Apple Kills Google's Enterprise Development Certification

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Whereas Microsoft's control and blocking of other browsers doesn't.

...because it doesn't? IIRC Windows defender is built into Windows 10 S. if MS restricted it to the point they have to avoid malware why is defender included?

 

2 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I can easily live without my Laptop for a month or two, but living without my phone would be super tricky.

for me it's the total opposite. but I do have bad eyes so if I had to use a phone all day my eyes would hurt like hell I suppose. never tried it. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

for me it's the total opposite. but I do have bad eyes so if I had to use a phone all day my eyes would hurt like hell I suppose. never tried it. 

If I had to do work then I would like to use my computer of course, but for every day things its easy to live without it. These are tools for a purpose, if you don't have the right tool you can't do the job.

[Drak3]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

because it doesn't? IIRC Windows defender is built into Windows 10 S. if MS restricted it to the point they have to avoid malware why is defender included?

You don't understand what I'm saying.

 

Apple is just enforcing (long standing) policy here. These apps are using an internal only certificate on public facing apps, violating policy and these companies agreed to said policies.

 

Whereas Windows not allowing browsers through their store isn't rooted in a long standing policy. Hell, there were alternative browsers in the 8/8.1 store.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

You don't understand what I'm saying.

 

Apple is just enforcing (long standing) policy here. These apps are using an internal only certificate on public facing apps, violating policy and these companies agreed to said policies.

 

Whereas Windows not allowing browsers through their store isn't rooted in a long standing policy. Hell, there were alternative browsers in the 8/8.1 store.

oh ok that makes sense. sorry it's almost 1AM here and i've been drinking so i'm sort of a zombie at the moment  

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

3 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

If I had to do work then I would like to use my computer of course, but for every day things its easy to live without it. These are tools for a purpose, if you don't have the right tool you can't do the job.

i only use my phone for music and texting... and like general stuff like checking wether the train is on time etc.. if i had to live without it, so using an iPod for music etc i would probably be fine. 

[RejZoR]

On 1/31/2019 at 11:04 PM, jagdtigger said:

PR move, as soon as sales of iphones dropped like a brick dummy they realized FB and Google is playing naughty.....

No. It's a clear violation of TOS. They allow such publishing of apps for internal testing. What they were doing was using internal certificate for external purposes which also bypasses all security checks that regular apps go through. I often take shit on Apple's yard, but here they are by no means to be blamed or dragged through shit as "PR move". It's not and I greatly respect their move and response. And I'm glad someone holds them accountable for the shit they do. Sure, Apple's recent "privacy" oriented move looks even better when they also do what they say, but trust me, it's not why they've done this primarily.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

because Apple does it on phones while MS does it on PC's. 

 

also Windows phone was worse than iOS in terms of what you could install.... so....

why does the device matter?  what is th eintrinsic difference between a phone people need and a desktop people need? none,  I am not seeing any real argument as to why apple should be control what apps the end user gets to install.

4 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Apple does do this to a significant degree I suppose already. There are positives and negatives for both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day a user can install third party apps not approved by the vendors on both operating systems. 

 

Apple should IMO dictate, because of their huge focus on security, and we do a lot of personal stuff like, banking, communication, photos on our devices, rather than on a computer. I can easily live without my Laptop for a month or two, but living without my phone would be super tricky. Times change I suppose, and so a very important need to keep our information private, when we have built these things to share information. 

So should they ban an app when it doesn't breach any security policies? because that is what they have done here, they have essentially decided that they don't like what facebook are doing so they have dug up a technicality and jumped.

3 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

...because it doesn't? IIRC Windows defender is built into Windows 10 S. if MS restricted it to the point they have to avoid malware why is defender included?

 

for me it's the total opposite. but I do have bad eyes so if I had to use a phone all day my eyes would hurt like hell I suppose. never tried it. 

Why does the inclusion of defender, which can be switched off, does not effect the use of other virus scanners and has no bearing on what apps you can install on your own device have to do with anything?

[wanderingfool2]

To an extent Windows does this through drivers (signed drivers), but there are still authorized ways to disabling signed drivers.  I think the issue I have here, is Apple doesn't have any method for an user to properly install a third-party app.  Even if it were something like a buried feature (or having multiple warning prompts...or a similar process as Android to turn your phone into developer mode).

 

Yes, what Google and Facebook did was against the TOS, but what proper alternative did they have?  For these types of Apps, I am assuming that Apple may have taken issue to them and not even published them (sort of like the times that they prevented camera apps that used the volume button to take a picture)

 

3 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Apple does do this to a significant degree I suppose already. There are positives and negatives for both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day a user can install third party apps not approved by the vendors on both operating systems. 

 

Apple should IMO dictate, because of their huge focus on security, and we do a lot of personal stuff like, banking, communication, photos on our devices, rather than on a computer. I can easily live without my Laptop for a month or two, but living without my phone would be super tricky. Times change I suppose, and so a very important need to keep our information private, when we have built these things to share information. 

"huge focus on security", I would say perceived security.  They allowed the recent FaceTime thing to happen, there have been multiple lock screen bypasses, they had stored GPS data on the phone (and loaded it to computers) and more.  To an extent they are better than the fragmented Android, but it is not because of their complete dictation of Apps. 

[DrMacintosh]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So should they ban an app when it doesn't breach any security policies? because that is what they have done here, they have essentially decided that they don't like what facebook are doing so they have dug up a technicality and jumped.

Facebook & Google literally violated the ToS of being an Enterprise Developer. You are intentionally disregarding the facts and are substituting your feelings of an open internet where anyone can do anything to their devices. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Facebook & Google literally violated the ToS of being an Enterprise Developer. You are intentionally disregarding the facts and are substituting your feelings of an open internet where anyone can do anything to their devices. 

been over that already,  I am not disregarding anything,  I have already said whether they are technically right or wrong with that is moot, the question it raises for me is the right they have to control other peoples apps like that.  Being able to switch of an entire companies apps at a whim is not a good thing in my book and it raises ethical issues. 

 

But again I note you and the others are ignoring the issues it raises to concentrate on personal opinions and retreat to claims of windows being "bad" and that's why it's not o.k for MS to control who runs what apps but it is for apple.

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

the question it raises for me is the right they have to control other peoples apps like that

The App Store is a private platform. They have every right to dictate what goes on on their platform. 

[wanderingfool2]

31 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The App Store is a private platform. They have every right to dictate what goes on on their platform. 

It is akin to Google deciding to have preferential treatment in searches (which even though it is Google search, they aren't allowed doing); just because Apple has full control over the App Store shouldn't give them the inherit right to dictate what occurs on their entire platform.

 

The fact is, Apple is effectively working in a duopoly (might be the wrong word to use) and the fact is they are using their power to limit what other companies can do, unless they use Apple as the gatekeeper.  For myself, this is worse than consenting data collection (through means of breaching a TOS).  Yes, they might have the right to pull the certificate, but it really does require one to ask the question should Apple be the one who decides what App is or isn't allowed on the iPhone and whether them pulling the certificate speaks to the larger issue that Apple can act as the gatekeeper without any oversight.

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes, they might have the right to pull the certificate, but it really does require one to ask the question should Apple be the one who decides what App is or isn't allowed on the iPhone and whether them pulling the certificate speaks to the larger issue that Apple can act as the gatekeeper without any oversight.

Yes, Apple can and will act as a gatekeeper of its own platform. 

 

You do not have the right to publish an app on the App Store, period. It is a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason that Apple sees fit. 

 

If you have a problem with that as a developer or as a user, then you can use another operating system, or sue. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So should they ban an app when it doesn't breach any security policies? because that is what they have done here, they have essentially decided that they don't like what facebook are doing so they have dug up a technicality and jumped.

Yes, but correctly so, in accordance with their ethics w/ privacy. It's more a case now of what FaceBook and Google are going to to about it. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"huge focus on security", I would say perceived security.  They allowed the recent FaceTime thing to happen, there have been multiple lock screen bypasses, they had stored GPS data on the phone (and loaded it to computers) and more.  To an extent they are better than the fragmented Android, but it is not because of their complete dictation of Apps. 

It's pretty well known that Apple have one of the best security protocols on their devices. 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The App Store is a private platform. They have every right to dictate what goes on on their platform. 

Irrelevant, google is a private service too, MS is a private company and windows is closed platform too.

 

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Yes, but correctly so, in accordance with their ethics w/ privacy. It's more a case now of what FaceBook and Google are going to to about it. 

That's problem, it might be "their" ethics but is it their right?  They have and can effectively dictate who can use what app.  How does that differ from MS deciding to do it for windows or google doing it for android.

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Irrelevant, google is a private service too, MS is a private company and windows is closed platform too.

Yes, BMW, Kirby, Pizza Hut, and Dole are also private companies. That doesn't give them the right to violate the terms of service of the App Store and except to keep their apps up.

 

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but is it their right?

Yes, it is their right to determine what is published on their platform. We have been over this. 

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, BMW, Kirby, Pizza Hut, and Dole are also private companies. That doesn't give them the right to violate the terms of service of the App Store and except to keep their apps up.

 

Yes, it is their right to determine what is published on their platform. We have been over this. 

 

You are completely ignoring the issue.  I assume if google or Microsoft turned around to tomorrow and started preventing apps from running you'd be in full support of it being their right then?

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why does the inclusion of defender, which can be switched off, does not effect the use of other virus scanners and has no bearing on what apps you can install on your own device have to do with anything?

it's Windows 10 S. you can't install normal Win32 apps on that. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

You are completely ignoring the issue.  I assume if google or Microsoft turned around to tomorrow and started preventing apps from running you'd be in full support of it being their right then?

if it is apps from the play store or Windows store yes. 

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I assume if google or Microsoft turned around to tomorrow and started preventing apps from running you'd be in full support of it being their right then?

Of course. If those applications were found to be in violation of the ToS of their respective marketplaces or were compromising user privacy and security; then absolutely they should be removed. 

 

I believe you wanted that to be a "gotcha" question, too bad. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

it's Windows 10 S. you can't install normal Win32 apps on that. 

There are alternatives to 10s, you know like windows standard,  are there alternatives to ios if I buy an iphone?.

6 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

if it is apps from the play store or Windows store yes. 

No, all versions of windows, any apps.

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Of course. If those applications were found to be in violation of the ToS of their respective marketplaces or were compromising user privacy and security; then absolutely they should be removed. 

 

I believe you wanted that to be a "gotcha" question, too bad. 

You believe wrong, I wanted you to stop side stepping the question (and the issue) in order to perpetuate the false conditions you created in response to it.

 

 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, all versions of windows, any apps.

 

that is not what we're talking about. you can still sideload apps on iOS if Apple removes them from the app store. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, firelighter487 said:

that is not what we're talking about. you can still sideload apps on iOS if Apple removes them from the app store. 

then I don't know what conversation you are having, but mine hasn't changed.

 

Also, is side loading as easy as visiting a webpage (that is not the official apps store) and clicking install? because if it's not then we aren't talking about the same thing.

[DrMacintosh]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I wanted you to stop side stepping the question (and the issue) in order to perpetuate the false conditions you created in response to it.

My conditions are totally valid. If you can’t accept that there is nuance in the world then that is not my problem.