Source: Hacker News
Article note: I'm always a little conflicted on these.
Adapting proven solutions from the ecosystem as supported first-party solutions is generally a great way to build a platform (look at the _entire FOSS ecosystem_ for an example), and a lot of the things that get absorbed that way _do_ make more sense as system features than little rent-seeking add-ons.
And in this specific case, Apple's prohibition on input mechanisms that also have network access is a reasonable policy given the general toxicity of the modern computing environment (preventing keylogging, captured-client SMS spam, etc.)
But BOY does Apple have an ugly history of treating developers for their platforms as sharecroppers. Appropriation with Sherlock/Karelia Watson, Night Shift/F.luxx, Health/Clue (I know there were some cases in the pre-OS X era but I can't think of them offhand), and usually after having talked to the team making the thing they plan to clone. High mandatory distributor cuts. No side-channels. API and Policy churn that can get products delisted.
It seems like they could at least offer to buy out the things they do that to, it's not like Apple is hurting for cash reserves.
Comments 