It has NEVER been the case that anyone can sell an app and they are all equal. The App Store is famous for being quite the opposite.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Gave Zoom Access to Special API to Use iPad Camera During Split View Multitasking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're conflating special API with private API. I'm sure Zoom paid Apple high fees for this access, and in the end it was worth it to Zoom because they made even more money back. The overall takeaway is that a process exists to license this level of access from Apple, if you can afford it.
Using a private API will get you into trouble, whether you are Zoom or an independent.
It’s a shame. I seem to remember Tim Cook going to a US senatorial committee last year and saying that Apple did treat all devs equally and fault. But it appears not.
As I understand it, that's not exactly true. Any dev can use private APIs, if they know about them. Yes, Apple will generally reject your app if they find out, but it's not as though access to private APIs has been been magically be given to one company alone. I'd imagine there are actually lots of devs flying under the radar and using private APIs (I've definitely heard of audio devs using private APIs on occasion), and probably quite a few instances where a dev made a good argument to Apple about why they needed a private API, and managed to get approval. If it benefits the user experience then Apple probably wouldn't be too fussy; they'd just warn you that it might change at any time and break your app.
The main reason for private APIs remaining private—again, as I understand it—is because Apple wants the option to change them at any time, without having to go through the whole process of deprecation, updating the public the API, updating documentation, and so on. Public APIs have to be maintained, consistent, and syntactically identical across versions. Not so with private APIs, which makes life way easier for internal devs.
Epic's little diaper-filling spat with Apple is very, very different. They want to be exempt from the basic rules that everyone on the App Store follows.
BTW, I'm willing to be wrong about this stuff, since these are just things I've heard during my time as a developer, and I don't have the time or inclination to run around fact-checking this s*** for the purposes of playing patty cake with garden variety MR trolls (which isn't to suggest that you're one such troll, btw... just covering the bases... you're just adding a point... I get it).
EDIT: Which is all a convoluted way of saying that Epic is playing politics, for their own gain, and that's it.
I was assuming you'd get a bar at the top saying "Zoom is using your camera" like you do when a background app uses your mic, but I don't have an iPad, so idk.
Mic access in the background has always been around, and the OS tells you what's using your mic, so this doesn't seem special. If access isn't based on company size or anything, why does only Zoom have it?
this is nothing new. App Store always changing rules. Many apps actually can use own in app payment system like Amazon. Wouldn’t doubt if Zoom feature is new and related to pandemic and any possible test feature
Also not a crime to operate your platform as you see fit. Consoles have been doing it for decades.
Also not a crime to operate your platform as you see fit. Consoles have been doing it for decades.
Nonsense. First you don’t even know the story behind this feature that Zoom is using. Second one feature used by one company doesn’t mean the exact opposite of a level playing field. Third it has always been Apple’s platform. People have called it a walled garden for 10 years. It has never been Windows.
And even on Windows if you think some companies are not getting special treatment compared to others you are naive.
I believe this is important and relevant to the argument at hand: is Apple engaging in monopolistic practices.
And just to be clear, monopolistic practices: "..unreasonably prevents or lessens competition in the production, supply or distribution of any goods or services whether or not by adopting unfair method or fair or deceptive practices..."
The answer is yes if they "play favorites" with special treatment.
The answer is no if they design an ecosystem which everyone has equal footing.
Now I don't blame Apple for one-off treatment where things are missed in the app review process, so don't hang Apple for the occasional blunder. But this is a deliberate allowance to a secret. If things are unfair then as a developer I would be angry. Does Microsoft Teams get the same treatment? Why not? Apple can only hide behind the "we are protecting our user experience" mantra so much. As a developer if I wouldn't have access to the same API I would be angry.
And just to be clear, monopolistic practices: "..unreasonably prevents or lessens competition in the production, supply or distribution of any goods or services whether or not by adopting unfair method or fair or deceptive practices..."
The answer is yes if they "play favorites" with special treatment.
The answer is no if they design an ecosystem which everyone has equal footing.
Now I don't blame Apple for one-off treatment where things are missed in the app review process, so don't hang Apple for the occasional blunder. But this is a deliberate allowance to a secret. If things are unfair then as a developer I would be angry. Does Microsoft Teams get the same treatment? Why not? Apple can only hide behind the "we are protecting our user experience" mantra so much. As a developer if I wouldn't have access to the same API I would be angry.
You can be on Apple‘s side in most cases and still call this BS. Either Apple treats all devs the same or they don’t... giving Zoom or whatever bestfriend-of-the-moment special privileges/APIs and not another is not treating all devs the same, so stop bsing everyone. There should be a list of available APIs that devs can apply for and be granted permission. It shouldn’t be shady behind the table deals like it is now. I wouldn’t be surprised if other of Apple’s ”buddies” get other special treatments or more leniency as well that a small, indie dev can’t touch.
I beg to differ.
I do agree with you that you can do whatever you want to the product you bought. By all means, dump your Apple products you've purchased into the trash, river, whatever. Nobody will stop you.
On the other hand, you or anyone else have absolutely no control rights over technologies invented by others. Only the owner of the technology have absolute control over the technology they invented. They can decide to share it or they can decide to keep it all to themselves. They cannot and must not be forced to give it out freely.
In the Epic suit, they're mostly talking about the Sherman Act which generally characterised as an unreasonable restraint of trade or attempt to monopolise. Your phrasing looks similar to the Federal Trade Commission Act but of course they, the FTC, haven't brought suit to the best of my knowledge. Regardless of that to borrow your question: does Apple's business model for the iPhone App Store, with it's approvals process and numerous limitations, prevent or lessen competition in the marketplace that Apple created out of nothing?
I'm not sure I've seen suggestion that granting Zoom or Google Meet access to an API would generally be considered a monopolistic practice, especially when arguably one of the parties is your biggest competitor to the iOS platform and the other you have no apparent business interest in.
Google Meet seems to have access to this in addition to Zoom. There isn't any evidence in either direction as to if Microsoft Teams gets the same treatment however it would seem out of place to grant it to Google, Apple's biggest operating system competitor in the mobile space, but not Microsoft (what ever happened to that Phone OS that they were so confident would be the death of iPhone?).
Last edited:
You can’t give every developer equal rights to various OS built in functions, unless Apple throughly investigates the developer and its app etc. Cannot do this with every app even though their are automatic code searching systems and policies in place etc.
But at the same time, if a developer wants various privilege functions, there should be a standard process (if Apple decides- not government) to grant or deny special access.
Personally, I don’t want every fly-bye-night developer given access to microphones, cameras or their own direct payment for their apps across the board. Zoom is VERY watched by governments and various watch dogs since many sensitive agencies use it (even though I have heard their company has unfortunate ties to China), but regardless they will tend to behave to not loss business (since their life depends on the stock market) than they would tend to be wise and concerned about not going around a system to watch me text on the toilet or gather unauthorized information on microphones etc. without consent. No sane person would want that information (LOL), but now a-days, some people want that.
If they actually did that and circumvent Apple’s App Store policies for advantage or gain (like Epic is trying really to do) Zoom and the other privileged business would die over-night. So it is understandable why SOME get more rights than others.
This is why we use Apple. Their close system is fine with me. Follow their rules or seek another platform to develop. That is your freedom. There are other ways for developers to create apps. Go to Android then. I want the iOS garden closed and guarded. Who cares if Apple gives favor to their Own apps. It is their garden. They created it
The freedom is that if you don’t like it, go to Android. Not a big fan of Tim (though he is a good CEO), but he is correct: Apple is not Android..if you want that type of garden, plant yourself there. You are not forced to develop in Apple’s garden.
I might be unpopular in my opinions on this, but I buy Apple because I know their environment is closed. If I decide that I don’t want to live in that type of technological garden, I can move. I don’t want any government or game developer telling me what garden I have to live in, I still like the choice (which it seems that is dying now-a-days too).
Epic is doing this for their own personal gain, not for the poor developer.
Last edited:
There's heavy precedent here, especially when it comes to Microsoft's monopoly position in 1999. Apple creates an environment where there is no option but using whatever is provided by Apple, and Apple plays favorites when it comes to dissemination of APIs that create advantageous positions for one developer over another. Apple is party to that by making these APIs private. You need to beg permission to get them as an exception, not as a rule.
This isn't a level playing field. If it were level, then everyone would have access to the same APIs.
Imagine if the API in question would be something that accelerated graphics, which Apple only provided to, say, Activision Blizzard and NOT Epic. It doesn't matter what the API is, but just understand that this practice is abhorrent no matter how you slice it, and it's monopolistic behavior by definition. Activision Blizzard's games would be stronger/better/faster and Epic would be hobbled. Why?
Apple limits API access to prevent market competition to built in applications, or its own preference. Apple has always had a first-party-advantage position and holds it tightly, yielding only to major public outcry. That's monopolistic behavior by definition.
Doesn‘t make much sense to allow Zoom (which hasn‘t had enough scandals already, Apple could trust others way more with exclusive APIs) but not, say, Slack or Teams or generally others except for leveraging their position of power.
I‘m usually on the Apple side of things when it comes to the App Store but API access should not receive exclusivity treatment.
Microsoft used their monopoly over the operating system market to threaten OEMs that if they shipped Netscape Navigator with their hardware that Microsoft would refuse to license to them Windows. Both Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were paid products originally and Microsoft moved not only to give Internet Explorer away for free but then added to their operating system private APIs that were inaccessible to Netscape with the intent of pushing Netscape out of the market. Microsoft tried to use it's monopoly position to prevent competition for internet browsers by undercutting the market, threatening third party entities and then attempted to embed their browser into the operating system.
I fail to see how Apple granting competitors in the video conferencing space that make market substitutions to their FaceTime product access to entitlements is analogous to Microsoft as the enforcement action against Microsoft was to make their private APIs available to companies like Netscape. Reportedly both Zoom and Google Meet have this entitlement which would satisfy competitors being able to leverage the same functionality.
The App Store has always had a model where entitlements weren't granted to everyone though. This isn't a new thing. What Tim Cook said is that the App Store rules are applied equally to all players. Do they do it perfectly? Of course not, it's a human review process but they aren't required under the law to be perfect.
But in the case that we're discussing Apple have granted the entitlement to their competitors, that's the antithesis of anticompetitive behaviour. Obviously Apple has a monopoly over their own intellectual property and they are free to license their IP however they want to whomever they want but that doesn't mean they're stifling competition with themselves by granting one business partner access to their intellectual property over another. You provided the example of where Microsoft used it's monopoly to attempt to advantage itself but that's not what you're positing here of one company preferentially helping out another which is how business works. As always interested in counter examples.
It's also possible that Apple choose to cancel Epic's access to their intellectual property, they already tried to do that and were blocked by injunction from cutting off Unreal Engine. Sweeney admitted that once the case ends that if Epic does not win that Apple is within their rights to terminate their contracts with Epic and Epic would be unable to develop for Apple's devices. In that situation it wouldn't be that Blizzards would be stronger than Epic, the Epic games would outright not exist.
That's not monopolistic behaviour though, that's normal run of the mill contract law. Nobody is entitled under the law to be able to develop applications for iOS.
Yes, Apple have a monopoly over intellectual property that Apple has developed. That's how the law works in general: when you create a work you own it and you can control how the works you create are enjoyed. As the owner of that intellectual property you can choose how others can access you intellectual property and under what licensing terms they can do that. There is no law that obliges Apple to provide an API to write applications that run on their phones, Apple created the device and have the right under the law, as it stands today, to limit the use of that property. Apple are in the unfortunate situation that they've got the only alternative to Android and strangely despite all of the restrictions that Apple applies to the App Store they seem to have a thriving ecosystem there and an increasing amount of marketshare across the globe (up to 30% globally).
So yes, the law grants a monopoly over intellectual property you have developed.
The difference is that with split screen this isn’t “mic access in the background”. Only Zoom has this because only Zoom asked for it.
So, they can put a bar at the top saying an app is using the camera. What's the security issue here?
There's no way only Zoom asked. Really, MS Teams, Skype, Discord, etc didn't ask?
Last edited:
I’m not disagreeing with you at all, i’m not an app developer so my views are limited, but how is this a problem? It’s Apple rules so they can bend them if they want to? I mean I give my close friends way more access to my things than I give others. That’s really my choice since it’s my things. Apple supplies the platform, isn’t it’s theirs to decide how they want to use/bend it? Again, I’m not a developer so I’m sure I’m not seeing some larger issues.
Who says they did? Zoom asked for this and got it. Apparently the others didn't ask for the same access. And a very simple criterion is "We only give access to those who need it to benefit customers. If you don't even ask us to get access, then you don't need it. "
"What's the security issue here": It's 2021. Hackers will use any opportunity possible to break into people's software. Being able to listen into the right person's Zoom conversation could be very, very costly and in some cases very, very dangerous. It's 2021. You don't ask "what's the security issue". You ask "do you have good evidence that it is no security issue".
"X, Y, Z didn't ask?"
Apparently not. None of them has stated that they asked and were rejected. So the obvious explanation is that they didn't ask. And they will need to make a case why it benefits their customers. "Zoom has access" is no good reason.
Last edited:
Apple isn't bending anything. They have AppStore rules that apply to everyone the same. For some things, you need to ask Apple, and give them a good reason why you should get these things. And you get them if you have a good reason, you don't get them if you don't. This has nothing to do with "close friends", and it has nothing to do with company size. The special permission that my app uses was first produced because some very big company asked for it, but then several small companies got it as well.