[zepto]

It’s a question that continues the misunderstanding.

Zoom gets to be a partner in this because they had an ‘edge’ already in terms of having good product market fit and a huge customer base. That’s what makes them a good parter to help develop the api.

I could today create a simple video chat app, but it would be silly for Apple to make me a partner in their development process because I know nothing about the users of video chat and have no customers.

There is no benefit to the world in me just cloning Zoom, so access to a small feature refinement makes no difference.

Generally being one of the best at what you do gives you an edge because people value your experience and want to work with you.

That is fair.

[jraph]

If you develop APIs that requires feedback and testing, what forces you to keep it secret instead of making it public and clearly marking it as beta / experimental?

> There is no benefit to the world in me just cloning Zoom

There is no benefit in preventing you from using these API. What if you clone Zoom, with a better business model and/or making it open source?

Or if you create a product that finds an unforeseen application to these new APIs? Your feedback is valuable too.

[zepto]

> If you develop APIs that requires feedback and testing, what forces you to keep it secret instead of making it public and clearly marking it as beta / experimental?

The fact that you want feedback from only people you trust.

> There is no benefit to the world in me just cloning Zoom > > There is no benefit in preventing you from using these API.

Yes there is. If the APIs are not ready, then developers cannot rely on them.

Making them available has costs, regardless of how they are labeled.

> What if you clone Zoom, with a better business model and/or making it open source?

You can do that just as well once the APIs are public.

> Or if you create a product that finds an unforeseen application to these new APIs? Your feedback is valuable too.

It’s possible that there is some unforeseen feedback from a random person that is valuable, but given that most people have no incentive to give good feedback, most of the feedback will likely be garbage.

This is why they partner with people who have proven experience.

[m00x]

> There is no benefit to the world in me just cloning Zoom, so access to a small feature refinement makes no difference.

The issue is that Apple can pick and choose whoever they want which is anti-competitive. It's certainly not the first time they've done this, but it's a shitty business tactic.

Everyone should have the same opportunities.

[zepto]

> The issue is that Apple can pick and choose whoever they want which is anti-competitive.

No it isn’t. They work with whoever the market leaders are.

> It's certainly not the first time they've done this,

You say this as if they’ve been caught doing something wrong. You may wish to create that impression, but it’s a silly one. They openly talk about doing this on stage every year.

> but it's a shitty business tactic.

It’s not a business tactic. It’s normal software development methodology.

> Everyone should have the same opportunities.

On one level, everyone does - any business can partner with any other business who chooses to work together to create APIs.

On another level, the statement is a meaningless platitude.

It is obvious for example that not all developers can have a 10 minute phone call with Craig Federighi because there are millions of developers. It would equally be absurd to ban Craig Federighi from talking to developers.

Similarly it would be absurd to ban Apple from allowing 3rd parties to work with them to test new APIs.

In order to consider these questions in a meaningful way, slogans are not helpful - instead we have to look at what the realities look like.