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

[hans1972]

General computing platforms are held to a higher set of standards than console devices. If Apple wants to call the iPad a computer, and market it as a replacement to traditional desktop and laptop machines, well, it is time for Apple to start treating it like one.

I don't think US antitrust law makes any such distinction.

Personally, I don't see why a general computing platform cannot be locked down, complete controlled by one company which is engaging in extreme discrimination of its suppliers and business partners, and even their customers.

 

[cmaier]

No. What silentdevotion meant was "it is not a level playing field".

I never try to guess what someone else meant. I can only know what he or she wrote.

 

[pasamio]

You seem to have a habit of taking things out of context and using it as a gotcha question. You should work on that.

You stated that Apple waived a rule, I'm curious what the rule is. If that's something out of context for your statement then again perhaps I'm confused and misunderstood what you meant by "Apple waives rules" because I'm curious about App Store rule is being waived here.

You clarified the API statement which I clearly stated I was confused about and I think you made a fair distinction that folk confuse the API with the implementation which as you correctly point out we agree upon.

 

[cmaier]

You stated that Apple waived a rule, I'm curious what the rule is. If that's something out of context for your statement then again perhaps I'm confused and misunderstood what you meant by "Apple waives rules" because I'm curious about App Store rule is being waived here.

You clarified the API statement which I clearly stated I was confused about and I think you made a fair distinction that folk confuse the API with the implementation which as you correctly point out we agree upon.

The same feigned confusion you are responding to is also applied to when Tim Cook said the same rules applied to everyone, they treat everyone the same under the rules, etc. They always conveniently ignore “the rules” and think that means that if Apple lets a major game developer present on-stage at WWDC, they also have to allow every other developer present on-stage. If one developer is given a homekit entitlement, they all must. If Amazon gets special privileges in exchange for providing something of major value (e.g. selling Apple hardware in their on-line store), then all developers must get that same privilege, even if they aren’t even capable of providing that same thing of value.

They want equality of results, not equality of opportunity.

 

[hans1972]

I don't know if you're being obtuse or if you are actually confused. It isn't hard to understand.

They aren't picking commercial partners. IBM picked a commercial partner in MS to supply DOS for the IBM PC. That isn't what is going on here. They're picking competitors in a marketplace they both control and participate in. You seem smart enough, so what is it you aren't understanding?

So let's forget about video conferencing and talk about chess games. Apple has no financial interest in chess games although one is included with macOS.

Let's say there exist three excellent chess games for iOS.

Apple grants permission to use an API which speeds up processing to only one of these chess games making it superior to the two others.

Does Apple break the law in the US? If yes, why?

Would the answer be different if we change back from chess games to video conferencing? If so, why?

 

[bkaus]

When is epic going to launch a phone so they have complete control?

 

[cmaier]

So let's forget about video conferencing and talk about chess games. Apple has no financial interest in chess games although one is included with macOS.

Let's say there exist three excellent chess games for iOS.

Apple grants permission to use an API which speeds up processing to only one of these chess games making it superior to the two others.

Does Apple break the law in the US? If yes, why?

Would the answer be different if we change back from chess games to video conferencing? If so, why?

Yes! Because Apple is chess mommy and has to love all its chess babies equally.

 

[hans1972]

You seem to have a habit of taking things out of context and using it as a gotcha question. You should work on that.

Cook commented on the rules governing the App Store.

The rules governing the App Store and entitlements to APIs are two different things.

Apple can treat everyone according to the same sets of rules for the App Store and discriminate on access to the API at the same time.

 

[ClevelandGuy]

The same feigned confusion you are responding to is also applied to when Tim Cook said the same rules applied to everyone, they treat everyone the same under the rules, etc. They always conveniently ignore “the rules” and think that means that if Apple lets a major game developer present on-stage at WWDC, they also have to allow every other developer present on-stage. If one developer is given a homekit entitlement, they all must. If Amazon gets special privileges in exchange for providing something of major value (e.g. selling Apple hardware in their on-line store), then all developers must get that same privilege, even if they aren’t even capable of providing that same thing of value.

They want equality of results, not equality of opportunity.

You hit a home run on that one! Absolutely correct, they want equality of results not equality of opportunity.

 

[kronology]

I don't think US antitrust law makes any such distinction.

Personally, I don't see why a general computing platform cannot be locked down, complete controlled by one company which is engaging in extreme discrimination of its suppliers and business partners, and even their customers.

It most certainly does in practice. The government went after MS for IE. They didn't go after Sony, Nintendo or Sega.

As for your second sentence, well, I can see why. Especially as concerns their customers.

 

[cmaier]

It most certainly does in practice. The government went after MS for IE. They didn't go after Sony, Nintendo or Sega.

As for your second sentence, well, I can see why. Especially as concerns their customers.

Sony, Nintendo and Sega didn’t have monopolies.

 

[kronology]

Cook commented on the rules governing the App Store.

The rules governing the App Store and entitlements to APIs are two different things.

Apple can treat everyone according to the same sets of rules for the App Store and discriminate on access to the API at the same time.

The point of my comment is that Tim Cook lied to congress. It isn't dependent on the API argument. He definitely lied.

Sony, Nintendo and Sega didn’t have monopolies.

They certainly had monopolies over distribution of software for their devices. And at times a single company has had a large majority of the market; the NES was 94% of the market.

 

[cmaier]

The point of my comment is that Tim Cook lied to congress. It isn't dependent on the API argument. He definitely lied.


They certainly had monopolies over distribution of software for their devices. And at times a single company has had a large majority of the market; the NES was 94% of the market.

“Distribution of software for their devices” has never been a reason for any government to find that there is a monopoly.

Microsoft had a monopoly over operating systems for personal computers. Big difference.

And Tim Cook didn’t lie. He was asked if Apple applies the rules identically to everyone. He said yes. True.

 

[hans1972]

It most certainly does in practice. The government went after MS for IE. They didn't go after Sony, Nintendo or Sega.

Microsoft had monopoly power in market for operating systems for desktop computers and the US government believed they misused their power in that market to gain foothold in another market, the browser market, also known as tying.

None had monopoly power in the gaming (console) market.

Whether they were general computing or more specialised markets weren't important.

I don't see how being specialised makes you almost immune to antitrust litigation.

If you had two restaurants where one served American, tex-mex, French, Thai, Japanese, Chinese, Italian food and another restaurant only sold pancakes, I can't really se anyone saying that pancakes restaurants can't be held to the same antitrust standards as restaurants who sell all kinds of dishes.

 

[pasamio]

They certainly had monopolies over distribution of software for their devices. And at times a single company has had a large majority of the market; the NES was 94% of the market.

Atari did go after Nintendo alleging it attempted to illegal monopolise the market which Atari lost. Atari also lost a case where they tried to copy Nintendo's lock out device that was designed to prevent unauthorised games from running on their consoles as well. If you look at some of these cases they bear many similarities to what we see alleged today from Epic and in many respects the business model is comparable between the App Store and Nintendo's consoles.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Exactly my thinking. Zoom of all companies, who have (had) a terrible track record when it comes to user privacy and security and (were) backed by China's gov.....

Zoom's ties with China's government actually make this especially interesting... is this less about Zoom and more about Apple wanting to be on China's good side?

 

[kronology]

“Distribution of software for their devices” has never been a reason for any government to find that there is a monopoly.

Microsoft had a monopoly over operating systems for personal computers. Big difference.

And Tim Cook didn’t lie. He was asked if Apple applies the rules identically to everyone. He said yes. True.

That argument is entirely spurious. Anyone can craft rules that are unfair and then follow them exactly. The fact that rules were applied identically to everyone is besides the point.

And they didn't follow them exactly. That or we don't have all the rules. Where is the rule that says "if you're big enough that we can't bully you, you can get better deals".

 

[kstotlani]

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.

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.

 

[Donoban]

Great click bait team. Comes at a troubling time for apple…. Really? Come on, surely you don’t need the click revenue this bad.

 

[nitramluap]

The rules already vary depending on what kind of developer you are and what category of App you create - and fair enough too. For example, for many medical apps the developer must be a medical company, not an individual. There are lots of examples of this. It's not 'level' and nor should it be: some developers NEED to be held to a higher standard and when you want to add certain capabilities to your app, you have to show justification for it.

Comparing giving special API access to a video conferencing app - in the middle of a pandemic - to not allowing a gaming company the ability to charge outside of the App Store, is just absurd.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Atari did go after Nintendo alleging it attempted to illegal monopolise the market which Atari lost. Atari also lost a case where they tried to copy Nintendo's lock out device that was designed to prevent unauthorised games from running on their consoles as well. If you look at some of these cases they bear many similarities to what we see alleged today from Epic and in many respects the business model is comparable between the App Store and Nintendo's consoles.

Epic's argument here is that consoles are different from phones and computers because consoles are sold at a loss with the expectation that later software sales will more than make up for it.

That argument strikes me as a little... shaky, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.

Maybe a better angle is that most of the time, computers and phones are just used to do stuff that the built in software can do (even though most people use Chrome on Windows instead of IE or Edge...), while consoles spend most of the time running software which is sold separately?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

The rules already vary depending on what kind of developer you are and what category of App you create - and fair enough too. For example, for many medical apps the developer must be a medical company, not an individual. There are lots of examples of this. It's not 'level' and nor should it be: some developers NEED to be held to a higher standard.

Comparing giving special API access to a video conferencing app - in the middle of a pandemic - to not allowing a gaming company the ability to charge outside of the App Store, is just absurd.

I don't think Epic's lawyers are talking about this, are they? I got the sense that this was just something that got revealed during discovery during research pre-trial, not something they brought up in-front of a judge or whatever... there's no quotes taken from lawyers on either side in this article.

 

[itsmeaustend]

come on dude.. the point is that apple lies saying they treat every app developer equal, it's just not true - one can use special api other get banned for the same thing (eg. parental control apps). I hope apple loses agains epic, it will be good for everyone.

Epic is trying to dismantle the AppStore. That’s not great for everyone

 

[cmaier]

I don't think Epic's lawyers are talking about this, are they? I got the sense that this was just something that got revealed during discovery during research pre-trial, not something they brought up in-front of a judge or whatever... there's no quotes taken from lawyers on either side in this article.

None of this has anything to do with the Epic case, and Epic has not made any arguments about it not having access to SDKs.

 

[kronology]

Atari did go after Nintendo alleging it attempted to illegal monopolise the market which Atari lost. Atari also lost a case where they tried to copy Nintendo's lock out device that was designed to prevent unauthorised games from running on their consoles as well. If you look at some of these cases they bear many similarities to what we see alleged today from Epic and in many respects the business model is comparable between the App Store and Nintendo's consoles.

That's because having a monopoly, using monopolization tactics, and actually being something the government cares about are all different things.