[mcmoose75]

I agree that Google & FB violated the terms of the agreement they had with Apple.

I think an interesting question is: What is Apple's best move from here?

I would suggest that Apple should leave Google/ FB blocked for ~1-2 weeks, to remind them who's boss on the iOS platform. However, I would argue it'd be smart for them to switch them back on after that- there's a chance that this looks anticompetitive to regulators at some point, which isn't something Apple wants to mess around with.

[rootusrootus]

I imagine they're going to have a pow-wow with Google/FB execs and/or legal where they will all agree that the rules really are the rules and Google/FB will promise not to break them again, and Apple will restore the certs. Probably in less than a week. Apple has made their point, and there are good reasons to maintain a cordial relationship.

[mcmoose75]

That sounds right- they may also ask for other PR concessions, like very publicly admitting they violated the terms of the agreement and re-committing to being good citizens of the iOS developer community.

One sort of "rubbing their nose in it" term could be something like a large donation to some sort of privacy advocacy group or similar.

[briandear]

> they will all agree that the rules really are

You mean like the terms of the Enterprise agreement? The terms that were already agreed to?

[nvrspyx]

Yea. That's exactly their point. The rules are the rules.

[hk__2]

Why would Apple enforce its rules for only 1-2 weeks? The rules are the rules; they aren’t doing anything bad here.

[shhehebehdh]

From a practical standpoint, it’s hard to picture apple permanently preventing google from e.g. dogfooding Google Maps for iOS. I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility, but I don’t see it as likely.

I wouldn’t even look at it from an anticompetitive angle or anything like that. This is a matter of what’s best for apple and its users. They should absolutely do what’s needed to ensure that their terms are obeyed. But permanently banning google is not “what’s needed.” What’s needed is merely to demonstrate that the behavior will not be tolerated going forward. I imagine discussions between corporate lawyers and perhaps a reasonably sized bond would be sufficient to demonstrate google’s sincerity in not repeating the error.

[jedieaston]

Dogfooding is possible via TestFlight, and Apple moderates it to ensure they aren't breaking the rules before the builds go out, I believe. Enterprise certificates are for pushing applications written for internal use only, like the Facebook lunch app or Google's bus schedule.

[mcmoose75]

Anything that smells anticompetitive is kind of a dangerous dance- by preventing two of their largest competitors from developing on their platform I think they'd be inviting some regulatory scrutiny (even though FB/ Goog DID violate the agreement).

[alexanderdmitri]

Isn't it anti-competetive in general then that big players get more protection from consequences via this logic?

[mcmoose75]

It's not anti-competitive, but it is unfair.

The reality, though, is that this sort of behavior in VERY large, VERY influential companies is going to draw way more scrutiny than a small company getting crushed by one of the big guys.

[atomical]

Do the internal apps at Facebook compete with the internal apps at Apple?

[mcmoose75]

"Competition" doesn't have to be narrowly defined.

In general, Apple, Google, and Facebook are 3 of the largest technology companies in the world. In general, they have areas where their interests overlap (messaging as one good example of this).

Hindering the ability of Google/ FB to develop on iOS could absolutely be seen as an anticompetitive measure by Apple.

[kngspook]

No, Facebook/Google internal apps fall into two categories:

- Utilities that are only useful to employees of those companies (cafeteria menus, shuttle schedules, resources for salespeople on the go, etc.).

- Pre-release/testing (aka dogfood) versions of the apps they distribute to the public, for employees to use and find bugs on before they make it out to normal users.

Neither of those are pools that Apple wants to play in.

...and I guess there's a third category:

- Apps used gain "competitive intelligence" and spy on users.

[Jare]

> they aren’t doing anything bad here

By making this problem last long they aren't doing anything useful either.

- Bad case, they never restore certificates to G/FB and they end up losing all their employees to Android, with likely ripple effects in their tech sphere of influence.

- Worst case, G/FB retaliate by removing their apps from iOS and it's all out war with everyone losing.

- Best case, they restore them tomorrow with some fanfare and handshakes, but thousands of smaller companies now have been reminded Apple may actually shut them down if they misbehave.

[CPLX]

There's absolutely nothing anti-competitive about this from a legal standpoint whatsoever.

[Natanael_L]

Apple completely forbidding the availability of certain types of software on their devices from third party developers? Not anticompetitive? Although sure, in this particular case it wasn't because of the type of app, but it still has the same effect because certain apps ARE forbidden from the store, and this does indeed mean that nobody can effectively offer such apps because of Apple's rules

There's no actual legal requirement that your company offers the same service that you use your market control to prevent your competitors from offering.

This is especially relevant in the markets where Apple has a significant market share (USA).

[CPLX]

It’s not a legal thing. If you think it is at least try to cite the general area of law.

You can create devices and sell them and not make them compatible with other companies products if you want. It’s true from printer ink to PlayStations.

The only issue would be market share and monopoly problems, which given that Google’s alternative platform has 54% of the market is totally irrelevant here.

[mercutio2]

Nothing about this maneuver has caused people to be forbidden from installing apps on their own devices.

A convenient and inexpensive mechanism for installing apps to lots of other people’s devices has, however, been revoked.

[stale2002]

> I would suggest that Apple should leave Google/ FB blocked for ~1-2 weeks

Perhaps Google should shut down ever one of the servers that Apple is renting from them, for a couple weeks?

Or just block everyone on apple's campus/IP addresses from having access to any google services, search engines, ect?

The 2nd one probably wouldn't violate any contracts, so I don't see a problem with it.

[kngspook]

I don't think it's about remind them who's boss. Apple will revoke the certs for as long as is necessary to protect their users, but I don't think they'll stay revoked for punitive purposes. I expect it'll be a period measured in double-digit hours, not weeks.

[saagarjha]

> remind them who's boss on the iOS platform

This sounds counterproductive, as opposed to enforcing rules consistently.