3 ms·

> The EU may have something to say about the rate Apple drops of depreciated API's. Maintaining them does impose a burden, So you agree then that a public API

> The EU may have something to say about the rate Apple drops of depreciated API's. Maintaining them does impose a burden, So you agree then that a public API would likely necessitate a slower pace of change. It’s good to finally get on the same page. > If you're using it as an example of how a public API can't evolve then it's a lousy example. I agree, so it’s a good thing I have never once claimed that a public API can’t evolve, or that would have been a terrible example of that. In fact that argument would be completely ridiculous in the face of a number of APIs that have absolutely evolved in public. What my argument is and always has been since the beginning is that a public API imposed costs on that evolution and almost certainly implies a slower pace of change. And TLS absolutely backs that up. If you want to use TLS1.3 everywhere, you can’t. If you don’t want any sites to use TLS1.1 anymore, you can’t make that happen either. And the folks that make TLS can’t do anything about that either.

rstuart4133 2y ago
> So you agree then that a public API would likely necessitate a slower pace of change. It’s good to finally get on the same page. Not at all. The pace of change is determined by how fast you introduce new API's. Apple in particular can change API's the iPhone talks to their watches as fast as they want, because they control both ends. Them publishing the protocol has absolutely no effect on that. > What my argument is and always has been since the beginning is that a public API imposed costs on that evolution and almost certainly implies a slower pace of change. Despite everything you've said here, I still don't know what those costs are beyond maintaining deprecated API's and documenting the API. > If you want to use TLS1.3 everywhere, you can’t. You're not Apple. Trust me, if Apple decided their watches and phones should only connect using TLS 1.3, then that's what would happen on the next release. You apparently are claiming being forced to publish they are now using TLS 1.3 would slow them down, but haven't offered a shred of evidence or a coherent reason on why that would be so. On looking back, you haven't said anything new in this reply - you just repeated the same assertions. Sadly I have said anything new either, which means it's time to move on.

rstuart4133 2y ago

> So you agree then that a public API would likely necessitate a slower pace of change. It’s good to finally get on the same page. Not at all. The pace of change is determined by how fast you introduce new API's. Apple in particular can change API's the iPhone talks to their watches as fast as they want, because they control both ends. Them publishing the protocol has absolutely no effect on that. > What my argument is and always has been since the beginning is that a public API imposed costs on that evolution and almost certainly implies a slower pace of change. Despite everything you've said here, I still don't know what those costs are beyond maintaining deprecated API's and documenting the API. > If you want to use TLS1.3 everywhere, you can’t. You're not Apple. Trust me, if Apple decided their watches and phones should only connect using TLS 1.3, then that's what would happen on the next release. You apparently are claiming being forced to publish they are now using TLS 1.3 would slow them down, but haven't offered a shred of evidence or a coherent reason on why that would be so. On looking back, you haven't said anything new in this reply - you just repeated the same assertions. Sadly I have said anything new either, which means it's time to move on.