Can you quote the relevant terms?
Depending on exact definitions, the people in an outside compensated "research panel" could be seen as "employed by" the company doing the research. There's consideration being exchanged for services rendered.
Depending on exact definitions, the people in an outside compensated "research panel" could be seen as "employed by" the company doing the research. There's consideration being exchanged for services rendered.
Apple holds all the cards here. If it wants to punish Google over this, it will, and Google won't be able to do a thing about it, terms or no terms.
Whether that's considered justified, and even whether such an action might create a legal/antitrust liability for Apple, could depend on the actual terms/definitions Apple provided.
In the long run, Apple can adjust their terms subject only to a few legal and market checks. But in the short term, Apple should respect the terms they've offered, contractually, to other entities.
[1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store.
Here is the better explanation from the FTC:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
> Further, Apple has a 100% monopoly control of the iOS App Store.
That irrelevant. Best Buy also has a 100% monopoly control of Best Buy stores. That doesn’t mean that Best Buy has a monopoly on consumer electronics stores, nor does Apple have a monopoly for computer app stores.
True, Apple does have a monopoly when it comes to the iOS App Store.. but no more of a monopoly than Baskin Robbins has for ice cream sold by Baskin Robbins. That doesn’t mean you can’t by non-Baskin Robbins ice cream somewhere else, nor does it require Baskin Robbins to sell Hagen-Daz. If you want to be a sell your stuff at a store, you have to follow the rules of that store and pay the commission. Just like there are other places to buy computer software for a mobile device, there are other places to buy ice cream.
A Costco member can buy and load gift cards, and then give them to a non-member, and that card will admit the non-member to Costco stores and allow them to buy things there on the card.
Some of us wouldn't use Costco enough to justify buying a membership, but would like to use them occasionally, and this gift card hack would allow that.
All hail arbitrary Apple, unbound by contract or law! Save us from ourselves, Tim Cook!
"Apple grants you...license to....
(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);"
FWIW, I am a paid-up, registered member of the Apple Developer program, but still can't access that page, as it is apparently limited only to enterprise developers. So I can't check the definitions/details myself.
That limitation also helps me understand why so few, here or in the journalistic coverage I've seen, seem willing to quote the exact section violated. Those curious and willing to answer perhaps cannot access the formal wording, whereas those with the rights to access the terms may fear they'd be violating some obscure provision of their Apple agreements by merely quoting it.