Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I mean browsers, then there was an app that did some phone activity tracking and all was fine until iOS had it's own app and for some reason the old app was kicked out from the store. Then there are the cases where Apple apps have special access to APIs but a popular application like Spotify was denied access. Can you link to the case you are mentioning?



The app that did “phone activity tracking” used an MDM and tracked all of your activity and stored it. This was a severe privacy concern.

Spotify - was complaining that there was no facility to integrate with Siri - Apple added intents in iOS 13.

Spotify also complained that they couldn’t do music streaming on watchOS - that was also added in the latest version of watchOS.


For the first case Apple knew about the tracking and said nothing until they had their own app - so we can defend Apple that protects the users privacy only if it benefits them.

Spotify got access months alter after complaints to the EU were made so I am not convinced that Apple is still give equal opportunities to all developers especially when better browser engines exist and you can't use them.


You really think that it only took “months” for Apple to create the Siri Intent for third party audio? Apple had been opening up Siri for years by adding new intents.

Apple has a long history of developing functionality and using it internally before releasing them publicly. The alternative is releasing a half baked API that it has to support forever. It’s a lot easier to change an API that is only used internally than it is to change an API which people depend on.

Yes, Apple produced a better solution than allowing random third parties the ability to record everything you do on your phone. Would you prefer that they never increase privacy and security?


> The alternative is releasing a half baked API that it has to support forever.

You owe me a new keyboard. Apple puts out half baked APIs constantly, and drops APIs constantly. Like literally, every release they do has APIs in those two camps.


>Yes, Apple produced a better solution than allowing random third parties the ability to record everything you do on your phone. Would you prefer that they never increase privacy and security?

Using this logic you should then ot have the freedom to read your emails outside Apple browser or email client on your computers, the solution is

1 let the user decide if the trusts the third party

2 for sensitive application like mail/sms/browsers review the top 5 alternative browsers/email clients etc and allow only those, I assume Apple has the ability to say discuss with Mozilla about allowing Firefox on iOS, what APIs and what privacy rules need to be respected and then have a team of lawyers ready if Mozilla breaches the contract/promises.

My point there are solutions between the extremes of not allow thrid party access and allow any random app access.


1. Right. Because historically “the user” has been very good about understanding security implications of their choices. Have you been following the PC industry for the last 30 years?

No one considers email to be secure because of if nothing else, the store and forward nature.

IMessage is end to end encrypted. Should Apple also allow third parties the ability to intercept iMessage or should they split iMessage from sms? Who does that benefit?

2. Now some developers are in a privileged position.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: