4 ms·

Yeah, 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 Fa

by _bxg1 8y ago

Yeah, 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 ago
Since 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 ago
  Google 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.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > Since terms of use are something Apple makes up, I don't really see the difference. The difference is that Facebook and Google agreed to and were fully aware of the terms beforehand.
- AnonymousPlanet 8y ago
  > 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. Remember those cyberpunk stories where not the elected governments but rivaling multinational companies are the law? This is how we get there.
- zepto 8y ago
  Google and Facebook signed contracts and then broke the terms. That’s what makes it different.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  >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. Heh. They already have, to Amazon though. See all the petty fights Google and Amazon have engaged in over youtube, chromecast etc. This is a good PR move by Apple though, especially when game studios are clawing out of the 30% cut and people are beginning to ask for the right to repair or the ability to side load apps. Apple saves the day yet again by providing value through the app store.
gojomo 8y ago
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.
- javagram 8y ago
  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.
  - stephenconnolly 8y ago
    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
    - pixl97 8y ago
      >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.
  - pzh 8y ago
    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?
    - 8y ago
chappi42 8y ago
Apple should not have the right to enforce those conditions to begin with. Same as they should not be allowed to kick out apps from their whole platform on a whim. Inacceptable. Such a company should not be allowed to do business in EU. Much worse than what happened with Microsoft in the 90ties.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Your comment might make sense of Apple were some sort of government entity, but it isn't; it was completely Facebook and Google's decision to abide by Apple's terms and conditions, something that will have been pored over by legal team upon legal team. This is not something Facebook or Google will have entered into lightly, and yet they explicitly chose to break the terms and conditions. If I run a restaurant and one of the house rules is that you're not allowed to harass my staff and make the dining experience unpleasant for other customers, and you do that, of course I'm well within my rights to throw you out.
  - chappi42 8y ago
    > Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Because they became too big. It's the right of e.g. the EU to allow them to operate. Or better said, the law could be changed to disallow operation if certainy conditions are not met. Apple then has the choice to either adapt or leave the EU market.
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      But Apple isn't a monopoly, and it never will be. You're talking like the EU has one set of rules for companies from its members and another for others, but that isn't the case. The EU treats all monopolies equally; Apple isn't close to a monopoly. Of the actors involved here, Google is the one that the EU is most concerned about. Apple is only acting on their own turf, their services. Their reach is not far spread outside of the iOS landscape, heavily dwarfed by Google's Android at something like 85% share.

by _bxg1 8y ago

izacus 8y ago

Since 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 ago
Google 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.
toasterlovin 8y ago
> Since terms of use are something Apple makes up, I don't really see the difference. The difference is that Facebook and Google agreed to and were fully aware of the terms beforehand.
AnonymousPlanet 8y ago
> 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. Remember those cyberpunk stories where not the elected governments but rivaling multinational companies are the law? This is how we get there.
zepto 8y ago
Google and Facebook signed contracts and then broke the terms. That’s what makes it different.
bubblethink 8y ago
>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. Heh. They already have, to Amazon though. See all the petty fights Google and Amazon have engaged in over youtube, chromecast etc. This is a good PR move by Apple though, especially when game studios are clawing out of the 30% cut and people are beginning to ask for the right to repair or the ability to side load apps. Apple saves the day yet again by providing value through the app store.

gojomo 8y ago

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.

javagram 8y ago
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.
- stephenconnolly 8y ago
  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
  - pixl97 8y ago
    >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.
- pzh 8y ago
  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?
  - 8y ago

chappi42 8y ago

Apple should not have the right to enforce those conditions to begin with. Same as they should not be allowed to kick out apps from their whole platform on a whim. Inacceptable. Such a company should not be allowed to do business in EU. Much worse than what happened with Microsoft in the 90ties.

zapzupnz 8y ago
Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Your comment might make sense of Apple were some sort of government entity, but it isn't; it was completely Facebook and Google's decision to abide by Apple's terms and conditions, something that will have been pored over by legal team upon legal team. This is not something Facebook or Google will have entered into lightly, and yet they explicitly chose to break the terms and conditions. If I run a restaurant and one of the house rules is that you're not allowed to harass my staff and make the dining experience unpleasant for other customers, and you do that, of course I'm well within my rights to throw you out.
- chappi42 8y ago
  > Why should they not have the right to enforce the terms of their own service? They own it, the operate it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. Because they became too big. It's the right of e.g. the EU to allow them to operate. Or better said, the law could be changed to disallow operation if certainy conditions are not met. Apple then has the choice to either adapt or leave the EU market.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    But Apple isn't a monopoly, and it never will be. You're talking like the EU has one set of rules for companies from its members and another for others, but that isn't the case. The EU treats all monopolies equally; Apple isn't close to a monopoly. Of the actors involved here, Google is the one that the EU is most concerned about. Apple is only acting on their own turf, their services. Their reach is not far spread outside of the iOS landscape, heavily dwarfed by Google's Android at something like 85% share.