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

How Apple Cheats

marksands.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 235 posts

Re: How Apple Cheats

#151

Post by seszett »

reidrac wrote: post #52
dilap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

If Apple is a abusing his position as OS provider by using in their apps APIs that are not available to other app developers, I'm not sure if the right answer is "go and develop for Android instead". What I think it may be different in Apple's case is that they don't usually build apps that compete with apps from other developers like Microsoft did.

> What I think it may be different in Apple's case is that they don't usually build apps that compete with apps from other developers like Microsoft did.

They sometimes do, though, with Maps for example.

... and Maps is precisely one of the apps that use private APIs.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#152

Post by overgryphon »

jamra wrote: post #87
matthewmacleod wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've misunderstood this. The API is not available for iPhone apps (there could be many reasons for this, such as it having known bugs or missing features.) There's a built-in check which prevents the API being used on an iPhone. Circumventing that restriction requires accessing some private APIs, which will not be permitted by Apple.

The API is available. It compiles just fine. It just throws an exception when you try to initialize. There is no reason for this other than UI opinions. It clearly runs fine since Apple is using it. Since this is a simple control, there are no use cases that Apple is somehow snuffing through their use. It is not difficult at all in iOS 7 to create a modal popup on an iPhone. I don't think it would be too difficult to…

"It clearly runs fine since Apple is using it."

This doesn't mean it runs fine, it means that in the particular cases that Apple uses the API for it runs fine. Apple may not have tested the API sufficiently for broader usage, or made special cases in the API to support their specific internal usage. Public usage of the API on iPhones may result in concerns about security, stability, or it may simply not behave on iPhones the way most developers would expect it to, and Apple doesn't want to create an API that will result in a lot of application bugs they can't fix themselves.

No one outside of Apple knows exactly why this API is only supported publicly on iPads and not iPhones. Concluding the reason isn't valid is premature.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#153

Post by Iftheshoefits »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
chaz72 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had a monopoly position at that time, and Apple does not.

Is it possible to run Windows Phone or Android on iPhones now? They may not have a monopoly on smartphones (they wished they did, and maybe they even think they deserve one), but that's not for lack of trying and as far as systems software on hardware supplied by Apple goes they do. You can't buy an iPhone without iOs and nobody makes an alternative. Anti-trust law does not require a monopoly per-se, 'market power' i…

"Nobody makes an alternative" is demonstrably, empirically false. Android, BlackBerry, Windows, Tizen, etc.

In fact, my entire household uses Android phones, as do all my family and with the exception of three individuals (2 Apple, 1 Windows), all my friends.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#154

Post by jacquesm »

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to run Windows Phone or Android on iPhones now? They may not have a monopoly on smartphones (they wished they did, and maybe they even think they deserve one), but that's not for lack of trying and as far as systems software on hardware supplied by Apple goes they do. You can't buy an iPhone without iOs and nobody makes an alternative. Anti-trust law does not require a monopoly per-se, 'market power' i…

"Nobody makes an alternative" is demonstrably, empirically false. Android, BlackBerry, Windows, Tizen, etc. In fact, my entire household uses Android phones, as do all my family and with the exception of three individuals (2 Apple, 1 Windows), all my friends.

Did you purposefully misunderstand that sentence or was it simply not clear? To complete the sentence in an unambiguous way 'alternative os for apple mobile hardware'.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#155

Post by kirkbackus »

dilap wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft did the same thing in Windows it was grounds for anti-trust lawsuits to be brought against them: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/101947/microsoft-used-undocument... The idea here is that if you are supplying both the operating system and the applications that your applications should not benefit from being made by the same company as the OS, in other words, that it should be a level playing ground without…

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

Agreed, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#156

Post by Moto7451 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #143
coldtea wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a PopOver widget is not something that gives any unique advantage to Apple. It can be replicated in a week or so by a third party. Now, a serious API, like say only Apple getting use of the accelerometer, that would be something. This is not the case here. But again, expecting all APIs to be public from day one is idiotic. APIs should only be made public if they are stable and ready to be supported for the futu…

It could be replicated by a third party, but thanks to Apple policy, using such a third-party component could be grounds for removal from the Apple App Store. What Apple can do and what it should do are not necessarily the same things. While it can establish privileged APIs, it should not . While it can attempt to support outside developers as a hardware company while also competing with them as a software company, i…

Nonsense. I'm using WYPopoverController[1] in some of my apps and they're a-ok. On the component's page they even have links to apps in the App Store that use it[2].

[1] https://www.cocoacontrols.com/controls/wypopovercontroller

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cookapp/id771313730?mt=8&uo=...

Re: How Apple Cheats

#157

Post by danford »

taumhn wrote: post #127
danford wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You've got to support the API forever Not really. Many APIs have features that are put in and removed all the time. The key to managing this is having a good API that tags features as things like 'experimental', 'deprecated', 'locked', etc to indicate if features are permanent or could be changing. Stability: 0 - Deprecated This feature is known to be problematic, and changes are planned. Do not rely on it. Use of t…

I'm actually rather happy with the Apple philosophy of not opening APIs early and supporting them as long as possible when they've been made public, rather than having to check my app against 6 levels of API stability... thank you very much.

But you don't have to check your app against 6 levels, just use features in level 5. It's like apples API, but with benefits.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#159

Post by SoftwareMaven »

paulhauggis wrote: post #137
al2o3cr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"local monopoly": meaningless. That's like saying that Gmail has a "local monopoly" on web-based email because switching would be a hassle.

many people still considered windows a monopoly, when you could easily buy redhat at most local stores. MS Office file formats were also considered a monopoly by Richard Stallman, because businesses used them and it was difficult to now change (there are tons of competing formats). the tech industry likes to change definitions to fit their viewpoints.

What people think is a monopoly and the legal definition of a monopoly is different. You have to be able to show harm to e consumer, something's hat is going to be challenging to show with a handful of hidden APIs. APIs, it should be noted, that somebody could implement themselves (at least for the sample given; whether it would be approved is, of course, questionable).

On the other hand, it could be used as evidence of part of a larger anti-trust case, but given that Android devices are cheaper, perform just as well, and have a strong ecosystem, that's going to be hard to pull off.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#160

Post by goblin89 »

One of the things why Firefox OS looks appealing to me: Mozilla is being so open about every part of its architecture that situation such as this one is hard to imagine.
Post reply on HN