As a user, I don't want any apps to have direct access to sensing hardware without going through Apple's APIs that control prompt for access and respect user settings.
Of course, but that's not the issue that's being described here. The issue is 1st party APIs that only Apple or Google have access to, that 3rd party apps can't use, regardless of whether the use would like to grant them permission.
Is it that big an advantage to test APIs that are still in beta and may change at any time? With their built in apps they can fix both pieces at once, but if they started breaking large numbers of apps every update I do not think developers would be happy.
IMO they should be required to offer the same API they use when they release an app that's using it. I don't think it has to be stable - it just has to be at the level of maturity that their internal apps are using. That does require a certain minimal level of security and inspectability - but that seems reasonable when you're selling a platform like this.
The Google acquisition of Fitbit was only approved by the EU under the stipulation that they can't offer any 1st party APIs for Fitbit/Google wearables that aren't available to 3rd party wearables.
Apple Watch doesn't have to play by the same rules.
That's fine. I sure hope nobody is asking for apps to be able to ignore the user's intent. Currently, there is no way for a user to grant applications these permissions, only Apple can bless apps with them.
As a user no apps outside of Apple's will be on your iphone if you don't explicitely install them. Make sure to install no such app and you'll be fine for the forseeable future.
If you think this is unamanageable and there needs to be more provision to protect your consumer rights, you should talk to the consumer rights regulators to ban the behaviors you need protection from, Apple isn't a proxy for that.
Apple has been serving as a fairly effective proxy based solely on the fact that they have developed the software, the developer tools, the hardware and the APIs and the distribution platform that developers use. The same thing that makes the iPhone lucrative for third party developers is also he same thing that makes it lucrative to bad actors, and part of the iPhone’s appeal is precisely because it is more locked down than Android. I can try out an app, find out the developer is an asshole that wants access to all my contacts based solely off the fact that I’m getting prompted by a system UI and delete the app and know that it is gone.
So yes, there is totally a place for private enforcement of a comprehensive developer agreement (read: contract) backed by automated review tools and human review. It’s not perfect, but it is pretty good.
I think this is unmanageable, but I am happy with the status quo. If I want a device with an alternative marketplace, I can go go android. Instead I now have people who want to use the device that I bought under the terms and agreement that was available changing how I use the device because they think it impinges on their rights.
A technical solution that prevents the issue in the first place is better than a legal protection that slaps a company on the wrist if they are caught.
That's quite literally a technical solution to a social problem.
And as usual, the problem is not fixed, Apple just gets to chose who they get cosy with. Historically Japan Railways had privileges the France national railway didn't, for instance.
It's specifically the camera feed that cannot be used while doing split view or other multitasking modes on the iPad, unless the app has Apple's special blessing. This very clearly puts any new or small video chatting apps at a disadvantage compared to incumbents.
