Still, no story or commenter is quoting the exact terms that Facebook/Google are alleged to have violated. (There's an attempt here – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19044643 – but without necessary definitions of key terms which would make all the difference.)
Of course, Apple has immense discretion here. Even if FB/Google lawyers can make a good case that their usage was technically compliant, Apple can still just unilaterally change the terms in short order. Public & regulatory sentiment would support them.
But I'd really like to know if Facebook's and Google's actions were plausibly compliant, under the actual language of the Enterprise agreement, at the time Facebook and Google (and likely others) pursued this strategy.
They weren’t. See the terms at https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/193060 “solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users, or as otherwise expressly permitted in Section 2.1(f).”
2.1(f) Allow Your Customers to use Your Internal Use Applications on Deployment Devices, but only
(i) on Your physical premises and/or on Your Permitted Entity’s physical premises, or (ii) in other
locations, provided all such use is under the direct supervision and physical control of Your
Employees or Permitted Users (e.g., a sales presentation to a Customer); and
Thank you for a link to a readable version of the agreement!
It looks to me like "Permitted Users" includes "contractors" like those in a compensated research panel, and thus the Facebook/Google uses are plausibly enabled under the program.
That depends on whether they entered into a contract, doesn't it?
And technically, entering a contract doesn't even require a signature – just a "meeting of the minds" to exchange considerations of value, like "my data" or "cash value gift cards". (And, these programs may have included actual signed agreements – I haven't seen strong reporting either way on that.)
I am responsible for maintaining an app for a client who has an Apple Enterprise certificate. I am a contractor so I realize that I am allowed to use the client's certificate to install the app on one or more of my devices while developing and testing. Should I need more testers, I am authorized to get other users to test the app, subject to them signing NDAs and having them under my direct supervision.
That is the extent of my allowed use of that certificate. Anyone with any sort of ethics at Facebook/Google should have realized the same. Passing out gift cards and calling users "contractors" is against the spirit and letter of the contract.
My personal belief is FB/Google would much rather take the loss of their enterprise cert rather than consider the end user contractors. For example child labor laws might come back to bite them in the ass. Also non-vetting of contractors. Some portion of these 'contractors' are going to be rather terrible people and now they have a business association with them, possibly within violation of state laws.
Yeah, agree here that I am baffled Apple just cut the cord here after reading this...this will create a backlash thats gonna hurt Apple...just thinking anti-trust
Google apologized for violating the terms earlier today - given how careful they are to isolate contractors from employees with vacation pay it seems unlikely the devs thought there was nothing wrong with random people using tools made in that program, everything else they make within that program is for their workforce.
Of course, Apple has immense discretion here. Even if FB/Google lawyers can make a good case that their usage was technically compliant, Apple can still just unilaterally change the terms in short order. Public & regulatory sentiment would support them.
But I'd really like to know if Facebook's and Google's actions were plausibly compliant, under the actual language of the Enterprise agreement, at the time Facebook and Google (and likely others) pursued this strategy.