very clearly laid out", can you quote the relevant sections, and definitions, from the terms that make it so? I've been searching, and asking, and not seen them yet.
https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060
The terms are very clear. Apple wants to control distribution of apps, the enterprise program is only supposed to be for employees or for end users using under the direct personal supervision of an employee as part of an in office test. The conditions are clearly defined.
Ah yes, but at what point does paying someone for work make them an employee?
Given that the users of the app in question were being paid by Google, one could argue they are employed... or at least are contractors.
On the other hand, given the users did not have the rights generally associated with being an employee or a contractor... and they were not even getting minimum wage...
But at that point IANAL and courts would need to decide
>make them an employee?
Google or FB isn't going to touch that with a 10 foot pole, and no there is no need for courts to decide, they don't want these users considered employees or contractors in any way. Also monetary compensation is very common in some research industries without said people being contractors or employees. Simply put Google and FB F*up big time in violating the TOS.
If those users were getting paid to use the internal app, can’t Google or Facebook claim that they were contractors and part of the organization?
They could, but that would be even dumber than the stupid crap they've already pulled. "Oh, you're a contractor, but we don't have a 1099 on you, oh and you're too young to work in your state"
The very first paragraph of "Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement":
"Your company, organization or educational institution would like to use the Apple Software (as defined below) to develop one or more Internal Use Applications (as defined below) for Apple- branded products running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and/or macOS, and to deploy these Applications only for internal use within Your company, organization or educational institution or for limited use as expressly set forth herein."
https://developer.apple.com/terms/ https://developer.apple.com/terms/ → Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement
While I've seen other potentially-applicable sections quoted elsewhere, a traffic-research app used by paid contractors of a company would seem to meet both the "Internal Use Application" definition, and the "Permitted Users" definition.
Yes, I'm sure they're all filing Form 1099.
Paying a random consumer $20 does not make them a contractor. Do you think they all got 1099s?
1099s are only required if more than $600 is paid in a year.
You are a "contractor" if you are providing services under a contract. A contract exists whenever there is a definitive agreement to exchange valuable considerations – even in the absence of a written, signed contract.
But the sign-up for these apps might have included an explicit "signing" phase! (It's even possible that FB/Google asked for participants' SSNs, just in case any payments went over $600.)
Except as set forth in Section 2.1, You may not use, distribute or otherwise make Your Internal Use Applications available to Your Customers or to any third parties in any way (excluding Your Internal Use Application that is for use on macOS)
It’s behind the developer wall but the whole thing is here. 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...
Thanks! But note that section 2.1 expressly allows deployment to "Permitted Users", and "Permitted Users" is defined to include "contractors... who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use".
Compensated members of these apps' research panels are quite literally "contractors" of FB/Google, and possibly even under written contracts that explicitly limit the apps' use as Apple requires. So what you've quoted doesn't demonstrate a violation.
On the Apple Developer Enterprise Program webpage [1], the first big feature (of four) is "Deploy In-house Apps" -- "within your organization", "to your employees' devices".
I'm not sure how it could be much clearer that this is not intended to be used to distribute apps to customers.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
But the people using these research apps are not, in their role as app-users, "customers". They're contractors, being paid for a service rendered. And other provisos of the agreement specifically define "Permitted Users" to include "contractors".
The Apple Developer Enterprise Program License
Agreement, linked from https://developer.apple.com/terms/ https://developer.apple.com/terms/ (Apple ID login required), makes it VERY clear that the Enterprise Program is intended "for in-house, internal use applications". This point is reiterated multiple times throughout the introduction, and is later made more explicit:
> "Internal Use Application" means a software program (including extensions, media, and Libraries that are enclosed in a single software bundle) that is developed by You on a custom basis for Your own business purposes (e.g., an inventory app specific to Your business) for specific use with an Apple-branded product running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and/or macOS, as applicable, and solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users, or as otherwise expressly permitted in Section 2.1(f). Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, specifically excluded from Internal Use Applications are any programs or applications that may be used, distributed, or otherwise made available to other companies, contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application), distributors, vendors, resellers, endusers or members of the general public. For the sake of clarity, Internal Use Applications do not include third-party applications even if some customization has been done.
There's other damning bits later in the license agreement, including:
> You must provide clear and complete information to users regarding Your collection, use and disclosure of user or device data, e.g., a description of Your use of user and device data in the Your Internal Use Application.
and
> Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 3.3.9, You and Your Internal Use Application may not use the Network Extension Framework, or any data or information obtained through the Network Extension Framework, for any purpose other than providing networking capabilities in connection with Your Internal Use Application (e.g., not for using an end-user's Internet traffic to serve advertising or to otherwise build user profiles for advertising).
Thanks, and now we're getting somewhere!
I don't see the definition of "Internal Use Application" as clearly prohibiting app usage by these research panels – paid contractors of FB/Google. And, the disclosures to panel members may have met the "clear and complete information" clause.
But the limits on the "Network Extension Framework" usage might be a violation. I suspect FB/Google were effectively building "user profiles for advertising" with this data... though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose.
I'll contribute to the pile.
You're looking for the "Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement" — I found it in ten seconds. The only production applications allowed on the cert are internal applications ("Internal Use Applications developed for macOS can be distributed under this Agreement using an Apple Certificate or may be separately distributed.") Or applications under development (2.1 Permitted Uses and Restrictions, Program Services). Also outlined are explicit unpermitted uses and a general declaration that anything outside of 2.1 won't fly (2.6 No Other Permitted Uses, specifically "You may not use the Apple Software, Apple Certificates, or any Services provided hereunder for any purpose not expressly permitted by this Agreement,").
You'll need to sign in with your Apple ID to open this: https://developer.apple.com/services-account/download?path=/Documentation/License_Agreements__Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program/Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program_License_Agreement_20181019.pdf https://developer.apple.com/services-account/download?path=/...
Hope this helps.
---
Edit: for anyone who wants to spare themselves the chain, OP is missing the distinction between vendors, contractors, and other service providers and is interpreting the presence of any contract as rendering a person as a contractor. In this case, it's likely (IANAL) that each individual user of the service would be described as a vendor selling access to their data. The data itself is not created for Google's (or Facebook's in that previous case) consumption.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendor-a-supplier-a-contractor-and-a-service-provider https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo...
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contractor-vs-vendor https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contracto...
The link to the developer agreement is helpful, thanks. (The previous link someone had sent me couldn't be viewed by me, even as a paid-up member of the Developer program.) But none of what you quoted specifically restricts use by a company's contracted research panels.
--
Added in response to edit: The links to Quora/StackExchange, however, miss the point. Anyone who's entered a contract to provide a service in return for compensation is a 'contractor', both in legal terms, and in layman's terms. Facebook's description of their on-boarding, especially, suggests there was sufficient "meeting of the minds", mutual agreement, and exchange-of-valuable-considerations as required for a contract to exist:
Facebook statement via <https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-paying-teens-to-install-a-research-app-that-1832182370> https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-paying-teens-to-install-a-re...:
"Key facts about this market research program are being ignored. Despite early reports, there was nothing ‘secret’ about this; it was literally called the Facebook Research App. It wasn’t ‘spying’ as all of the people who signed up to participate went through a clear on-boarding process asking for their permission and were paid to participate. Finally, less than 5 percent of the people who chose to participate in this market research program were teens. All of them with signed parental consent forms."