9 ms·

That's right. That's why you shouldn't buy iOS devices. If you do, you agree to Apple's terms. (also, what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actual

That's right. That's why you shouldn't buy iOS devices. If you do, you agree to Apple's terms. (also, what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actually a different story, not related to this news)

mjw1007 8y ago
According to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.
- curt15 8y ago
  Since Gbus is presumably developed internally, what prevents the employees from installing the program via Xcode?
  - q3k 8y ago
    Not everyone at Google has a Mac? Nobody wants to reinstall GBus every 3 days?
    - briandear 8y ago
      Why would you have to reinstall it every 3 days?
      - spurcell93 8y ago
        IIRC dev certs expire quickly, by design
        seba_dos1 8y ago
        Yup. However, at least you don't really need a Mac for that, as there are external tools to resign and install ipa files.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        Free certificates expire after a week. Standard certificates obtained from a developer program membership last for a year.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Seven days.
  - dougdonohoe 8y ago
    60,000+ employees makes this unrealistic.
  - cbhl 8y ago
    Probably something like this: XX% of Google employees are non-technical XX% of Google employees don't use Mac as their laptop platform XX% of Google employees have a locked-down Mac that isn't allowed to run XCode or locally-compiled binaries because their job role isn't in Engineering
  - morpheuskafka 8y ago
    The employees would each have to spend $100 on a developer membership (sharing them is a good way to get more revokes).
    - kngspook 8y ago
      No, that's not necessarily for loading an app on to your device. It's only necessary for broader distribution.
      - morpheuskafka 8y ago
        You can only sideload up to a certain number of apps (3 IIRC), only for seven days at a time, and only using certain APIs (cannot for example use notifications), all of which would pose serious limitations.
  - kngspook 8y ago
    From what I understand, it actually is a public app: https://www.tripshot.com/ https://www.tripshot.com/ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tripshot/id1007192056?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tripshot/id1007192056?mt=8
- seba_dos1 8y ago
  They can still run that app by signing it themselves with a developer account, although that's not a very convenient option. And no, this is still about what Google allows its employers to run on their corporate devices (and Apple now taking this right away from them), as users wouldn't be able to sign that app with enterprise certificate by themselves.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Google can make that app public. Or stop abusing the terms of the enterprise certificates.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
simonh 8y ago
>If you do, you agree to Apple’s terms. And know that Apple has your back when it comes to holding developers of the apps you use to their commitments. There’s a clear benefit to the reputation of a vendor being on the line for the security and quality of their product and the services offered on it.
bunderbunder 8y ago
More than a couple of us know Apple's terms and agree to them quite enthusiastically. The perennial mansplaining around this issue mildly baffles me. Apple acting as a gatekeeper for iOS has been a well-known thing for a decade now. Coming to a place like this and preaching as if people don't understand Apple's terms is frankly insulting.
- gjs278 8y ago
  how is this possibly mansplaining
  - Ensorceled 8y ago
    Maybe you’re replying to a woman?
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    It's as central an example of mansplaining as I've ever seen; Mansplaining just means "I'm too stupid to understand your point, so I'm going to throw in a non sequitur gendered insult".
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      At least as I understand it, it more means explaining things to the person you're talking to as if they don't know anything about the conversation topic, even though you have no particular reason to do so. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by a man or directed at a woman. That's just how it tends to go. And obvs is a bit more fraught when it is going that way.
      - wutbrodo 8y ago
        Leaving aside whether that's something to reasonably get upset about (how are people supposed to know exactly which facts are known to every single reader of their comment?), the way you're describing it seems pretty identical to the now-mostly-anachronistic expression of being "jewed" out of some money. The fact that the target of the slur doesn't have to be Jewish doesn't make it better; in fact, it kind of makes it worse. Hell, at least my example has its roots in a time when casual racism/sexism were accepted _pro forma_, and the term is slowly dying out. It seems to me your example is even less excusable.
ajross 8y ago
That's a misstatement of the principle here. I bought a thing. It's my thing, not someone else's thing. Things don't have "terms". I signed no contract. Let me use my thing. I mean, yes, we shouldn't buy iOS devices. But we should accept that things have ad hoc vendor-controlled "rules" just because someone baked them into the things, either. > what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actually a different story, not related to this news How so? It's not like Facebook and Google were hacking their way in here. They asked users "please run this software" and users had the option to do so. Seriously how is that any different than "please run my great jailbreak environment" or "here's a new OS for your iPhone"? It was the behavior and marketing of these spyware things that we shouldn't like, not their mechanism.
- briandear 8y ago
  > Things don't have "terms". Technically correct. But software running on "things" has terms. It's called a license. When you buy a movie, you don't own the film. You own the right to use that film in accordance with the license.
  - ajross 8y ago
    You're conflating things. Your example is about copyright, not licenses. Copyright doesn't constrain use, it constrains distribution (though there's a parallel argument there about DRM and things like DVD region codes, etc...). The question you're sidestepping is whether a license can say "you can't run your own software on your own thing". Obviously it can be implemented to do so given the way computers work, but it's not at all clear why that should be so.
    - seba_dos1 8y ago
      Copyright can constrain use (although the actual extent varies a lot between jurisdictions). Most licenses (which are basically a way to manage copyrights) don't make use that, but some do (like a license that Apple uses for their SDKs, which disallows running it on non-Apple hardware). BTW. I ignore that and even many large, respectable companies ignore that, but it's there ;)

mjw1007 8y ago

According to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.

curt15 8y ago
Since Gbus is presumably developed internally, what prevents the employees from installing the program via Xcode?
- q3k 8y ago
  Not everyone at Google has a Mac? Nobody wants to reinstall GBus every 3 days?
  - briandear 8y ago
    Why would you have to reinstall it every 3 days?
    - spurcell93 8y ago
      IIRC dev certs expire quickly, by design
      - seba_dos1 8y ago
        Yup. However, at least you don't really need a Mac for that, as there are external tools to resign and install ipa files.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Free certificates expire after a week. Standard certificates obtained from a developer program membership last for a year.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Seven days.
- dougdonohoe 8y ago
  60,000+ employees makes this unrealistic.
- cbhl 8y ago
  Probably something like this: XX% of Google employees are non-technical XX% of Google employees don't use Mac as their laptop platform XX% of Google employees have a locked-down Mac that isn't allowed to run XCode or locally-compiled binaries because their job role isn't in Engineering
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  The employees would each have to spend $100 on a developer membership (sharing them is a good way to get more revokes).
  - kngspook 8y ago
    No, that's not necessarily for loading an app on to your device. It's only necessary for broader distribution.
    - morpheuskafka 8y ago
      You can only sideload up to a certain number of apps (3 IIRC), only for seven days at a time, and only using certain APIs (cannot for example use notifications), all of which would pose serious limitations.
- kngspook 8y ago
  From what I understand, it actually is a public app: https://www.tripshot.com/ https://www.tripshot.com/ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tripshot/id1007192056?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tripshot/id1007192056?mt=8
seba_dos1 8y ago
They can still run that app by signing it themselves with a developer account, although that's not a very convenient option. And no, this is still about what Google allows its employers to run on their corporate devices (and Apple now taking this right away from them), as users wouldn't be able to sign that app with enterprise certificate by themselves.
threeseed 8y ago
Google can make that app public. Or stop abusing the terms of the enterprise certificates.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

simonh 8y ago

>If you do, you agree to Apple’s terms. And know that Apple has your back when it comes to holding developers of the apps you use to their commitments. There’s a clear benefit to the reputation of a vendor being on the line for the security and quality of their product and the services offered on it.

bunderbunder 8y ago

More than a couple of us know Apple's terms and agree to them quite enthusiastically. The perennial mansplaining around this issue mildly baffles me. Apple acting as a gatekeeper for iOS has been a well-known thing for a decade now. Coming to a place like this and preaching as if people don't understand Apple's terms is frankly insulting.

gjs278 8y ago
how is this possibly mansplaining
- Ensorceled 8y ago
  Maybe you’re replying to a woman?
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  It's as central an example of mansplaining as I've ever seen; Mansplaining just means "I'm too stupid to understand your point, so I'm going to throw in a non sequitur gendered insult".
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    At least as I understand it, it more means explaining things to the person you're talking to as if they don't know anything about the conversation topic, even though you have no particular reason to do so. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by a man or directed at a woman. That's just how it tends to go. And obvs is a bit more fraught when it is going that way.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      Leaving aside whether that's something to reasonably get upset about (how are people supposed to know exactly which facts are known to every single reader of their comment?), the way you're describing it seems pretty identical to the now-mostly-anachronistic expression of being "jewed" out of some money. The fact that the target of the slur doesn't have to be Jewish doesn't make it better; in fact, it kind of makes it worse. Hell, at least my example has its roots in a time when casual racism/sexism were accepted _pro forma_, and the term is slowly dying out. It seems to me your example is even less excusable.

ajross 8y ago

That's a misstatement of the principle here. I bought a thing. It's my thing, not someone else's thing. Things don't have "terms". I signed no contract. Let me use my thing. I mean, yes, we shouldn't buy iOS devices. But we should accept that things have ad hoc vendor-controlled "rules" just because someone baked them into the things, either. > what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actually a different story, not related to this news How so? It's not like Facebook and Google were hacking their way in here. They asked users "please run this software" and users had the option to do so. Seriously how is that any different than "please run my great jailbreak environment" or "here's a new OS for your iPhone"? It was the behavior and marketing of these spyware things that we shouldn't like, not their mechanism.

briandear 8y ago
> Things don't have "terms". Technically correct. But software running on "things" has terms. It's called a license. When you buy a movie, you don't own the film. You own the right to use that film in accordance with the license.
- ajross 8y ago
  You're conflating things. Your example is about copyright, not licenses. Copyright doesn't constrain use, it constrains distribution (though there's a parallel argument there about DRM and things like DVD region codes, etc...). The question you're sidestepping is whether a license can say "you can't run your own software on your own thing". Obviously it can be implemented to do so given the way computers work, but it's not at all clear why that should be so.
  - seba_dos1 8y ago
    Copyright can constrain use (although the actual extent varies a lot between jurisdictions). Most licenses (which are basically a way to manage copyrights) don't make use that, but some do (like a license that Apple uses for their SDKs, which disallows running it on non-Apple hardware). BTW. I ignore that and even many large, respectable companies ignore that, but it's there ;)