Apple Gave Zoom Access to Special API to Use iPad Camera During Split View Multitasking

[gnasher729]

It sucks that Apple does this. Every developer should be given equal access to APIs. I remember the guys at Linus Media Group talking about how difficult it is to launch a social media platform as a small company/operation on iOS because of limitations that very obviously don't exist on the mega apps like YouTube, Netflix, etc.

Absolutely not. My app uses an API which can and and has been used by unscrupulous app developers to spy on users (basically it allows our servers to launch the app without showing any UI; there are _very few_ apps having a legitimate use for this). This API should most definitely not be made available to everyone.

 

[gnasher729]

While doing the exact opposite, and being defended by Apple apologists for it because Reality Distortion Field in full effect.

Not "Apple apologists". People who actually understand security, privacy etc. and who understand _why_ certain APIs are not available to everyone. Do you want every app to have access to your contact list, for example? I most certainly don't.

 

[pasamio]

Zoom's ties with China's government actually make this especially interesting... is this less about Zoom and more about Apple wanting to be on China's good side?

Zoom wasn't started out of China though, it was built out of the WebEx team that got fed up with Cisco and decided they could do better by leaving behind a bunch of folk at Cisco. Having had the displeasure of working with at least one of the people they left behind at WebEx, I'm not sure I disagree with their strategy there.

Apple also independently granted this to Google Meet if the earlier post in this thread is to be believe so it would seem unlikely that China is influential on the decision.

Epic's argument here is that consoles are different from phones and computers because consoles are sold at a loss with the expectation that later software sales will more than make up for it.

That argument strikes me as a little... shaky, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.

The judge has already stated that they disagree with Epic's seemingly arbitrary delineation and posited that they saw no difference between the console model and that of Apple. Epic seem to be trying to hold onto it for dear life and maybe they'll be able to get it across the line but really that's in aide of saying that the 30% is too much and anticompetitive versus Apple pointing out at the time of launch that 30% was a standard amount.

Of course the theory that because it's sold at a loss it's ok only works for Microsoft and Sony who are in a spec waving competition with each other whilst Nintendo make a profit on their devices. Nintendo was the company that pioneered the 30% cut for access to their consoles and has also been the target of litigation over the years with regards to it's "monopoly" as well.

Maybe a better angle is that most of the time, computers and phones are just used to do stuff that the built in software can do (even though most people use Chrome on Windows instead of IE or Edge...), while consoles spend most of the time running software which is sold separately?

I think almost all platforms thrive based on third party software. A significant chunk of my screen time is spent in non-Apple apps with Safari being the top Apple app I use which in many respects is there to load up other software when you consider how complex the web is these days. I'm not sure that argument truly distinguishes the platforms.

 

[gnasher729]

I guess there are levels of nuances just like in real life with many other examples... if I were a one-man-team developing a notes taking app for groceries shopping lists and ask for this camera special multitask access API, I wouldn’t get it. However if I were a multi-chat-conference big corporate tech company called BOOM I would probably have a bigger chance at that.

You would get it if you convinced Apple that you have a legitimate reason to require this API, which is more important than any security concerns. If I had access to that API, my boss wouldn't allow me to use it, because our customers wouldn't want it.

 

[Cosmosent]

None of this has anything to do with the Epic case, and Epic has not made any arguments about it not having access to SDKs.

I wouldn't be so sure; Epic can use this newly-disclosed info as Ammo to prove Apple does in-deed cut special deals with "select" App Devs.

I'm NOT siding with Epic, but certain recent disclosures have definitely weakened Apple's case.

Apple clearly plays Favorites !

Apple cannot skirt around that (now) !

 

[kronology]

Not "Apple apologists". People who actually understand security, privacy etc. and who understand _why_ certain APIs are not available to everyone. Do you want every app to have access to your contact list, for example? I most certainly don't.

If you understand such things, then why don't you know that APIs such as those merely return "the user said no" states if the user declines. The very same thing could be done here with this API for the described functionality "X application wants to use your camera in X situation: yes/no". Easy. This has nothing to do with security or privacy and everything to do with Apple having control issues.

 

[gnasher729]

come on dude.. the point is that apple lies saying they treat every app developer equal, it's just not true - one can use special api other get banned for the same thing (eg. parental control apps). I hope apple loses agains epic, it will be good for everyone.

Everyone can use special APIs - if they request permission to use them, and if they convince Apple that they need this API. And from personal experience I know that this is unrelated to the size of the company. Parental control apps lost the right to install profiles on your iPhone. I don't know if you realise this, but the ability to install a profile gives the developer power very similar to a jailbreak. It's mostly enterprise customers who can install profiles, and only on phones owned and controlled by that enterprise.

 

[pasamio]

I wouldn't be so sure; Epic can use this newly-disclosed info as Ammo to prove Apple does in-deed cut special deals with "select" App Devs.

I'm NOT siding with Epic, but certain recent disclosures have definitely weakened Apple's case.

Apple clearly plays Favorites !

Apple cannot skirt around that (now) !

I'm not sure it is any surprise to Epic, from the documentation very early on it was evident that Epic got special access to Apple engineers for Unreal Engine and that Apple has collaborated with Epic giving them early access to features and functionality that wasn't available to other developers until it showed up on stage at WWDC. This isn't new to Epic, it's something they've enjoyed over the decade or more of working with Apple. Part of the injunction was to prevent Apple cutting off this support for Unreal Engine.

 

[gnasher729]

If you understand such things, then why don't you know that APIs such as those merely return "the user said no" states if the user declines. The very same thing could be done here with this API for the described functionality "X application wants to use your camera in X situation: yes/no". Easy. This has nothing to do with security or privacy and everything to do with Apple having control issues.

Sorry to say, but you don't know what you are talking about. The API that I'm using does NOT ask the user for any permission. It _cannot_ ask the user for permission, because its whole purpose is to launch the app without any UI. Instead, using it without permission from Apple will KILL the application. That was introduced in iOS 13 because of developers abusing it. And for "user said no" style APIs, you first need permission from Apple to ask the user, otherwise your app doesn't go on the app store.

 

[gnasher729]

“Distribution of software for their devices” has never been a reason for any government to find that there is a monopoly.

Microsoft had a monopoly over operating systems for personal computers. Big difference.

And Tim Cook didn’t lie. He was asked if Apple applies the rules identically to everyone. He said yes. True.

Microsoft had a monopoly over operating systems back then because even with competition from Apple and Linux and whoever else was around at the time, they had 90% of the market share. When people point out that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because of Android (and Android has no monopoly because of iOS), then that is true because neither of them has a 90% market share of the total market.

BTW. I asked a judge whether he treats everyone equal, and he said "yes". He was lying. I saw him convicting one man for theft and then not convicting another man for theft. Doesn't matter that one was guilty and the other innocent, he should have treated them the same. At least according to some people here.

 

[MacBH928]

And this is why having 1 company running the show is a problem and why monopolies are illegal

 

[Martinpa]

If you understand such things, then why don't you know that APIs such as those merely return "the user said no" states if the user declines. The very same thing could be done here with this API for the described functionality "X application wants to use your camera in X situation: yes/no". Easy. This has nothing to do with security or privacy and everything to do with Apple having control issues.

Sorry to say, but you don't know what you are talking about. The API that I'm using does NOT ask the user for any permission. It _cannot_ ask the user for permission, because its whole purpose is to launch the app without any UI. Instead, using it without permission from Apple will KILL the application. That was introduced in iOS 13 because of developers abusing it. And for "user said no" style APIs, you first need permission from Apple to ask the user, otherwise your app doesn't go on the app store.

Moreover, I think people are already at their limit with how many permission prompts they receive. It gets to a point where if you ask too many times for permission (or cookie setting for example) you run the risk of alienating people and for them to just start ignoring the prompts altogether. I'm certainly guilty of accepting cookie settings as is sometimes when I'm just looking for a quick info, or if I get on to a website I'll likely never visit again. It's a balancing act, so I can understand that not every APIs that could pose a potential privacy risk show these kinds of prompts and would, instead, be permitted on select apps only, if they are necessary...

 

[gnasher729]

Your thinking is very simplistic. Once you allow Apple to do the things you suggest are perfectly legal they can use it to advance their own anti-competitive agenda.

That is completely wrong. First you suggest that Apple has an anti-competitive agenda. I fail to see any proof of this. Second, many actions are by themselves legal but become illegal in a different context. If Apple did what according to cmaier is perfectly legal, but in a way that makes it anti-competitive, then the same action would suddenly be illegal.

It's like me standing in front of a bank and checking when their security people arrive and leave, perfectly legal. As long as I do it just because I'm nosy. If I give that information to a bank robber, then suddenly it's conspiracy to commit a bank robbery.

 

[gnasher729]

Split screen API isn't a security issue. Apple has always claimed that there are no "trusted partners" and that all devs are treated equally. If that's not the case, it's discouraging to devs.

"Video during split screen" is absolutely a security issue. Our customers would most definitely be very unhappy if my company allowed it, for security reasons, and my boss wouldn't allow me to use it, for security reasons. (And if he allowed me to use it, I'd tell him that I'd rather not, for security reasons).

And all devs are treated equally: For some things every dev needs to ask Apple for permission, needs to convince Apple that this permission is granted, and gets it or doesn't get it based on how convincing they are. Not based on company size or anything else.

 

[cmaier]

That is completely wrong. First you suggest that Apple has an anti-competitive agenda. I fail to see any proof of this. Second, many actions are by themselves legal but become illegal in a different context. If Apple did what according to cmaier is perfectly legal, but in a way that makes it anti-competitive, then the same action would suddenly be illegal.

It's like me standing in front of a bank and checking when their security people arrive and leave, perfectly legal. As long as I do it just because I'm nosy. If I give that information to a bank robber, then suddenly it's conspiracy to commit a bank robbery.

I mean, if we’re going to talk about something, let’s talk about Apple only permitting WebKit an no other HTML rendering engines. At least that’s in the ballpark of MS.

 

[cmaier]

Split screen API isn't a security issue. Apple has always claimed that there are no "trusted partners" and that all devs are treated equally. If that's not the case, it's discouraging to devs.

I already knew the payment processing rules were bent for a few big companies like Amazon in the past. However, I think they are fully in the legal right to do this.

Split screen camera access is definitely a potential security issue. It may not be clear to the user which app is accessing the camera, an app that is accessing the camera/audio may pick up audio emitted by the other foreground app, etc. Apple is presumably developing guidelines for its use, as well as some sort of UI feature to indicate which app is receiving camera access.

 

[gnasher729]

How do you request something whose existence hasn’t been revealed?

I'm using an API that didn't even exist until some other developer requested it.

 

[kronology]

Sorry to say, but you don't know what you are talking about. The API that I'm using does NOT ask the user for any permission. It _cannot_ ask the user for permission, because its whole purpose is to launch the app without any UI. Instead, using it without permission from Apple will KILL the application. That was introduced in iOS 13 because of developers abusing it. And for "user said no" style APIs, you first need permission from Apple to ask the user, otherwise your app doesn't go on the app store.

Those public APIs you're allowed to submit use of as part of your application? Why can't this one be like those? Hopefully it will be after WWDC or sometime soon.

 

[kronology]

I mean, if we’re going to talk about something, let’s talk about Apple only permitting WebKit an no other HTML rendering engines. At least that’s in the ballpark of MS.

That is a problem too. A lot of what Apple does these days bothers me.

 

[gnasher729]

The most worrying part is that probably Apple received money for allowing this. That’s really bad!

Where do you get that idea from?

Here's what most likely happened with Zoom: Some developer said "It would be great if we could do X, but it doesn't work". His manager said "I could ask Apple if they can make this possible. Write a document stating what advantages it would have for our end users if you could do X". Developer writes the document, manager passes it to Apple, someone at Apple decides it's a good idea, and gives permission to Zoom.

Meanwhile at the Microsoft Teams team: Either no developer thought about X. Or they didn't talk to their manager. Or the manager told them to shut up and do their job. Or their manager told them to write some document, but the developer never did. Or the manager left the document on his desk. Or the developer's document was so abstruse that nobody at Apple could figure out what he wanted, and therefore nobody could figure out that they actually had given Zoom the exact same permission.

 

[gnasher729]

Those public APIs you're allowed to submit use of as part of your application? Why can't this one be like those? Hopefully it will be after WWDC or sometime soon.

Read what I wrote.

 

[cmaier]

Where do you get that idea from?

Here's what most likely happened with Zoom: Some developer said "It would be great if we could do X, but it doesn't work". His manager said "I could ask Apple if they can make this possible. Write a document stating what advantages it would have for our end users if you could do X". Developer writes the document, manager passes it to Apple, someone at Apple decides it's a good idea, and gives permission to Zoom.

Meanwhile at the Microsoft Teams team: Either no developer thought about X. Or they didn't talk to their manager. Or the manager told them to shut up and do their job. Or their manager told them to write some document, but the developer never did. Or the manager left the document on his desk. Or the developer's document was so abstruse that nobody at Apple could figure out what he wanted, and therefore nobody could figure out that they actually had given Zoom the exact same permission.

This is exactly how it works. Even epic admitted that they went to Apple and negotiated things like that.

 

[I7guy]

I wouldn't be so sure; Epic can use this newly-disclosed info as Ammo to prove Apple does in-deed cut special deals with "select" App Devs.

It appears Apple does. If asked.

I'm NOT siding with Epic, but certain recent disclosures have definitely weakened Apple's case.

How do you figure?

Apple clearly plays Favorites !

Clearly they don't.

Apple cannot skirt around that (now) !

Not sure there is anything to skirt around, according to some on this forum.

 

[gnasher729]

Im sure everybody is free to request access if they’re big enough to have the contact. Doesn’t mean that they will be granted.

Apart from my day job, I have an app in the App Store with a tiny number of sales, written as a hobby. I have a contact.

 

[bluecoast]

There is no way that this isn’t bad for apple.

The whole PR for the App Store has always been that anyone can launch an app on it and every app is (essentially) equal.

This is patently false.

I think that Apple will have to go into WWDC by announcing that they’re setting up an independent board to craft the App Store rules and then act as arbitrators, at the very least. And no more special deals. And that 30% will need to drop to 15% with an even better deal for small businesses.

I’m starting to get disappointed with Apple. Their attitude reminds me of Microsoft’s hubris in the late 90s/early 00s (with far better taste, admittedly!). And we all know that Microsoft took a fall.