3 ms·
That seems entirely legitimate and in no way harms the consumer, which is what the app store is always claiming to prevent. You bought it, you get to chose wha
by Robin_Message 8y ago
That seems entirely legitimate and in no way harms the consumer, which is what the app store is always claiming to prevent.
You bought it, you get to chose what code runs on it, and DRM shouldn't be used to prevent that.
- kerbs 8y agoI would highly recommend reading the recent articles about the reasons for Facebook and Google’s certificates being revoked. It is not because the apps were nefarious.
- scarface74 8y agoDid you read what FB apps actually do? Would you put an app on your phone that can record anything you do in any app?
- kerbs 8y agoYes, the app was terrible. The Apple Enterprise terms simply state you cannot distribute to the general public. It doesn't matter that the app was terrible, the violation itself was much more boring.
- nacs 8y ago> It is not because the apps were nefarious. The FB app targetted young people and literally installed a VPN profile that routed all internet traffic through Facebook servers. Essentially full network packet-capture of everyone who installed their app. That's the definition of nefarious.
- chii 8y agoThe user did decide to install the app, it wasn't forced onto them. As long as user consented, the app should be allowed to do anything.
- darkpuma 8y agoThey were targeting children, who were not capable of giving informed consent. Furthermore, because they were providing financial rewards for installing the app, it was exploitative of the poor.
- kerbs 8y agoI did not say the app was not nefarious, I said that their enterprise account was not revoked because the app was nefarious. The enterprise certificates were revoked primarily because they violated the #1 rule of the enterprise account - do not distribute outside of your company.