3 ms·
Apple has historically looked the other way at a lot of uses of enterprise certs outside the fuzzy definition of who exactly is in the enterprise. The differen
by cameldrv 8y ago
Apple has historically looked the other way at a lot of uses of enterprise certs outside the fuzzy definition of who exactly is in the enterprise. The difference with the Apple and Google cases is that they were using the enterprise cert to distribute apps that were specifically banned from the app store, and they were distributing it to people that clearly did not have any kind of close relationship with the company. In many of your examples, the apps are for gig workers that are arguably part of the "enterprise.", even if they're not technically employees. I think Facebook tried to argue that because they were paying people $20 a month to keep the app on their phone that they were their contractors, but that is a very thin argument.
- mrep 8y agoCome on, let's be real, the difference is that the media blasted Facebook and Google about privacy issues and Apple capitalized on that to play to their privacy marketing play.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- matthewmacleod 8y agoWhy this, instead of the much simpler explanation above?
- Buge 8y ago"Negative media attention about a thing, better ban it" seems like a fairly simple explanation to me.
- hjanssen 8y agoWhich i guess is _fine_ if the result from that is an increase in privacy for the end user. I get your point - there is something to be said about handling every "breach" of their rules differently. But in the case of Google and Facebook there is a clear distinction between evil and not evil if you factor in your list above, which we all can agree on.