9 ms·
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 av
by 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 agoForce internal apps (especially paid ones) to use publicly available APIs. Does that include apps that use the Secure Enclave?
- csande17 7y agoSure, they should have to use the Keychain APIs just like everyone else.
- scarface74 7y agoAnd system programs? Should all apps have root access? Should they all be able to make changes that the settings app can make?
- csande17 7y agoSettings, Phone, SMS, and maybe App Store are probably the only iOS system apps that actually deserve to be special.
- saagarjha 7y agoHow about apps that serve to be repositories of sensitive information that is disclosed by consent to other apps, such as Health or Wallet?
- csande17 7y agoIt's always bugged me that iOS creates specialized one-off APIs for accessing things like Health and the photo library, instead of a generic, extensible interface that third-party apps could use to create their own shared data stores. Why should I have to depend on Apple to decide that a particular kind of health data should be allowed? Similarly, Android has a generic "intent" interface you can use to jump out into another app to get data from the user (take a photo, open a file, scan a QR code, etc.), while iOS has a bajillion different UIWhateverViewControllers that cover only the use cases Apple thought of and can only launch system apps.
- saagarjha 7y agoHonestly, I think this touches too close to the “default apps” issue that Apple has been quite recalcitrant on, and in my opinion it won’t be fixed until they change their mind on this. They have the technology in place to do this safely, so at this point this has to be a choice they’ve made. However, to address a specific concern about your first point: I do find it convenient to have one central location for all these things, as opposed to a dozen different home automation and health tracking apps or random folders on my filesystem for photos. Apple might be heavy handed in limiting categories here because it keeps data consistent and prevents issues where years of menstrual cycle data was being added under a custom “Periods” category and format that’s incompatible with this year’s “Cycles” measurement.
- scarface74 7y agoSimilarly, Android has a generic "intent" interface you can use to jump out into another app to get data from the user (take a photo, open a file, scan a QR code, etc.), while iOS has a bajillion different UIWhateverViewControllers that cover only the use cases Apple thought of and can only launch system apps. Apps has had that since iOS 8. Thats exactly how the share sheet works.
- saagarjha 7y agoOf course, that only allows for exporting data out of your app. If you want to import data or work with it this doesn’t really help.
- shkkmo 7y agoIs there a reason there can't be a standard system of granting access to apps?
- scarface74 7y agoA standard system for granting apps root access - you mean something like Vista’s User Account Control? What could possibly go wrong?
- shkkmo 7y agoYup, most operating systems have the ability to grant root access, what is your point?
- scarface74 7y agoAnd it’s been a major catastrophe for the average user for the last 40 years.
- damnyou 7y agoAnd the current situation with iOS is an even bigger catastrophe for society. I don't think the problem is copying per se... the problem is that Apple is just too big, too powerful, to be good for society. Apple should be broken up.
- zepto 7y agoA catastrophe for the average user is a catastrophe for society. Apple has solved that problem and you haven’t articulated what is wrong.
- damnyou 7y agoAverage users are not the only people that matter, despite what Robert Bork wants you to think. What is wrong is the concentration of power within a company answerable only to shareholders. Even democratically elected governments need to be heavily scrutinized for abuses of power.
- dwaite 7y agoThere's another common developer issue which these don't rectify. Apple gets 15-30% of the revenue for subscriptions and purchases through the App Store, whether it is an Apple-published application or a third party application. IMHO, Spotify's only really solid complaint is that it took so long for Apple to have a third party music intent. The rest of Spotify's list amount to them signing a contract with Apple having a contract stating that money for digital goods and services taken in-app or through referral by an app to another place (such as opening a registration page in Safari) require the payment to go through Apple, and Apple gets a cut. And Spotify repeatedly tried to cheat Apple out of this agreement. And repeatedly had issues where either the app version was rejected, or a deployed app version was given a deadline before it was pulled.
- muddi900 7y agoYes, and Apple is at a competitive advantage when they charge a fee to Spotify. Look Apple has already been convicted of violating the Sherman act, with what they did with e-books. This behavior is not all that different.