Do you really expect that a year after this feature is public with Zoom that it won’t be available to other developers as well?
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
Serious question: Exactly how does it work like crap? I haven’t owned Office in years, but was thinking of buying a license again & and that info would be helpful.
According to Epic's complaint, they are making the following allegations against Apple (in multiple counts):
- Apple’s conduct violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits the “monopolization of any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations”. 15 U.S.C. § 2.
- Apple’s conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations”. 15 U.S.C. § 1.
- Apple’s acts and practices detailed above violate the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700 et seq., which prohibits, inter alia, the combination of resources by two or more persons to restrain trade or commerce or to prevent market competition. See §§ 16720, 16726.
- Apple’s conduct, as described above, violates California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., which prohibits any unlawful, unfair,or fraudulent business act or practice.
It is?
I didn’t say they were meaningfully different. I don’t disagree with apples stanc eand was trying to point out how futile suggesting anything at all is a ‘general computing device’ compared to anything else which has a main purpose regardless of its other capabilities.
It takes far longer to open and launch on my Macs compared to windows laptops. It’s better on my M1 MacBook Air (but still feels longer than it should), and the wait time is just excruciating on my 5k imac with fusion drive (can take over 30s to open).
I have also run into numerous beachball issues when using it (mostly commonly when trying to copy and paste text from one source into word). The layout is also a little different compared to windows, and some features are either missing, or seem more cumbersome to access.
I shouldn’t be experiencing performance issues on a 5k imac with an i5 processor and 40gb of ram, and yet I am. It runs perfectly on a lower-specced windows laptop, so hardware shouldn’t be the bottleneck.
Microsoft probably has more incentive to optimise their software for an OS that is being used by the overwhelming majority of the world, but there’s no reason Office for Mac should perform as poorly as it does.
I might be wrong but I think Office gets "pre-loaded" during Windows startup so that it can be opened more quickly.
Thanks for the 411. In the end, while there are certainly more Windows users, it seems penny wise and pound foolish to not also deliver an amazing experience of the Mac, considering that Mac users tend to spend more on software, and are often in jobs and positions to make purchasing decisions.
Granted. I did not mean to argue that particular point. I was speaking more to its use in the context of its use in this suit. sorry for the confusion - I can see how basing my comment as a reply to yours could make that unclear.
The distinction of general purpose computers covering mobile devices was introduced by Epic in their Free Fortnite FAQ last year and follow up comments by Mr Sweeney that seems to exempt consoles from this "general purpose computing" platform definition. Epic were the one who introduced it into the discourse and determined that consoles were exempt from the definition when asked why they weren't pursuing the consoles, only Google and Apple.
Epic's coached witness parroting Epic's line should not come at a surprise given their refusal to complete the discovery ordered by the court. Apple already have a motion regarding the testimony.
Epic used the term but did not introduce it though, the term was already being used much earlier than their FAQ. You can google the term and find hits dating years back from sources which have nothing to do with Epic. One example, this question from 3 years ago.
Did you read the motion? Nothing in there pertains the "general computing" argument. The whole issue is about financial statements: the deposition states that the Xbox is sold as loss-leader, Apple wants the figures supporting that claim, Microsoft doesn't want to expose their internal financial figures to competitors.
But again, you don't need to trust me nor Epic nor the deposition: open a search engine, look for the term yourself and you'll quickly find hits dating years back like the example I posted above.
I don't disagree with you that general purpose computer is a term that existed previously. What I'm stating is that Epic decided that a phone, which one could regard as a special purpose computer with specialised hardware and interfaces for making phone calls, is now a general purpose computer whilst a console, another specific purpose computer which whilst originally with specific hardware for accelerating video or audio though these days running hardware not dissimilar to commercial off the shelf CPU and GPUs, gets to remain to be a specific purpose device not through any intrinsic property of the device but seemingly because it's not sold at a profit.
Presumably evidence of if the Xbox is sold as a loss-leader and that the Xbox has never been sold at a profit is in fact relevant to the "general computing" argument given it seems to pivot on if the devices are sold at a loss. I personally draw the complete opposite view on the motion because Epic's entire argument that consoles are different revolves around Sony and Microsoft selling their consoles at a loss whilst phones are sold for profit. Microsoft pulled a "dog ate my homework" on the discovery process to hinder debunking this not to mention that Nintendo reportedly sell their consoles for a profit yet Epic has not brought litigation against them.
It's hard to argue against that gaming consoles are designed and marketed mainly for running games and little else. It's true they are technically capable of running whatever and that there are some "apps" available, but the beef of the platform is clearly focused on gaming.
Smartphones and tablets are marketed as much more capable, with a huge spectrum of different kind of applications. Even Apple itself used the slogans "There's an app for just about anything" and "There's an app for that" for their App Store, clearly indicating that their devices are supposed to offer a huge range of possible applications.
IMHO the question is more whether it matters or not and I'd personally rather see console platforms being opened too.
Even if the Xbox is sold at profit, it would not change that it's a device with mainly one goal, which is playing videogames. From this point of view it's irrelevant to the "general computing" argument itself, it's more relevant to the "do console platforms deserve special treatment?". The answer could very well be that consoles are not general-purpose devices but still don't deserve lock-in, just as iDevices could very well be general-purpose and still deserve lock-in.
IMHO, as I said before, there is no need to think up conspiracies or whatever: Microsoft has very little incentive in this case to expose sensitive financial information to third-parties. At worst its deposition will be rejected, and so what? They are neither plaintiff nor defendant and while I'm sure they have interests riding in this, I doubt they are enough to become too much involved. Note that a sentence against Apple's App Store may very well backfire on their own store too.
This hasn't been true for years. Consoles such as xbox and playstation are marketed as more than video game machines, they are marketed as home entertainment machines. Ability to play DVD's was a big selling point for the PS2. HD DVD (xbox 360) and Blu-Ray (PS3) playback was a big selling point for both. And various streaming service support has been prevalent on all three consoles. At various times consoles have also included web browsing, and even utility apps (Nintendo DS/3DS/etc.). Sony even officially supported loading on the PS3 at one point.
Consoles are similar to the iPhone, they are computers which have had features limited or excluded by their creators for the purposes of selling a device to suit a use case. That one of them focuses more on gaming and another on broader apps doesn't change that they are, fundamentally, the same thing, just at different points along a spectrum. All computers are really, from super narrow focused devices like cash registers or the diagnostic computer on your car, to the broadest devices, desktop PCs. If Epic (and its supporters) are going to draw the line specifically between Consoles and everything more focused than that, and iPhones and everything less focused, they have to prove why THAT particular line is legally significant. That consoles are sold at a loss is meaningless, that isn't a function of what they do, its just proof that console makers are bad at selling consoles and making money. If they wanted to sell consoles for a profit they ABSOLUTELY could, either by raising the price OR using cheaper/less powerful components. The decisions to sell at a loss is a strategic business decision, not a technical or legal one.
The consoles seem to come in waves between being entertainment centres to being pure gaming devices. Microsoft's original strategy with the Xbox was to ensure that they had a device in the living room and the Xbox One focused on entertainment capabilities though they've walked that back recently.
I think there is scope to open up direct operating system access that would be interesting to see again like the Playstation used to provide and I think in terms of long term supportability it'd would be nice to be able to update old iOS devices that are no longer officially supported but otherwise functional. That might be hoping for too much though. Certainly it's feasible for the consoles and whilst iOS nominally supports ARM instructions, it's unclear if access to the other capabilities like the neural engine would be feasible without documentation from Apple. In that sense the CPUs are not particularly general at all and differentiates them from their console partners at a layer lower in the hardware.
I agree that the nature of the device doesn't change due to the business model of the device, Epic's argument is that it does however. The general purpose computing argument isn't a distinction under the law either to the best of my own knowledge and seemingly something Epic have been fine tuning for a while. The judge has outright stated that they didn't see the distinction between Apple's approach and the consoles. It'd be an interesting situation to say that Apple's proprietary CPU, with it's own proprietary instructions, running in an Apple's proprietary device with Apple's proprietary operating system is general purpose whilst an Xbox running on top of AMD's CPU and GPU technology leveraging the x86-64 instruction set is not.
Microsoft have been expanding their first party game studios and their own subscription game service. They've lost the phone market and their Windows store on the PC seems to have limited growth and the gaming market is the only area that they've managed much success due to the Xbox. It's clear Microsoft sees a significant part of their future in first party games and their own gaming subscription service when you start to look at the way they've talked about the Xbox Series machines.
Microsoft had a court order compelling them to give over documents, they've feigned stupidity though it seems that might end up ultimately weakening Epic's case with no credible witnesses offering first party testimony to devices sold at a loss, a key aspect in Epic's own argument. Time will tell what the judge includes or excludes and if this was their only testimony to the loss leader strategy and the witness is deigned not to be credible then it hurts at least one of Epic's arguments.
There are apps available for PS4:
beebom.com
Edit: Ditto for Xbox
25 Best PS4 Apps You Should Install On Your Console
Just bought a new PS4 or PS4 Slim or PS4 Pro? Well, here are the 25 best PS4 apps (free and paid) you should install from the PlayStation Store in 2022.
beebom.com
Edit: Ditto for Xbox
Xbox Console Apps | Xbox
Enjoy featured apps like Spotify and more for ultimate gaming.
www.xbox.com
Last edited:
I use it on a daily basis on 13" 2019 MacBook Pro and runs much quicker than on my work Windows machine which I don't use as allowed to use my own Mac instead. Only a slight few UI difference but in the main perfectly useable and none of the issues described by this poster. I would even go so far as to say a pleasure to use.
Possibly the difference between an SSD and a fusion drive. After my iMac comes back from the Apple store (going to collect it in a while after dinner), will get getting someone to install an SSD inside.
I agree and think this is the key issue: even if the term "general purpose" and "single-purpose" exist in a broad sense, it's a very different thing to claim that the terms have legal consequences. The terms predate the litigation from Epic, but the terms AFAIK have never been tested in court, so there is currently no precedent which defines legally what the terms mean, or even if the terms are legally relevant at all.
They feigned no stupidity, the decision to withhold the documents was very much calculated and everyone knows it. It's also nothing special, when companies are involved in a litigation there are almost always squabbles about document discovery. You can find an interesting recap here.
It is not illegal now, but it is harmful to competition in general if they only grant permission to one developer, especially if that is not based on technical quality or other "fair" criteria. That might be changed if Klobuchar manages to get antitrust law broadened as far as she seems to want.
ISTM that there are four reasonably distinguishable classes of computer:
- Those whose functionality is limited by legal restrictions, such as the one driving the odometer on modern cars, or the baseband chip in a mobile phone.
- Embedded computers which are a fixed-function implementation detail in some larger product (eg the chip in my toaster or washing machine)
- limited function computers, such as a blu-ray player or a printer, which is built into a system to run arbitrary programs but with a highly restrictive operating environment
- general purpose computers
Yes, but that's generally regarded as a bad thing
IMO a modern phone is a general purpose computing device that happens to come with a prettier clone of Desktop Set and a built-in modem and dialer (which I had on a laptop back in 2005). After all, an iPad was for many years nothing but an oversized iPhone with the dialler UI removed, and even now the OSs aren't that different, and when apple has their own 5g hardware I wouldn't be surprised if they don't allow voice calling in iPads and MacBooks.
I think several "blessed" apps get that treatment. Mostly they're MS apps, but ISTR something about them opening that up to others a few years back
Except- that’s not quite true. The ‘computer’ ability has been added to a phone. In your example the ‘phone’ ability has been added to a computer. That’s the defining difference, surely.
in terms of functionality and usage, it's more that the phone has been added to a PDA and killed standalone phones. Otherwise you might as well say that the phone and computer abilities have been added to a camera.