Apple Kills Google's Enterprise Development Certification

[wanderingfool2]

10 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

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. 

There are lawsuits that are already going on regarding Apple's monopolistic style of dictatorship with regards to the App Store and the iPhone ecosystem.  The point I am trying to make, is aside from the App Store, there are no other viable alternatives and given the power Apple has as a company should they be allowed to run it without being regulated to some respect?  (The example with Google is sort of what I am getting at, they have been sued and governments have done investigations in regards to Google and their searches).

 

In my opinion, yes FB and Google broke the TOS, but one of the talking points should be does the fact Facebook and Google effectively used a backdoor method speak to another issue that Apple's ecosystem is too tightly controlled given their dominance in the market.  (Which could lead to monopoly type of lawsuits, except that those laws don't typically apply to duopolies)

[Ashleyyyy]

@wanderingfool2 there is no monopoly. if you don't want the Apple ecosystem buy an android phone. 

[Drak3]

35 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

@wanderingfool2 there is no monopoly. if you don't want the Apple ecosystem buy an android phone. 

He's saying Apple has a monopoly on software distrobution on iOS.

 

Which IMO, still completely fine. iOS is an Apple product, after all.

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, Drak3 said:

He's saying Apple has a monopoly on software distrobution on iOS.

except they don't. like @DrMacintosh said sideloding apps is possible. 

[Umberto]

I haven't looked into this subject too much but my feeling is that this is more an effect of laziness from Google and Facebook than it is a violation of Apples privacy policy. Basically there are three ways to easily distribute an app to iOS devices: (1) the app store, (2) to employees for internal use via this enterprise cert, and (3) via test flight which is for testing. The issue here is obviously that Google and Facebook distributed their apps via option (2) which is a clear violation of the terms of their enterprise certificate which states that apps can only be distributed to employees for internal use. So no mystery there.

 

So why didn't they just release the app in the app store? As far as I can tell it's a VPN app that logs all your data and network activity, and I would assume that all of this takes place server side. VPN apps are not banned and Apple has no control over what happens server side so technically speaking Google and Facebook could've made an app that required a login to work and only work for the Google-/Facebook accounts that have opted in to this research program. So why didn't they? My guess is that it was easier and required less work to use the enterprise certificate. Or they did more than just monitor the traffic which would potentially have been a breach of Apples privacy policy. 

 

I just looked into it a bit more before pressing submit and yeah, it was more than just a VPN, it was spyware essentially. 

https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/usreach/answer/7567389?hl=en&ref_topic=7648242

Quote

Google collects data through its meters, including, for example:

• The content and advertising shown on your devices, and your interactions with that content and advertising, including videos you watched, your emails and SMS, and web pages you've visited.
• Information you input (e.g., text you type) into your devices.
• Cookies and device information.

[...]

For example, when a Meter is placed on your mobile phone, it potentially will record everything you see on your screen and everything you tap, type, swipe, or otherwise input.

In other words it couldn't have been published on the app store. 

[Guest]

On 1/31/2019 at 3:42 PM, DrMacintosh said:

As long as Apple continues to remain in the spotlight

i sense a isheep

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, firelighter487 said:

@wanderingfool2 there is no monopoly. if you don't want the Apple ecosystem buy an android phone. 

That is why I said they have a monopolistic approach to the ecosystem, but also stated that they are very much a duopoly situation.  It is the principle that they use the "for security" when in practice (and lawsuits) it is more about them trying to command the price

 

46 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

except they don't. like @DrMacintosh said sideloding apps is possible. 

Please provide a proper reference to how to sideload an app then.  The one Drmacintosh posted you need the source code, and a Mac (work hackintosh).  The other method he mentioned, I couldn't find any reference to online (unless you include using an developer certificate signed app...which then we fall into Apple being able to revoke it).

[Thaldor]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Please provide a proper reference to how to sideload an app then.  The one Drmacintosh posted you need the source code, and a Mac (work hackintosh).  The other method he mentioned, I couldn't find any reference to online (unless you include using an developer certificate signed app...which then we fall into Apple being able to revoke it).

You can just download an .ipa-file and that way sideload, but that is more like a way for iSheeps to say "you can sideload apps in iOS" than a real thing, the 1 week revoke time makes it very stupid approach which has very little to none use in practice for anything else than testing apps (it also seems like iOS also stores what has been "sideloaded" and for the next week you need whole another build). That's why people are quite eagerly waiting cydia impactor or a like for iOS 12 which allows real sideloading for apps like Kodi, because it's totally unsustainable to rely on iOSs "sideloading" and making a new build every week and making users go through the same steps weekly to keep using the app.

 

With Xcode approach you would need to release the source code (which isn't that bad) but it would also need users to have a Mac (or VM or hackintos) and make developer account for iOS. This would circumvent the one week test period, but would really cut down the userbase and probably would also be kind of unsustainable because you could never know when Apple decides to pull the plug for the program with some update that would sniff it out and break it because you would be kind of circumventing Apples TOS.

 

So stil lthe only way to really sideload apps in iOS is to jailbreak or use impactor.

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

the 1 week revoke time makes it very stupid approach which has very little to none use in practice for anything else than testing apps (it also seems like iOS also stores what has been "sideloaded" and for the next week you need whole another build).

The app will continue to work as long as the phone does not restart. I don't know about you, but my phone can stay on for months without trouble. As long as the phone does not restart, the app will be signed and valid.

[DrMacintosh]

8 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

So stil lthe only way to really sideload apps in iOS is to jailbreak or use impactor.

So no, you now know the way that normal people can side load apps. Get your .ipa and keep signing the app with your personal dev count that validates the certificate for 7 days. After 7 days you won't have to resign the app unless you restart your phone. 

[Chett_Manly]

It will be interesting to see if Google and Facebook retaliate. Disable all their apps on iOS. They are quite the monopolies themselves and end users are not going to really like the alternatives. Bing and Apple Maps does not a happy customer make.

[Thaldor]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

The app will continue to work as long as the phone does not restart. I don't know about you, but my phone can stay on for months without trouble. As long as the phone does not restart, the app will be signed and valid.

 

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

So no, you now know the way that normal people can side load apps. Get your .ipa and keep signing the app with your personal dev count that validates the certificate for 7 days. After 7 days you won't have to resign the app unless you restart your phone. 

I thought I made it quite clear I wrote from the developer standpoint. Maybe you, me and most users here don't restart their phones in months, but when you start to have +100 users there's always the chance someone runs out of battery or something that shuts down their device and if they have used your app for over a week, you need to have a new build for them. So, if you want to develope an app that isn't going to get into App Store, the only sustainable way is to guide your users to jailbreak their phones or, if they can, use impactor (like Kodi does).

[Ashleyyyy]

12 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

It will be interesting to see if Google and Facebook retaliate. Disable all their apps on iOS. They are quite the monopolies themselves and end users are not going to really like the alternatives. Bing and Apple Maps does not a happy customer make.

iOS users could still use web apps. 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

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

You mean your condition that it no one has the right to distribute an app for ios without needing apples approval.  Ok then.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no one has the right to distribute an app for ios without needing apples approval.  Ok then.

That is correct

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

iOS users could still use web apps. 

Unless Facebook and Google blacklist browsers on iOS.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no one has the right to distribute an app for ios without needing apples approval.

That's kind of the point of proprietary stores on proprietary operating systems. Since Apple made every part of it, they have that right to control it.

[Arika]

20 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That is correct

Didn't google get bitch slapped by the EU for bundling their own apps (like chrome) on android phones?

 

How is what Apple does different than Google? not making an accusation, I'm actually genuinely curious. I see Chrome to android the same as Safari to iOS

[Drak3]

Just now, Arika S said:

How is what Apple does different than Google?

It isn't. The only difference there is, is the fact that Google's OS is far more widely used.

 

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

Didn't google get bitch slapped by the EU for bundling their own apps (like chrome) on android phones?

Europe overstepping boundaries doesn't make them right.

[straight_stewie]

On 2/1/2019 at 1:50 AM, firelighter487 said:

they already do that with Windows 10 S

Windows 10 S is an optional "feature", not the only way to use the product.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Unless Facebook and Google blacklist browsers on iOS.

 

That's kind of the point of proprietary stores on proprietary operating systems. Since Apple made every part of it, they have that right to control it.

Except that we have one rule for google and MS and one for Apple.  I don't buy it, it's not like apple has an insignificant market share or designed for a specific end use. 

 

Google have been harassed by the EU for similar actions, MS has definitely been harassed by them and there is a current lawsuit in progress concerning this issue.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer

 

 

 

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Windows 10 S is an optional "feature", not the only way to use the product.

 

My only issue with 10s is that it shouldn't be sold to the public.  It has a very good place in education and corporations that manage their own fleets, but I highly dislike that people can easily be sold a 10s device not understanding the limitations.

[straight_stewie]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My only issue with 10s is that it shouldn't be sold to the public.  It has a very good place in education and corporations that manage their own fleets, but I highly dislike that people can easily be sold a 10s device not understanding the limitations. 

That is a valid point, but I've always been of the general opinion: Caveat Emptor.

So long as the seller advertises that the device is loaded with 10 S as opposed to some other version, then I think that it's the buyers job to make sure that that is actually the product that they want.

It is not a manufacturers responsibility to protect me from buying something that I don't want. It is, however, their responsibility to give me enough information to correctly decide which products of theirs, if any, I do want.

[Umberto]

14 hours ago, Chett_Manly said:

It will be interesting to see if Google and Facebook retaliate. Disable all their apps on iOS. They are quite the monopolies themselves and end users are not going to really like the alternatives. Bing and Apple Maps does not a happy customer make.

Google pays Apple $9 billion (some say even more) to have Google as the default search engine on safari so I find that very unlikely to happen. 

[Commodus]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

Didn't google get bitch slapped by the EU for bundling their own apps (like chrome) on android phones?

 

How is what Apple does different than Google? not making an accusation, I'm actually genuinely curious. I see Chrome to android the same as Safari to iOS

The difference is that Apple doesn't have dominant market share, and doesn't distribute its platform to other vendors; Google does both.

 

There's a common misconception that antitrust abuse applies solely to the business model.  But it doesn't.  The European Commission, Federal Trade Commission and many other organizations are only concerned about the business model when the company has monopoly status, and then primarily if it's using its business model to strangle competitors.

 

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and its vertically integrated model would actually spare it from some actions even if it did dominate.  It might have to allow third-party default apps, for example, but it probably wouldn't be forced to bundle third-party apps and might not even be required to allow downloads beyond the App Store (it might have to change its fees or submission policies, though).

 

Google got into trouble because it both has a monopoly and was clearly using that to dictate how partners operated.  You want the Google Play Store?  Then you have to include all our apps.  Oh, and we'll pay you to make sure you never pre-install a competing search app on your phone.  It was using AOSP as an excuse for anti-competitive behavior knowing full well that many vendors would be completely hobbled without Play Store access.

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, Commodus said:

The difference is that Apple doesn't have dominant market share, and doesn't distribute its platform to other vendors; Google does both.

 

There's a common misconception that antitrust abuse applies solely to the business model.  But it doesn't.  The European Commission, Federal Trade Commission and many other organizations are only concerned about the business model when the company has monopoly status, and then primarily if it's using its business model to strangle competitors.

 

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and its vertically integrated model would actually spare it from some actions even if it did dominate.  It might have to allow third-party default apps, for example, but it probably wouldn't be forced to bundle third-party apps and might not even be required to allow downloads beyond the App Store (it might have to change its fees or submission policies, though).

 

Google got into trouble because it both has a monopoly and was clearly using that to dictate how partners operated.  You want the Google Play Store?  Then you have to include all our apps.  Oh, and we'll pay you to make sure you never pre-install a competing search app on your phone.  It was using AOSP as an excuse for anti-competitive behavior knowing full well that many vendors would be completely hobbled without Play Store access.

They don't have to have a classical dominant market position in order to be guilty of antitrust.   It can be bought in a "per se" setting or it could be brought under one of the existing trade acts, I.E the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act.  The latter being the one that forbids tying arrangements, If a court or jury decides the iphone is part of a tying arrangement with the app store then apple may have to permit side loading exactly as google does.

 

Because the iphone is 100% tied to the apple appstore they have the software side of the consumer device monopolized. 

 

 

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

They don't have to have a classical dominant market position in order to be guilty of antitrust. 

You do actually, at least in the EU (not sure about the US, which is where the two acts you mention applies). 

 

Article 102 of the EU antitrust treaty specifically says that it "prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position". 

Please note that it specifically says firms that hold a dominant position. 

 

iOS has 28% market share in the EU. That's why there are "different rules" for Google, Microsoft and Apple. Because Apple aren't big enough where they can abuse their position unlike the other two who has over 70% and 80% market share in their respective categories.