Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Apple has rule. Facebook and Google agree to rule. Facebook and Google violate rule. Apple enforces rule.
This isn't some grey area where the details are difficult to ascertain. Everything is pretty clear; the enterprise app distribution service is most assuredly not for distributing apps that break the App Store rules to customers. This isn't difficult to understand, so I'm struggling to see where people are trying to find some sort of detail to exonerate two well-known, repeated rule breakers, violators of personal privacy, and altogether companies who think their size puts them above reproach.
I mean, when Apple makes a big screw up, everybody leaps on it, even when it's just based on unconfirmed (and sometimes fabricated, like the journalist reporting on conditions in the Foxconn factories) reports; but if it's Facebook or Google, somehow they're underdogs with clean records, deserving of the benefit of the doubt? I don't swallow it.
How about we all just pass judgement equally upon the big companies, Apple included, for their foibles? But let's also take into account when these companies have been caught red-handed before, and if the best punishment we could muster was a slap with a wet bus ticket, let's not umm and ahh about why they think they can get away with their behaviour, and not be at all surprised when finally someone takes a stand on their own territory.
If you're Facebook or Google you're used to being able to dictate terms to others. But there's always a bigger fish and in this case it's Apple.
They're outraged because they have no recourse. What they usually do to users or partners, dictate take-it-or-leave-it terms, is being done to them. They can't even complain to antitrust regulators because Apple is only lord of its own kingdom (which doesn't have market dominance).
If anything Google should be grateful Apple's support isn't as deliberately-shit as their own fake support system, they may yet resolve this instead of being banned for life.
Company-on-company support is an entirely different thing from customer support. These are developers with direct lines to one another. Google isn't filing a support ticket at an Apple Store.
I think our support that we get is probably quite different than the support Apple gives to the developers of Google and Facebook, who make most of the top 10 apps downloaded from the App Store.
There's plenty of recourse - politics-like fights in the court of public opinion. Nice vulnerability you've got there, it'd be a shame if it started to go to the press instead of being disclosed to you first.
Such an action would result extraordinary liability for a company. Public discovery would likely lead to consumer lawsuits, shareholders suits, replacement of the CEO, and shuffling of the board of directors. Not to mention possible criminal/civil penalties that pierce the corporate veil.
Merely leaking it would be of no consequence. They could even do it directly as a blog post from their security team. Attempting blackmail would be the trouble.
Its not blackmail. All you have to do is to get people to think there's no difference and that everyone is bad (just like "all politicians are bad" and "all cable companies are bad"). Then you don't have to have good service at all.
I worked for a small startup that abused the enterprise program in the same way. Originally it was to get around the tiny (at the time) number of beta testers allowed which then was only 100 unique devices. They did this at my suggestion- we needed a lot of testers but we were capped. Over time the CEO started sending out enterprise builds to all sorts of randoms such as potential investors, journalists, family and friends. I warned the CEO that this technically was not allowed, but I could not find a single instance where anyone had been caught violating the program. CEO brushed me off and continued breaking the rules, even after Test Flight was acquired by Apple and the tester cap increased. The enterprise builds were simply way more convenient.
I have since left the startup, but as far as I’m aware they are still continuing with this practice.
This isn't some grey area where the details are difficult to ascertain. Everything is pretty clear; the enterprise app distribution service is most assuredly not for distributing apps that break the App Store rules to customers. This isn't difficult to understand, so I'm struggling to see where people are trying to find some sort of detail to exonerate two well-known, repeated rule breakers, violators of personal privacy, and altogether companies who think their size puts them above reproach.
I mean, when Apple makes a big screw up, everybody leaps on it, even when it's just based on unconfirmed (and sometimes fabricated, like the journalist reporting on conditions in the Foxconn factories) reports; but if it's Facebook or Google, somehow they're underdogs with clean records, deserving of the benefit of the doubt? I don't swallow it.
How about we all just pass judgement equally upon the big companies, Apple included, for their foibles? But let's also take into account when these companies have been caught red-handed before, and if the best punishment we could muster was a slap with a wet bus ticket, let's not umm and ahh about why they think they can get away with their behaviour, and not be at all surprised when finally someone takes a stand on their own territory.