4 ms·

They should have added claims for: - NFC apple does have full NFC support for their products but for other apps there are tons of road blocks for using anythi

They should have added claims for: - NFC apple does have full NFC support for their products but for other apps there are tons of road blocks for using anything close to full NFC functionality - Bluetooth same, similar more usable, but some functionality is still not available for 3rd party apps at all meaning certain things can only be provided 1st party by Apple - Strange behaviour when releasing questionable competive Apps There had been multiple cases where Apple released 1st party apps and it "happened" that the previous leader(s) of previous existing 3rd party apps "happened" to have issues with releasing updates around that time (or similar strange coincidental behavior). Additionally such new apps often had some new non-documented non public APIs which makes it harder for 3rd parties to compete. - Questionable app store reviews Stories of apps running in arbitrary you could say outright despotic harassment when wrt. the app store reviews are more then just few (to be clear legal non malicious apps which should be fully legal on the apple app store). EDIT: To be clear for the first 2 points apple always have excuses which seem reasonable on the surface until you think it through a bit more (e.g. similar to there excuse for banning PWAs in the EU, I think they might have undid that by now). And for the other points it's always arbitrary enough so that in any specific case you could call it coincidence, but there is a pattern.

pksebben 3y ago
Bluetooth remains my biggest gripe with my iphone. When I walk out of range of any connected device, my call switches from my headset to the phone, and I have to manually go in and reconnect to my headset every third or fourth time I want to connect to it. It stands in stark contrast to literally everything else about the device, which is almost universally easy and thoughtless.
- dathinab 3y ago
  my biggest gripe is NFC, through more then their not-so-competitive parts but also that they didn't support it at all until they had their own 1st party use-case for it (which isn't anti-competive just sucks) the reason is that it crippled a whole industry of smart door looks NFC is (by far!) technically the best way to handle them (for many of the common security levels). (Through I mean proper secure application of NFC, something you often do not get in a satisfying way with a lot of the RFID card solutions. And I'm aware that a ton (most?) of smart door room solutions are a complete security nightmare, but that is companies cheeping out and/or not hiring anyone who know anything about security etc.) EDIT: stuff like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 is what I mean with most RFID based solutions are shit. Through not sure how much this specific case was very competent hackers and how much bad security.
  - eecc 3y ago
    Sure, Apple should jump both feet into whatever shaky tech standard and go to umpteenth lengths to guarantee simultaneous interoperability and compatibility with all of them as they evolve to something workable , forever. Otherwise if they fail to walk on their own feet it’s not the fault of their stewards and their poor performance. Nope, it’s Apple’s fault for not having helped enough.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      sorry but you seem to have absolutely no idea what you are speaking about NFC has not been a "shaky" standard long long long before Apple adopted it and most other phone vendors had at least some models which support it even before that there where extension systems to try out and test it before phones did support it so it was pretty much Apple holding the industry in that specific area back and like I said it wasn't anti-competive, it was there right to do so but it shows how apple often doesn't care too much about what would be good for the user if it isn't good for them, I mean they are in the end a stock traded company it would be strange if they didn't and if one vendor has a huge usage base to a point it has monopoly like powers (even if the usage base is only around ~50% that still is monopoly like power in the phone marked due to the marked/usage dynamic of phones) then you can't rely on a technology 50%+(1) of your customers can't use because the vendor they use doesn't support it or artificially locks it down especially if it's something like a phone where the network effects makes it basically impossible to expect people to switch it (1: 50%+ as while the marked share wasn't 50%+ the marked share in the audience such a system would reach was.) EDIT: And yes I'm fully aware of the while NFC<->SIM secure module<->carrier power being annoying thing. But that thing had been solved a long time ago outside of the US (and later in the US by virtual secure modules) and while the initial solutions to that problem (e.g. in the EU) where still annoying non of it was a major road block and would have been resolved if there would have been insensitive to do so. But if your product doesn't work with iPhone users and you potential customers are mainly people which high end phones it just never mattered because the marked was dead anyway.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pksebben 3y ago

Bluetooth remains my biggest gripe with my iphone. When I walk out of range of any connected device, my call switches from my headset to the phone, and I have to manually go in and reconnect to my headset every third or fourth time I want to connect to it. It stands in stark contrast to literally everything else about the device, which is almost universally easy and thoughtless.

dathinab 3y ago
my biggest gripe is NFC, through more then their not-so-competitive parts but also that they didn't support it at all until they had their own 1st party use-case for it (which isn't anti-competive just sucks) the reason is that it crippled a whole industry of smart door looks NFC is (by far!) technically the best way to handle them (for many of the common security levels). (Through I mean proper secure application of NFC, something you often do not get in a satisfying way with a lot of the RFID card solutions. And I'm aware that a ton (most?) of smart door room solutions are a complete security nightmare, but that is companies cheeping out and/or not hiring anyone who know anything about security etc.) EDIT: stuff like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 is what I mean with most RFID based solutions are shit. Through not sure how much this specific case was very competent hackers and how much bad security.
- eecc 3y ago
  Sure, Apple should jump both feet into whatever shaky tech standard and go to umpteenth lengths to guarantee simultaneous interoperability and compatibility with all of them as they evolve to something workable , forever. Otherwise if they fail to walk on their own feet it’s not the fault of their stewards and their poor performance. Nope, it’s Apple’s fault for not having helped enough.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    sorry but you seem to have absolutely no idea what you are speaking about NFC has not been a "shaky" standard long long long before Apple adopted it and most other phone vendors had at least some models which support it even before that there where extension systems to try out and test it before phones did support it so it was pretty much Apple holding the industry in that specific area back and like I said it wasn't anti-competive, it was there right to do so but it shows how apple often doesn't care too much about what would be good for the user if it isn't good for them, I mean they are in the end a stock traded company it would be strange if they didn't and if one vendor has a huge usage base to a point it has monopoly like powers (even if the usage base is only around ~50% that still is monopoly like power in the phone marked due to the marked/usage dynamic of phones) then you can't rely on a technology 50%+(1) of your customers can't use because the vendor they use doesn't support it or artificially locks it down especially if it's something like a phone where the network effects makes it basically impossible to expect people to switch it (1: 50%+ as while the marked share wasn't 50%+ the marked share in the audience such a system would reach was.) EDIT: And yes I'm fully aware of the while NFC<->SIM secure module<->carrier power being annoying thing. But that thing had been solved a long time ago outside of the US (and later in the US by virtual secure modules) and while the initial solutions to that problem (e.g. in the EU) where still annoying non of it was a major road block and would have been resolved if there would have been insensitive to do so. But if your product doesn't work with iPhone users and you potential customers are mainly people which high end phones it just never mattered because the marked was dead anyway.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]