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

11–20 of 143 posts

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#11

Post by zitterbewegung »

Dudester230602 wrote: post #4
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 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/documentation/safari-release-not...

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#12

Post by htk »

This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way, etc.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#15

Post by shmerl »

tambourine_man wrote: post #10
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 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?

It's not about using their APIs and tools. It's about banning competition. That is beyond controversial - it should be illegal.

What they should be doing? Competing on merit. Not pushing lock-in.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#16

Post by tambourine_man »

shmerl wrote: post #15
tambourine_man wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not about using their APIs and tools. It's about banning competition. That is beyond controversial - it should be illegal. What they should be doing? Competing on merit. Not pushing lock-in.

You were specifically disdaining Apple’s push to APIs and tools adoption:

“What a horror - someone won't be using Apple APIs and tools.”

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#17

Post by mempko »

htk wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way, etc.

Huh? That's what the whole conversation was about. How other parties, Adobe, Google, etc could bypass them if they allowed a new rule that made facebook happy to be a native app.

It's clear their concern was how other parties would get around their walled garden and huge cut they get via their app store.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#18

Post by shmerl »

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…

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

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#19

Post by rmadriz »

Dudester230602 wrote: post #4
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 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...

> 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/anton-shilov/...

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#20

Post by extr »

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.

? It's not about encryption. These emails were subpoenaed.
Post reply on HN