3 ms·

It's not ridiculous, they have been doing it for a long time now. E.G: Apple uses private APIs (http://sourcedna.com/blog/20151018/ios-apps-using-private-apis.

It's not ridiculous, they have been doing it for a long time now. E.G: Apple uses private APIs (http://sourcedna.com/blog/20151018/ios-apps-using-private-apis.html http://sourcedna.com/blog/20151018/ios-apps-using-private-ap...) to build some of their software and reject apps doing the same, effectively killing competition. But Google and facebook uses them because they want to create products that can compete with apple's features. E.G: https://daringfireball.net/2008/11/google_mobile_uses_private_iphone_apis https://daringfireball.net/2008/11/google_mobile_uses_privat... Yet they are not rejected, because they are "big enough".

jamespo 10y ago
Do you have examples more recent than 2008?
- sametmax 10y ago
  Those are not easy to find, it's not really something they advertise and you need somebody to publicly catch them. The only reason I know they do is because some of my friends working on mobile video games regularly complain they can't get some features because they are private while google and facebook do. They analyzed some apps to try to copy said features and realized the unfairness of their situation. Those are lunch chit chats, not hard facts. But they got seldom reasons to lie.
- froindt 10y ago
  I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I don't think you could record iPad screens at the start, though Apple demonstrated it as a possibility during their live demos. I'm not sure if Apple made it available to other companies privately though.
joosters 10y ago
Of course Apple use private APIs... if they didn't, then these APIs would have no reason to exist in the first place.
scarface74 10y ago
I've never understood why developers criticize OS vendors use of "private APIs". I would go so far as to say there is no such thing as a "private API". The API is a vendors promise to consuming applications that when they call a method, a certain behavior will happen. Whatever they do behind the scenes is an implementation detail that they should be allowed to change anytime without breaking consuming applications. Apple often uses immature frameworks internally - like the extensions framework - to to polish them or to dog food them before making them official.
- toyg 10y ago
  > why developers criticize OS vendors use of "private APIs" The point is not that these APIs exist; the problem is when vendors actively block others from using them, with hacks and/or policy bans. That's extremely hypocritical and anti-competitive. I can see why unofficial APIs must be discouraged (because let's be honest, developers will bitch and moan when they change -- Microsoft in particular was strong-armed into legacy support for decades by the likes of Adobe and Symantec), but it should never be an excuse to ostracize or tilt the playing field.
  - oneplane 10y ago
    It's not about marketing, economics or other MBA-feuled non-technical ideas. It's about a software vendor saying: this is our platform, here are API's for you to use, don't go outside it. It is perfectly reasonable, and so far, any other interpretation seems to be a skewed view to facilitate some sort of non-compliant piece of software.
    - scarface74 10y ago
      And the minute scores of applications break that depend on a third party library that uses an undocumented method, the OS vendor gets blamed for releasing a "buggy OS" or they have to keep buggy work arounds in their code forever like MS does.
- AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
  f.lux strikes me as a good example. f.lux came to the market first with its idea to control screen temperature. Apple decides "No, you're not allowed to do that...but that's a great idea!", kicks f.lux out of the app store, and then adds their own Night Mode into later versions of iOS, using API's only they are allowed to access.

jamespo 10y ago

Do you have examples more recent than 2008?

sametmax 10y ago
Those are not easy to find, it's not really something they advertise and you need somebody to publicly catch them. The only reason I know they do is because some of my friends working on mobile video games regularly complain they can't get some features because they are private while google and facebook do. They analyzed some apps to try to copy said features and realized the unfairness of their situation. Those are lunch chit chats, not hard facts. But they got seldom reasons to lie.
froindt 10y ago
I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I don't think you could record iPad screens at the start, though Apple demonstrated it as a possibility during their live demos. I'm not sure if Apple made it available to other companies privately though.

joosters 10y ago

Of course Apple use private APIs... if they didn't, then these APIs would have no reason to exist in the first place.

scarface74 10y ago

I've never understood why developers criticize OS vendors use of "private APIs". I would go so far as to say there is no such thing as a "private API". The API is a vendors promise to consuming applications that when they call a method, a certain behavior will happen. Whatever they do behind the scenes is an implementation detail that they should be allowed to change anytime without breaking consuming applications. Apple often uses immature frameworks internally - like the extensions framework - to to polish them or to dog food them before making them official.

toyg 10y ago
> why developers criticize OS vendors use of "private APIs" The point is not that these APIs exist; the problem is when vendors actively block others from using them, with hacks and/or policy bans. That's extremely hypocritical and anti-competitive. I can see why unofficial APIs must be discouraged (because let's be honest, developers will bitch and moan when they change -- Microsoft in particular was strong-armed into legacy support for decades by the likes of Adobe and Symantec), but it should never be an excuse to ostracize or tilt the playing field.
- oneplane 10y ago
  It's not about marketing, economics or other MBA-feuled non-technical ideas. It's about a software vendor saying: this is our platform, here are API's for you to use, don't go outside it. It is perfectly reasonable, and so far, any other interpretation seems to be a skewed view to facilitate some sort of non-compliant piece of software.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    And the minute scores of applications break that depend on a third party library that uses an undocumented method, the OS vendor gets blamed for releasing a "buggy OS" or they have to keep buggy work arounds in their code forever like MS does.
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
f.lux strikes me as a good example. f.lux came to the market first with its idea to control screen temperature. Apple decides "No, you're not allowed to do that...but that's a great idea!", kicks f.lux out of the app store, and then adds their own Night Mode into later versions of iOS, using API's only they are allowed to access.