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

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#91

Post by simondotau »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #11
Dudester230602 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your store is big you can sabotage your providers: Apple to Facebook. If your store is small your providers can sabotage you: Google to Microsoft (Windows Phone). I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for their Vision - perhaps Valve? Big respect to Apple though for inadvertently protecting their customers from web "apps". But times will change...

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…

To me this looks like Apple porting a feature that's existed on iOS for ages. It's one of those features that I imagine is "so obvious, we missed it." It's certainly a much better idea than apps made with Electron.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#92

Post by simondotau »

hgsgm wrote: post #34
DrBenCarson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Huh? The parent didn't make that claim. The grandparent wasn't making that claim. And I certainly haven't ever heard Apple stating or implying that free apps are less secure than paid apps.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#93

Post by RandomBK »

maximilianroos wrote: post #81
tracerbulletx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe.

Based on what?

The aforementioned Sarbanes-Oxley act, plus the principle of "negative inference" in civil suits which dictates that a court can infer that someone refusing to testify (or destroying evidence) has something to hide. There's no 'plead the 5th' in civil suits.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#94

Post by JumpCrisscross »

shmerl wrote: post #86
code_duck wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal when a company has a monopoly, but otherwise that's the nature of business. The line of thought that 'apple has a monopoly in iPhone software distribution' never seemed very compelling to me since they don't have a monopoly on mobile phones in general.

You are using term "monopoly" in a misleading way there. It should be illegal when it's causing harm to competition and it totally does. It doesn't need to be an absolute monopoly to be a problem. The fact that competition law is toothless today to address it speaks badly about how it's applied, not about this being a non issue. Apple has enough control on the market to cause harm to it by stiffing Web standards for…

> It should be illegal when it's causing harm to competition and it totally does

Banning being mean to your competition, that's a first.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#95

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tracerbulletx wrote: post #44
hgsgm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe.

> Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe

Public companies have to keep audit-related communications, but not something like this [1]. It comes more from civil litigation, where the standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence. If I sue you and produce partial records, and you say you deleted everything, that can be used against you.

[1] https://www.intradyn.com/email-retention-laws/

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#96

Post by shmerl »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94
shmerl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using term "monopoly" in a misleading way there. It should be illegal when it's causing harm to competition and it totally does. It doesn't need to be an absolute monopoly to be a problem. The fact that competition law is toothless today to address it speaks badly about how it's applied, not about this being a non issue. Apple has enough control on the market to cause harm to it by stiffing Web standards for…

> It should be illegal when it's causing harm to competition and it totally does Banning being mean to your competition, that's a first.

Read what competition law is about. It's not simply about absolute monopoly which is an extreme edge case. It's about harm to competition. Anti-competitive practices totally should be illegal.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#97

Post by mr_toad »

Reubend wrote: post #64
rmadriz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for their Vision - perhaps Valve? If you're talking gaming content for Vision, I think they would go with Sony. They have what seems to be a good partnership. There's official support for the dualsense on apple devices and apple brought AppleMusic to the playstation store. Steve Jobs himself was a fan of Sony[1] [1]: https://www.kitguru.net/lifestyle/mobile/apple…

Sony competes with Vision, since they sell PS VR. I suspect that they wouldn't want to cannibalize sales of their own hardware/platform in order to forge a partnership with Apple.

Except that PS VR is VR, not AR.

My bet is that vision will launch with very few VR or even 3D apps. You probably won’t even be able to view 3D photos in the browser. It’ll be existing native 2D apps projected into a 3D cylinder.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#98

Post by kitsunesoba »

shmerl wrote: post #61
kitsunesoba wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the amount of effort that Apple puts into their APIs is well above the industry standard. Cocoa and Cocoa Touch stand with few peers when it comes to depth, breadth, and quality which has been a big factor in the success of their platforms. They’re some of the few SDKs where if you want to, you can produce a top tier app without importing a single third party library, which is no small feat. In their shoe…

That's never really an excuse for lock-in. If they are so superior, they wouldn't need to worry about developers not using them, right? Using tools as a way to control developers is just disgusting.

It doesn't matter how good your SDKs and tooling are, there will always be a large number of developers who will instead prefer options they perceive to be cheaper or more convenient. It's the same reason why McDonalds has no problem selling their food when far higher quality options exist.

Outright control is probably overboard yes, but I don't see any reason why a platform maintainer should want to do anything to encourage low-investment apps.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#99

Post by shmerl »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #98
shmerl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's never really an excuse for lock-in. If they are so superior, they wouldn't need to worry about developers not using them, right? Using tools as a way to control developers is just disgusting.

It doesn't matter how good your SDKs and tooling are, there will always be a large number of developers who will instead prefer options they perceive to be cheaper or more convenient. It's the same reason why McDonalds has no problem selling their food when far higher quality options exist. Outright control is probably overboard yes, but I don't see any reason why a platform maintainer should want to do anything to e…

There is a huge difference between encouraging and forbidding. And quality or security in the above case are used as an excuse to hide the anti-competitive intent.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#100

Post by ec109685 »

And this is why FB has invested billions in the Metaverse, so they are not at the mercy of a capricious platform.

This thread brings me back the salad days where FB sought to facilitate an ecosystem on their social graph.

Post reply on HN