Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPad Camera Multitasking

blog.thinktapwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#131

Post by scarface74 »

_ph_ wrote: post #36
isatty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tight control over what the software can do is a big part of what makes apple devices have such a good user experience. Even as a power user/SWE/tinkerer I hope that does not change because I want my daily driver devices to be as reliable and zero config as they can be. Sideloading/rooting an idevice as long as it can’t do Apple Pay/bypass find my iPhone is fine of course.

I have to agree and disagree. Yes, it is good that not every app has root rights, that you have a reasonable expectation of security and some level of quality assessment. However, at the same time Apple fails dramatically at keeping bad or even nefarious apps out of the app store. And in a lot of places, user experience is outright horrible because of the restrictions. Have you ever tried to move music from files to…

Can you imagine the shit show that would happen if a developer installed a video playing app on his own CarPlay device and he got in accident?

All car manufacturers are very careful about what you are allowed to do on driver accessible controls on dashboard gadgets.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#132

Post by nexuist »

0x0 wrote: post #128
Grustaf wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's pretty pointless for first party apps to ask for permission, since Apple already have access to anything they want.

The "Clips" app is not as first party as the built-in camera app is. I mean, it still comes from Apple, but it is ONLY distributed as an additional download in the app store. You know, via the same app store we're supposed to trust to sandbox us from malware. That changes the game completely! You're conditioned to trust and think iOS and its app store has a permission system, so you can go crazy and download and inst…

Given that you can delete/download first party apps from the App Store now, including Camera, doesn't that imply that Apple can update first party apps remotely now? If so, Clips and Camera are treated the same, Camera just happens to come with the device and Clips doesn't.

The real answer is probably that Clips is onloaded onto demo units at retail stores, and they don't want the first user to deny permission and prevent everyone else from using the app.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#133

Post by nobodywasishere »

scarface74 wrote: post #131
_ph_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree and disagree. Yes, it is good that not every app has root rights, that you have a reasonable expectation of security and some level of quality assessment. However, at the same time Apple fails dramatically at keeping bad or even nefarious apps out of the app store. And in a lot of places, user experience is outright horrible because of the restrictions. Have you ever tried to move music from files to…

Can you imagine the shit show that would happen if a developer installed a video playing app on his own CarPlay device and he got in accident? All car manufacturers are very careful about what you are allowed to do on driver accessible controls on dashboard gadgets.

It'd be only the driver's fault, not anyone else's. How is this any different from playing a video from the phone and either holding it, or putting it on the dash?

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#134

Post by easrng »

jefftk wrote: post #58
mrtksn wrote: post #51

This doesn't bother me at all. Wouldn't it mean that if you talk to Apple about something you need they might actually give it to you? I suspect that people imagine Zoom getting a privilege due to their inartistic value but I don't think that this is the case. I think that it's just a business and there's no reason why you can't have it with Apple too. I imagine, engineers in Zoom needed this to accomplish something…

Would you feel the same way if a web browser added a feature that could only be used by a specific partner?

Like window.chrome.webstorePrivate? It exists, but only on https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ pages.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#135

Post by deergomoo »

nexuist wrote: post #132
0x0 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Clips" app is not as first party as the built-in camera app is. I mean, it still comes from Apple, but it is ONLY distributed as an additional download in the app store. You know, via the same app store we're supposed to trust to sandbox us from malware. That changes the game completely! You're conditioned to trust and think iOS and its app store has a permission system, so you can go crazy and download and inst…

Given that you can delete/download first party apps from the App Store now, including Camera, doesn't that imply that Apple can update first party apps remotely now? If so, Clips and Camera are treated the same, Camera just happens to come with the device and Clips doesn't. The real answer is probably that Clips is onloaded onto demo units at retail stores, and they don't want the first user to deny permission and pr…

> Given that you can delete/download first party apps from the App Store now, including Camera, doesn't that imply that Apple can update first party apps remotely now?

No, deleting a built-in app just deletes the icon. You can “re-install” a built-in app via the App Store even if you don’t have a network connection, because it never actually left your phone.

Seems kinda dumb to still tie them to OS updates tbh, especially for Safari. Every other browser is pushing updates a few times a month and Safari is what, a few times a year?

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#136

Post by deergomoo »

vbsteven wrote: post #10

This is what bothers me most about Apple devices and software. They probably have the "best" devices out there in terms of user experience. I use an iPhone and iPad every day because of it. But they keep very tight control over what software can be installed and run on it in order to safeguard their views on UX and security/privacy. This means for me as a developer that it's hard to write software and tools for my ow…

I care less about the iPhone because I’m never going to do real work on it. It’s my everywhere computer and my emergency computer, there’s a benefit to there being absolutely nothing anyone can feasibly do to fuck it up.

But the iPad, man I really wish they would settle somewhere between the iPhone and the Mac. I can appreciate that it’s the primary computer for millions of people like my mum, so there still needs to be some coddling. But my iPad Pro is a really nice, capable device, and it’s a shame I can’t do anything useful with it purely because my job requires capabilities Apple doesn’t want to give! It would never be a replacement for my Mac, but being able to noodle on some side projects while I watch TV would be nice.

Maybe things will start to change now they’re putting the M1 in iPads? You can now spec out an iPad with 16GB RAM—if my best option for writing code is still streaming VS Code from a different machine that will be a sad joke.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#137

Post by xuki »

kmeisthax wrote: post #114
xuki wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's public information if someone wants to find out. This is the full entitlement of Zoom https://pastebin.com/0qHP2v1F Now it would be interesting to automatically download all the popular app every update and find private entitlements.

Given that all App Store apps are encrypted with FairPlay DRM, and only accessible on a device filesystem that users cannot read, is it necessarily public? Like, I'm pretty sure you have to be jailbroken in order to even read that entitlements file.

This was pulled from an encrypted IPA.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#138

Post by scarface74 »

nobodywasishere wrote: post #133
scarface74 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the shit show that would happen if a developer installed a video playing app on his own CarPlay device and he got in accident? All car manufacturers are very careful about what you are allowed to do on driver accessible controls on dashboard gadgets.

It'd be only the driver's fault, not anyone else's. How is this any different from playing a video from the phone and either holding it, or putting it on the dash?

Because it is illegal in most states.

https://driving laws.aaa.com/tag/video-screens/

My car won’t even let you pair your phone to Bluetooth while you’re driving.

Even if it weren’t illegal, we live in a very litigious society.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#139

Post by jefftk »

easrng wrote: post #134
jefftk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you feel the same way if a web browser added a feature that could only be used by a specific partner?

Like window.chrome.webstorePrivate? It exists, but only on https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ pages.

That's a bit of a funny example, since it looks to me like that's Chrome giving special treatment to it's own store? And offering APIs for the store to function, like showing installed extensions differently from non-installed ones?

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#140

Post by judge2020 »

ksec wrote: post #83
judge2020 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chances are it'd be the same as the carplay drop-down - you only get access if your app is part of a market that apple allows the API to work on. You have no idea if it'll stay "only for Apple's friends" once they do this; even the current CarPlay app selection has no-name apps like Next[0] (74 total ratings), and I doubt they pulled any favors to get on there. 0: https://apps.apple.com/app/id1476724373

When Smartphone is the centre of our digital society ( and this is not an exaggeration ). And Apple gives API and special features only to select companies within each different industries. Say only certain car makers get X, or others gets Y for Banking / Finance. At what point will this be Not OK for government and regulators? Or judging from comments on MacRumors and 9to5 or dozen of other Apple's focused website,…

> Apple devices Apple rules, and this is a perfectly acceptable norm?

Yes.

Users buy the devices. They say "I allow Apple to choose what native code is allowed on this device" because of the benefits of doing so (being able to safely spend money, good UX, etc). They then are surprised when they can't run Fortnite since Epic wanted to use iOS without paying for it in the way Apple requires developers to. This is the downside of giving up that control, and it's up to consumers to make a choice on whether or not they buy an iPhone due to these pros and cons.

Post reply on HN