This is clickbait. Apple was sued by VirtnetX and forced to change how it works such that it relies on relay servers run by Apple. The author knows this, and knows that open sourcing a protocol that relies on Apple’s relay servers doesn’t make sense (because Apple’s not going to pay to run relay servers for third parties to use), so the only reason for this article to exist at all is to try to drum up outrage for pageviews.
Open-sourcing it only matters if the third parties can actually talk to Apple customers using Apple's FaceTime. If third parties can't use Apple's relay servers then they can't talk to Apple customers using Apple FaceTime. If all you're interested in is having some protocol to use for video chatting and don't care about talking to Apple customers, then what's the reason for trying to use FaceTime's protocol? I didn't think they were really doing anything particularly special on the protocol side.
> This is clickbait. Apple was sued by VirtnetX and forced to change how it works such that it relies on relay servers run by Apple. The author knows this, and knows that open sourcing a protocol that relies on Apple’s relay servers doesn’t make sense (because Apple’s not going to pay to run relay servers for third parties to use), so the only reason for this article to exist at all is to try to drum up outrage for pageviews.
I hate to be one of those "you didn't read the article" types, but this is clearly discussed and possible solutions are mentioned in the article.
It was mentioned briefly in one paragraph near the very end of the article, waved away with "Presumably, someone would have to pay for those servers" (which is a complete non-solution), and followed up by "But that doesn't make a broken promise less frustrating".
5 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 22.8 ms ] threadWhy not release the source code required to run a relay server under a permissive license?
> because Apple’s not going to pay to run
They don't have to, if they release the code required to run a relay server.
I hate to be one of those "you didn't read the article" types, but this is clearly discussed and possible solutions are mentioned in the article.
No solutions.