I sincerely doubt Microsoft Office or Microsoft Teams are being denied access to any APIs that are available to other third parties. It would not be in Apple's interest to cripple the performance of a key third-party application.
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 is more likely Office than it is Apple restrictions on macOS API. To argue otherwise would be to argue that Apple has restricted Office access to API for several decades, or that Apple has taken away API because Office needs them.
They literally do make a secret of this particular entitlement, though. (Why? Perhaps simply because they consider it to be in beta. Who knows.)
CarPlay has a known, documented way to request an entitlement.
I'm frankly not sure what Cook meant to suggest. As it stands, his claim is odd.
Yes, this one is not public. There are numerous others, by the way. Sometimes they are in beta, sometimes there are other reasons.
I think it makes sense for Apple not to just bet everything on that and position itself so that even assuming they are for some reason found to have monopoly power, they can argue that they are not abusing it.
In general I think it's common practice to build a defense case on multiple levels so that if your argument on one level is defeated, another argument at a different level still has the chance to prevail in the case as a whole.
I doubt they are thinking about it that way. Typically, a company seeks advice from its counsel - does the law permit this or not. If so, they go ahead and do it. Even Microsoft was not forced to do much of anything in the end as a result of the IE situation. No reason Apple, with a monopoly in nothing, should be afraid of doing what it feels it needs to do for its business.
Apple absolutely do apply different rules to different developers. Some of the big names have multiple versions of the same game, whilst indie devs had to remove any similar apps or else put them in to a "container". Indie devs were not allowed to update anything at all in iTunes until they had removed the offending apps.
You ask for an entitlement, you prove need, you get it. In some cases you get entitlements at development time and the evaluation of requested entitlements is done as part of the app review process. In others, you have to apply to have your app receive the entitlements.
This is how it works with network entitlements, carplay entitlements (to show up on a car touch screen), apple pay entitlements (to add a credit card/transit card/student card from within an app), background app entitlements (continuous background location tracking), default app (to be the default email app or web browser), etc.
There are cases where it doesn't work this way such as External Accessory access - that is approved by the manufacturer of the accessory. Also the COVID exposure notification API - you must be approved by an authoritative health organization within the region you plan to operate.
Disappointing but not surprised at the top ranking comments on here.
Giving access to the front facing camera, when not the sole app being used, is very obviously a security concern.
No, not all developers should be treated the same. As has been highlighted in court, and here on MR, there has been a continued attempt to get malware onto iOS.
To treat everyone the same assumes everyone will behave the same.
I'll remind everyone once again - Epic appeared on stage at an apple product reveal event showing off Infinity Blade on new hardware they had been given advanced access to that gave them a head start.
Every dog has his day.
Giving access to the front facing camera, when not the sole app being used, is very obviously a security concern.
No, not all developers should be treated the same. As has been highlighted in court, and here on MR, there has been a continued attempt to get malware onto iOS.
To treat everyone the same assumes everyone will behave the same.
I'll remind everyone once again - Epic appeared on stage at an apple product reveal event showing off Infinity Blade on new hardware they had been given advanced access to that gave them a head start.
Every dog has his day.
Again, what makes this entitlement special is that its existence isn't documented.
Maybe? I don't see how that makes it better.
Microsoft's first sentence in the IE case ended with as remedy the forceful break-up of the company to separate the OS line of business from everything else. Granted, it got rejected on appeal and Microsoft ultimately settled the case by implementing better third-party integration, but I don't think they were exactly chill about it...
A prudent defense hopes for the best but prepares for the worst. Apple is surely hoping that Epic's argument that they are a monopoly will go nowhere, but no matter how convinced they are, it will be foolish for them to take that for granted and make any sort of admission that would potentially damage them if things happen to go differently from what they imagine.
Remember that having a monopoly in itself is not illegal, only abusing it is, so Apple's line of defense makes perfectly sense to consider both: if they are not found to be a monopoly they win; if they are found to be a monopoly but are not found to have abused its power they still win.
Think it's fair for Apple to only give certain developers access to critical Api's. Camara use in multi-tasking is clearly critical and not something any app should be able to access.
The real issue is that the app-review process just isn't able to handle api/app abuse. That's clearly not an easy thing to fix... And setting up a special review for use of these sort of API's also doesn't sound bullit proof. So what's a better option than just provide this kind of access on-request?
The real issue is that the app-review process just isn't able to handle api/app abuse. That's clearly not an easy thing to fix... And setting up a special review for use of these sort of API's also doesn't sound bullit proof. So what's a better option than just provide this kind of access on-request?
Is this supposed to be a scandal? Because it kind of sounds like how things SHOULD work.
The reason APIs like this are usually not publicly available is because they are unfinished and still evolving.
Split view camera access is clearly something Apple should make available for all devs and probably plan to eventually anyway, but in the meantime, granting access to a private API on a case-by-case basis makes sense.
A company should be able to petition Apple for exemptions like this that have a clear benefit to users without a substantial downside. Does it maybe put smaller developers at a competitive disadvantage in the short term? Yeah, maybe, but it also pushes the platform forward and puts more pressure on Apple to make more APIs publicly available.
The reason APIs like this are usually not publicly available is because they are unfinished and still evolving.
Split view camera access is clearly something Apple should make available for all devs and probably plan to eventually anyway, but in the meantime, granting access to a private API on a case-by-case basis makes sense.
A company should be able to petition Apple for exemptions like this that have a clear benefit to users without a substantial downside. Does it maybe put smaller developers at a competitive disadvantage in the short term? Yeah, maybe, but it also pushes the platform forward and puts more pressure on Apple to make more APIs publicly available.
I don’t know that it’s “better” because I don’t know that there is a single thing wrong with having unadvertised entitlements available only to a few competitors.
Zoom is the test harness before Apple opens up those APIs for general access.
Exactly.
Because Zoom is a big company knowingly using a private API with Apple's consent, they and Apple can have a tight feedback loop. Apple can tell them things like "14.x is going to change these things about API y and here is what you'll need to add to your app in advance to fix that," and Zoom can provide feedback and report bugs to Apple in the interim.
These days people want to make a huge scandal over so many things that are just smart business decisions.
That is not what a conflict of interest is.
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.
Ask for it, provide a good very justification, and not cry about it. Seems like a pretty typical process.
Can you point to the rule in the relevant guidelines that is being waived by Apple in favour of Zoom?
You seem to have a habit of taking things out of context and using it as a gotcha question. You should work on that.
No. What silentdevotion meant was "it is not a level playing field".