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
Hi, please let me know how I can apply for the entitlement: com.apple.developer.avfoundation.multitasking-camera-access I see no documentation anywhere regarding this besides the Zoom forums. Thanks!
iPad Camera Multitasking
141–150 of 160 posts
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#142This 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…
The thing that bothers me is that it's not even restricted to iDevices.
I was recently looking into replacing Time Machine on my MBP (which has a tendency to corrupt over SMB) with APFS snapshots, synced to ZFS snapshots on my NAS.
Unfortunately, I quickly found that Apple has locked the relevant API (fs_snapshot_create) away behind a private entitlement, only to be granted to select backup software that abides by their rules.
It's gotten to the point that I want to "jailbreak" my laptop. Just give myself the ability to grant any entitlement, for local use only.
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the way it works. On non-jailbroken iOS, entitlements are enforced at the kernel level. If your app is signed with an entitlement that isn’t listed in the provisioning profile (which only Apple can generate with its private key), the system rejects the binary. It’s the same on Mac, but you can disable amfi to get rid of that shit, which used to also be possible on jailbroken iOS.
Huh. Thanks; I stand corrected. The last time I messed with iOS development was years ago, and you could sign and deploy whatever you wanted locally. I forget if it required a developer account then, but definitely not a paid one.
I assume you mean locally on the simulator. On device, it has been as I described since iPhone OS 2.0.
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, espec…
There’s been 11 versions of ios so far this year though, so it’s something. No sure why they do it this way, probably so they can make sure that everything plays together optimally. That would be harder if each system app updated separately.
You’d have the dreaded combinatorial explosion of compatibility.
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#145When Apple tests new ground, only their apps have access to a feature. Then only partners. Then only approved developers. Etc. This gradual rollout allows refinement and reduces the odds of screwups. It looks unfair, but Apples goal isn’t to be idealistically fair, but to keep iOS a good experience to users. For every good use of a feature there’s an abuse case.
"Apples goal isn’t to be idealistically fair" Either the market is manipulated, or it's not - there is no third option. Anyway, if this is all normal amd legal, why do they lie about it?
App store isn’t “the market”
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their record isn't perfect, but there's plenty of evidence Apple cares about privacy. For example, Apple added E2E encryption of iMessages long before signal and whatsapp made E2E popular. They also E2E encrypt the location of AirTags - which they absolutely did not need to do. Or the recent opt-in iOS data sharing rules - much to Facebook's frustration. But companies, like governments, countries and people are not w…
For the record, Apple didn't give the world LLVM. They bought out the original development team and then had them develop a proprietary fork for Apple devices, oftentimes referred to as Apple LLVM. Also, while I'm here, I still am not convinced of Apple's privacy dedication. The T2 chip was a joke for anyone familiar with PRNG generation or the actual exploits being patched with it, and they've refused to add E2E enc…
My lizard brain reads your comment as "What? Apple do good things? No! Apple bad! All things you say are good about apple are actually bad. You'll see, because apple is bad!"
You can make tribal cynicism sound clever if you use complex enough arguments, and rely on enough obscure details. "Peh, Apple didn't give the world LLVM. They bought it out and made Chris Lattner into a sellout." But you have to heavily filter reality if you want to do this. And its suspicious when anyone hunts so hard for a particular conclusion. I mean, would LLVM be as successful without Apple? No. Did Apple fund LLVM massively? Yes. Did Apple opensource LLVM? Yeah; they did. But so what? There's a proprietary llvm binary shipped with xcode; therefore proof that apple is Machiavellian and evil? Therefore proof Apple is good and can do no wrong? No! Its complicated.
Trying to simplify the world into good guys and bad guys isn't clever. Its childish and boring; and it gets in the way of having the real adult conversation, where we look at the imperfect world as it actually exists and decide what we want. Not "Apple bad" but "Apple makes great products, and free markets are good. And the app review process is great. But on balance it would still be better for the economy as a whole if the app store had real competition - even if that would probably be worse for many iphone customers."
You can spot the people who think this way easily, because when you talk to them about stuff like this they sigh and name the ways in which their favorite solution would make some things worse. "Yeah, FB is probably terrible for our society. But also FB really does connect people in meaningful ways. I don't know how we would keep the good aspects of free market innovation and social media's shrinking of the world while also softening its negative effects on teenagers. But there have to be some real answers here. Maybe XXX".
My challenge to you is this: Name some things you respect about the "other team" (apple or whoever). What would you would do if you were king for a day, and have the power to pass any laws you want? How would you fix the ills you see in the world? What are the ways your fixes might backfire?
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#147Ah yes, the private entitlements. There's also a private entitlement to disable Apple Pay/PassKit so that it doesn't clash with things like barcodes (for example transit). That one is pretty Google-able though.
Just FYI this is available from Apple on request by any developer, you just need to write to them to explain the use case. I guess this is just to prevent abuse. (Source: we use this entitlement at our company)
I guess it's a little less secret than a camera multitasking entitlement, still not a super "public" thing.
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not about the technical reason, it's about optics. You pre-approve system apps location access during iOS first setup, but you do not for camera access. Basically, all privacy toggles should be opt-in, not opt-out, even for system apps, even though Apple could easily bypass that for their own apps.
Why? People explicitly trust Apple with their most sensitive data. Asking for permission for specific apps makes no sense. I don’t personally care about “level playing fields” but even if I did, I wouldn’t expect or want it to include the first party.
On Android I’ve seen even Google apps ask for camera permissions, I’m making a choice about whether I want this specific app to have access to my camera, whether it comes from Apple or any other developer doesn’t matter. I should be able to disable the camera access for any app including the built-in camera app.
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right, but my point is that it's still not public information what entitlements apps use. Apple's policy is that users should not be able to read the contents of encrypted IPAs at all. The fact that you can do it doesn't make the information public - you have to go through extra steps, many of which are illegal to explain to you in most parts of the world, to be able to decrypt IPAs and read out the entitlements file therein.
As an example of how zealous Apple is about keeping apps encrypted; they even disable iOS app support entirely on M1 Macs if you've unlocked the hardware for third-party or modified operating systems: https://twitter.com/never_released/status/139070741193000140...
Re: iPad Camera Multitasking
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
That that didn't generate more of a hubbub back then and seemingly didn't stay in people's memories for long is a real mystery to me (and a great boon to Apple!).
Well you can see people in HN are very keen to defend Apple as being the world's most privacy friendly tech company, despite no evidence in that direction :)
It's like voting politicians: you don't vote for who you think is the best, you vote for the least worse. More so, you don't vote for the candidates you'd want, but for the candidates other groups picked for you.
Apple is not doing the best for us, but compared to the alternative (Google), it's less worse.