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

[cupcakes2000]

Once Apple sells something that's it; they've sold it and someone else owns it. They need to accept that their users have the right to control their technology.

Nope. I’m a photographer. I shoot and give the person the image of them in exchange for money and a contract. It’s clearly stipulated what they can and cannot do and/or with the photo of themselves. They ‘own’ it, but there are still rules. Furthermore, I still own the photo.

Hard to get your head around perhaps, but some situations are.

 

[H2SO4]

Are you a developer?

The company I work for uses a certain software package. As a trusted partner, We have access to APIs which are undocumented and not available to all. This is because our use case demands it.

Without the API access, and comms directly with their development teams it wouldn’t be possible for us to use their software solution.

As a personal side gig I have a watch app. There’s no way I’d expect to get the same level of access as a major company, particularly with regards to accessing APIs which I don’t need.

An important rule of any secure system is that people have access to only what they need and nothing more.

As has been pointed out in many a thread.
Apple give preferential terms to certain devs.
If you say the playing field is level you can’t then introduce special cases.
Who cares if I need ‘X’. If you tell me everybody is equal and then tell some they have more privilege you must surely be able to see the contradiction?

 

[H2SO4]

Nope. I’m a photographer. I shoot and give the person the image of them in exchange for money and a contract. It’s clearly stipulated what they can and cannot do and/or with the photo of themselves. They ‘own’ it, but there are still rules. Furthermore, I still own the photo.

Hard to get your head around perhaps, but some situations are.

If they are limited by rules they don’t own it.
You have leased it to them.

 

[cupcakes2000]

double post

 

[cupcakes2000]

If they are limited by rules they don’t own it.
You have leased it to them.

Not at all, of course they own it. But as I said, hard for some to get their head around.

 

[H2SO4]

Not at all, of course they own it. But as I said, hard for some to get their head around.

It there are restrictions on use you have really licensed it to them.
That’s what happens with the arts?
Paintings, songs, pictures.
All licensed with limited rights of use.

 

[hot-gril]

"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".

If you're envisioning an app taking camera access while someone is in a Zoom call, that's what the bar at the top saying "X is using your camera" would be for. Same as what they do currently when an app uses your mic, which is evidently fine. It's no excuse, and most likely, Apple is going to offer this to everyone soon.

"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.

They're all basically the same product as Zoom. Another likely explanation is that they haven't made a public statement about this. Pretty rare for Microsoft and others to publicly whine about technical hurdles.

 

[hot-gril]

I'm glad the issue can be discussed here.
Reddit are deleting all the posts regarding this issue.

Two posts have been deleted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/n8pzph

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/n87p8m

I submitted a post linking the original post, and it never got through the moderation. I got the following message:

Uh yeah, Reddit sucks. I've never seen so many roadblocks to posting on a website before.

 

[philstubbington]

Are you a developer?

The company I work for uses a certain software package. As a trusted partner, We have access to APIs which are undocumented and not available to all. This is because our use case demands it.

Without the API access, and comms directly with their development teams it wouldn’t be possible for us to use their software solution.

As a personal side gig I have a watch app. There’s no way I’d expect to get the same level of access as a major company, particularly with regards to accessing APIs which I don’t need.

An important rule of any secure system is that people have access to only what they need and nothing more.

Exactly. I suspect security, privacy and performance are key to Apple providing access. It may also be that the API in question is relatively immature and Apple are being cautious about giving anyone access.

 

[gnasher729]

If they are limited by rules they don’t own it.
You have leased it to them.

Go to law.stackexchange.com where they had an excellent discussion about exactly this question a few days ago. "Leasing" didn't come into it whatsoever. Owning a physical object (a photo) and owning the copyright to the photo are totally distinct matters.

 

[MRrainer]

If this were to be true it’s no different to MS withholding key Software packages from MacOS, so they don’t lose market share with windows.

Teams itself doesn't offer 100% of the features on macOS that it does on Windows, AFAIK.

Don't know if Zoom is better in this regard, though.

I can see why Apple does not want to grant everybody this kind of access.

 

[cupcakes2000]

It there are restrictions on use you have really licensed it to them.
That’s what happens with the arts?
Paintings, songs, pictures.
All licensed with limited rights of use.

They’ve licensed the image. They own the photograph.

Nothing to do with leasing anything as you mentioned before.

 

[Krizoitz]

The point is they should be allowed to request access from the user. We shouldn't be robbed of useful functionality by Apple's controlling tendencies. If there is an API available to anyone outside of Apple itself, it should be available to every developer.

That’s not how software development works. It’s not how software development SHOULD work.
First, limiting access to APIs/features/etc is necessary for testing new things. You limit the access to avoid massively buggy software AND because you trust the people you do give access to provide valuable feedback.

Second, not all developers are created equal. Why should random developer X with no history and no credibility get the same access to ALL features as trusted developer Y? You wouldn’t do that in your normal life, you trust some people more than others. Business is the same.

Setting that aside, if you don’t like Apples approach, why not go over to Android? I mean it’s not going to be any different in this regard, I guarantee Google also tests things worth trusted devs first and doesn’t expose everything for everyone to use. That would be a terrible idea and why basically NO rational or responsible platform owner does it.

 

[Krizoitz]

Because that is anti-competitive behavior and as such is likely against the law. It certainly was against the law for Microsoft to advantage their own browser over competitors.

Or are you asking for a moral rationale? Something more pragmatic?

First, Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple does not.
Second, no actually Microsoft was not found to be guilty (in the US at least) of breaking the law with their browser. The settlement and consent decree did not force Microsoft to change anything about Internet Explorer. Before you state something as a fact you might want to be sure you are correct about it.

 

[Krizoitz]

General computing platforms are held to a higher set of standards than console devices.

😂
Repeating Epics claim doesn’t make it true. Please cite the relevant case law that shows this to be true.

 

[Krizoitz]

Perhaps you can enlighten me on your definition of "protected" to ensure that we both understand the definition of the word you're using and the context you're using it in.

Protected has meanings in programming, you should look them up. It has nothing to do with the law.

 

[Krizoitz]

More importantly, legality aside, you implying that what Apple is doing is normal is just ridiculous. Either Apple is selling a general purpose computing platform which all software developers can use for developing and marketing their wares or they own a close platform where they let chosen companies to make money.

What Apple is doing is completely normal, Microsoft does it, Google does it, Sony does it, Amazon does it, Nintendo does it, Apple has done it for way longer than iOS even existed. There’s nothing illegal or abnormal about it.

Further “general purpose computing platform” is a term Epic made up, it’s not something established in case law.

Finally, there is a spectrum between completely open and completely closed platforms, it’s not an either or choice. Not from a legal standpoint, a technical standpoint, or a business standpoint.

 

[Krizoitz]

You're right. It's a lie. Tim Cook lied to congress. Apple waives the rules for the big guys and gives them extras or early access. Of course, it is doubtful that anything will be done to hold Cook responsible; he was sworn in, so when he lied, he committed a crime.

Nope. Cook was testifying on the App Store approval process NOT access to APIs, row entirely different topics. Your ignorance of this fact doesn’t change its reality.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Maybe they didn’t ask for? what’s true is that this looks bad for the score sheet.

I was wondering why Discord when in floating or split screen view would show me dark to others, this answers it. I thought it was either iPad being iPad or Discord devs having a bug, even rebooted couple of times to see if it worked... it has been special library access all along.

I also find curious that microphone, location services, etc are multitasking and background-app friendly yet the camera isn’t? Maybe it’s not completely on purpose (what to gain from that?), has been programmed a bit wonky or is it still being ironed out.

Nevertheless, as an user, knowing that it could have worked all this time actually (first world problem) sucks. At the same time, as the platform arbiter, if I find something potentially sensitive I would think about special access to some, companies do it all the time in general and there’s an analogy with key/access-cards/back doors and many other things.

Tricky ball on play currently... I say let them run their business however they feel best but what do I know.

If an app running in background can get access to the camera, that app can record users when they think it is not running. There are two ways to prevent that from happening. The first is to turn off the camera for apps running in the background. The second is, do an audit of every single line of code in the application. If that is done competently, it would cost many thousands of dollars in Apple developer time. I can picture them doing that for the largest apps, not for every kid building some new game.

 

[JosephAW]

Yet there is a great social media company out there that bypassed the API altogether and used safari instead.

 

[bsolar]

Further “general purpose computing platform” is a term Epic made up, it’s not something established in case law.

To be fair the term was also used by Lori Wright, head of Xbox business development, during her testimony when she explained what she believes are key differences in gaming consoles vs. iDevices.

It's definitely not a term "made up" by Epic alone, although it's legal relevance in the case is still open.

 

[Krizoitz]

I am not sure I understand this at all. I am not the person who you quoted your post on and neither am I a developer(iOS) but how does you being a developer make you smart about this. Your response shows the exact opposite.

You are actually saying apple’s iOS APIs are need to know basis? This is what Epic is trying to prove. Not that they are saints but it proves Apple is lying. You are proving Epic’s point and also saying it is ok? You don’t have to be a developer to see the flaw here. How is it level playing field if some developers have access to more APIs? You also called it secure practices and I fail to understand your logic.

You are definitely not a developer which is why you should either not try to opine on how software development works or take time to learn about it first.

First point: Epic is fighting against Apples AppStore rules, not whether or not it has private or protected APIs. It would be a terrible idea for Epic to make that argument since they ALSO have such APIs when it comes to the Unreal Engine.

Second point: It in no way proves Apple is lying since that’s not what was claimed to begin with. Apple (like most API providers) very publicly admits there are both private APIs that only Apple can use and limited APIs provided to select developers on a case by case basis.

Third point: Apple never claimed its APIs were equally available to all developers (see point 2). They did say all developers must follow the same rules for the App Store. These are different things.

Fourth point: Limiting access to APIs is part of secure software development processes. The more access you give, the more potential for security holes. It’s smart and prudent of Apple to be cautious about certain APIs from both a security and stability standpoint.

 

[cmaier]

To be fair the term was also used by Lori Wright, head of Xbox business development, during her testimony when she explained what she believes are key differences in gaming consoles vs. iDevices.

It's definitely not a term "made up" by Epic alone, although it's legal relevance in the case is still open.

She was testifying on behalf of epic. She was undoubtedly in contact with epics lawyers ahead of her testimony. She claims to have documents that back up her story but she never gave them to Apple or the court. There is a motion pending to have her testimony considered not credible. I wouldn’t say her testimony “definitely” shows anything under the circumstances.

 

[Krizoitz]

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.

This isn’t remotely similar to the Microsoft situation. And it’s utterly normal and legal for platform providers to reserve APIs for internal use and for limited partners.

 

[I7guy]

As has been pointed out in many a thread.
Apple give preferential terms to certain devs.
If you say the playing field is level you can’t then introduce special cases.
Who cares if I need ‘X’. If you tell me everybody is equal and then tell some they have more privilege you must surely be able to see the contradiction?

The pattern that is emerging, is that if a dev asks Apple for assistance Apple will work with the dev to find a solution. The statement "If you say the playing field is level you can’t then introduce special cases." is flat out wrong, no private, successful for profit business operates like that where they say "no" to their customers 100% of the time.