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

221–230 of 235 posts

Re: How Apple Cheats

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

dTal wrote: post #220
jacquesm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As microsoft was . At this point in time I don't think that anybody would be able to present an argument to the effect that Microsoft is the dominant player in consumer or business computing. The number of devices not running a Microsoft OS is significant.

Devices, sure. But computing? Some perspective: You cannot buy a laptop not running Windows, unless you go Apple (a very small percentage of laptops sold, and high-end only). Businesses universally use PowerPoint, Excel, and Word. If you work in industry or manufacturing, you may have noticed that the drivers for specialist equipment are always for Windows. "Industry Standard" software like 3ds Max only runs on Windo…

> You cannot buy a laptop not running Windows, unless you go Apple (a very small percentage of laptops sold, and high-end only).

Or ChromeOS. Or more traditional Linux (a number of vendors sell them). Last I checked (though I haven't for a while) you could even get OS-free laptops on NewEgg.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#222

Post by coldtea »

kbenson wrote: post #213
coldtea wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact remains that there are plenty of documented examples of Apple tossing apps from its App Store for reasons that amount to little more than corporate whim or gatekeeper prerogative, or for no adequately explained reasons at all. Which is totally unrelated to the discussion about the private API, and if you can replicate a widget provided in one. Which you can.

I thought the inferred relation was clear in his original argument. If Apple makes their private API public, it is then possibly infringing. That's the difference between making an alternate implementation for a private API and something that doesn't exist; there is a higher likelihood that the private API will be made public than that an entirely new API will spring forth that covers the same area. It's already writ…

>If Apple makes their private API public, it is then possibly infringing.

No, it's not. From list views to buttons to menubars and keyboards, almost all iOS widgets (private to Apple or usually public) have alternative third party implementations. Nobody is going after them.

You are actually supposed and encouraged to create your own versions of widgets - Cocoa is especially good for that, and there are even instructions in the Apple Developer Network for how to customize views and such.

Doing their own popup widget wont get them into trouble, period.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#224

Post by AnthonyMouse »

coldtea wrote: post #219
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No" is not an argument.

The rest of the comment was though. No was just a TL;DR; of the previous non-fact.

The rest of the comment was also not an argument, it was just a restatement of the statement you were denying. Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? That seems implausible. Once you're exercising gatekeeper control in that way, you would among other things for example have control over any downstream monopolies, such as any enterprise software vendors with a monopoly in their own market whose software ran only on Solaris/SPARC and could not easily be ported.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#225

Post by ksec »

Apple using Private API is cheating?

Are these Dev Apple new comers? Apple has a history of dogfooding its own API internally until it think it is good enough before releasing it to the public.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#226

Post by vanderZwan »

abhigupta wrote: post #205
vanderZwan wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with it is that it tends to put things in the wrong perspective. Should we judge things by comparing them to other crappy products, or by a reasonable expectation of what things should be like independent of that? If it's the latter, then what's the point of comparing it with the former? It just gives a false sense of "it's not so bad after all."

I see both approaches as merely tools to achieve what you want. I don't see any of those approaches as good or bad. If one wants to make only Apple's decision and practice look bad, then yes they could do absolute comparison. Alternatively, you could do a relative comparison to see that this is a standard practice followed by all major platforms providers, that compete with their customers.

Neither is good nor bad except one is supposedly singling out Apple to make it look bad? Besides, I was talking about holding ALL involved to the absolute standard, compared to a purely relative comparison.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#227

Post by dalore »

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.

You can't run Android apps on iOS so there is no healthy competition there.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#228

Post by coldtea »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224
coldtea wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the comment was though. No was just a TL;DR; of the previous non-fact.

The rest of the comment was also not an argument, it was just a restatement of the statement you were denying. Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? That seems implausible. Once you're exercising gatekeeper control in that way, you would among other things for example have co…

>Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation?

No, I'm claiming that under the circustances that you (or the OP) described in the previous comment it wouldn't lead to an antitrust violation.

I can't talk for "under ANY circustances".

>That seems implausible

Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#229

Post by loumf »

praptak wrote: post #195
loumf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the code was just in an unreleased static lib that was linked to each app. Isn't Apple allowed to make shared code for just its apps? Putting it in the supported frameworks is just an easier way to make sure that it eventually gets released for everyone -- otherwise lots of useful code might just languish inside apps and private libs.

> What if the code was just in an unreleased static lib that was linked to each app. Then it would be fair game. Your argument ignores an important difference: app-space code - which every developer can do; and OS code exposed as private API - which only Apple can do.

We agree that Apple can write and distribute code for its own apps, and share between them. What does it matter what the technical details are? Doing it the way that they do uses less memory -- that's better for users.

It's not feasible to extend the capability of creating and deploying OS frameworks to 3rd party developers.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#230

Post by Iftheshoefits »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #218
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I begin to question whether you understand what "alternative" means in the context of the interaction between hardware and software. It's a somewhat gray area, sure, but it's not that gray. There are many, many, many different mobile devices which one can use non-Apple software and non-Apple OSes on. Real, actual, genuine alternatives to Apple mobile devices exist in literally every sense of the word "alternative". I…

What you're failing to understand is that there is more than one market in question. Nobody is saying that Apple has a monopoly on smartphones. The issue is that Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution . It's a completely different market, and there is no substitute product in that market. You can't get iPhone apps from Google Play and you can't run Android apps on your iPhone.

No, the market is "consumers of mobile devices, upon which apps can be distributed or installed." What you're identifying as it's own market is actually a brand; a segment of a larger market. A market in which there is plenty of competition, I'd add.

What you're proposing could easily be said about any supply of any good or service owned by anybody or any company. If each company's product distribution constitutes a monopoly of "Product X Market", then "monopoly" has been redefined.

I'm not arguing that what Apple has done in the mobile space is good, or even ethical or appropriate. I'm simply arguing that they do not own a monopoly, in any sense of the word that is reasonable in this context.

Post reply on HN