Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
techemails.com
Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
1–10 of 143 posts
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#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 APIs or tools, they won't use our stores, etc.
What a horror - someone won't be using Apple APIs and tools.
This perfectly shows how Apple's ban on other browser engines and all similar restrictions in general are not about security or any other bogus excuses they like to present, but about being anti-competitive lock-in control freaks.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#3> 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.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#4> 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 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...
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#5> 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.
> The objection could very well be for security reasons.
It could also be for control over users but claiming "security reasons" whenever anyone asks since that has become a "think of the children" topic in tech.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#6> 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.
Anti-competitive reasons hidden with security excuses is Apple's modus operandi.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#7I’m kind of curious how this shook out at the time and then evolved to what the experience is today. That’s kind of missing from just the emails.
Also, aren’t these emails normally deleted with very short retention? How are they showing up in court cases a decade later.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#8Earlier 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.
> The objection could very well be for security reasons. It could also be for control over users but claiming "security reasons" whenever anyone asks since that has become a "think of the children" topic in tech.
Sure I don’t disagree. My point was that the quote isn’t “proof.”
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#9Earlier 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.
Anti-competitive reasons hidden with security excuses is Apple's modus operandi.
Sure I don’t disagree. My point was that the quote isn’t “proof.”
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#10> 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 you’re steering a platform, you want people to use your APIs and tools. I don’t see how that’s controversial. Otherwise, what are you even doing?