4 ms·

It's interesting to hear Apple always talk about the level playing field they've tried to create. From within the company i think they really believe they've go

It's interesting to hear Apple always talk about the level playing field they've tried to create. From within the company i think they really believe they've got a level playing field. But then Apple has apps that can do much more than everyone else has access to, in ways that have nothing to do with security or privacy. - Apps access to NFC (e.g Apple Pay vs you being able to make your own nfc card) - Inability to have non WKWebView type browsers. Safari can do the one it wants, which is Apples choice. - Health app has access to nicer push notifications than standard - Federated Identity type login only works with Apple. So login with Apple is built tightly into the OS, where you can't make an app that does that. - Wallet app can access 2FA SMS code without having to type it The list is much longer but it is not a level playing field with regards to the access to apis. If Apple has an app like Messages, other apps should be able to access the same things too. I pretty much couldn't care less about the app store and review process, but the asymmetric access to APIs really helps Apple cement their moat (e.g with iMessage, Wallet), basically any app where they do it has serious market power.

AndersSandvik 4y ago
If you delete an Apple app and redownload it it will put itself on the homebar or first app page pushing your other apps away. Comman, they dont let other apps do that!
- Tagbert 4y ago
  It was Apple Music and they have fixed that in the most recent update.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Thanks for being a voice of reason rather than assuming Apple Is Evil at every turn lol.
mgsk 4y ago
Doesn’t invalidate your larger point, but 2FA code completion is available to all apps: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=z0i801mg https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=z0i801mg
- neximo64 4y ago
  You still have to press the autofill at the top of the keyboard with this one.
isodev 4y ago
> Inability to have non WKWebView type browsers. Safari can do the one it wants, which is Apples choice. This is primarily for privacy and security reasons. One wouldn't want a funny casino app, or the likes of Google or Facebook to hijack people's web access. Another aspect is the user experience - a piece of web content will render exactly the same way anywhere on the system. There is no need for people to be concerned with webapps asking absurd things like "Download browser X to view this page". A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop.
- tradevapp 4y ago
  I work for a product agency, and the ability to rely on Safari has unlocked many possibilities for us. It's significantly easier to create a unique and beautiful experience (web or native) for iOS than it is for Android. This is further facilitated by the consistency and performance of the iPhone platform itself.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- infinityio 4y ago
  > A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop. This would still be true in the case where external web browsers were allowed - you can still rely on Webkit being available on all phones, but if you need access to APIs not provided by apple you can revert to bundling a different browser engine
  - hbko 4y ago
    Not if the user chooses a different default browser. I doubt all the Chromium clones would evenly support "normal" iOS integrations, and the ability to (privately) deal with, for example, universal links, App Clips, or even that banner offering a website visitor to use the native app. I understand the sentiment for wanting to use custom features on desktop, but a phone needs to be much more reliable than this - you can't have something working "sometimes" or for users to have to retry or change settings on the go. Imagine a stressful situation at the airport, and the app you are using needs you to switch browsers or download another app to work...
skohan 4y ago
Access to NFC is a huge one. This has a ton of use-cases in for instance IoT and smart home, and Apple limiting access prevents a lot of innovation in that space which might compete with their offering. Another example is Apple's privileged access to your wifi credentials. Basically this means if you want to share wifi access via your app, as you might want to do in setting up an IoT device, this is only possible if you enter Apple's expensive MFI program. So in other words, to have a seamless and competitive IoT hardware setup process, you essentially have to enter an agreement with Apple which involves giving them a percentage of your overall hardware sales revenue on MFI devices.
- FreqSep 4y ago
  Are IoT and Smart Home actually *that* huge?
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Bypassing if it is or not, how could we ever know how big it is if Apple is stopping anyone from even trying?
  - skohan 4y ago
    It's a massive example of how Apple inserts themselves as a toll collector on an entire industry which they are largely unrelated to. Let me pose it to you this way: if you are developing an IoT product, the only way to have a UX competitive with Apple's own offerings is to pay them a toll on every device you sell. In return, you get a couple dozen bytes of data Apple prevents other apps from accessing. Does that sound like anti-trust regulation is operating as it should?
zahma 4y ago
Doesn’t NFC work just fine for most third parties? I have various cards that all work for payment, including a third party credit card (ie. not Apple Pay), mass transit pass, a student card which has payment functionality in addition to key card access to doors. I guess Apple still has final say-so, so an individual can’t create an NFC for her home, or is this possible now? Then again, when it comes to zero-knowledge, do you really want Apple knowing when you open and close your doors? From a privacy perspective this is a double-edged sword. The browser for me is still an issue. I know the question is more broad, but if Firefox could run natively on iOS, I’d feel substantially better about Apple’s promise to be more privacy-oriented. I don’t expect their platform to have zero telemetry, but it is larger projects like this that speak volumes to me because that indicates they at least entertain the notion of privacy for people who care enough to try to opt out of tracking (versus the many many individuals who are unaware or don’t care).

AndersSandvik 4y ago

If you delete an Apple app and redownload it it will put itself on the homebar or first app page pushing your other apps away. Comman, they dont let other apps do that!

Tagbert 4y ago
It was Apple Music and they have fixed that in the most recent update.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Thanks for being a voice of reason rather than assuming Apple Is Evil at every turn lol.

mgsk 4y ago

Doesn’t invalidate your larger point, but 2FA code completion is available to all apps: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=z0i801mg https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=z0i801mg

neximo64 4y ago
You still have to press the autofill at the top of the keyboard with this one.

isodev 4y ago

> Inability to have non WKWebView type browsers. Safari can do the one it wants, which is Apples choice. This is primarily for privacy and security reasons. One wouldn't want a funny casino app, or the likes of Google or Facebook to hijack people's web access. Another aspect is the user experience - a piece of web content will render exactly the same way anywhere on the system. There is no need for people to be concerned with webapps asking absurd things like "Download browser X to view this page". A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop.

tradevapp 4y ago
I work for a product agency, and the ability to rely on Safari has unlocked many possibilities for us. It's significantly easier to create a unique and beautiful experience (web or native) for iOS than it is for Android. This is further facilitated by the consistency and performance of the iPhone platform itself.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
infinityio 4y ago
> A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop. This would still be true in the case where external web browsers were allowed - you can still rely on Webkit being available on all phones, but if you need access to APIs not provided by apple you can revert to bundling a different browser engine
- hbko 4y ago
  Not if the user chooses a different default browser. I doubt all the Chromium clones would evenly support "normal" iOS integrations, and the ability to (privately) deal with, for example, universal links, App Clips, or even that banner offering a website visitor to use the native app. I understand the sentiment for wanting to use custom features on desktop, but a phone needs to be much more reliable than this - you can't have something working "sometimes" or for users to have to retry or change settings on the go. Imagine a stressful situation at the airport, and the app you are using needs you to switch browsers or download another app to work...

skohan 4y ago

Access to NFC is a huge one. This has a ton of use-cases in for instance IoT and smart home, and Apple limiting access prevents a lot of innovation in that space which might compete with their offering. Another example is Apple's privileged access to your wifi credentials. Basically this means if you want to share wifi access via your app, as you might want to do in setting up an IoT device, this is only possible if you enter Apple's expensive MFI program. So in other words, to have a seamless and competitive IoT hardware setup process, you essentially have to enter an agreement with Apple which involves giving them a percentage of your overall hardware sales revenue on MFI devices.

FreqSep 4y ago
Are IoT and Smart Home actually *that* huge?
- capableweb 4y ago
  Bypassing if it is or not, how could we ever know how big it is if Apple is stopping anyone from even trying?
- skohan 4y ago
  It's a massive example of how Apple inserts themselves as a toll collector on an entire industry which they are largely unrelated to. Let me pose it to you this way: if you are developing an IoT product, the only way to have a UX competitive with Apple's own offerings is to pay them a toll on every device you sell. In return, you get a couple dozen bytes of data Apple prevents other apps from accessing. Does that sound like anti-trust regulation is operating as it should?

zahma 4y ago

Doesn’t NFC work just fine for most third parties? I have various cards that all work for payment, including a third party credit card (ie. not Apple Pay), mass transit pass, a student card which has payment functionality in addition to key card access to doors. I guess Apple still has final say-so, so an individual can’t create an NFC for her home, or is this possible now? Then again, when it comes to zero-knowledge, do you really want Apple knowing when you open and close your doors? From a privacy perspective this is a double-edged sword. The browser for me is still an issue. I know the question is more broad, but if Firefox could run natively on iOS, I’d feel substantially better about Apple’s promise to be more privacy-oriented. I don’t expect their platform to have zero telemetry, but it is larger projects like this that speak volumes to me because that indicates they at least entertain the notion of privacy for people who care enough to try to opt out of tracking (versus the many many individuals who are unaware or don’t care).