4 ms·

Yeah, this is blatant abuse of the enterprise certificate program. This kind of activity sucks for those of us that use the enterprise signing cert for legitima

by jeiting 13y ago

Yeah, this is blatant abuse of the enterprise certificate program. This kind of activity sucks for those of us that use the enterprise signing cert for legitimate purposes.

Dylan16807 13y ago
This is definitely an abuse of the program, but it hurts to see you use the word 'legitimate' to mean 'apple-sanctioned'. They're not tricking anyone, just letting people install custom apps without paying apple a huge* developer fee. *$100 is more or less acceptable, $100 per year for revocable permission to compile is awful
- pbsdp 13y ago
  To be granted an enterprise or standard developer signing certificate, you must agree to a contract that stipulates the valid uses of that certificate. I think it's reasonable to call blatant disregard for contractual obligations "illegitimate".
- glhaynes 13y ago
  Check what "legitimate" means.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    First definition is obeying laws/rules, that fits. Second definition is "Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards", and that's where it hurts me to read the characterization. They are doing something acceptable and that is very standard in the realm of computing, and seeing it discouraged sucks.
- mikeash 13y ago
  "They're not tricking anyone" Don't forget Apple. They told Apple that they would not use this key in certain ways, even though they do. I don't see the problem with calling this "illegitimate". Jailbreaking so you can sideload apps is legitimate. Somehow cracking Apple's verification so you can sign apps without their involvement would be legitimate. But signing up for an enterprise account and then using the keys they give you as part of that in ways they tell you not to is, I think, legitimately illegitimate (ahem).
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Okay, I guess I should have expected that to be taken literally. Sorry. I meant that they are tricking, to 1% margin of error, nobody. The core of their business is legitimate. They're not scammers.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Or we can put a different spin on it, and say that they are "only" tricking their major contractual business partner, the one entity without which they would have no business to begin with.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        The most important business question would be how they make their money. As far as I know their main service does not depend on violating the license in any way, so they are nowhere near being fraudsters. If they were leaching all their money off of Apple I would accept the judgement, but I don't think that's the case. Edit: @downvote, am I wrong? I was trying to trust this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6047309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6047309
- peterkelly 13y ago
  > $100 per year for revocable permission to compile is awful If you're making any kind of serious money on the app store, this cost is practically nothing. Maybe 2-4 hours of your time, tops. Think about how much the Macbook Pro you use to develop on costs.
  - MereInterest 13y ago
    I program as a hobbyist. I would like to be able to fiddle around with my ipod touch. For me, $100 per year to test if I would like programming in that environment is too much.
    - btgeekboy 13y ago
      It's completely free to fire up Xcode and play in the simulator all day long. All the developer account gets you is a signed certificate and access to the App Store. You're free (physically and monetarily) to experiment to your heart's content within the simulator.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        For access to the app store, the fee is fine. For the ability to put the code onto your actual phone instead of a simulated phone it's a complete ripoff. It shouldn't be bundled like that.

by jeiting 13y ago

Yeah, this is blatant abuse of the enterprise certificate program. This kind of activity sucks for those of us that use the enterprise signing cert for legitimate purposes.

Dylan16807 13y ago

This is definitely an abuse of the program, but it hurts to see you use the word 'legitimate' to mean 'apple-sanctioned'. They're not tricking anyone, just letting people install custom apps without paying apple a huge* developer fee. *$100 is more or less acceptable, $100 per year for revocable permission to compile is awful

pbsdp 13y ago
To be granted an enterprise or standard developer signing certificate, you must agree to a contract that stipulates the valid uses of that certificate. I think it's reasonable to call blatant disregard for contractual obligations "illegitimate".
glhaynes 13y ago
Check what "legitimate" means.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  First definition is obeying laws/rules, that fits. Second definition is "Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards", and that's where it hurts me to read the characterization. They are doing something acceptable and that is very standard in the realm of computing, and seeing it discouraged sucks.
mikeash 13y ago
"They're not tricking anyone" Don't forget Apple. They told Apple that they would not use this key in certain ways, even though they do. I don't see the problem with calling this "illegitimate". Jailbreaking so you can sideload apps is legitimate. Somehow cracking Apple's verification so you can sign apps without their involvement would be legitimate. But signing up for an enterprise account and then using the keys they give you as part of that in ways they tell you not to is, I think, legitimately illegitimate (ahem).
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Okay, I guess I should have expected that to be taken literally. Sorry. I meant that they are tricking, to 1% margin of error, nobody. The core of their business is legitimate. They're not scammers.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Or we can put a different spin on it, and say that they are "only" tricking their major contractual business partner, the one entity without which they would have no business to begin with.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      The most important business question would be how they make their money. As far as I know their main service does not depend on violating the license in any way, so they are nowhere near being fraudsters. If they were leaching all their money off of Apple I would accept the judgement, but I don't think that's the case. Edit: @downvote, am I wrong? I was trying to trust this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6047309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6047309
peterkelly 13y ago
> $100 per year for revocable permission to compile is awful If you're making any kind of serious money on the app store, this cost is practically nothing. Maybe 2-4 hours of your time, tops. Think about how much the Macbook Pro you use to develop on costs.
- MereInterest 13y ago
  I program as a hobbyist. I would like to be able to fiddle around with my ipod touch. For me, $100 per year to test if I would like programming in that environment is too much.
  - btgeekboy 13y ago
    It's completely free to fire up Xcode and play in the simulator all day long. All the developer account gets you is a signed certificate and access to the App Store. You're free (physically and monetarily) to experiment to your heart's content within the simulator.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      For access to the app store, the fee is fine. For the ability to put the code onto your actual phone instead of a simulated phone it's a complete ripoff. It shouldn't be bundled like that.