10 ms·

I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much

I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them. You may very well think that they're using their power sparingly and benevolently, but who is to say that will be the case next time around?

sotojuan 8y ago
In the case of Facebook, there's no judgement or moral side to take. They broke the rules Apple set when allowing Facebook to be in the App Store and use internal enterprise certificates. Objectively, Apple's behavior was fair.
- pbalau 8y ago
  Did they? Please think of this: is there a minimum age for internships?
  - zepto 8y ago
    Are you suggesting there was a child labor law violation as well as a breach of contract?
    - pbalau 8y ago
      I'm wondering if either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team. By FB legal team I mean those people that should point out when things are not legal.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        > either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.
        pbalau 8y ago
        The legal team at FB, at least back when I was there, was meant to prevent us from doing illegal things. So, this means that either Apple is wrong, or FB is wrong - as in their legal team is wrong, so they need a better one
        landryraccoon 8y ago
        So you've ruled out the possibility that Zuck was advised this might be a contract violation and just said fuck it, we think we'll get away with it?
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> it doesn't sit well with me that Apple yields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them At the end of the day, you can compile and run anything on your machine. This is just regulating distribution. Given the specific breaches at hand by Facebook and Google, a balance seems to have been found (acceptable to most users) between freedom and security.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  That is true only in the most technical of senses. Practically, Apple has near complete control over what is allowed to execute on an iOS device.
  - hmottestad 8y ago
    It's pretty true. Unless you manage to jailbreak your phone the only way to get it to run code (except for javascript) is by having, at some point up the chain, a certificate that's signed by Apple. It's free to get one though, but it only lasts for a week or so. You can pay to become a developer and I think you get one that lasts a year instead.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Excluding technical users, Google Play Services is the same. And their grip only tightens over time.
    - abugheratwork 8y ago
      I just want to chime in with "yes and yes". Let's be sure not to fall into a false dichotomy about which brand of problem is a problem. :)
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      Fortnite is only available on Android via sideloading, and I don't expect that will slow down Epic Games much.
    - deleted 8y ago
nerdjon 8y ago
You buy an iPhone knowing full well that Apple has this control, and for many people is the reason they buy their iPhone. So far they have used the power sparingly, at the end of the day it could have been a cute cat app and did nothing wrong but it still broke Apple's terms that these companies agreed to and Apple acted accordingly.
- mjw1007 8y ago
  I would bet good money that the large majority of iPhone users don't know that Apple has this much control (ie, that they can decide whether you're allowed to install custom apps provided by your employer).
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I'm sure many iOS users are not aware that you can install apps outside of the App Store.
    - iainmerrick 8y ago
      Yes. And for tech savvy people, such as Facebook developers, the fact that you need to install a special certificate before you can use internal company apps should give you a clue about what’s going on.
FakeComments 8y ago
My model of it: It will cost $500 to ditch Apple and replace them; there’s a 10% chance I will have to switch before I’d make my next purchase anyway; and Apple has to date saved me over $50 in frustration via their control of the ecosystem. So I’m willing to ride it out and see what happens.
- matwood 8y ago
  There is really nothing to ride out. I think it's rather refreshing that Apple followed the rules they set forth even when it was large companies breaking them. I would have more issue if Apple shutdown the lone developer, and then did nothing when FB/Google did the exact same thing. With the above said, we can certainly discuss if Apple should use/have this ability at all. But, IMO it is a different discussion.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    > I think it's rather refreshing that Apple followed the rules they set forth even when it was large companies breaking them. This kind of behavior from executives[0] is precisely why I invested in Apple products in the first place — why I took the risk at all. I meant that I don’t see this as any reason to get out, from a pure “well, what if they abuse their power?” perspective: the risk is low, given the way they’ve acted until now, and the total possible cost is reasonably bounded — I’ve already had enough upside to eclipse the risk weighted cost, this was a good investment. So why would I even worry about it until something bad did happen? The homo economis answer is to let your bet ride, until the point you were going to re-evaluate anyway, when buying a new phone. [0] There is approximately 0% chance Google and Facebook were kicked out of dev programs without running it by senior executives.
cbhl 8y ago
Operationally, every major tech company has some sort of mechanism for removing software it doesn't like from end-users' devices. Apple, Google (with Google Play Protect), and Microsoft (with Windows Update). If you don't, we end up going back to the Blaster worm days of 2003, where software gets installed and regular people don't know how to get rid of it.
ohnope 8y ago
>I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong I'll do it for you: both Facebook and Google were crystal clear violations. Like, not anywhere close to the intended use case for Enterprise distribution
_bxg1 8y ago
I used to feel that way, and I used Android for years for that reason. But since switching to an iPhone, I've found that what I really want from my phone is not a totally open platform, but a tool that's simple, secure, and effective. Something I don't have to mess with, something I can trust to do its job and respect my privacy and be pleasant to interact with. They tried going that direction a bit with macOS when they launched its App Store, and there's a reason that pretty much failed. Workstations need to be totally user-controlled, but phones don't.
- klodolph 8y ago
  I'm not sure I quite understand your complaint about the Mac's App Store. I want to have free reign on my workstation, but part of that is I want to be able to limit the amount of access that programs have. The big difference with the App Store, from my perspective, is that I know that the applications are sandboxed, signed, and someone out there can revoke the code signing certificate. This is basically what I want, most of the time, and it's hard to achieve it outside the App Store.
  - marmshallow 8y ago
    Things that run on your mac are not required to go through the App Store. I think what the OP means is that the adoption rate has been lower than what they wanted/expected.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Fun fact: not all apps on the App Store are sandboxed. Some older apps, that were released before sandboxing was a requirement, were "grandfathered" in.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      Any examples?
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    It briefly looked like they would move towards requiring software to come from the App Store. They did add the warning you see the first time you open any application that you downloaded from the internet, which is still there. That alone isn't problematic, but if they'd truly locked down macOS they would have alienated all of the programmers who use Macs. Thankfully, they seem to have dropped that idea.
kace91 8y ago
Honestly, as bad as the situation is (having to choose between several profit-focused tech giants) I'm glad that at least one of the players is not dependent on data collection as their way of survival. If I have to side with one of them it's going to be apple.
cptskippy 8y ago
With Apple's devices, and to a lesser extent Google's, there isn't a software distribution channel apart from the one sanctioned from up high. That being said, the official channels are sanctioned and sponsored by Apple (or Google) and so it is their reputation on the line when it comes to malicious or questionable Apps. So I can completely understand Apple (or Google) removing certs or banning companies for violating the terms of their platform. And I think this exertion of power might be a bad thing as it demonstrates that users do not really own their devices and are only allowed to do with them what Apple (or Google) permits.
- hnnh44 8y ago
  I disagree with your argument as a whole. My device is little more to me than something to run a web browser. I despise native apps. Facebook and Googles apps can - and should IMO - be run from a browser without crossing over into my personal contacts and photos. Apple has zero authority over who I contact or what content I access over the web. With any luck, this drives development back towards the web. I haven't had Facebook on my phone in years because their mobile layout is unbearable and their apps are invasive.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > I despise native apps. Why?
    - hnnh44 8y ago
      Drains batteries. Consumes storage space. Requests unnecessary access to my personal files and contacts. Difficult to shut down. Push notifications. I want NONE of this. The last straw for me was when Facebook messenger pocket dialed a "friend" I hadn't talked to in 7 years. Not only was it something I had no use for, it was outright invasive.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Nice apps don't do this. You don't have to install the bad ones?
simonh 8y ago
There is nothing new about this model, of selling a device with optional software bought later from the vendor. It’s how games consoles have worked, from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Switch, even cars work this way with optional after market ‘performance packs’ that are just software tweaks. VTech used sell toys like mini laptops for children, with little software ‘disks’ you could buy with educational games on them.
- mrep 8y ago
  True, but to be fair, phones are a way bigger market and 1 of the practically only 2 operating systems is doing it which is why it is such a huge complaint. I don't complain about my Xbox because I can buy a computer that can run most the same games where I can do anything I want (not to say I don't want to be able to do anything but phones are a much bigger market with only 1 real competitor which does allow you to side load apps)
  - simonh 8y ago
    There have been many, many other competitors, some of which had huge market share to start with. The market decided this, not Apple. There has been plenty to choose from over the years. Consumers chose the options that won, because those are the ones they want. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but to paraphrase in saying there is ‘only one’ choice in the market that is truly open you seem to be arguing that any second option ought to be too. That competition on openness is more important that there even being a closed option at all. Surely that would give consumers less choice though, not more? But as I have pointed out, there have been plenty of other options and every now and then a ‘truly’ open phone comes out again.
abtinf 8y ago
Everyone on HN seems to be opposed to government mandated backdoors, but want Apple to install one anyway for the sake of some hand-wavey notion that Apple has undue “power”. This control is a feature and one of the reasons I use iOS. I value a system I can trust to be free of malware. I know that when I recommend iPhone to friends and family, I will never have to field a support call involving a mountain of malware that was installed because they were tricked into clicking “ok”. I trust my iPhone way more than my desktop, laptop, or any SaaS. Same with my iPad. I can’t wait for the end of the era of bad-guys-win-by-default.
rising-sky 8y ago
s/yields/wields typo i think but totally alters meaning
bunderbunder 8y ago
I get that. At the same time, maintaining that level of control seems to be a central feature of iOS's security and privacy model. It's not just about ensuring that only trusted software can be installed in the first place, it's also about having some sort of mechanism for fixing the problem when software that had previously been approved proves to be malware, or when a publisher who had previously been approved turns out to be a bad player. For an example of what's possible in environment where you aren't limited to running trusted software, earlier this week I had a conversation with an acquaintance who had recently paid hundreds of dollars to a ransomware scammer. To me, the value of being able to prevent those kinds of abuse is pretty straightforward. What Apple's doing with Facebook and Google is grayer, but I can see where they're coming from. They have strict privacy rules that they expect to be followed on all apps released to the public, and Facebook and Google were using the enterprise program to circumvent those rules. In light of that, you could argue that they had to follow through on their terms of service in order to demonstrate good faith to their customers who rely on them to enforce those privacy rules.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
This case has gotten a lot of attention only because of who’s involved, but the Apple App Store is a headache for many businesses. Last year I was working with a company that had a white label app design studio as part of its product. Apple said they had to discontinue it, and that they were only allowed to produce one app for all of their customers to share. The company bit the bullet and spent months re-engineering and redesigning their product, it’s competitors did nothing and just spent months complaining to Apple. Apple eventually caved and reversed the rule, that company had six months of two engineering teams time wasted, their competitors wasted no resources on it at all. On top of that, the rule was already being applied completely arbitrarily by industry. Most of the worlds banking apps are white label, but didn’t receive any problems from Apple.
benologist 8y ago
This will hopefully push Google, Facebook and others to favor web technologies over iOS, a win for open platforms.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Neither Google nor Facebook have the least amount of interest in open platforms, so I would not hold your breath.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jvagner 8y ago
RMS is laughing / crying / something, somewhere...
samstave 8y ago
You know the SuperbOwl is this weekend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIE-5hg7FoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIE-5hg7FoA
ddebernardy 8y ago
Kara Swisher had a good podcast on this thorny topic with Nicole Wong a few months ago: https://www.recode.net/2018/9/12/17848384/nicole-wong-cto-lawyer-google-twitter-kara-swisher-decode-podcast-full-transcript https://www.recode.net/2018/9/12/17848384/nicole-wong-cto-la...
keepper 8y ago
Agreed. I got so much downvote in the last story about Apple banning Facebook enterprise certs, because I thought it was an unevenly applied rule. But in reality, to yield this kinda of power, you MUST apply it equally and fairly. Apple has been far from a fair arbiter in its app platform.
sixothree 8y ago
You can compile and run whatever you want.

sotojuan 8y ago

In the case of Facebook, there's no judgement or moral side to take. They broke the rules Apple set when allowing Facebook to be in the App Store and use internal enterprise certificates. Objectively, Apple's behavior was fair.

pbalau 8y ago
Did they? Please think of this: is there a minimum age for internships?
- zepto 8y ago
  Are you suggesting there was a child labor law violation as well as a breach of contract?
  - pbalau 8y ago
    I'm wondering if either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team. By FB legal team I mean those people that should point out when things are not legal.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      > either Apple is in the wrong, or FB needs a better legal team That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.
      - pbalau 8y ago
        The legal team at FB, at least back when I was there, was meant to prevent us from doing illegal things. So, this means that either Apple is wrong, or FB is wrong - as in their legal team is wrong, so they need a better one
        landryraccoon 8y ago
        So you've ruled out the possibility that Zuck was advised this might be a contract violation and just said fuck it, we think we'll get away with it?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> it doesn't sit well with me that Apple yields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them At the end of the day, you can compile and run anything on your machine. This is just regulating distribution. Given the specific breaches at hand by Facebook and Google, a balance seems to have been found (acceptable to most users) between freedom and security.

Skunkleton 8y ago
That is true only in the most technical of senses. Practically, Apple has near complete control over what is allowed to execute on an iOS device.
- hmottestad 8y ago
  It's pretty true. Unless you manage to jailbreak your phone the only way to get it to run code (except for javascript) is by having, at some point up the chain, a certificate that's signed by Apple. It's free to get one though, but it only lasts for a week or so. You can pay to become a developer and I think you get one that lasts a year instead.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Excluding technical users, Google Play Services is the same. And their grip only tightens over time.
  - abugheratwork 8y ago
    I just want to chime in with "yes and yes". Let's be sure not to fall into a false dichotomy about which brand of problem is a problem. :)
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    Fortnite is only available on Android via sideloading, and I don't expect that will slow down Epic Games much.
  - deleted 8y ago

nerdjon 8y ago

You buy an iPhone knowing full well that Apple has this control, and for many people is the reason they buy their iPhone. So far they have used the power sparingly, at the end of the day it could have been a cute cat app and did nothing wrong but it still broke Apple's terms that these companies agreed to and Apple acted accordingly.

mjw1007 8y ago
I would bet good money that the large majority of iPhone users don't know that Apple has this much control (ie, that they can decide whether you're allowed to install custom apps provided by your employer).
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I'm sure many iOS users are not aware that you can install apps outside of the App Store.
  - iainmerrick 8y ago
    Yes. And for tech savvy people, such as Facebook developers, the fact that you need to install a special certificate before you can use internal company apps should give you a clue about what’s going on.

FakeComments 8y ago

My model of it: It will cost $500 to ditch Apple and replace them; there’s a 10% chance I will have to switch before I’d make my next purchase anyway; and Apple has to date saved me over $50 in frustration via their control of the ecosystem. So I’m willing to ride it out and see what happens.

matwood 8y ago
There is really nothing to ride out. I think it's rather refreshing that Apple followed the rules they set forth even when it was large companies breaking them. I would have more issue if Apple shutdown the lone developer, and then did nothing when FB/Google did the exact same thing. With the above said, we can certainly discuss if Apple should use/have this ability at all. But, IMO it is a different discussion.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  > I think it's rather refreshing that Apple followed the rules they set forth even when it was large companies breaking them. This kind of behavior from executives[0] is precisely why I invested in Apple products in the first place — why I took the risk at all. I meant that I don’t see this as any reason to get out, from a pure “well, what if they abuse their power?” perspective: the risk is low, given the way they’ve acted until now, and the total possible cost is reasonably bounded — I’ve already had enough upside to eclipse the risk weighted cost, this was a good investment. So why would I even worry about it until something bad did happen? The homo economis answer is to let your bet ride, until the point you were going to re-evaluate anyway, when buying a new phone. [0] There is approximately 0% chance Google and Facebook were kicked out of dev programs without running it by senior executives.

cbhl 8y ago

Operationally, every major tech company has some sort of mechanism for removing software it doesn't like from end-users' devices. Apple, Google (with Google Play Protect), and Microsoft (with Windows Update). If you don't, we end up going back to the Blaster worm days of 2003, where software gets installed and regular people don't know how to get rid of it.

ohnope 8y ago

>I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong I'll do it for you: both Facebook and Google were crystal clear violations. Like, not anywhere close to the intended use case for Enterprise distribution

_bxg1 8y ago

I used to feel that way, and I used Android for years for that reason. But since switching to an iPhone, I've found that what I really want from my phone is not a totally open platform, but a tool that's simple, secure, and effective. Something I don't have to mess with, something I can trust to do its job and respect my privacy and be pleasant to interact with. They tried going that direction a bit with macOS when they launched its App Store, and there's a reason that pretty much failed. Workstations need to be totally user-controlled, but phones don't.

klodolph 8y ago
I'm not sure I quite understand your complaint about the Mac's App Store. I want to have free reign on my workstation, but part of that is I want to be able to limit the amount of access that programs have. The big difference with the App Store, from my perspective, is that I know that the applications are sandboxed, signed, and someone out there can revoke the code signing certificate. This is basically what I want, most of the time, and it's hard to achieve it outside the App Store.
- marmshallow 8y ago
  Things that run on your mac are not required to go through the App Store. I think what the OP means is that the adoption rate has been lower than what they wanted/expected.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Fun fact: not all apps on the App Store are sandboxed. Some older apps, that were released before sandboxing was a requirement, were "grandfathered" in.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    Any examples?
- _bxg1 8y ago
  It briefly looked like they would move towards requiring software to come from the App Store. They did add the warning you see the first time you open any application that you downloaded from the internet, which is still there. That alone isn't problematic, but if they'd truly locked down macOS they would have alienated all of the programmers who use Macs. Thankfully, they seem to have dropped that idea.

kace91 8y ago

Honestly, as bad as the situation is (having to choose between several profit-focused tech giants) I'm glad that at least one of the players is not dependent on data collection as their way of survival. If I have to side with one of them it's going to be apple.

cptskippy 8y ago

With Apple's devices, and to a lesser extent Google's, there isn't a software distribution channel apart from the one sanctioned from up high. That being said, the official channels are sanctioned and sponsored by Apple (or Google) and so it is their reputation on the line when it comes to malicious or questionable Apps. So I can completely understand Apple (or Google) removing certs or banning companies for violating the terms of their platform. And I think this exertion of power might be a bad thing as it demonstrates that users do not really own their devices and are only allowed to do with them what Apple (or Google) permits.

hnnh44 8y ago
I disagree with your argument as a whole. My device is little more to me than something to run a web browser. I despise native apps. Facebook and Googles apps can - and should IMO - be run from a browser without crossing over into my personal contacts and photos. Apple has zero authority over who I contact or what content I access over the web. With any luck, this drives development back towards the web. I haven't had Facebook on my phone in years because their mobile layout is unbearable and their apps are invasive.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > I despise native apps. Why?
  - hnnh44 8y ago
    Drains batteries. Consumes storage space. Requests unnecessary access to my personal files and contacts. Difficult to shut down. Push notifications. I want NONE of this. The last straw for me was when Facebook messenger pocket dialed a "friend" I hadn't talked to in 7 years. Not only was it something I had no use for, it was outright invasive.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Nice apps don't do this. You don't have to install the bad ones?

simonh 8y ago

There is nothing new about this model, of selling a device with optional software bought later from the vendor. It’s how games consoles have worked, from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Switch, even cars work this way with optional after market ‘performance packs’ that are just software tweaks. VTech used sell toys like mini laptops for children, with little software ‘disks’ you could buy with educational games on them.

mrep 8y ago
True, but to be fair, phones are a way bigger market and 1 of the practically only 2 operating systems is doing it which is why it is such a huge complaint. I don't complain about my Xbox because I can buy a computer that can run most the same games where I can do anything I want (not to say I don't want to be able to do anything but phones are a much bigger market with only 1 real competitor which does allow you to side load apps)
- simonh 8y ago
  There have been many, many other competitors, some of which had huge market share to start with. The market decided this, not Apple. There has been plenty to choose from over the years. Consumers chose the options that won, because those are the ones they want. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but to paraphrase in saying there is ‘only one’ choice in the market that is truly open you seem to be arguing that any second option ought to be too. That competition on openness is more important that there even being a closed option at all. Surely that would give consumers less choice though, not more? But as I have pointed out, there have been plenty of other options and every now and then a ‘truly’ open phone comes out again.

abtinf 8y ago

Everyone on HN seems to be opposed to government mandated backdoors, but want Apple to install one anyway for the sake of some hand-wavey notion that Apple has undue “power”. This control is a feature and one of the reasons I use iOS. I value a system I can trust to be free of malware. I know that when I recommend iPhone to friends and family, I will never have to field a support call involving a mountain of malware that was installed because they were tricked into clicking “ok”. I trust my iPhone way more than my desktop, laptop, or any SaaS. Same with my iPad. I can’t wait for the end of the era of bad-guys-win-by-default.

rising-sky 8y ago

s/yields/wields typo i think but totally alters meaning

bunderbunder 8y ago

I get that. At the same time, maintaining that level of control seems to be a central feature of iOS's security and privacy model. It's not just about ensuring that only trusted software can be installed in the first place, it's also about having some sort of mechanism for fixing the problem when software that had previously been approved proves to be malware, or when a publisher who had previously been approved turns out to be a bad player. For an example of what's possible in environment where you aren't limited to running trusted software, earlier this week I had a conversation with an acquaintance who had recently paid hundreds of dollars to a ransomware scammer. To me, the value of being able to prevent those kinds of abuse is pretty straightforward. What Apple's doing with Facebook and Google is grayer, but I can see where they're coming from. They have strict privacy rules that they expect to be followed on all apps released to the public, and Facebook and Google were using the enterprise program to circumvent those rules. In light of that, you could argue that they had to follow through on their terms of service in order to demonstrate good faith to their customers who rely on them to enforce those privacy rules.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

This case has gotten a lot of attention only because of who’s involved, but the Apple App Store is a headache for many businesses. Last year I was working with a company that had a white label app design studio as part of its product. Apple said they had to discontinue it, and that they were only allowed to produce one app for all of their customers to share. The company bit the bullet and spent months re-engineering and redesigning their product, it’s competitors did nothing and just spent months complaining to Apple. Apple eventually caved and reversed the rule, that company had six months of two engineering teams time wasted, their competitors wasted no resources on it at all. On top of that, the rule was already being applied completely arbitrarily by industry. Most of the worlds banking apps are white label, but didn’t receive any problems from Apple.

benologist 8y ago

This will hopefully push Google, Facebook and others to favor web technologies over iOS, a win for open platforms.

rootusrootus 8y ago
Neither Google nor Facebook have the least amount of interest in open platforms, so I would not hold your breath.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jvagner 8y ago

RMS is laughing / crying / something, somewhere...

samstave 8y ago

You know the SuperbOwl is this weekend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIE-5hg7FoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIE-5hg7FoA

ddebernardy 8y ago

Kara Swisher had a good podcast on this thorny topic with Nicole Wong a few months ago: https://www.recode.net/2018/9/12/17848384/nicole-wong-cto-lawyer-google-twitter-kara-swisher-decode-podcast-full-transcript https://www.recode.net/2018/9/12/17848384/nicole-wong-cto-la...

keepper 8y ago

Agreed. I got so much downvote in the last story about Apple banning Facebook enterprise certs, because I thought it was an unevenly applied rule. But in reality, to yield this kinda of power, you MUST apply it equally and fairly. Apple has been far from a fair arbiter in its app platform.

sixothree 8y ago

You can compile and run whatever you want.