Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The difference is that Apple are controlling what software individuals can run on their own phones that they paid good money for.

Maybe, except that the enterprise app distribution system is a service provided by Apple. It has associated terms and conditions.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's the argument to be making right now; if the topic were jailbreaking, sure. As it is, it's about abusing a service. The enterprise app distribution system is not sideloading in the same sense as it is on Android; it is a service for a specific purpose.

> But I'm not sure it's fair to say that Apple phone purchasers are clearly told when they buy a phone that Apple can disable their employer's internal apps

For the individual employees, no, they probably don't know this. However, they have no real need to know; this is an implementation detail on the employer's end.

The employers 100% know about this, or else they wouldn't agree to the terms and conditions of the enterprise app distribution system. Legal teams will have pored over this. Nobody is ignorant of the implications of their actions; it just happened to be that two high-profile companies made the mistake of thinking they were immune to punishment.

But no, any company involved in the enterprise app distribution system knows 100% what getting that certificate revoked means. Especially a tech company!



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: