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

Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

techemails.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#31

Post by rblatz »

tambourine_man wrote: post #14

I find these emails exchanges fascinating and a treasure trove when you consider a company as secretive and influential as Apple. What I don’t understand is how they used an unencrypted form of communication for such important topics.

What do you mean? Client to server on both sides is encrypted. I can’t say for sure, but it’s not unlikely to think the emails would be encrypted at rest on the email server.

The server itself is owned by Apple and is fully trusted to be secure by the exec team using it.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#32

Post by judge2020 »

hgsgm wrote: post #28
extr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? It's not about encryption. These emails were subpoenaed.

Encrypt the email, rotate and delete keys after 18months.

Unlike Google, Apple isn't trying to hide anything (post-High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation)

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#33

Post by hgsgm »

shmerl wrote: post #18
zitterbewegung wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the latest WWDC (2023) Apple has actually encouraging web app support. In Safari Version 17: Added support for web apps on macOS Sonoma. Add any website to the Dock from the File menu or Share Sheet to get to them even faster. Web apps open in their own window, and integrate with system features like Stage Manager, Screen Time, Notifications, and Focus. (68606770) [1] [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentatio…

Encouraging support while banning competing browser engines doesn't look like encouraging.

Why? As a web app developer or user, the browser engine is low on my list of priorities.

Browser engine preferences are about far more niche concerns.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#34

Post by hgsgm »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #3
shmerl wrote: post #2

> So, for example If Adobe comes in with an app that links to new web apps that they promote we need to allow that "app store" in, even worse Google could come up with an app that runs all their 3rd party Chrome web apps and we would need to allow that in too! I don't see why we want to do that. All these apps won't be native, they won't have a relationship or license with us, we won't review them, they won't use our…

They don’t make that argument at all in the quote you pulled. The objection could very well be for security reasons.

Charging 30% doesn't enhance security.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#35

Post by astrange »

shmerl wrote: post #2

> So, for example If Adobe comes in with an app that links to new web apps that they promote we need to allow that "app store" in, even worse Google could come up with an app that runs all their 3rd party Chrome web apps and we would need to allow that in too! I don't see why we want to do that. All these apps won't be native, they won't have a relationship or license with us, we won't review them, they won't use our…

If other browsers were allowed Chrome would become an all-platform monopoly and there would no longer be real web standards.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#37

Post by rblatz »

hgsgm wrote: post #28
extr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? It's not about encryption. These emails were subpoenaed.

Encrypt the email, rotate and delete keys after 18months.

Or just set a company policy around email retention. Then delete anything older than that?

Apple chose to keep these emails around because the value of the emails was greater than the risk of keeping them.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#38

Post by tambourine_man »

Andrex wrote: post #27
tambourine_man wrote: post #14

I find these emails exchanges fascinating and a treasure trove when you consider a company as secretive and influential as Apple. What I don’t understand is how they used an unencrypted form of communication for such important topics.

> What I don’t understand is how they used an unencrypted form of communication for such important topics. ? What would encryption have changed? Apple were compelled to produce these as part of Epic v. Apple.

Couldn’t they’ve said they didn’t have the key anymore? Or automatically delete emails after two years or so?

Seems reckless to keep confidential information like that, but I’m not familiar with the legal obligations large companies have, of course.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#39

Post by macintux »

rblatz wrote: post #37
hgsgm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encrypt the email, rotate and delete keys after 18months.

Or just set a company policy around email retention. Then delete anything older than that? Apple chose to keep these emails around because the value of the emails was greater than the risk of keeping them.

The company to whom I'm currently contracted has a 2-month retention policy on inboxes and it drives me crazy.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#40

Post by idoh »

I worked on Birthday Cards, one of the apps listed out. Warms my cold pm heart to know that something I worked on was vaguely known about by high level Apple execs.

At the time it was hugely advantageous to have a native app linked to fb, I remember the week where we made it and released v1, we were the #1 app in lifestyle instantly.

Post reply on HN