Hacker News Reader

Comment by iansinnott | Hacker News Reader

Also wondering, since to be truly competitive (on iOS) developers would need access to APIs they can't currently use.

Like what?

It's rather dated, but https://github.com/nst/iOS-Runtime-Headers

JIT code execution, NFC access, ability to use microphone and webcam while multi-tasking, to name the ones I've encountered.

Pretty sure normal apps can use the mic when multitasking

Yep. The Cornell University bird identification app listens for birds just fine while the user is doing something else.

It's specifically the camera feed that cannot be used while doing split view or other multitasking modes on the iPad, unless the app has Apple's special blessing. This very clearly puts any new or small video chatting apps at a disadvantage compared to incumbents.

As a user, I don't want any apps to have direct access to sensing hardware without going through Apple's APIs that control prompt for access and respect user settings.

That's fine. I sure hope nobody is asking for apps to be able to ignore the user's intent. Currently, there is no way for a user to grant applications these permissions, only Apple can bless apps with them.

Of course, but that's not the issue that's being described here. The issue is 1st party APIs that only Apple or Google have access to, that 3rd party apps can't use, regardless of whether the use would like to grant them permission.

So apple are required to offer a stable API for everything their device can possibly do, from the get go?

Yes. Apple’s own apps should have no advantages over third-party apps.

Is it that big an advantage to test APIs that are still in beta and may change at any time? With their built in apps they can fix both pieces at once, but if they started breaking large numbers of apps every update I do not think developers would be happy.

Apple already has the API for it, they use it all the time themselves. They just lock out a lot of the features for third party developers.

IMO they should be required to offer the same API they use when they release an app that's using it. I don't think it has to be stable - it just has to be at the level of maturity that their internal apps are using. That does require a certain minimal level of security and inspectability - but that seems reasonable when you're selling a platform like this.

The Google acquisition of Fitbit was only approved by the EU under the stipulation that they can't offer any 1st party APIs for Fitbit/Google wearables that aren't available to 3rd party wearables.

Apple Watch doesn't have to play by the same rules.

As a user no apps outside of Apple's will be on your iphone if you don't explicitely install them. Make sure to install no such app and you'll be fine for the forseeable future.

If you think this is unamanageable and there needs to be more provision to protect your consumer rights, you should talk to the consumer rights regulators to ban the behaviors you need protection from, Apple isn't a proxy for that.

A technical solution that prevents the issue in the first place is better than a legal protection that slaps a company on the wrist if they are caught.

That's quite literally a technical solution to a social problem.

And as usual, the problem is not fixed, Apple just gets to chose who they get cosy with. Historically Japan Railways had privileges the France national railway didn't, for instance.

I think this is unmanageable, but I am happy with the status quo. If I want a device with an alternative marketplace, I can go go android. Instead I now have people who want to use the device that I bought under the terms and agreement that was available changing how I use the device because they think it impinges on their rights.

Apple has been serving as a fairly effective proxy based solely on the fact that they have developed the software, the developer tools, the hardware and the APIs and the distribution platform that developers use. The same thing that makes the iPhone lucrative for third party developers is also he same thing that makes it lucrative to bad actors, and part of the iPhone’s appeal is precisely because it is more locked down than Android. I can try out an app, find out the developer is an asshole that wants access to all my contacts based solely off the fact that I’m getting prompted by a system UI and delete the app and know that it is gone.

So yes, there is totally a place for private enforcement of a comprehensive developer agreement (read: contract) backed by automated review tools and human review. It’s not perfect, but it is pretty good.

But the apps by Apple and Google can do that. Why do you want their Apps to be able todo that and not others?

NFC is accessible through the API

Anything you’d be able to access on a general computing device. For example the Windows API.

Having the same APIs that Photos uses being accessible from any app on any platform would be as big of a leap in photography as the cellphone was.

Allowing people to choose an Apple News backend would save the news industry.

Apple’s P2P payments are a huge flop. Let any vendor do it.

Don’t even get me started on the App Store.

Come to think of it, almost every Apple app I use nowadays either sucks or is absolutely terrible. Notes might be the only thing I use that I would still choose to use despite alternatives, everything else is compulsory (or someone else’s compulsory thing). Like fuck Gmail for not blocking Promotions. So it’s all a win for consumers and producers alike.

The ability to sync data in the background with the screen off is one. For example, Google Photos and Spotify require the screen on and app open to sync, while the Apple apps sync anytime they need to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com