/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Epic filing reveals that in a 2016 email Phil Schiller said “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us”, which Epic argues is proof of lock-in

Epic and Apple are preparing to battle it out in court over the App Store (remember that whole Fortnite debacle?) …

Droid Life Kellen

Discussion

  • @reckless Nilay Patel on x
    Wild to see Apple execs openly acknowledge the fact that blue bubbles are a huge lock-in advantage https://www.theverge.com/...
  • @charlesarthur Charles Arthur on x
    Looking forward to some revelations in this court filing about bears' toilet habits too. https://twitter.com/...
  • @tomwarren Tom Warren on x
    if you're wondering what the rest of the world uses instead of iMessage: • Europe: WhatsApp / FB Messenger • China: WeChat • South Africa: WhatsApp • India: WhatsApp • Australia: FB Messenger • Ukraine: Viber • Iran: Telegram
  • @pierce David Pierce on x
    Today in “things that are so obviously true, I mean have you seen the shade of green they chose” https://twitter.com/...
  • @dcseifert Dan Seifert on x
    apple finally said the quiet part out loud https://www.theverge.com/...
  • @marcoarment Marco Arment on x
    I don't see why everyone's talking about this. Of course iMessage provides huge iOS lock-in. Of course Apple knows it. Tech companies are under no obligation to be “open”. They're open when it suits them and closed when it doesn't, and that usually doesn't warrant intervention. h…
  • @tomwarren Tom Warren on x
    it's funny to see Apple admit iMessage lock-in is a thing, but it's mainly a big deal in the US. Nobody cares about iMessage in Europe https://twitter.com/...
  • @jherskowitz J Herskowitz on x
    “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi's concern according to the Epic filing. https://www.theverge.com/...
  • @droid_life Droid Life on x
    The reason Apple didn't make iMessage for Android is exactly what you thought. https://www.droid-life.com/...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Former head of App Review says some apps were “remov[ed]” “immediately” because Mr. Schiller and Mr. Cue were “adamant” about (their) removal, despite Mr. Shoemaker's “protest[s]” that there was no clear justification for doing so under the app review guidelines.
  • @fosspatents Florian Mueller on x
    “Apple's security experts remained out of this debate [over whether developers could distribute their iOS apps directly eo end users), noting that the question of exclusive distribution is one of ‘policy’, as opposed to security. Apparently confirmed by ex-Apple exec Forstall. ht…
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Epic argues Apple has “no evidence” its app review process “screens for security issues better than other methods of app distribution”. It cites many examples of fraudulent apps, eg fake blood pressure detection tools and scams where users have been mislead into buying items
  • @wavesblog Simonetta Vezzoso on x
    “The revelation could be a significant blow to Apple's defence, which rests on its insistence that the contentious 30 per cent “tax” ... s necessary to fund curation of the store and protect consumers from malware” https://twitter.com/...
  • @redblueglobal @redblueglobal on x
    This shows that “security by obscurity” sooner or later will blow out. Unfortunately, more vendors don't even attach CVE numbers to the patches. #apple #cybersecurity #Hacking https://www.ft.com/...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    However in late 2017 Apple's FEAR team still called the App Review process inadequate. Friedman said it “was more like the pretty lady who greets you with a lei at the Hawaiian airport than the drug sniffing dog.” https://twitter.com/...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    In 2015, Apple recognized that Google's way of automating the screening process had some advantages. It acquired a company called SourceDNA to help detect malicious apps.
  • @chrismessina @chrismessina on x
    I don't know if we should bring reinforcements or popcorn 🍿 https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    CEO of Headspace became upset with the level of “egregious theft” on the App Store as copy-cats sprang up, stealing its IP. “Shockingly, Apple [is] approving these apps, and when the users buy the apps they are left with nothing but some scammy chat rooms in the background.”
  • @benwood Ben Wood on x
    Tomorrow's @FT runs with @PatrickMcGee_ 's Apple vs Epic story on front page of its Companies section. It is going to be interesting to see how this case gets resolved. You can read the article here: https://www.ft.com/... ($) https://twitter.com/...
  • @petercoffee Peter Coffee on x
    “Friedman likened @Apple's process of reviewing new apps for the App Store to ‘more like the pretty lady who greets you ...at the Hawaiian airport than the drug-sniffing dog’. He added that Apple was ill-equipped to ‘deflect sophisticated attackers’.” https://ft.com/...
  • @mikethebbop Ira Michael Blonder on x
    Not likely to produce warm fuzzies for either personal data privacy advocates nor cyber security managers: https://www.ft.com/...
  • @dhh @dhh on x
    “A senior Apple engineer compared the defences of its App Store against malicious actors to “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gunfight”.. The revelation could be a significant blow to Apple's defence [that a 30% tax] is necessary to protect consumers"https://www.ft.com/ ...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Epic argues that Apple's App Store review process is “cursory” and that Apple doesn't recruit reviewers with sophisticated tech backgrounds.
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Epic said the volume of apps submitted “does not permit robust review.” As of April 2016 the human review process typically took 13 mins per app and 6 minutes per app update.
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    *Thread* Overnight both @Apple and @EpicGames released hundreds of pages of new documents, containing lots of colour based on discovery and recent depositions. I stayed up reading so you don't have to. Here's what I learnt (couple *bombshells* in here)
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    App Reviewers typically review between 50 to 100 apps per day ... “In certain instances, reviews took less than a minute to review apps.”
  • @garjoh_canuck Garrett Johnson on x
    In Apple's defense, the plastic butter knife it brings to its app review process is the best damn plastic butter knife that a 30% platform take can buy... https://twitter.com/...
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Eric Friedman, head of Apple's FEAR unit — Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk — said in a recent deposition that his team believed the App Review team was inadequate to the risks posed by malicious actors, saying they were “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.”
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    Certain apps that may have competed with Apple's apps or features, such as Google Voice, were “rejected on pretextual grounds”. (that is, competitive reasons)
  • @youngbloodjoe Joe Youngblood on x
    Basically the App Store is a cash cow monopoly that Apple only uses to attack competition, make boatloads of cash for doing nothing, and doesn't really protect users. https://twitter.com/...
  • @dhh @dhh on x
    Apple's App Store review process is a tollbooth wrapped in security theater. It really makes so many things fall into place after all these years when you think of it like that. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK! This isn't a ninja crack team spending serious time doing reviews.
  • @derloos Anton Nekhaenko on x
    How any of this justifies 30% is quite a mystery. https://twitter.com/...
  • @dhh @dhh on x
    Apple is at once both overselling the benefits of the App Store reviews (we'll protect you! we're sophisticated!) and underdelivering massively (store is full of obvious scams). Only area where the review process actually works is in collecting fees. Disgraceful process.
  • @dhh @dhh on x
    This thread explains so much. Why the App Store is full of scams, why rulings are so arbitrary, why its impossible to get clear answers. Apple hires essentially unskilled people to do the reviews, yet claims they're necessary to protect people. You can't have it both ways! https:…
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    When the App Store first began, applicants were considered qualified if they “understood how to use a Mac”, “understood how to use an iPhone”, “understood a little about the Apple brand”, “could breathe . . . could think”.
  • @patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
    In current job postings, listed qualifications for App Reviewers primarily include nontechnical skills such as teamwork, curiosity, clear communications and resilience. A thorough knowledge of macOS and iOS is noted as “helpful,” but not a requirement.