Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by integralid 276 days ago
I wanted to be outraged at apple, but I really can't. Read WinAPI documentation and try to count all "reserved" parameters for example. OS developers build features just for internal use all the time.

Granted, this is just UI tweak so I'm not convinced it has to be private, but they probably just don't want to have to maintain that forever.
5 comments
snackbroken 276 days ago
The key distinction is the withholding from your competitors part. WinAPI may have a ton of features labelled "pls no use thx" but MS doesn't block you from distributing a program that uses them anyway.
link
slashink 276 days ago
That used to be true but they absolutely do this today :(

Spent so much time trying to repro some functionality only to realize that Windows has an allow list for what apps it listens to for certain APIs.

link
mrits 276 days ago
Did it? I worked on an EDR product for a decade and the window internal gurus were always talking about undocumented API parameters
link
com2kid 275 days ago
Microsoft considers documentation status and long term support status to be the same thing. If the behavior of a function / API is not going to remain stable, it isn't documented. If they don't want to pay maintenance/support costs for an API (more rigorous testing, sample code, etc) the API won't be documented.

Historically Microsoft had a 100% back compat guarantee for APIs, so the second an API was documented its external interface was frozen in stone forever. There are still APIs around to this day that have misspelled struct fields because someone made a typo 30+ years ago.

If an API isn't documented it is "use at your own risk", although if enough large software starts depending on it, the API may have to be frozen anyway (or compatibility shims put into place) to avoid breaking popular software programs.

link
miki123211 275 days ago
The "turn off Windows Defender PLS, I am an antivirus" API being a principal (and well-justified) example.
link
smileybarry 275 days ago
The only APIs that are locked this way AFAIK are PPL, Defender-disabling, and AV registration, all not exclusive to Microsoft, you just have to sign up to an antimalware developer program and sign an NDA.
link
anonymars 276 days ago
That's not the key distinction -- of course Windows will likely have internal-only APIs for its own internal use. The problem is when e.g. there are special internal Windows APIs that Office can use but Lotus/etc. can't, or that Edge can use but Firefox/Chrome/etc. can't.
link
snackbroken 275 days ago
Sorry, yes. To clarify, it's about withholding features of a product in one market from your competitors in the other market.
link
anonymars 273 days ago
Yeah, I wasn't trying to be snarky, rather there often seems to be a "private code shouldn't exist, code wants to be free!" ethos that makes my eyebrows twitch in PTSD from reading all of Raymond Chen's tales of depending on undocumented code, e.g.

*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031015-00/?p=42...

*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031223-00/?p=41...

*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230113-00/?p=10...

*https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20060109-27/?p=32...

link
oneplane 276 days ago
It's not withholding, it's just not part of the AppStore if you do it. There are plenty of other ways to distribute your software, and yes, Apple will also still co-sign it or provide entitlements if you need those. Just not in the AppStore.
link
kelnos 276 days ago
That seems like an unnecessary and unreasonable trade barrier. There isn't a technical or user-experience reason to exclude these sorts of apps.
link
oneplane 275 days ago
That's not the argument; the argument is that this would be some form of "there is only one method and it is being withheld", which simply isn't the case.
link
senkora 276 days ago
Yeah, this seems reasonable to me. The better thing to get annoyed at Apple for is being slow to implement web standards. I guess you could make the argument that they are choosing to work on stuff like this instead, but I think that’s a weak argument.
link
paradox460 276 days ago
And even then, they've made efforts to get better. Safari is starting to edge out Firefox for support of the features I actually want to use
link
move-on-by 275 days ago
I just want to use color SVGs as favicons. One file format- looks great on any screen at any size. But no, Safari isn’t interested in that feature.

Edit: I looked it up, and apparently its added in Safari 26!

link
reaperducer 276 days ago
The better thing to get annoyed at Apple for is being slow to implement web standards.

Now that Safari supports the HTML5 date picker (since iOS 14.1 - five years ago), this is more of a meme than fact-based reasoning. Unless you believe Google including something in Chrome automatically makes it a "standard."

I have a list (unfortunately on a device I can't access now) of web standards that are supported on Safari and Firefox, but not on Chrome. I need it because one web site I work on is 100% Safari users (about 800 people), and another is mostly Android (about 70%). So I need a cheat sheet of which does what.

link
leptons 276 days ago
>>The better thing to get annoyed at Apple for is being slow to implement web standards.

>Now that Safari supports the HTML5 date picker (since iOS 14.1 - five years ago), this is more of a meme than fact-based reasoning

Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which they intentionally hobble by not implementing APIs that other browser engines have had forever so that Apple can force developers to create native apps for iOS which Apple then can extract 30% (or whatever they decide it is today) revenue from, where they can't do that from a web application. This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for antitrust violations, and one reason they got sued by the EU and lost.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl

link
nwienert 276 days ago
Maybe 5 years ago this was a true, they accelerated development and their standards support is pretty good now, better than FF. Again, not counting Chrome's "EEE" non-standard API's, they largely move fast and implement most modern ones. Some PWA stuff is missing which is valid, while Chrome is behind on a few nice design-focused standards Safari has.

Go here:

https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+143,safari+26.0&compareC...

Note the non-supported Safari API's, the vast majority are not web standards.

link
leptons 275 days ago
Maybe you should read the DOJ suit against Apple. It's pretty clear that one reason (among many) that Apple is getting sued is because of abusive business practices exactly as I described.

Apple forcing Safari on iOS is present day, today, not 5 years ago (but it was also 5 years ago too, ever since there was an iOS webview). If Apple doesn't want to implement it, then they shouldn't force other browser makers to use their hobbled browser engine.

link
nwienert 275 days ago
So you’re ignoring my entire comment and re-iterating the part I didn’t respond to.
link
AuthorizedCust 276 days ago
Relative privation fallacy.

“Timmy got away with it. I should get away with it, too.” -Elementary school students

link
lysace 276 days ago
Private/secret APIs in DOS/Windows were a prominent part of the US and EU antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the 90s/00s.
link
alwillis 276 days ago
> Private/secret APIs in Windows were a prominent part of the US and EU antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the 90s/00s.

It mattered because Microsoft had 95% of the operating system market at the time and was using its monopoly position to take over the web, even after signing a decent decree with the US government.

link
lysace 276 days ago
Edit: It can probably be argued that Apple is a acting like a monopolist in one or a few areas though?

The current web monopolist (Google) was coincidentally founded 2 months after the US antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was decided (july - september 1998).

Similarly meh results with US vs Google two weeks ago.

link
alwillis 276 days ago
> It can probably be argued that Apple is a acting like a monopolist in one or a few areas though?

I don't think that's a credible argument. Apple, at best, has about 55% smartphone marketshare in the United States--and significantly less in most other countries.

Remember, having a monopoly isn't itself illegal; it's using the monopoly to disadvantage competitors, especially in emerging markets, which was what the Microsoft case was all about.

I don't think there's a legal justification for suggesting that Apple creating a private feature only they can use--for now--gives them unfair advantage in the market.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes it a public feature in a future release of iOS 26.

link
leptons 276 days ago
Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which they intentionally hobble by not implementing APIs that other browser engines have had forever so that Apple can force developers to create native apps for iOS which Apple then can extract 30% (or whatever they decide it is today) revenue from, where they can't do that from a web application. This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for antitrust violations, and one reason they got sued by the EU and lost.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl

link
blahyawnblah 276 days ago
Microsoft doesn't punish you for using those though.
link
HumblyTossed 275 days ago
> I wanted to be outraged at apple, but I really can't. Read WinAPI documentation

But this is exactly why you SHOULD be outraged.

link