[HN Gopher] Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
Author : cocacola1
Score : 43 points
Date : 2023-06-11 21:02 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techemails.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techemails.com)
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| I rabbit-holed to the 2005 "irate call" from Steve Jobs:
| https://www.techemails.com/p/sergey-brin-irate-call-from-ste...
|
| Does anyone know who was the REDACTED browser expert being
| recruited by Google?
| stubybubs wrote:
| > if we eliminate _Fecebooks_ third proposal
|
| Ah, so they knew it was shit long ago.
| bsaul wrote:
| reading this makes wonder what scott forstall is doing now. I
| hope he's not completely disgusted by what happened to him at
| apple and will get back to creating tech. We need people with
| truely innovative ideas from that era.
| tpmx wrote:
| "--S."
|
| That is one odd signature (from Scott Forstall).
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I'm kind of curious how this shook out at the time and then
| evolved to what the experience is today. That's kind of missing
| from just the emails.
|
| Also, aren't these emails normally deleted with very short
| retention? How are they showing up in court cases a decade later.
| idoh wrote:
| I worked on Birthday Cards, one of the apps listed out. Warms my
| cold pm heart to know that something I worked on was vaguely
| known about by high level Apple execs.
|
| At the time it was hugely advantageous to have a native app
| linked to fb, I remember the week where we made it and released
| v1, we were the #1 app in lifestyle instantly.
| shmerl wrote:
| _> So, for example If Adobe comes in with an app that links to
| new web apps that they promote we need to allow that "app store"
| in, even worse Google could come up with an app that runs all
| their 3rd party Chrome web apps and we would need to allow that
| in too! I don't see why we want to do that. All these apps won't
| be native, they won't have a relationship or license with us, we
| won't review them, they won't use our APIs or tools, they won't
| use our stores, etc._
|
| What a horror - someone won't be using Apple APIs and tools.
|
| This perfectly shows how Apple's ban on other browser engines and
| all similar restrictions in general are not about security or any
| other bogus excuses they like to present, but about being anti-
| competitive lock-in control freaks.
| astrange wrote:
| If other browsers were allowed Chrome would become an all-
| platform monopoly and there would no longer be real web
| standards.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| If you're steering a platform, you want people to use your APIs
| and tools. I don't see how that's controversial. Otherwise,
| what are you even doing?
| shmerl wrote:
| It's not about using their APIs and tools. It's about banning
| competition. That is beyond controversial - it should be
| illegal.
|
| What they should be doing? Competing on merit. Not pushing
| lock-in.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| You were specifically disdaining Apple's push to APIs and
| tools adoption:
|
| "What a horror - someone won't be using Apple APIs and
| tools."
| pxue wrote:
| Allowing third party also circumnavigates Apple's approval
| process.
|
| Personally I don't care about giving up choice if it means
| reduction of spam.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| They don't make that argument at all in the quote you pulled.
|
| The objection could very well be for security reasons.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Charging 30% doesn't enhance security.
| shmerl wrote:
| Anti-competitive reasons hidden with security excuses is
| Apple's modus operandi.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Sure I don't disagree. My point was that the quote isn't
| "proof."
| badsectoracula wrote:
| > The objection could very well be for security reasons.
|
| It could also be for control over users but claiming
| "security reasons" whenever anyone asks since that has become
| a "think of the children" topic in tech.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Sure I don't disagree. My point was that the quote isn't
| "proof."
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| If your store is big you can sabotage your providers: Apple to
| Facebook.
|
| If your store is small your providers can sabotage you: Google
| to Microsoft (Windows Phone).
|
| I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for their
| Vision - perhaps Valve?
|
| Big respect to Apple though for inadvertently protecting their
| customers from web "apps". But times will change...
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| From the latest WWDC (2023) Apple has actually encouraging
| web app support. In Safari Version 17:
|
| Added support for web apps on macOS Sonoma. Add any website
| to the Dock from the File menu or Share Sheet to get to them
| even faster. Web apps open in their own window, and integrate
| with system features like Stage Manager, Screen Time,
| Notifications, and Focus. (68606770) [1]
|
| [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-
| not...
| shmerl wrote:
| Encouraging support while banning competing browser engines
| doesn't look like encouraging.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Why? As a web app developer or user, the browser engine
| is low on my list of priorities.
|
| Browser engine preferences are about far more niche
| concerns.
| rafamaddd wrote:
| > I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for
| their Vision - perhaps Valve?
|
| If you're talking gaming content for Vision, I think they
| would go with Sony. They have what seems to be a good
| partnership. There's official support for the dualsense on
| apple devices and apple brought AppleMusic to the playstation
| store. Steve Jobs himself was a fan of Sony[1]
|
| [1]: https://www.kitguru.net/lifestyle/mobile/apple/anton-
| shilov/...
| htk wrote:
| This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how
| professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much
| more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to
| bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way,
| etc.
| tyingq wrote:
| They've developed a sort of polite code that stands in for more
| precise/honest wording they would use in person. Execs
| understand the discoverable nature of email.
| hgsgm wrote:
| This email was shortly after Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt
| blatantly discussed their illegal wage suppression scheme
| until Schmidt _sent an email_ saying basically "let's stop
| emailing about our crimes".
| tyingq wrote:
| Yeah, I suppose hubris or anger sometimes blinds them to
| being prudent. I think they really got caught up in
| "poaching" somehow being the big problem.
| anthlax wrote:
| Link to this?
| mempko wrote:
| Huh? That's what the whole conversation was about. How other
| parties, Adobe, Google, etc could bypass them if they allowed a
| new rule that made facebook happy to be a native app.
|
| It's clear their concern was how other parties would get around
| their walled garden and huge cut they get via their app store.
| [deleted]
| tambourine_man wrote:
| I find these emails exchanges fascinating and a treasure trove
| when you consider a company as secretive and influential as
| Apple.
|
| What I don't understand is how they used an unencrypted form of
| communication for such important topics.
| Andrex wrote:
| > What I don't understand is how they used an unencrypted form
| of communication for such important topics.
|
| ?
|
| What would encryption have changed? Apple were compelled to
| produce these as part of Epic v. Apple.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| Couldn't they've said they didn't have the key anymore? Or
| automatically delete emails after two years or so?
|
| Seems reckless to keep confidential information like that,
| but I'm not familiar with the legal obligations large
| companies have, of course.
| smlavine wrote:
| Yes, they could have lied to the court if they wanted to.
| That wouldn't have gone well.
| Someone wrote:
| > What I don't understand is how they used an unencrypted form
| of communication for such important topics.
|
| How do you know they did? For all we know, this was on an
| internal mail system that encrypted messages everywhere, except
| when showing their content to humans
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole)
|
| Also, FTA: _"[This document is from Epic v. Apple (2021).]"_
|
| I think that means they would have been forced to disclose
| this, even if it were encrypted ("we lost the keys" would be a
| viable defense to that, but would require a really, really good
| set of arguments supporting the claim that happened before a
| court order arrived)
| rblatz wrote:
| What do you mean? Client to server on both sides is encrypted.
| I can't say for sure, but it's not unlikely to think the emails
| would be encrypted at rest on the email server.
|
| The server itself is owned by Apple and is fully trusted to be
| secure by the exec team using it.
| extr wrote:
| ? It's not about encryption. These emails were subpoenaed.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Encrypt the email, rotate and delete keys after 18months.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Unlike Google, Apple isn't trying to hide anything (post-
| High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation)
| rblatz wrote:
| Or just set a company policy around email retention. Then
| delete anything older than that?
|
| Apple chose to keep these emails around because the value
| of the emails was greater than the risk of keeping them.
| macintux wrote:
| The company to whom I'm currently contracted has a
| 2-month retention policy on inboxes and it drives me
| crazy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-11 23:01 UTC)