Without doubt, Apple, Android and Samsung reserve specific APIs in their sole interest of monopolizing profitable apps. Just because DOJ have not yet gotten to Android (kinda) or Samsung on that topic does not make it right for Apple, who is by far the most egregious violator. APIs for SMS, Bluetooth pairing, direct WiFi to name a few, A…
Without doubt, Apple, Android and Samsung reserve specific APIs in their sole interest of monopolizing profitable apps. Just because DOJ have not yet gotten to Android (kinda) or Samsung on that topic does not make it right for Apple, who is by far the most egregious violator. APIs for SMS, Bluetooth pairing, direct WiFi to name a few, Apple’s apps have magical experiences with such APIs, others have to go through such obfuscated processes deeming them worthless. Hey, I like Apple, but call a spade a spade, I would like see Apple level the playing field. Steven, your view truly sounds like you are looking to be on someone’s good graces. You are smarter than that.
Of course there are APIs. We all know software is layered and if the implementation uses layers that are not published that does not make them secret, reserved, or nefarious/exploitive APIs.
It is very easy to come up with this narrative. Developers just imagine how they would have architected the code--after the fact--and then assume there is a layer they could call into. This had been happening to Windows for a decade. 95% of the APIs that were "undocumented" were just implementation layers we had no intention of documenting. The 5% (actually less given the numbers) were literally mistakes in header files or API docs because nothing was automated. Those were all just fixed as reported.
That said, it is not an undocumented or secret API for something like bluetooth pairing, but an OS service they don't offer. there's nothing monopolistic about that. It is fair to want that and the fact that we as engineers know it is possible doesn't make it exploitive to not offer it. In fact it is just as easy to claim it is a bad choice because AirPods are expensive and don't fit in ears so they are being dumb. The antitrust laws don't preclude companies from being dumb or bad at serving customers.
Actually, it is not a case of not making the API available, it is more like they intentionally do make a version available and conveniently lacking the parameters which would make it useful, and you just know someone intelligently and intentionally made that decision because when using an Apple made app, the functionality is blatantly available.
Without doubt, Apple, Android and Samsung reserve specific APIs in their sole interest of monopolizing profitable apps. Just because DOJ have not yet gotten to Android (kinda) or Samsung on that topic does not make it right for Apple, who is by far the most egregious violator. APIs for SMS, Bluetooth pairing, direct WiFi to name a few, Apple’s apps have magical experiences with such APIs, others have to go through such obfuscated processes deeming them worthless. Hey, I like Apple, but call a spade a spade, I would like see Apple level the playing field. Steven, your view truly sounds like you are looking to be on someone’s good graces. You are smarter than that.
Of course there are APIs. We all know software is layered and if the implementation uses layers that are not published that does not make them secret, reserved, or nefarious/exploitive APIs.
It is very easy to come up with this narrative. Developers just imagine how they would have architected the code--after the fact--and then assume there is a layer they could call into. This had been happening to Windows for a decade. 95% of the APIs that were "undocumented" were just implementation layers we had no intention of documenting. The 5% (actually less given the numbers) were literally mistakes in header files or API docs because nothing was automated. Those were all just fixed as reported.
That said, it is not an undocumented or secret API for something like bluetooth pairing, but an OS service they don't offer. there's nothing monopolistic about that. It is fair to want that and the fact that we as engineers know it is possible doesn't make it exploitive to not offer it. In fact it is just as easy to claim it is a bad choice because AirPods are expensive and don't fit in ears so they are being dumb. The antitrust laws don't preclude companies from being dumb or bad at serving customers.
Actually, it is not a case of not making the API available, it is more like they intentionally do make a version available and conveniently lacking the parameters which would make it useful, and you just know someone intelligently and intentionally made that decision because when using an Apple made app, the functionality is blatantly available.
Thats more semantics I think. I can make these equivalent claims using #define :-)