12 ms·

Of course Apple copies features—Camera+'s volume button shutter was initially blocked from the App Store then wound up in the first-party Camera app. But I don'

Of course Apple copies features—Camera+'s volume button shutter was initially blocked from the App Store then wound up in the first-party Camera app. But I don't buy the premise of the article. There were dozens of flashlight apps in the store when iPhone OS 2 came out, so the OS can never have a built-in flashlight feature? That article's examples of "copied" features are also straightforward evolutions of existing ones that have been around for years, but the author doesn't mention that. Sidecar, ostensibly a clone of Duet Display, builds off of the ability to wirelessly extend the display to an Apple TV since Mavericks (2013). Regarding Clue, the second release of the Health app added reproductive health tracking in iOS 9 (2015). Certainly at the time engineers and product managers would have been thinking about the future direction of these features. In fact, it strikes me that Apple is _very_slow_ at making obvious improvements, creating opportunities for third-party developers to make plenty of money. Those ad-infested, 100 LoC flashlight apps made cash for 5 years before the feature became part of the OS. Whether copied or not, I'm extremely skeptical that App Store analytics are influencing OS features. It's never been Apple's style to be analytics-driven.

shkkmo 7y ago
It seems like the article ends up a bit focused on the wrong things here and there. Of course Apple is going to build features their customers want and those feature are going to line up to some degree with what is available on the app store. This, in itself, is not a problem as any IP theft here should be covered under IP laws. The real issue is that when Apple does release an app (especially a paid app like Apple Music), that they don't compete fairly. This happens in three ways which are mentioned in the article: API parity: >> the in-house version often benefits from functionality that outside developers are prohibited from using. Apple Music, for instance, is the only streaming service that is entitled to take full advantage of Siri. Apple says it plans to change that policy in its new operating system, iOS 13. Apple’s walkie-talkie app, which launched after independent apps had proved the appeal of the concept, is the only one that can operate on Apple Watch. Information Parity: >> what makes Apple’s practice different is its access to a trove of data that nobody else has. The App Store, where the original apps were offered and competed for downloads, collects a vast amount of information on which kinds of apps are successful—even monitoring how much time users spend in them. That data is shared widely among leaders at the tech giant and could be used to make strategic decisions on product development Power imbalance and IP lawsuits: >> They generally don’t sue Apple because of the difficulty and expense in fighting the tech giant—and the consequences they might face from being dependent on the platform. You said: > Whether copied or not, I'm extremely skeptical that App Store analytics are influencing OS features. It's never been Apple's style to be analytics-driven. Do you have a basis for this? This seems to be contradicted by this quote: >> That data is shared widely among leaders at the tech giant and could be used to make strategic decisions on product development, said Phillip Shoemaker, who served as Apple’s director of App Store review from 2009 to 2016. “I think Apple gets a lot of inspiration from apps that are on the App Store,” he said.
- switz 7y ago
  This is a great answer. To echo and add: why can't I open maps links in Google Maps or http links in Google Chrome. Security may be the easy answer, but there's little doubt that there's an imbalance.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > why can't I open maps links in Google Maps This is what it does on other platforms. Honestly, if you uninstall Maps it should do this on iOS as well instead of asking you to restore the app.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  There do seem to be a couple of fixes that would go a long way to satisfy anti-trust concerns: 1) Force internal apps (especially paid ones) to use publicly available APIs. 2) Publicly disclose all App Store metrics that aren't strictly limited to security teams within Apple. 3) Insulate the App Store review team and processes from their other business units and setup a independent watch dog to monitor the process and ensure fair enforcement of the rules. Fixing these three things would leave us with just the industry wide problem of the power-imbalance in IP disputes between companies of disparate size.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Force internal apps (especially paid ones) to use publicly available APIs. Does that include apps that use the Secure Enclave?
    - csande17 7y ago
      Sure, they should have to use the Keychain APIs just like everyone else.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And system programs? Should all apps have root access? Should they all be able to make changes that the settings app can make?
heavenlyblue 7y ago
I remember one of my acquaintances on Facebook shared a sad story of how the app they developed was stolen by Apple: it trackedyour iPhone activity. They went in detail about the “revolutionary” tech behind it: they made you set up a VPN on your phone so that they could track all of your net activity, from that they would estimate your screen time with the apps. There was a long set of paragraphs on how Apple is taking advantage of independent developers. I mean - I hate the fact that I can’t change the default browser to Firefox, too. But making the users set your logging VPN under the guise of “making your life healthier by knowing how much time you spend on the phone” is another level.
- Zelphyr 7y ago
  Setting up a VPN that tracks all of your network activity? That makes me queasy. Why should I trust these people to keep all that valuable network traffic data private for me? Apple didn't steal this idea. They may have implemented it in a better way given their low-level system access but, in this case, and in my opinion, I'd rather this be something the OS tracks for me for free by a company that doesn't make their money off the sale of my private personal data.
  - kristofferR 7y ago
    It's a local VPN, all on device. Still a workaround, but data isn't being sent anywhere though.
    - msh 7y ago
      How can a VPN be local? If there is no vpn server at the other end is it really a VPN?
      - tinus_hn 7y ago
        The VPN is local if both the client and the server are local.
      - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
_jal 7y ago
This is also nothing new. Connectix essentially functioned as an unwilling experimental lab for Apple OS features for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix And of course Microsoft did it too, and worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...
- scarface74 7y ago
  Nothing in the Wikipedia article shows anything that Connectix developed that Apple copied. I was very much a Mac user and a Connectix customer back then. Everything that could charitably be called “copied” was a natural evolution. Mode 32: The original Mac OS wasn’t “32 bit clean”. After Apple introduced an OS that required newer Macs, Connectix filled in the gaps for older Macs that Apple dropped support for. RAM Doubler : Classic MacOS had horrible memory management. This made it much better. This wasn’t really made obsolete until OS X. Speed Doubler: A better 68K emulator for PPC Macs. Was Apple not suppose to come out with a better emulator - ever? Even when it did, Speed Doubler was still better. Virtual PC: Apple never came out with a software x86 emulator. At one point it bundled Insignia’s SoftPC. It did come out with a hardware solution called the DOS Compatibility Card. None of the other products were ever “copied” by Apple.
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    The Apple of the 90's is a poor example since they actually legit bought out several existing utilities to bundle in the OS (SuperClock, WindowShade, Stickies, Hierarchical Apple Menu). "Sherlocking" developers didn't come until Steve Jobs returned. That said... Connectix Desktop Utilities/Connectix Powerbook Utilities had several features that were later added the OS. > Speed Doubler The best feature of Speed Doubler for me is Speed Copy, which adds multitasking to file copies (Finder wouldn't get this until MacOS 8, before that a file copy would monopolize the Finder and you couldn't browse your disk or launch any apps)
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      That is a truly strange "feature" when people without running X or even tmux can cp on one tty and ls on another.
reaperducer 7y ago
it strikes me that Apple is _very_slow_ at making obvious improvements, creating opportunities for third-party developers to make plenty of money. You can see this on both macOS and iOS (and especially on the iPad) with Notes, Weather, Stocks, ToDo and other default apps. Apple put out very basic apps, hoping that third parties would come up with really great replacements. It's been a decade, and while there are some good alternatives, the ecosystem for these basic apps has languished. So now in a few days or weeks Apple will release its own, updated, versions that will hopefully push the third parties to do an even better job. Or die trying.
zelon88 7y ago
I vaguely recall an article from a Chrome plugin developer who was approached by Google with a job offer. His plugin, if I recall correctly, separated the audio from the video in a YT video and allowed the user to continue streaming the audio while the screen was locked. He refused the offer, and his app was abruptly and mysteriously pulled from the Chrome app store. A (conviniently) short time later YT announced YouTube Red. I looked for the article but couldn't find it. Anyone else remember this?
- nemothekid 7y ago
  That sounds like a stretch 1. YouTube’s subscription offering was in the works for years before it was announced. 2. The reason that YouTube had to pause music if you closed the app had more to do with the RIAA. Remember the RIAA was pissed that they made pennies from streams compared to the dedicated streaming platforms like Spotify. If anything it sounds like Google was trying to do that guy a favor - his app would have gotten pulled regardless.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    RIAA can be as pissed as they want. Somebody needs to tell them "no" eventually. Copyright is in such an awful state because nobody ever tells them no.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It pauses the music when you stop looking at the app because they can use this to differentiate the paid app from the free one. Try playing youtube in your mobile browser and note it works as expected.
  - zaphirplane 7y ago
    I don’t get your implication. RIAA licensing is for streaming platforms for audio only radio and music video tv. So what’s about the YouTube relationship?
- CryoLogic 7y ago
  I do remember that but I do not remember the exact name of the app. I believe he posted screenshots of the emails between himself and Google as well.
ma2rten 7y ago
It's also very similar to Google, which added a lot of utilities to Google. Many people built dedicated websites for these things which were made obsolete by it.
sizzle 7y ago
This seems to be a trend I've noticed since the beginning of Android and iOS. Developers are quick to release apps that fill in usability gaps across the mobile operating systems or make novel use of hardware/sensors for utility, which then get rolled into future mobile OS releases e.g. mobile internet tethering on rooted devices now "mobile hotspot", blue light blocking screen overlay filter apps now "night shift" in iOS, etc.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Mobile tethering is not new. It was around before the iPhone but I believe back then you had to connect your phone to your computer.
coldtea 7y ago
>Of course Apple copies features—Camera+'s volume button shutter was initially blocked from the App Store then wound up in the first-party Camera app. Did they copy this particular thing though? It's quite obvious to me that Apple would have tried that functionality (volume as camera shutter) on its own even back when the camera app was being developed, along with tons of other ideas, which would gradually incorporate into the product... Whenever we see the old research behind a product implementation at Apple, we see that they had tons of ideas and tried several alternative ways of doing things, some which resurfaced later (e.g. when deemed premature, or when there was no time to add everything), some which were just rejected.
dathinab 7y ago
I think the problem is not that appel steal ideas, I think the problem is that Appels "home" apps have a unfair marked advantage over the concurrence: 1. They don't have to comply with the app guidelines (uh, I mean sometimes vaguely formulated rules). - They don't have to go through the verifying process which sometimes does reject apps for questionable reasons (I'm not saying that they do it intentional but it happens anyway). - They can do thinks which other apps can't. - They can access API's which other apps can't or at last only can if you are some very large company or else wise got into a joint venture with apple (e.g. the NFC APIs, at last in the past). - This sometimes means that some apps have to use other APIs as a work around potentially violating app guidelines leading to apple taking actions against them. 3. They easily get prominently featured in the app store. 4. They might get features in apple phone advertisements. With other works they get a unfair advantage against there competition. The only reason this is legal in Europe is that the monopoly omissions doesn't treat the "apps for iOS" marked as a marked (but instead as a part of the "apps" marked, which IMHO is wrong). Don't misunderstand I'm speaking about apps made by apple, not system features like flashlight or screen color. The think is a lot of the thinks can be gained to some degree by 3rd party apps with money, the problem is that the just price of getting this makes it impossible to compete with apple. This doesn't even include the situations where apple seemed to have miss-used the review process to hinder some apps to create a better starting point for their apps (and it's not just apple, there are also questionable thinks happening to e.g. 3rd party non profit navigation apps on android). On the other hand there are some many apps that literally might be just random fallout and it's close to impossible to judge without doing a proper study. What I would which is a requirement for: - Apply some monetary value apple has to pay for the advantage they give to they apps (sure they would pay it to them self, still this means they have to pay tax etc. on it and it shows up in the books). - Clear guidelines and transparent processes (especially wrt. google actually). - Limit how app stores can misuse their power, hold them responsible if they do. (e.g. wasn't there a thing where pebble couldn't properly advertise some features because it was conflicting with apples own producsts?) - Limit how phone provides can "lock away" certain features they use them self (e.g. NFC). I'm ok with some over-the-top warnings if you want to use a app adding a feature which might be misused to track you, as long as the warning is only shown at installation. I'm also okay with some payed API access as long as the price is affordable by a small startup. - Or alternatively just require support for "properly" having a alternate app store (not the "allow 3rd party apps" bs android has.
throwaway_law 7y ago
>There were dozens of flashlight apps in the store when iPhone OS 2 came out, so the OS can never have a built-in flashlight feature? Obviously they can, but the question is if I am a developer and building apps on iPhone and if Apple has a track record of cloning popular/valuable apps, shouldn't Apple expect push back from the developers who invested in the iPhone ecosystem? Its the same as Google, when companies spend all this time and money building their website/business to comply with Google's ranking algorithms and spend money on multiple Google AdWord campaigns...then, Google takes all the market information you provided them, copy your business/service/product launch a competing business/service/product that instantly outranks you on Google Search, maybe they even give themselves priority at the top of a Google Search (like Google Flights), and for good measure Google starts bidding up your AdWord campaigns.
tiimbz 7y ago
About the same happened to the F.lux (or Flux) app for iOS, which got removed by Apple[0], only to reappear on IOS as Night Shift, built in to IOS by Apple. [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-removes-flux-app/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-removes-flux-app/

shkkmo 7y ago

It seems like the article ends up a bit focused on the wrong things here and there. Of course Apple is going to build features their customers want and those feature are going to line up to some degree with what is available on the app store. This, in itself, is not a problem as any IP theft here should be covered under IP laws. The real issue is that when Apple does release an app (especially a paid app like Apple Music), that they don't compete fairly. This happens in three ways which are mentioned in the article: API parity: >> the in-house version often benefits from functionality that outside developers are prohibited from using. Apple Music, for instance, is the only streaming service that is entitled to take full advantage of Siri. Apple says it plans to change that policy in its new operating system, iOS 13. Apple’s walkie-talkie app, which launched after independent apps had proved the appeal of the concept, is the only one that can operate on Apple Watch. Information Parity: >> what makes Apple’s practice different is its access to a trove of data that nobody else has. The App Store, where the original apps were offered and competed for downloads, collects a vast amount of information on which kinds of apps are successful—even monitoring how much time users spend in them. That data is shared widely among leaders at the tech giant and could be used to make strategic decisions on product development Power imbalance and IP lawsuits: >> They generally don’t sue Apple because of the difficulty and expense in fighting the tech giant—and the consequences they might face from being dependent on the platform. You said: > Whether copied or not, I'm extremely skeptical that App Store analytics are influencing OS features. It's never been Apple's style to be analytics-driven. Do you have a basis for this? This seems to be contradicted by this quote: >> That data is shared widely among leaders at the tech giant and could be used to make strategic decisions on product development, said Phillip Shoemaker, who served as Apple’s director of App Store review from 2009 to 2016. “I think Apple gets a lot of inspiration from apps that are on the App Store,” he said.

switz 7y ago
This is a great answer. To echo and add: why can't I open maps links in Google Maps or http links in Google Chrome. Security may be the easy answer, but there's little doubt that there's an imbalance.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > why can't I open maps links in Google Maps This is what it does on other platforms. Honestly, if you uninstall Maps it should do this on iOS as well instead of asking you to restore the app.
shkkmo 7y ago
There do seem to be a couple of fixes that would go a long way to satisfy anti-trust concerns: 1) Force internal apps (especially paid ones) to use publicly available APIs. 2) Publicly disclose all App Store metrics that aren't strictly limited to security teams within Apple. 3) Insulate the App Store review team and processes from their other business units and setup a independent watch dog to monitor the process and ensure fair enforcement of the rules. Fixing these three things would leave us with just the industry wide problem of the power-imbalance in IP disputes between companies of disparate size.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Force internal apps (especially paid ones) to use publicly available APIs. Does that include apps that use the Secure Enclave?
  - csande17 7y ago
    Sure, they should have to use the Keychain APIs just like everyone else.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And system programs? Should all apps have root access? Should they all be able to make changes that the settings app can make?

heavenlyblue 7y ago

I remember one of my acquaintances on Facebook shared a sad story of how the app they developed was stolen by Apple: it trackedyour iPhone activity. They went in detail about the “revolutionary” tech behind it: they made you set up a VPN on your phone so that they could track all of your net activity, from that they would estimate your screen time with the apps. There was a long set of paragraphs on how Apple is taking advantage of independent developers. I mean - I hate the fact that I can’t change the default browser to Firefox, too. But making the users set your logging VPN under the guise of “making your life healthier by knowing how much time you spend on the phone” is another level.

Zelphyr 7y ago
Setting up a VPN that tracks all of your network activity? That makes me queasy. Why should I trust these people to keep all that valuable network traffic data private for me? Apple didn't steal this idea. They may have implemented it in a better way given their low-level system access but, in this case, and in my opinion, I'd rather this be something the OS tracks for me for free by a company that doesn't make their money off the sale of my private personal data.
- kristofferR 7y ago
  It's a local VPN, all on device. Still a workaround, but data isn't being sent anywhere though.
  - msh 7y ago
    How can a VPN be local? If there is no vpn server at the other end is it really a VPN?
    - tinus_hn 7y ago
      The VPN is local if both the client and the server are local.
    - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago

_jal 7y ago

This is also nothing new. Connectix essentially functioned as an unwilling experimental lab for Apple OS features for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix And of course Microsoft did it too, and worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_law...

scarface74 7y ago
Nothing in the Wikipedia article shows anything that Connectix developed that Apple copied. I was very much a Mac user and a Connectix customer back then. Everything that could charitably be called “copied” was a natural evolution. Mode 32: The original Mac OS wasn’t “32 bit clean”. After Apple introduced an OS that required newer Macs, Connectix filled in the gaps for older Macs that Apple dropped support for. RAM Doubler : Classic MacOS had horrible memory management. This made it much better. This wasn’t really made obsolete until OS X. Speed Doubler: A better 68K emulator for PPC Macs. Was Apple not suppose to come out with a better emulator - ever? Even when it did, Speed Doubler was still better. Virtual PC: Apple never came out with a software x86 emulator. At one point it bundled Insignia’s SoftPC. It did come out with a hardware solution called the DOS Compatibility Card. None of the other products were ever “copied” by Apple.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  The Apple of the 90's is a poor example since they actually legit bought out several existing utilities to bundle in the OS (SuperClock, WindowShade, Stickies, Hierarchical Apple Menu). "Sherlocking" developers didn't come until Steve Jobs returned. That said... Connectix Desktop Utilities/Connectix Powerbook Utilities had several features that were later added the OS. > Speed Doubler The best feature of Speed Doubler for me is Speed Copy, which adds multitasking to file copies (Finder wouldn't get this until MacOS 8, before that a file copy would monopolize the Finder and you couldn't browse your disk or launch any apps)
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    That is a truly strange "feature" when people without running X or even tmux can cp on one tty and ls on another.

reaperducer 7y ago

it strikes me that Apple is _very_slow_ at making obvious improvements, creating opportunities for third-party developers to make plenty of money. You can see this on both macOS and iOS (and especially on the iPad) with Notes, Weather, Stocks, ToDo and other default apps. Apple put out very basic apps, hoping that third parties would come up with really great replacements. It's been a decade, and while there are some good alternatives, the ecosystem for these basic apps has languished. So now in a few days or weeks Apple will release its own, updated, versions that will hopefully push the third parties to do an even better job. Or die trying.

zelon88 7y ago

I vaguely recall an article from a Chrome plugin developer who was approached by Google with a job offer. His plugin, if I recall correctly, separated the audio from the video in a YT video and allowed the user to continue streaming the audio while the screen was locked. He refused the offer, and his app was abruptly and mysteriously pulled from the Chrome app store. A (conviniently) short time later YT announced YouTube Red. I looked for the article but couldn't find it. Anyone else remember this?

nemothekid 7y ago
That sounds like a stretch 1. YouTube’s subscription offering was in the works for years before it was announced. 2. The reason that YouTube had to pause music if you closed the app had more to do with the RIAA. Remember the RIAA was pissed that they made pennies from streams compared to the dedicated streaming platforms like Spotify. If anything it sounds like Google was trying to do that guy a favor - his app would have gotten pulled regardless.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  RIAA can be as pissed as they want. Somebody needs to tell them "no" eventually. Copyright is in such an awful state because nobody ever tells them no.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  It pauses the music when you stop looking at the app because they can use this to differentiate the paid app from the free one. Try playing youtube in your mobile browser and note it works as expected.
- zaphirplane 7y ago
  I don’t get your implication. RIAA licensing is for streaming platforms for audio only radio and music video tv. So what’s about the YouTube relationship?
CryoLogic 7y ago
I do remember that but I do not remember the exact name of the app. I believe he posted screenshots of the emails between himself and Google as well.

ma2rten 7y ago

It's also very similar to Google, which added a lot of utilities to Google. Many people built dedicated websites for these things which were made obsolete by it.

sizzle 7y ago

This seems to be a trend I've noticed since the beginning of Android and iOS. Developers are quick to release apps that fill in usability gaps across the mobile operating systems or make novel use of hardware/sensors for utility, which then get rolled into future mobile OS releases e.g. mobile internet tethering on rooted devices now "mobile hotspot", blue light blocking screen overlay filter apps now "night shift" in iOS, etc.

scarface74 7y ago
Mobile tethering is not new. It was around before the iPhone but I believe back then you had to connect your phone to your computer.

coldtea 7y ago

>Of course Apple copies features—Camera+'s volume button shutter was initially blocked from the App Store then wound up in the first-party Camera app. Did they copy this particular thing though? It's quite obvious to me that Apple would have tried that functionality (volume as camera shutter) on its own even back when the camera app was being developed, along with tons of other ideas, which would gradually incorporate into the product... Whenever we see the old research behind a product implementation at Apple, we see that they had tons of ideas and tried several alternative ways of doing things, some which resurfaced later (e.g. when deemed premature, or when there was no time to add everything), some which were just rejected.

dathinab 7y ago

I think the problem is not that appel steal ideas, I think the problem is that Appels "home" apps have a unfair marked advantage over the concurrence: 1. They don't have to comply with the app guidelines (uh, I mean sometimes vaguely formulated rules). - They don't have to go through the verifying process which sometimes does reject apps for questionable reasons (I'm not saying that they do it intentional but it happens anyway). - They can do thinks which other apps can't. - They can access API's which other apps can't or at last only can if you are some very large company or else wise got into a joint venture with apple (e.g. the NFC APIs, at last in the past). - This sometimes means that some apps have to use other APIs as a work around potentially violating app guidelines leading to apple taking actions against them. 3. They easily get prominently featured in the app store. 4. They might get features in apple phone advertisements. With other works they get a unfair advantage against there competition. The only reason this is legal in Europe is that the monopoly omissions doesn't treat the "apps for iOS" marked as a marked (but instead as a part of the "apps" marked, which IMHO is wrong). Don't misunderstand I'm speaking about apps made by apple, not system features like flashlight or screen color. The think is a lot of the thinks can be gained to some degree by 3rd party apps with money, the problem is that the just price of getting this makes it impossible to compete with apple. This doesn't even include the situations where apple seemed to have miss-used the review process to hinder some apps to create a better starting point for their apps (and it's not just apple, there are also questionable thinks happening to e.g. 3rd party non profit navigation apps on android). On the other hand there are some many apps that literally might be just random fallout and it's close to impossible to judge without doing a proper study. What I would which is a requirement for: - Apply some monetary value apple has to pay for the advantage they give to they apps (sure they would pay it to them self, still this means they have to pay tax etc. on it and it shows up in the books). - Clear guidelines and transparent processes (especially wrt. google actually). - Limit how app stores can misuse their power, hold them responsible if they do. (e.g. wasn't there a thing where pebble couldn't properly advertise some features because it was conflicting with apples own producsts?) - Limit how phone provides can "lock away" certain features they use them self (e.g. NFC). I'm ok with some over-the-top warnings if you want to use a app adding a feature which might be misused to track you, as long as the warning is only shown at installation. I'm also okay with some payed API access as long as the price is affordable by a small startup. - Or alternatively just require support for "properly" having a alternate app store (not the "allow 3rd party apps" bs android has.

throwaway_law 7y ago

>There were dozens of flashlight apps in the store when iPhone OS 2 came out, so the OS can never have a built-in flashlight feature? Obviously they can, but the question is if I am a developer and building apps on iPhone and if Apple has a track record of cloning popular/valuable apps, shouldn't Apple expect push back from the developers who invested in the iPhone ecosystem? Its the same as Google, when companies spend all this time and money building their website/business to comply with Google's ranking algorithms and spend money on multiple Google AdWord campaigns...then, Google takes all the market information you provided them, copy your business/service/product launch a competing business/service/product that instantly outranks you on Google Search, maybe they even give themselves priority at the top of a Google Search (like Google Flights), and for good measure Google starts bidding up your AdWord campaigns.

tiimbz 7y ago

About the same happened to the F.lux (or Flux) app for iOS, which got removed by Apple[0], only to reappear on IOS as Night Shift, built in to IOS by Apple. [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-removes-flux-app/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-removes-flux-app/