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

[bsolar]

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.

Apple's motion to dismiss her testimony is centered about the claim that the Xbox console is sold as loss-leader and lack of documentation provided by Microsoft supporting said claim, not about the "general purpose" distinction.

In general, the term is in widespread use since long before the Epic case was even a thing: the question is more what the legal interpretation and relevance will be in this specific case.

 

[kstotlani]

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.

Your first paragraph is enough for me to never take you seriously. I have more than 20 years of DEVELOLMENT experience and run large teams for software development and very successfully. Anyway people like you are a primary reason I post less on forums.

 

[bookofxero]

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.

This are all valid points and I came to say similarly re: points 2-4. Additionally, it is prudent to further limit access to private APIs to ensure that they work as expected for those that are approved to use them. We don't know the full circumstances or terms of use for the entitlement. Or is Apple required to let all apps of a certain type know if/when they grant an entitlement to use a private API to one app in their group? That would be ridiculous.

Side note: Putting quotes around it is a cheap ploy to make entitlements seem sinister when it is a common use term for just this type of thing.

 

[Cosmosent]

Epic's chances of winning, BEFORE the Trial vs Now:

i.) Before the Trial: 1%

ii.) Now: 5%-10%, & dependent-upon how skilled their Strategy Team is; certain things that have been divulged could considerably strengthen Epic's case, if used wisely; things that were very likely Off their Radar initially.

Also, I suspect Apple is going to see alot more cases brought against them the remainder of this year.

And simply because of what has been divulged at/by the trial.

I side with Apple in their case against Epic.

I see Epic as having benefited significantly from ALL the FREE Marketing Apple provided.

I believe their cause is just a money grab.

The BIGGER issue, & the ONE that I don't side with Apple , is App Discovery !

Apple has a Complete & Total Stranglehold on App Discovery !

It is for that reason that third-party App Store are absolutely needed !!!

That in turn, will result in a reduced commission to the App Store (owner) !

Here, both Apple & the third-party App Stores.

Think of it as a Race to the Bottom in which Apple will ALSO need to participate

 

[bookofxero]

Epic's chances of winning, BEFORE the Trial vs Now:

i.) Before the Trial: 1%

ii.) Now: 5%-10%, & dependent-upon how skilled their Strategy Team is; certain things that have been divulged could considerably strengthen Epic's case, if used wisely; things that were very likely Off their Radar initially.

Also, I suspect Apple is going to see alot more cases brought against them the remainder of this year.

And simply because of what has been divulged at/by the trial.

I side with Apple in their case against Epic.

I see Epic as having benefited significantly from ALL the FREE Marketing Apple provided.

I believe their cause is just a money grab.

The BIGGER issue, & the ONE that I don't side with Apple , is App Discovery !

Apple has a Complete & Total Stranglehold on App Discovery !

It is for that reason that third-party App Store are absolutely needed !!!

That in turn, will result in a reduced commission to the App Store (owner) !

Here, both Apple & the third-party App Stores.

Think of it as a Race to the Bottom in which Apple will ALSO need to participate

It feels like less of a cash grab and more of a manipulation by the PRC through TenCent, though I have no evidence to support the assertion. It is just such a weak case otherwise.

 

[cupcakes2000]

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.

Your first paragraph is enough for me to never take you seriously. I have more than 20 years of DEVELOLMENT experience and run large teams for software development and very successfully. Anyway people like you are a primary reason I post less on forums.

To be fair, your post both states and insinuates that you’re not a developer.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

If you DON'T give the same opportunity to EVERYBODY the playing field is conditional regardless of which way you cut it.
That is to say, not level.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

I think we are arguing semantics.
If you sell something to me and it's conditional that I don't use it for 'x', you've pretty much given me a licence to do the entire alphabet of activities with it except 1?

 

[talones]

Reminder that Webex and Google meet have this API also. Not just Zoom.

 

[cmaier]

Reminder that Webex and Google meet have this API also. Not just Zoom.

Yep, I just tested Webex and it definitely works. I'd test MS teams, but I don't use it much and can't figure out how to start a video call to nobody.

 

[I7guy]

If you DON'T give the same opportunity to EVERYBODY the playing field is conditional regardless of which way you cut it.
That is to say, not level.

The opportunity for a customer to ask on how to solve a problem is 100% open. Therefore all devs get equal treatment. (To cut this differently, since a yes or no to equal treament is depending on ones' point of view).

However, you are welcome to your opinion. I'm waiting for the court's opinion.

 

[H2SO4]

The opportunity for a customer to ask on how to solve a problem is 100% open. Therefore all devs get equal treatment. (To cut this differently, since a yes or no to equal treament is depending on ones' point of view).

However, you are welcome to your opinion. I'm waiting for the court's opinion.

As are you. I run a business and one of the things that came a painful reality is that big companies are often full of you know what.
When they get an opportunity to make lots of money, their goal posts shift. Understandably. It's life and life is not fair. Just one of those things you have to get on with.

 

[gregmancuso]

Apple's motion to dismiss her testimony is centered about the claim that the Xbox console is sold as loss-leader and lack of documentation provided by Microsoft supporting said claim, not about the "general purpose" distinction.

In general, the term is in widespread use since long before the Epic case was even a thing: the question is more what the legal interpretation and relevance will be in this specific case.

The whole idea of "general purpose computer" vs "console" is idiotic. Both have a CPU and GPU - and often members of the same family of chips. Both are fully capable or running anything - browser, app, game, whatever. Even Sony officially supported booting to Linux on the PS3.

The fact that one device limits the type of apps that may be run to games vs anything these wants is apparently OK with those arguing this illusionary difference. Ever more, they have no problem with the devices not only limiting the fact the fully-capable-as-general-purpose-computer-but-called-a-game-console to only running games but also only running games from one one manufacturer.

If MS can limi the Xbox to only Xbox games, Blu-Ray player, web browser , and a whole slew of other "approved" apps, why can no other platform? Why only Sony and Nintendo? Why Sony only on the PSx?

I don't use any game console so out of curiosity I looked it up - Xbox , for example, runs a bunch of apps. Look at https://www.xbox.com/en-US/entertainment/console-apps (Xbox console apps page in case the link is removed). It is about 65 apps listed on the page.

And, no - consoles selling at cost or at a loss has no bearing on the topic of what is a "general purpose computer" nor on the fair and reasonable fees for an App Store or physical disc licensing model.

 

[MysticCow]

Yeah, just keep giving those Fortnite people MORE ammunition for their court case. "APIs for me, but not for thee!"

The walled iOS garden might just completely give out after Apple vs Epic.

 

[gregmancuso]

The BIGGER issue, & the ONE that I don't side with Apple , is App Discovery !

Apple has a Complete & Total Stranglehold on App Discovery !

It is for that reason that third-party App Store are absolutely needed !!!

That in turn, will result in a reduced commission to the App Store (owner) !

Here, both Apple & the third-party App Stores.

Think of it as a Race to the Bottom in which Apple will ALSO need to participate

Third-party app stores will in now way help app discovery. It will lead to fragmentation. It will lead to needing to check multiple app stores to find apps. Unless you plan to also have a common app index or something to monitor and map apps across all stores - kind of like - oh, I don't know - the internet. People on this site talk about how they have a better chance of finding an app online. Then they click the "App Store" link on the developer's site to deep link into the App Store. Easy.

As a consumer - multiple App Stores means multiple places to enter my credit card; multiple places to search for apps; and multiple customer servicing numbers / sites to deal with. And the last assumes that all third-party store will support customer service and not just pawn it off o the developer.

As a developer - multiple store to list my product; multiple differing rules for apps by store; different levels of services from the stores (such as one store paying and reporting my taxes while another leaves that to me).

All-in-all, the only people who think third-party app stores are good are a very small vocal minority who are tinkerers at heart. They either prefer Android in their hearts or are the ones who still try to jailbreak.

 

[JilzVT]

This is hardly surprising, I'm sure Google Play does the same. Is this really news?

When Apple is repeatedly saying, under oath, that they treat all developers the same, yes, it's absolutely news.

 

[gregmancuso]

When Apple is repeatedly saying, under oath, that they treat all developers the same, yes, it's absolutely news.

It is not news. It is software development 101.

All developers who pay their annual $99 fee get access to all the development tools, core public APIs,, the developer certificates, the ability to list their apps on the stores, all the sale support (review, payment processing, customer servicing, refund management, global tax withholding in all jurisdiction an app is sold, tax reporting for the same, etc), and two developer support incidents. I assume the $299 enterprises fee gets you a few more support calls or something. (And yes I know some of those things are paid for by the 30% fee. That does not negate the fact that the developer gets access to the service as part of being a "dues-paying member" of the developer program.

That is not say that there are not in-development APIs or other restricted APIs. These exist on all platforms. Getting access to these APIs requires conversation, application, and additional entitlement. The fact that and and all developers are able to request the entitlement places it on a level field. Fact is, most will not be granted access. The API in question may not have even been known to Zoom, but came up as part of one of their support calls. So, of course they were first to get it. Now Cisco and Google have access to it (WebEx and Google Meet). I would venture that every other virtual meetings app has a pretty good chance of being granted the entitlement if they apply for it.

 

[AJ42]

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.

I completely disagree. For example, the entitlement processes makes sure your credit card info remains safe, with only qualified banks getting access to certain APIs. If you study the developer’s website you will see how this entitlement process works and has been well thought out.

I do agree with the argument that this entitled API should have been available to the TEAMS app, and I suspect with all the press it soon will be, but the fact that there is a validation that an app has been approved to use sensitive APIs and these are not available to every app developer is an important security control.

 

[cmaier]

I completely disagree. For example, the entitlement processes makes sure your credit card info remains safe, with only qualified banks getting access to certain APIs. If you study the developer’s website you will see how this entitlement process works and has been well thought out.

I do agree with the argument that this entitled API should have been available to the TEAMS app, and I suspect with all the press it soon will be, but the fact that there is a validation that an app has been approved to use sensitive APIs and these are not available to every app developer is an important security control.

Given that a number of teleconference apps (webex, google, ring) have it, for all we know teams had access already and just hasn’t done anything with it.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

You don't get it, do you? Security is HARD. Advice from someone posting on MacRumors thinking about it for 10 seconds doesn't identify or solve security problems.

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.

So you are going straight into speculation. Apple is evil because you speculate there is something underhanded going on. In real life it doesn't work like that.

 

[I7guy]

As are you. I run a business and one of the things that came a painful reality is that big companies are often full of you know what.
When they get an opportunity to make lots of money, their goal posts shift. Understandably. It's life and life is not fair. Just one of those things you have to get on with.

I would be surprised if Apple wasn't receptive to providing help on a one-off basis with devs. That would be bad business.

 

[gnasher729]

I think we are arguing semantics.
If you sell something to me and it's conditional that I don't use it for 'x', you've pretty much given me a licence to do the entire alphabet of activities with it except 1?

Well, semantics is it. The customer has the photo and the photographer has the copyright.

 

[hans1972]

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.

Allowing users to decide on security is the worst kind of security.

Most users on iOS won't have the information, knowledge and experience to make a good choice. Also Apple isn't only thinking about the individual user but the whole ecosystem including the reputation of the ecosystem.

If you want to know what happens if you allow users to decide, look at toolbar installations in Internet Explorer.

Prevent installation of IE toolbars?

If there is one thing I would like to see become a standard feature in Internet Explorer it would be the ability to prevent installation of damn toolbars and for those preventative measures to be

superuser.com

 

[bsolar]

The whole idea of "general purpose computer" vs "console" is idiotic.

Well, sure, in general any device sophisticated enough to have turing-complete computational capabilities is able to perform "general purpose computations". Does this mean e.g. your smart fridge is a "general computing device"? Does it matter when deciding whether the manufacturer can control what you can "run" on it or not?

The idea might be stupid, but that doesn't stop it from existing nor does it change the fact that the idea pre-dates Epic's case against Apple and is not Epic's invention.

If MS can limi the Xbox to only Xbox games, Blu-Ray player, web browser , and a whole slew of other "approved" apps, why can no other platform? Why only Sony and Nintendo? Why Sony only on the PSx?

The assumption is that they can, but Sony is actually being sued for allegedly abusing their monopoly in the sale of digital games on their platform... My guess is that console manufacturers will keep pushing the argument that they are "special" as possible line of defense.

And, no - consoles selling at cost or at a loss has no bearing on the topic of what is a "general purpose computer" nor on the fair and reasonable fees for an App Store or physical disc licensing model.

Never claimed it does, but that's what Apple is contesting in the deposition, not the "general purpose" part.

 

[EarthKidk]

there should be a basic package for all developers and for the advance API should only be given to those who need it depending on their app and how they acted to apple. I mean I don't want to give someone special API and then they come and stab me in the back and sue me like many companies did. I don't blame apple for doing it because seem like everyone want to sue apple and if they want to give special treatment to those who are good friend and don't sue them then I totally understand. and beside can you use this API for your app?