I don't see anyone one-upping it. Do you have an exploit in mind?
And you're speculating that nobody asked for permission. I'm not going to try and convince you which is more likely. We'll see in a few months anyway what happens with this.
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
It’s like finding out that your supposedly squeaky clean idol uttered a swear word in public.
Big whoopee dee doo.
Even state laws carve out exceptions for people all the time.
I find that when companies like Epic or Tile complain of “unfairness”, they often mean “not in my best interests”. They want unregulated access to Apple’s platform and users as if they were the ones responsible for investing in, building, and maintaining the platform. Anything short of unencumbered access to Apple's platform is then referred to anti-competitive behavior on Apple's part. As though Apple was somehow obligated to grant them that blanket access in the first place.
All this talk of one developer supposedly getting access to a private API that another developer didn’t get are red herrings.
I maintain that if platform owners like Apple are able to offer a better experience given broader and longer investments, the preferred outcome shouldn’t be to penalize ecosystem investment. Instead, it's to ensure that consumers have choice in the marketplace via alternatives.
Epic has alternatives (consoles). Tile has alternatives in the form of android (though Tile would be wise to either sell themselves to a software company looking for a way into location layers or figure out some way to stand out from every other tracker in the marketplace).
Most technical terms are not "something established in case law". That does not make them useless. Also, there is always the first time for establishing the case law for something. This lawsuit might establish a case law for general purpose computing platform.
A company holds monopoly power when it has the power to control prices or exclude competition. All of Apple doesn't need to be a monopoly over the entire mobile phone ecosystem, it simply needs to hold monopoly power over the storefront that it represents. And oh boy does it. Lets not blur the line between the company and what it does within the app store. Hell, at one point it wanted power over others even naming things as part of an "app store", but I digress -- it's just an example of the level of control Apple really wants.
You misuse the term "monopoly" with "fair use". Monopolies are never granted. Apple most definitely holds monopoly power over its ecosystem, and as such engages in exclusionary and predatory behavior to exclude competition.
Now where this gets fuzzy is in the vein of the whole market. True, I don't need to buy Spotify from the App Store. True, I don't need to buy Fortnite from the App Store. But what Apple is doing is at best stifling competition within its own monopoly position, and whether the courts define it as a foremarket vs aftermarket monopoly. Many vendors have to deliberately raise prices in Apple's ecosystem to offset the requirements imposed by this system. That is definitely "controlling prices".
When it comes to Microsoft, you're incorrect. It's similar in the sense that it is a hardware platform that monopolized its position in the market to remove competition in the space of bundling IE. It doesn't have to be a phone vendor and you can split hairs here but it's similar. Apple is creating an environment where first party apps are given better treatment than 3rd party apps, no question. It's even worse because there's no issue at all that in Microsoft's case anyone could easily go and get another browser - there was no "Microsoft Store".
Yes, it's utterly normal and legal for anyone to engage in monopolistic practices, until it violates the rules of monopolistic behavior:
1. Users have no substitute for purchasing products (especially when considering aftermarket monopoly)
1a. A foremarket monopoly is "Hey, I can buy an Android vs an iPhone!"
1b. A aftermarket monopoly is "Hey I have an iPhone, how do I buy stuff now?"
1c. This doesn't have to be black and white. Apple is definitely stifling competition by requiring vendors to jump through hoops to buy software outside of the App store, and/or charging 30% for any purchase.
As for the APIs, this is another method to stifle competition. Again, consider the context. It might be legal, until you realize that this is favoritism and controlling behavior. It's perfectly acceptable yes -- until it isn't.
Does Microsoft hide APIs for reasons? Of course.
Does it only give this data out to certain vendors? Of course.
Does this prevent programs from being compiled and used on the system? Nope. Those compilers and APIs might have obfuscated data but certainly usable by all. In this case knowledge is power. There's no Microsoft Store preventing your installation of a compiled WIN32 app you can download from anywhere. Now I'm sure you'll pivot and say "well that's just SECURITY..." yeah, yeah...but not the argument. You cannot compile an app to use on iOS at all unless it is a jailbroken device -- the argument that "web apps" are similar is quite the joke. The barrier to entry is apple's App Store and its approval process.
This is why monopolies are legal until monopolistic behavior is present. The argument isn't that you're right (people can hide APIs, YES! You win!), the argument is that it's not fair and harming competition.
You literally said you are not a developer and now suddenly you have 20 years experience 🤣
Which is it?
Given your lack of understanding on how software development works I’m guessing the former, but you can’t have it both ways.
Last I check, the majority of the iOS App Store’ apps are free. It’s very stupid of Apple for that to happen if it’s like you said that Apple control prices. Wouldn’t it be best for the ‘almighty and greedy’ Apple to ‘control’ prices in the App Store to at least be say $10? And with IAP, Apple can stop producing h/w and just feed on the golden goose that is the App Store. Fortunately, the world doesn’t work like that. Although not perfect, the world still reward folks/companies for the hard work they have done.
Also, last I checked, there’re lots of third party apps in the App Store that has similar functionality as the limited number of Apple’s apps. Doesn’t look like competition exclusion to me. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so many photography apps for example that has a lot more features compared to Apple’s camera app. Competition is a wonderful thing isn’t it.
Your argument is very binary, but a quick observation shows counter examples of your claims.
False. See USPS, MLB, etc.
And McDonalds hold a monopoly over its menu. And WalMart holds a monopoly over its store shelves. This is a meaningless definition of a monopoly and not one supported by existing case law.
No I’m not. Microsoft had a monopoly Apple doesn’t. Microsoft controlled over 90% of the PC market. Apple doesn’t control anywhere near that much of the smartphone market.
Further, Microsoft was allowed to continue bundling IE. If anything the settlement helps Apple in the sense that it can continue to include Apps on the platform it developed.
🤣 Declare the behavior to be monopolistic so you can argue it’s monopolistic is a tautology. You clearly have no idea how software development works to declare the mere existence of public vs private APIs to be monopolistic. Further, whether or not Apple has such APIs isn’t even part of Epics argument! Epic is arguing against App Store rules, not APIs. Epic would be idiotic to argue against APIs since it does the EXACT same thing as Apple in that regard when it comes to ITS platform (Unreal Engine). So even if you were right in any of your points (and you aren’t) they aren’t even what the trial is about! You, like so many others have completely conflated two separate areas. Even if Apple completely threw open the doors of iOS, third party stores, side loading, etc. it STILL wouldn’t mean making all its APIs available to everyone, everywhere. These things are NOT the same issue!
This was a low key amazing feature for those long zoom meetings I had, my only complaint was the placement of the camera on landscape, I had to angle it a bit but still haha
I see no problem with this, personally.
I mean... Zoom obviously has a use case. They presented Apple with the problem and Apple allowed access to that API in this case. Apple probably doesn't want to open up the ability to access the camera when in split screen for obvious reasons. For one, they'd have to vet that every app using the API is doing it responsibly. Imagine some app requests access to the camera to take a product shot for posting on craigslist. You authorize it. When you go into split screen mode the app isn't showing your camera window but turns on recording while your focus isn't on the app. That's a potential privacy breach.
On a video conf app though... you're EXPECTING that you're being recorded, so there's an awareness of this.
I've used this on Zoom. Not only does the app turn off the camera automatically when you switch to another app, but you have to manually turn the camera back on when you add the split screen app mid-meeting. So, Apple sees that Zoom is using the ability responsibility and grants and exception. Any other app that wants the same privilege simply needs to contact Apple and make a case for it in their case. There's no exceptional special treatment here.
I mean... Zoom obviously has a use case. They presented Apple with the problem and Apple allowed access to that API in this case. Apple probably doesn't want to open up the ability to access the camera when in split screen for obvious reasons. For one, they'd have to vet that every app using the API is doing it responsibly. Imagine some app requests access to the camera to take a product shot for posting on craigslist. You authorize it. When you go into split screen mode the app isn't showing your camera window but turns on recording while your focus isn't on the app. That's a potential privacy breach.
On a video conf app though... you're EXPECTING that you're being recorded, so there's an awareness of this.
I've used this on Zoom. Not only does the app turn off the camera automatically when you switch to another app, but you have to manually turn the camera back on when you add the split screen app mid-meeting. So, Apple sees that Zoom is using the ability responsibility and grants and exception. Any other app that wants the same privilege simply needs to contact Apple and make a case for it in their case. There's no exceptional special treatment here.
Read it again. I said I am not an iOS developer. Good luck with your development skills and wish you success in your future.
Comparing a restaurant menu to the app store. Laughable. Just laughable.
Funny you'd bring up smart fridge. Looking at the Samsung page for their fridges they come with a buttload of apps already. And they run Android so I guess most any other app is available. Or are you saying that I should not be allowed to add an app to my fridge. Never know, I might want use my bank's app to check my checkbook while standing at the fridge drinking milk from the carton at 3am.
The fact that the term general purpose computer predates the Epic lawsuit does not change anything. We are talking about the difference between two devices that have similar computational abilities with varying levels of software locks governing what they do - anything from the App Store vs any of the 65 or so approved apps or purchased games from the Xbox store. They are both general purpose computers. neither one is purpose built device like a desktop weather center or something. The differentiation belongs at the right place - and PC / Mac / phone / game console all fit the general purpose definition.
Not sure what comment you are referring to. I mentioned the console at cost comment only to forestall thecae console are sold at a loss as a reason they get some special treatment in some people's minds regarding fess, app stores, or technological capability.
The fact is that Apple is very secretive for a reason. As soon as there is a rumor about them doing anything the competition starts copying what was said to beat them to market. Apple will always give private access to trusted developers to try new things out. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t.
More likely to keep a key competitor from knowing what you a planning so they can rush to add it to their surface product and beat them to market.
So Microsoft is not likely high on the list fir testing new features.
It actually does, since my post which started the discussion was in reply to the claim that the term was "made up by Epic".
That I suggest the term might end up being irrelevant is also in my original post, but whathever the term means or wherever the term is relevant or not doesn't change the fact thst it's not something Epic made up.
Epic seems to be the only ones defining Apple's iPhone as a general purpose computer versus the consoles which near as I can tell are also general purpose computers by any reasonable definition that also includes the iPhone. They seem to be the only ones making that distinction which seems odd given that the modern Sony and Microsoft consoles run AMD's chips not dissimilar to what is available commercially and have over the years run other operating systems such as Linux.
It’s a bit of a stretch to call a gaming console general purpose. It’s primary purpose is games - it can do other things though.
That said it’s also a massive stretch to call an iPhone a general purpose computer also. It’s primary function is a phone - it can do other things though.
The whole point is moot though, not sure there is a particular definition of a general purpose computer that ever defines it as ‘having’ to be able to a particular thing. It’s always within the realms of the OS that the computer is running which defines what you can do with it, not what whatever definition a random person chooses to define the purpose of the machine as.
That said it’s also a massive stretch to call an iPhone a general purpose computer also. It’s primary function is a phone - it can do other things though.
The whole point is moot though, not sure there is a particular definition of a general purpose computer that ever defines it as ‘having’ to be able to a particular thing. It’s always within the realms of the OS that the computer is running which defines what you can do with it, not what whatever definition a random person chooses to define the purpose of the machine as.
Again, the statement was not by Epic, it was the deposition of Lori Wright, head of Xbox business development. Sure, she was called by Epic, but her statement are still hers.
That the consoles are capable of general purpose computing is clear, but the bar for that is quite low technically and likely your toaster can too. This doesn't stop Microsoft and Sony to push the narrative that their devices are special and deserve different consideration.
Last edited:
What competition law is Apple accused of breaking? Why is Google not being taken into court over the 30%?
How are consoles meaningfully different than the iPhone?
In both cases it is a device sold with limitations imposed by the developer to suit its product needs. And that developer charges a fee (30%) on all software released for it.
It makes sense to debut a feature with a single company. Allowing Apple to have a single point of contact, and failure, for testing and rolling out an experimental feature. Eventually, it will likely roll out to other developers.