3 ms·

An HN comment explains the difference [0]: > The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocument

An HN comment explains the difference [0]: > The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocumented Windows API functions to cripple Netscape and forcing computer manufacturers to avoid other software when licensing DOS/Windows. All of that is in the long document: https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28256669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28256669

realusername 3y ago
I can make the exact same argument for iOS, anything non-Apple which is still permitted is crippled and their Apple equivalent are using undocumented private APIs.
- ben_w 3y ago
  No 3rd party manufacturer has a license to install iOS the way they did for DOS/Windows. Apple's private APIs may or may not be the same issue as demonstrated by Microsoft, but you can't tell either way from the kind of description that would fit in a comment field.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Sure the licensing part is very different but the software issue is identical. Browsers are using public APIs which do not support some of the features Safari does. You can't build something as seamless as iCloud because of the private APIs being used there. You can't build an exact copy of the Airpods because the public APIs aren't as good as what they gave to themselves. Watches aren't treated the same if it's an Apple one or one from another vendor. I could continue this list for a long time. The same logic extends to everything in iOS, their software is fundamentally treated differently than the software coming from other vendors and has extra private capabilities.
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Is this suggesting that when I open a link, google maps could open it, but doesn’t due to developers being unaware of a documented API?

realusername 3y ago

I can make the exact same argument for iOS, anything non-Apple which is still permitted is crippled and their Apple equivalent are using undocumented private APIs.

ben_w 3y ago
No 3rd party manufacturer has a license to install iOS the way they did for DOS/Windows. Apple's private APIs may or may not be the same issue as demonstrated by Microsoft, but you can't tell either way from the kind of description that would fit in a comment field.
- realusername 3y ago
  Sure the licensing part is very different but the software issue is identical. Browsers are using public APIs which do not support some of the features Safari does. You can't build something as seamless as iCloud because of the private APIs being used there. You can't build an exact copy of the Airpods because the public APIs aren't as good as what they gave to themselves. Watches aren't treated the same if it's an Apple one or one from another vendor. I could continue this list for a long time. The same logic extends to everything in iOS, their software is fundamentally treated differently than the software coming from other vendors and has extra private capabilities.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

Is this suggesting that when I open a link, google maps could open it, but doesn’t due to developers being unaware of a documented API?