User opt-in does not excuse violating Apple’s terms of use. Google _likely_ did not get Apple’s opt-in for this approach. If they did not, they will _likely_ see their enterprise certificate terminated for precisely the same reason.
Still playing devil's advocate : I am more perplexed by the necessity to have Apple's approval than anything else here.
Sure this particular app is debatable.. but I have also worked in the music streaming industry. While being super respectful of the users, we still have sometimes had to wait for months for Apple's approval.
Having a single agent being able to gatekeep what you can install on your phone at their own discretion is an issue since there will always be the temptation to prevent any competitor from getting in your space.
I am more perplexed by the necessity to have Apple's approval than anything else here.
As I understand it, it’s because the apps were being distributed using a method that is supposed to be used only inside the company. Like for beta testing software, or for in-house applications used by employees only. Anything going to the general public is supposed to go through the App Store under Apple’s terms and conditions.
That doesn't require Apple to lock down the platform. All it requires is for them to offer a store of Apple reviewed apps. You can choose those apps, other people can choose apps from other stores.
You're basically saying you like Blockbuster video because there's no porn and they only have the "edited for the Airlines" versions of movies.
Great, but other people would like to use their device for whatever they want.
Yes, I know you'll say "so buy a device from someone else". I don't agree with that anymore than I think Ford should be able to make a car you're not allowed to drive anywhere Ford says your not. If Ford did that I don't think the answer should be, "if you want to drive other places buy a car from someone else". IMO the answer should be it's illegal for Ford to control my car to that level.
I'm hoping Apple loses the case against their monopoly on the App store (although given the details of the case I don't think this particular case will succeed so I'll have to wait for another)
That's a complete non-sequitur. The complaint was that the owner of the device doesn't have the choice to install software that wasn't approved by Apple. The fact that you only want to install software approved by Apple is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should be able to install whatever you want, because your ability to install whatever you want does not in any way affect your ability to only install software approved by Apple.
You only buying Nike shoes does not require that all other companies are banned from selling shoes, you only eating McDonald's burgers does not require all other restaurants to be closed, and you only buying software through Apple does not require that there is no other ways to install software either, that's just authoritarian bullshit.
Yes and no, see other replies for nuance. Apple controls software distribution for their platform, in exactly the same way (in principle) that games console manufacturers have done so for many decades. They do so in the same way Atari controlled software distribution for the 2600 in 1977 and Nintendo controls it for the Switch today, or that Volvo does for software performance packs for their vehicles. All these and many, many, many more are closed platform devices you buy, with optional software features you can purchase from the vendor.
It's their platform, they can choose the rules behind app distribution. They chose to allow it through methods controlled by themselves. If a third party wants to distribute apps, then they have to abide by the terms set by Apple.
yes, but 'inside the company' and 'testing' are vague. On one hand u have Larry Page testing the latest version of Gmail app - clearly eithin bounds - but what if its a contractor using an app filled with analytics that won't be released to the public, then what if its a focus group with 5 people, then what if its a large study like this, etc.
That's precisely what TestFlight is for. Internal use, testing, and production each have their avenues: Enterprise certificate, testflight, and app store
Any time you have a human element to a process, there are bound to be unforseen consequences. For all we know, their review process could be devoid of SLAs for completing reviews and Agents could sit on reviews for months for arbitrary reasons because no one is following up on them.
We're a large NFP but not a particularly large organization so I'm not sure if we get preferential treatment but our business lead has a direct point of contact with an App Store representative and has used it to get extended information about and, from our perspective, force through Apps releases stuck in review.
He isn't the type of person to sit idly by when a process is taking an abnormal amount of time so part of me thinks it isn't a case of preferential treatment but rather the squeaky wheel getting the grease.
I'm sure having someone he can get on a phone and hold accountable goes a long way. I'm still unclear how he managed that.
