The kind of Network Neutrality people do want - equal ability to access any location on the internet - we enjoy already
Tell that to the Madison River Communications customers who were blocked from using a competing VoIP service until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers who were blocked from using BitTorrent until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers whose service was throttled (i.e. less than equal access) when attempting to reach Netflix until Netflix caved and agreed to pay for a service that Comcast was already being compensated for (via subscription fees). Or even little developers like Panic Inc., who found themselves getting throttled by Comcast.
Ever since cable Internet was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, we've seen one bad actor after another cropping up (though Comcast is easily the worst) and it's been a constant battle to keep them in check. An FCC that regularly asserted and reasserted its authority to enforce neutrality—despite cable being classified as an information service—through both Bush's and Obama's administrations was our best line of defense. With Trump's FCC openly abdicating its authority and most US addresses lacking access to more than one cable/fiber broadband service, we have neither regulations nor market forces protecting us.
all you can do is fuck it up if you mess with it.
You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that the status quo is to NOT have neutrality. You couldn't be more wrong.
When dial-up was the king of the hill, we had neutrality because the Internet ran over POTS, all of which was classified as a telecommunications service thanks in large part to the AT&T breakup. When cable was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, the FCC issued statements making it clear that they intended to continue enforcing neutrality, despite the change in classification. When the enforceability of those documents was challenged in the late 2000s, the FCC rewrote them as rules so that they'd be enforceable. When those rules were challenged as being beyond the FCC's authority, the FCC reclassified cable as a telecommunications service, as per their authority. Again and again, net neutrality has been fought for and preserved for the last several decades, and the FCC has continued to do its best to enforce neutrality against bad actors who would try to abuse their special position between consumers and the outside world.
The FCC's 2017 decision to throw out all of their prior work isn't a restoration to how things were: it's a final step in a long war the cable industry has been waging to end the status quo we've enjoyed up to this point.
So violent video games lead to higher moral reasoning skills, but mature (by this they mean 'M' rated games) games don't.
I don't think "mature" means quite that in this context. It seems as if they view "violent content" as being distinct from other "mature content", so even though either can contribute to an M rating, and even though there's a strong correlation between violence and the M rating, "mature content" is still something else. Check the Video Game Content section in particular to see them treat them as separate issues and draw distinctions between them.
Sadly, however, they never provide a definition for what "mature content" actually means. The closest I saw to them spelling something other than violence out was when they listed off "nudity, prostitution, guns, drug dealing and driving recklessly" in relation to Grand Theft Auto. Given that "mature content" is distinct from violence, I'd be inclined to think it follows along those sorts of lines of sex, drugs, and language.
On top of that, the summary seems to be conflating causes of death such as heart disease and stroke with a correlated event: that many people who die had just recently had surgery. That doesn’t mean surgery is the cause of the death, nor does the fact that more deaths happen in poorer nations even necessarily mean that surgeries there are being done poorly. It could simply be that the patients aren’t getting into surgery early enough for it to be as effective. Perhaps preventative medicine is worse off or the diagnostics are too expensive for people to bother with until the problem becomes so severe that it’s nearly too late, for instance.
I didn’t read the article, but I’m pretty sure Slashdot cut the headline off early. I’m not sure how it was supposed to end, but I have a few guesses:
Hundreds Rally For Their Right To Not Vaccinate Their Children... ...measles outbreak ensues ...thousands expected but had to stay home with sick children ...in what turns out to be the largest CPS sting in history ...casket futures soar ...millions mourn the demise of reason ...immigrants ask if they can fill the upcoming vacancies ...then find that their doctors refuse to see them ...Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight ...last surviving Iron Lung users gather to protest rally
I was going to add: ...pastor tells them to “stop being stupid”
But that one actually happened after a measles outbreak in Texas a few years back. The pastor who pushed an anti-vaccine agenda thankfully had the sense to tell everyone to go get vaccinated once the people in their community were getting sick, since the immediate harm was of significantly and obviously greater concern than the fictional harm they were all worried about.
What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei?
Actually, I’m not. You apparently forgot how I started this thread:
It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems?
And at this point, I’m so confused by what you’re trying to argue. You acknowledge the “success of their SoCs” and claim it’s based on access to better fabrication techniques, yet you’re saying there’s a “rounding error difference” in terms of top of the line performance, which seems to contradict what you just said of their success and what the benchmarks have been saying for years.
Moreover, Apple hasn’t been using better processes well in advance of everyone else. The A7 to A12 have respectively used: 28nm, 20nm, 16nm, 16nm, 10nm, and 7nm
Comparable Snapdragon chips have respectively used: 28nm, 20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 10nm, and 7nm
Apple has either been matching node size or behind every single generation, yet they’ve been routinely outperforming them by quite a bit more than a rounding error.
What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.
What you just said doesn’t have the ring of truth to it, nor does it hold up to scrutiny. For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC? And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had? Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear, what with all of the other manufacturers ordering them. And yet the Snapdragon line has been about a year behind in terms of performance for the last few years.
Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.
What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then. That was in large part thanks to the same lead engineer who was also responsible for the Zen architecture that has been turning AMD’s fortunes around. He was with Apple for several years and got them going down a good path.
I do agree that designing modems is a different beast than designing SoCs, which I alluded to in the first post of this thread, but Apple had never designed their own SoCa before the A-series either, so in that sense, it’s more of the same.
they're trying to compete with hardware companies on hardware chips. This will not end well.... for Apple.
Given that it’s already going well for Apple with their A-series chips, I’m inclined to think you’re a bit out of touch with reality. Please re-sync with reality at your earliest convenience.
After they moved chip production in-house with their A-series, which has routinely been benchmarking far ahead of contemporary chips from Qualcomm, people started wondering when they'd do the same with cellular modems. Their recent spat with Qualcomm and their reliance on a lesser product from Intel may have hastened their decision to take it on themselves.
It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems? And how will they avoid Qualcomm's prodigious patent portfolio covering the technology?
I just set up a subdomain for spam email. Whenever a company wants an address, it’s companyname@spam.mydomain.com, or, more recently, just @s.mydomain.com, since a number of sites reject addresses with “spam” in the name. My wife gets a different subdomain, as do each of my family members for whom I administrate email. Makes it easy for everyone to filter out the real spam and tell who’s selling their addresses/got hacked.
You just bought a new car and asked the dealership to move everything from your old car over to the new car, and now you're shocked—shocked—that they actually did so, despite their repair shop's promise that it will never touch their clients' stuff while doing repairs?
I'm no fan of Google, but what you're saying is absurd. You literally asked Google to move your passwords from one device to another (which they do via encrypted communication, as an aside), so it should come as no surprise that they did so. That they did so in their sync service speaks in no way to how this unrelated extension handles its data.
The problem with you is that you know some things about bitcoin, but then you say this shit proving that you barely know anything about it
Alternative and actual explanation: I intentionally left it out. I saw no reason to point it out, particularly when it only speaks to one of the things I was saying. It’s a valid confounding factor to part of what I said, but that’s no reason for me to be the one to bring it up.
Even so, fair point, and I don’t object at all to your contention that it would make tracking significantly more difficult.
Fraud is fraud, so yes, there are a number of enforcement agencies that can taken action if someone starts moving those coins. And yes, a lot of exchanges will block conversion to cash. And yes, they can tell who a thief is by tracking how the coins get spent or transferred and then subpoenaing the records of whoever they go to, given that most of these organizations are required by law to obtain and retain certain records across a number of jurisdictions.
Right now, this is like a treasure ship sinking in the ocean. If that gold ever turns up somewhere, there would be a lot of questions to answer.
Untraceable? How do you figure? The blockchain on which Bitcoin is built contains a record of both the payer and payee for each and every transaction. At best it's pseudonymous, but there's nothing untraceable about it in the least. If that cold wallet ever sees a transaction, everyone will know something hinky is going on.
Okay, but you do recognize that it’d still have an IP address, right? And that it’s discoverable? That’s what this whole thread has been about: whether or not you can port scan a domain with no web presence. Clearly you can, just not in the way that you were thinking.
So what do you call the 'bar.com' part of an email address "foo@bar.com", for example, it not a domain name? Such a name might be associated with email addresses, for instance
Completely correct.
but still might not resolve to any IP address.
Incorrect.
In your example, it wouldn't resolve to a web server (e.g. an A or AAAA DNS record), but it would still resolve to a mail server (e.g. an MX DNS record). If it doesn't resolve to a server at all, then the AC would be correct: it isn't a domain name in any practical sense, since the entire purpose of a domain name is to act as a map back to an IP address.
As such, going back a few posts in the thread, if you want to portscan a domain, you just do a DNS lookup to see what IP address(es) it's advertising, regardless of whether they be associated with web servers, mail servers, or something else.
They can argue anything they want, but I already quoted the relevant definition from the license in that other comment I linked, and it’s pretty clear these people did not have the sort of employment relationship (e.g. where are the tax forms if they’re employees?) nor the written, binding agreements required by the license.
Both companies employee tens of thousands of people around the world, and enterprise apps aren’t registered through Apple, so they don’t know what the names of the apps are like you seem to think. Unlike the App Store, they’re signed by the enterprises themselves without Apple’s involvement, other than Apple issuing a certificate that can be reused time and time again.
How do you figure? The enterprises affected so far have all been caught redhanded in the act of flagrantly misusing a "for in-house, internal use applications" license to intentionally deploy applications externally. The only enterprise level purchases who should be quaking in their boots are purchasers acting in bad faith.
By all indications, Facebook and Google agreed to the same license as everyone else, and the license is anything BUT ambiguous, given that it's subtitled "for in-house, internal use applications" and then only gets more explicit about how it's intended to be used from there. I ran through a lot of the details about the license in a comment yesterday.
Isn't it a message to every enterprise everywhere that Apple are in total control of your platform and can disable your work without notice or warning, rendering any investment you made worthless?
"Without notice or warning"? They flagrantly disregarded the cardinal rule of the license they agreed to, which is spelled out in plain language in the subtitle, first paragraph, second paragraph, definitions, appropriate use section, etc. of the license. The license is even subtitled "for in-house, internal use applications". It really couldn't be any clearer. You can make pretty much anything you want for internal use, so long as it remains internal.
If I were a corporation looking to deploy an internal app, I'd be looking at non-apple options. Having your internal platform disabled could cripple smaller business to the point of threatening their viability.
Why? Is your hypothetical corporation breaking the cardinal rule too? The only people who need to be worried are those who haven't been using the license in good faith. So long as you're using the license as it was plainly intended to be used—to develop and use apps internally—you have nothing to fear, despite suggestions to the contrary.
How was Apple supposed to know? The whole point of enterprise apps is that enterprises can run anything they want on any of their devices without going through Apple. The users who were involved in this stuff were installing provisioning profiles that identified their devices as belonging to Facebook and Google. Given that Apple isn't privy to employee records at Facebook and Google, they have no way of telling whether provisioning profiles are being abused, so again I ask: how was Apple supposed to know?
Churches literally ARE flush with cash, so much so that many pastors can afford extravagant lifestyles.
Some churches are, sure. As I assume you do, I tend to stay away from those ones since it's clear to me that many of them are rotting from the top.
Just as there are bad people and bad companies, there are bad churches too. That doesn't mean they're all the way you think, however. For instance...
A) The last church I was at, the pastor moved from a nice job at a large church to pastoring full-time at a small church. Because the small church could only afford to pay him a few thousand dollars per year, he had to work a second full-time job to support his family. Oh, and his wife was pregnant with their second child when they moved, so they were dealing with all of that during the transition to working two full-time jobs.
B) My wife grew up at a church that offered a modest-but-full salary to its pastor, but when it came time to cut the checks each month the treasurer was a bit harebrained, so the pastor would frequently go a month or two between paychecks. And even when he did get paid, some of the checks were only for half his salaried amount because money was tighter than expected at the church. He had five kids and a wife.
C) Part of the reason we're only getting around to considering livestreaming where I'm at is now is because we had to figure out how to budget the $100/year it would cost to license the music. Not $100/month. Per year.
D) And I've never been to a church that does indulgences. For my part, we "wised up" to the practice over 500 years ago and made a big ruckus about it. Perhaps you've heard of the Protestant Reformation?
Slashdot Mirror
The kind of Network Neutrality people do want - equal ability to access any location on the internet - we enjoy already
Tell that to the Madison River Communications customers who were blocked from using a competing VoIP service until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers who were blocked from using BitTorrent until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers whose service was throttled (i.e. less than equal access) when attempting to reach Netflix until Netflix caved and agreed to pay for a service that Comcast was already being compensated for (via subscription fees). Or even little developers like Panic Inc., who found themselves getting throttled by Comcast.
Ever since cable Internet was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, we've seen one bad actor after another cropping up (though Comcast is easily the worst) and it's been a constant battle to keep them in check. An FCC that regularly asserted and reasserted its authority to enforce neutrality—despite cable being classified as an information service—through both Bush's and Obama's administrations was our best line of defense. With Trump's FCC openly abdicating its authority and most US addresses lacking access to more than one cable/fiber broadband service, we have neither regulations nor market forces protecting us.
all you can do is fuck it up if you mess with it.
You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that the status quo is to NOT have neutrality. You couldn't be more wrong.
When dial-up was the king of the hill, we had neutrality because the Internet ran over POTS, all of which was classified as a telecommunications service thanks in large part to the AT&T breakup. When cable was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, the FCC issued statements making it clear that they intended to continue enforcing neutrality, despite the change in classification. When the enforceability of those documents was challenged in the late 2000s, the FCC rewrote them as rules so that they'd be enforceable. When those rules were challenged as being beyond the FCC's authority, the FCC reclassified cable as a telecommunications service, as per their authority. Again and again, net neutrality has been fought for and preserved for the last several decades, and the FCC has continued to do its best to enforce neutrality against bad actors who would try to abuse their special position between consumers and the outside world.
The FCC's 2017 decision to throw out all of their prior work isn't a restoration to how things were: it's a final step in a long war the cable industry has been waging to end the status quo we've enjoyed up to this point.
So violent video games lead to higher moral reasoning skills, but mature (by this they mean 'M' rated games) games don't.
I don't think "mature" means quite that in this context. It seems as if they view "violent content" as being distinct from other "mature content", so even though either can contribute to an M rating, and even though there's a strong correlation between violence and the M rating, "mature content" is still something else. Check the Video Game Content section in particular to see them treat them as separate issues and draw distinctions between them.
Sadly, however, they never provide a definition for what "mature content" actually means. The closest I saw to them spelling something other than violence out was when they listed off "nudity, prostitution, guns, drug dealing and driving recklessly" in relation to Grand Theft Auto. Given that "mature content" is distinct from violence, I'd be inclined to think it follows along those sorts of lines of sex, drugs, and language.
On top of that, the summary seems to be conflating causes of death such as heart disease and stroke with a correlated event: that many people who die had just recently had surgery. That doesn’t mean surgery is the cause of the death, nor does the fact that more deaths happen in poorer nations even necessarily mean that surgeries there are being done poorly. It could simply be that the patients aren’t getting into surgery early enough for it to be as effective. Perhaps preventative medicine is worse off or the diagnostics are too expensive for people to bother with until the problem becomes so severe that it’s nearly too late, for instance.
I didn’t read the article, but I’m pretty sure Slashdot cut the headline off early. I’m not sure how it was supposed to end, but I have a few guesses:
Hundreds Rally For Their Right To Not Vaccinate Their Children...
...measles outbreak ensues
...thousands expected but had to stay home with sick children
...in what turns out to be the largest CPS sting in history
...casket futures soar
...millions mourn the demise of reason
...immigrants ask if they can fill the upcoming vacancies
...then find that their doctors refuse to see them
...Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight
...last surviving Iron Lung users gather to protest rally
I was going to add:
...pastor tells them to “stop being stupid”
But that one actually happened after a measles outbreak in Texas a few years back. The pastor who pushed an anti-vaccine agenda thankfully had the sense to tell everyone to go get vaccinated once the people in their community were getting sick, since the immediate harm was of significantly and obviously greater concern than the fictional harm they were all worried about.
What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei?
Actually, I’m not. You apparently forgot how I started this thread:
It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems?
And at this point, I’m so confused by what you’re trying to argue. You acknowledge the “success of their SoCs” and claim it’s based on access to better fabrication techniques, yet you’re saying there’s a “rounding error difference” in terms of top of the line performance, which seems to contradict what you just said of their success and what the benchmarks have been saying for years.
Moreover, Apple hasn’t been using better processes well in advance of everyone else. The A7 to A12 have respectively used:
28nm, 20nm, 16nm, 16nm, 10nm, and 7nm
Comparable Snapdragon chips have respectively used:
28nm, 20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 10nm, and 7nm
Apple has either been matching node size or behind every single generation, yet they’ve been routinely outperforming them by quite a bit more than a rounding error.
Yes, it’s just design, not fabrication. I misspoke. Thanks for the correction.
What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.
What you just said doesn’t have the ring of truth to it, nor does it hold up to scrutiny. For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC? And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had? Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear, what with all of the other manufacturers ordering them. And yet the Snapdragon line has been about a year behind in terms of performance for the last few years.
Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.
What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then. That was in large part thanks to the same lead engineer who was also responsible for the Zen architecture that has been turning AMD’s fortunes around. He was with Apple for several years and got them going down a good path.
I do agree that designing modems is a different beast than designing SoCs, which I alluded to in the first post of this thread, but Apple had never designed their own SoCa before the A-series either, so in that sense, it’s more of the same.
they're trying to compete with hardware companies on hardware chips. This will not end well.... for Apple.
Given that it’s already going well for Apple with their A-series chips, I’m inclined to think you’re a bit out of touch with reality. Please re-sync with reality at your earliest convenience.
After they moved chip production in-house with their A-series, which has routinely been benchmarking far ahead of contemporary chips from Qualcomm, people started wondering when they'd do the same with cellular modems. Their recent spat with Qualcomm and their reliance on a lesser product from Intel may have hastened their decision to take it on themselves.
It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems? And how will they avoid Qualcomm's prodigious patent portfolio covering the technology?
I just set up a subdomain for spam email. Whenever a company wants an address, it’s companyname@spam.mydomain.com, or, more recently, just @s.mydomain.com, since a number of sites reject addresses with “spam” in the name. My wife gets a different subdomain, as do each of my family members for whom I administrate email. Makes it easy for everyone to filter out the real spam and tell who’s selling their addresses/got hacked.
You just bought a new car and asked the dealership to move everything from your old car over to the new car, and now you're shocked—shocked—that they actually did so, despite their repair shop's promise that it will never touch their clients' stuff while doing repairs?
I'm no fan of Google, but what you're saying is absurd. You literally asked Google to move your passwords from one device to another (which they do via encrypted communication, as an aside), so it should come as no surprise that they did so. That they did so in their sync service speaks in no way to how this unrelated extension handles its data.
The problem with you is that you know some things about bitcoin, but then you say this shit proving that you barely know anything about it
Alternative and actual explanation: I intentionally left it out. I saw no reason to point it out, particularly when it only speaks to one of the things I was saying. It’s a valid confounding factor to part of what I said, but that’s no reason for me to be the one to bring it up.
Even so, fair point, and I don’t object at all to your contention that it would make tracking significantly more difficult.
Fraud is fraud, so yes, there are a number of enforcement agencies that can taken action if someone starts moving those coins. And yes, a lot of exchanges will block conversion to cash. And yes, they can tell who a thief is by tracking how the coins get spent or transferred and then subpoenaing the records of whoever they go to, given that most of these organizations are required by law to obtain and retain certain records across a number of jurisdictions.
Right now, this is like a treasure ship sinking in the ocean. If that gold ever turns up somewhere, there would be a lot of questions to answer.
Untraceable? How do you figure? The blockchain on which Bitcoin is built contains a record of both the payer and payee for each and every transaction. At best it's pseudonymous, but there's nothing untraceable about it in the least. If that cold wallet ever sees a transaction, everyone will know something hinky is going on.
Because it’s inventors likely barely remember the 90s. They were too young.
Okay, but you do recognize that it’d still have an IP address, right? And that it’s discoverable? That’s what this whole thread has been about: whether or not you can port scan a domain with no web presence. Clearly you can, just not in the way that you were thinking.
So what do you call the 'bar.com' part of an email address "foo@bar.com", for example, it not a domain name?
Such a name might be associated with email addresses, for instance
Completely correct.
but still might not resolve to any IP address.
Incorrect.
In your example, it wouldn't resolve to a web server (e.g. an A or AAAA DNS record), but it would still resolve to a mail server (e.g. an MX DNS record). If it doesn't resolve to a server at all, then the AC would be correct: it isn't a domain name in any practical sense, since the entire purpose of a domain name is to act as a map back to an IP address.
As such, going back a few posts in the thread, if you want to portscan a domain, you just do a DNS lookup to see what IP address(es) it's advertising, regardless of whether they be associated with web servers, mail servers, or something else.
They can argue anything they want, but I already quoted the relevant definition from the license in that other comment I linked, and it’s pretty clear these people did not have the sort of employment relationship (e.g. where are the tax forms if they’re employees?) nor the written, binding agreements required by the license.
Both companies employee tens of thousands of people around the world, and enterprise apps aren’t registered through Apple, so they don’t know what the names of the apps are like you seem to think. Unlike the App Store, they’re signed by the enterprises themselves without Apple’s involvement, other than Apple issuing a certificate that can be reused time and time again.
Apple apparently confirmed at least some of your thoughts in a comment given to BuzzFeed:
We are working together with Google to help them reinstate their enterprise certificates very quickly
As Daring Fireball points out, however, they've said nothing of the sort with regards to Facebook.
How do you figure? The enterprises affected so far have all been caught redhanded in the act of flagrantly misusing a "for in-house, internal use applications" license to intentionally deploy applications externally. The only enterprise level purchases who should be quaking in their boots are purchasers acting in bad faith.
By all indications, Facebook and Google agreed to the same license as everyone else, and the license is anything BUT ambiguous, given that it's subtitled "for in-house, internal use applications" and then only gets more explicit about how it's intended to be used from there. I ran through a lot of the details about the license in a comment yesterday.
Isn't it a message to every enterprise everywhere that Apple are in total control of your platform and can disable your work without notice or warning, rendering any investment you made worthless?
"Without notice or warning"? They flagrantly disregarded the cardinal rule of the license they agreed to, which is spelled out in plain language in the subtitle, first paragraph, second paragraph, definitions, appropriate use section, etc. of the license. The license is even subtitled "for in-house, internal use applications". It really couldn't be any clearer. You can make pretty much anything you want for internal use, so long as it remains internal.
If I were a corporation looking to deploy an internal app, I'd be looking at non-apple options. Having your internal platform disabled could cripple smaller business to the point of threatening their viability.
Why? Is your hypothetical corporation breaking the cardinal rule too? The only people who need to be worried are those who haven't been using the license in good faith. So long as you're using the license as it was plainly intended to be used—to develop and use apps internally—you have nothing to fear, despite suggestions to the contrary.
How was Apple supposed to know? The whole point of enterprise apps is that enterprises can run anything they want on any of their devices without going through Apple. The users who were involved in this stuff were installing provisioning profiles that identified their devices as belonging to Facebook and Google. Given that Apple isn't privy to employee records at Facebook and Google, they have no way of telling whether provisioning profiles are being abused, so again I ask: how was Apple supposed to know?
Churches literally ARE flush with cash, so much so that many pastors can afford extravagant lifestyles.
Some churches are, sure. As I assume you do, I tend to stay away from those ones since it's clear to me that many of them are rotting from the top.
Just as there are bad people and bad companies, there are bad churches too. That doesn't mean they're all the way you think, however. For instance...
A) The last church I was at, the pastor moved from a nice job at a large church to pastoring full-time at a small church. Because the small church could only afford to pay him a few thousand dollars per year, he had to work a second full-time job to support his family. Oh, and his wife was pregnant with their second child when they moved, so they were dealing with all of that during the transition to working two full-time jobs.
B) My wife grew up at a church that offered a modest-but-full salary to its pastor, but when it came time to cut the checks each month the treasurer was a bit harebrained, so the pastor would frequently go a month or two between paychecks. And even when he did get paid, some of the checks were only for half his salaried amount because money was tighter than expected at the church. He had five kids and a wife.
C) Part of the reason we're only getting around to considering livestreaming where I'm at is now is because we had to figure out how to budget the $100/year it would cost to license the music. Not $100/month. Per year.
D) And I've never been to a church that does indulgences. For my part, we "wised up" to the practice over 500 years ago and made a big ruckus about it. Perhaps you've heard of the Protestant Reformation?