airnerd
About
- Username
- airnerd
- Joined
- Visits
- 45
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 784
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 693
Reactions
-
Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments
Again that works great when they are enterprise wide apps, not so much when they are side projects created to assist in the daily work of a few hundred employees. There are two that I use daily but aren't enterprise wide.crowley said:
You can do that already though with the Enterprise Program? My company has a web portal to in-house apps.airnerd said:
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.SpamSandwich said:
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.Johan42 said:
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.racerhomie3 said:
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.avon b7 said:I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
Bottom line is they are not "stolen apps" like the poster I was disagreeing with said. There are legit reasons to have apps that can't go through the App Store.
-
Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments
Not at all BS. These aren't enterprise apps, these are task management apps which aren't enterprise solutions. They are created for a subset of employees, and so we use hockeyapp to get them to the few hundreds users that need them. We don't need to spin our entire mobile group up for internal apps when they are instead focused on the customer facing ones.ericthehalfbee said:airnerd said:
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.SpamSandwich said:
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.Johan42 said:
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.racerhomie3 said:
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.avon b7 said:I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
If you have in-house Apps you should have an enterprise developer account and distribute them yourselves without requiring any third party store. Your comment is pure BS.
So feel free to take your BS judgement and place it where the sun doesn't shine.
-
Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments
cough cough...maps...cough coughavon b7 said:
Definitely not cut and dry but there is no reason to think that someone couldn't actually do an equally good, or better job than Apple. Yes, some might be worse but that wouldn't be enough to rule that security would be affected. That remains to be seen (supposing someone gets something through a ruling that increases app store competition). At the very least direct app to consumer sales from trusted developers (safeguards in place) is hard to argue against if the developer is willing to manage the administrative side.radarthekat said:
That becomes a trademark issue, believe it or not. The iPhone and iOS is protected by trademark, and represents in the eyes of consumers a more secure smartphone versus the competition, among other favorably comparable attributes. To allow third parties to install less secure or not-at-all-secure apps on topcrowley said:
And why not allow third-party app stores at the user's risk?racerhomie3 said:
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.avon b7 said:I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
of iOS would be to dilute that trademark and would result in harm to the good name Apple has earned through its diligence in keeping the platform secure.
You see, this is not merely a cut and dry issue. -
Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments
100% disagree with you on that one. We have at least a half dozen apps that we use at my office which have to be sideloaded because they are created in house and wouldn't in a million years clear the App Store review. There is proprietary info in there and since it uses our LDAP credentials that too would be an issue. There a plenty of use cases for a private app store besides stolen content.SpamSandwich said:
If you want to damage your phone with harmful apps, go right ahead. You know good and well that this is really about people who are interested in loading up on stolen content.Johan42 said:
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.racerhomie3 said:
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.avon b7 said:I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
-
Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments
Can you help me understand why that example isn't an antitrust one? Apple controls the only avenue to get an app onto a phone (short of an airwatch or some other esoteric workaround) and now refuses to allow the app to use the sole distribution channel. Sounds exactly like an antitrust issue...restrict competition and then censor what you don't agree with.Mike Wuerthele said:
Yeah, this isn't a violation of the Antitrust act. There are potentially other issues with this, but antitrust isn't one of them.chuckjaymoore said:Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
