4 ms·

To Nexedi, if you're reading this discussion: As you know Apple these days has devices and platforms to which users entrust a tremendous amount of very persona

by natch 10y ago

To Nexedi, if you're reading this discussion: As you know Apple these days has devices and platforms to which users entrust a tremendous amount of very personal and often private data. Therefore, Apple is relatively careful about security issues, and slow to introduce features that may open holes that expose users' private data. Your entire blog post does not even once mention the word security. It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities you list. When weighing the tradeoffs between the benefits you mention versus protection of user security and privacy, I'm pretty sure Apple has the right to make the choice it is making, and you'll find your argument is a difficult one to make.

WhitneyLand 10y ago
Isn't bringing up security a red herring in this case? Desktop operating systems are arguably less secure than iOS, yet Google and Mozilla have already finished it and Microsoft is close to finishing it. Yet Apple can't even confirm they'll eventually try it? How is that a security limitation?
briandear 10y ago
Except French law doesn't care about reality when it comes to these kinds of disputes. This is a country that makes it nearly impossible to fire employees despite a company needing to downsize due to reduced revenues or other legitimate business situations. Also France doesn't have much to lose by siding against Apple -- it isn't as if they have a large employee base here and thus a limited number of people available to start fires and throw rocks if the ruling goes against Apple. (See what would happen if the French government had sided with Uber for example.) Also look at how France denied the sale of Dailymotion to a US company and are waging a constant battle against AirBnB and Uber -- even going so far as to fund a series of taxi apps using taxpayer money. Am I being unfair in this case? Maybe, however, I do own a (very) small business in France and it is fair to say that France is hostile towards business -- and for a company like Apple, the French courts would rule against them just out of spite. A small, insignificant French startup going against 'American' Apple -- it's no contest. Apple has a good chance of losing this fight. If this startup we're going against Peugeot however, the startup would get crushed because the Peugeot constituency is much more politically 'dangerous.' I admit I am highly cynical but the reality is that there is no upside to a French court siding with Apple in terms of politics. However I have to ask: what's the desired remedy of this company? Do they actually think a French court is going to rule that Apple must develop technology to support the claims of this company or are they seeking to get paid? Is there actually an injury here? My phone doesn't make pizza, so could I sue to force Apple to adopt pizza making technology assuming such technology existed on Android? The argument that Android can do it is interesting, given Android's market share, a monopoly argument would be difficult to make against Apple. This company seems mad because their target market uses iPhone -- that sounds like a business problem rather than something that's Apple's fault. If their product were so vital and compelling, customers would switch if they were so inclined -- much how people switched from the ubiquitous Blackberry -- even 'top' executives. Additionally, more to the parent comment's point -- are consumers being harmed by not being able to use this company's products? Probably not. If fact, it could be argued that consumers are being protected from potentially unsafe situations. So what is the greater good here? Also what's stopping them from writing an app to do what they want? HTML 5 is a particular technology, however everything they want to do could be done in Swift. Should we sue Android for not allowing us to use Swift and iOS APIs when building apps? I do agree that I wish WebRTC could run on iOS Safari (or any Safari for that matter,) because my startup deals with video conferencing, however this certainly isn't the way to 'force' them.
ac29 10y ago
>It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities you list. Read the article again -- I don't think they are asking Apple to add more HTML5 functionality, they are asking Apple to allow other browsers which have already implemented the functionality they need onto iOS. Their legal team thinks French law is on their side. The security thing is a bit of a strawman, you are implying that Google, Mozilla, or Microsoft, who all have better HTML5 support, do not take browser security seriously. That's simply not true.
- natch 10y ago
  Your points don't hold up, because Apple has to worry about platform security, not just browser security. And taking Microsoft and Google as examples does not support your argument. Mozilla, maybe (though possibly just by having fewer users as compared to all of Android and all of Windows) but again they don't have to worry about platform security as much as Apple does. French law is outside of my expertise. I'm just talking common sense here. I do recognize that there might not be much overlap between the two in matters of technology, though.

by natch 10y ago

WhitneyLand 10y ago

Isn't bringing up security a red herring in this case? Desktop operating systems are arguably less secure than iOS, yet Google and Mozilla have already finished it and Microsoft is close to finishing it. Yet Apple can't even confirm they'll eventually try it? How is that a security limitation?

briandear 10y ago

Except French law doesn't care about reality when it comes to these kinds of disputes. This is a country that makes it nearly impossible to fire employees despite a company needing to downsize due to reduced revenues or other legitimate business situations. Also France doesn't have much to lose by siding against Apple -- it isn't as if they have a large employee base here and thus a limited number of people available to start fires and throw rocks if the ruling goes against Apple. (See what would happen if the French government had sided with Uber for example.) Also look at how France denied the sale of Dailymotion to a US company and are waging a constant battle against AirBnB and Uber -- even going so far as to fund a series of taxi apps using taxpayer money. Am I being unfair in this case? Maybe, however, I do own a (very) small business in France and it is fair to say that France is hostile towards business -- and for a company like Apple, the French courts would rule against them just out of spite. A small, insignificant French startup going against 'American' Apple -- it's no contest. Apple has a good chance of losing this fight. If this startup we're going against Peugeot however, the startup would get crushed because the Peugeot constituency is much more politically 'dangerous.' I admit I am highly cynical but the reality is that there is no upside to a French court siding with Apple in terms of politics. However I have to ask: what's the desired remedy of this company? Do they actually think a French court is going to rule that Apple must develop technology to support the claims of this company or are they seeking to get paid? Is there actually an injury here? My phone doesn't make pizza, so could I sue to force Apple to adopt pizza making technology assuming such technology existed on Android? The argument that Android can do it is interesting, given Android's market share, a monopoly argument would be difficult to make against Apple. This company seems mad because their target market uses iPhone -- that sounds like a business problem rather than something that's Apple's fault. If their product were so vital and compelling, customers would switch if they were so inclined -- much how people switched from the ubiquitous Blackberry -- even 'top' executives. Additionally, more to the parent comment's point -- are consumers being harmed by not being able to use this company's products? Probably not. If fact, it could be argued that consumers are being protected from potentially unsafe situations. So what is the greater good here? Also what's stopping them from writing an app to do what they want? HTML 5 is a particular technology, however everything they want to do could be done in Swift. Should we sue Android for not allowing us to use Swift and iOS APIs when building apps? I do agree that I wish WebRTC could run on iOS Safari (or any Safari for that matter,) because my startup deals with video conferencing, however this certainly isn't the way to 'force' them.

ac29 10y ago

>It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities you list. Read the article again -- I don't think they are asking Apple to add more HTML5 functionality, they are asking Apple to allow other browsers which have already implemented the functionality they need onto iOS. Their legal team thinks French law is on their side. The security thing is a bit of a strawman, you are implying that Google, Mozilla, or Microsoft, who all have better HTML5 support, do not take browser security seriously. That's simply not true.

natch 10y ago
Your points don't hold up, because Apple has to worry about platform security, not just browser security. And taking Microsoft and Google as examples does not support your argument. Mozilla, maybe (though possibly just by having fewer users as compared to all of Android and all of Windows) but again they don't have to worry about platform security as much as Apple does. French law is outside of my expertise. I'm just talking common sense here. I do recognize that there might not be much overlap between the two in matters of technology, though.