[HN Gopher] The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down
___________________________________________________________________
The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down
Author : thunderbong
Score : 169 points
Date : 2024-04-27 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| ukuina wrote:
| It was very surprising that Apple did not strong-arm the EU by
| threatening to pull out of the area. The short-term loss of
| revenue from leaving the EU is nothing compared to the long-term
| decline this is going to cause in Apple's services/subscriptions
| revenue if the iPhone is commoditized.
| cjk2 wrote:
| There is no way Apple would consider even suggesting pulling
| out of the EU. The shareholders would hang the entire CXO class
| in a nanosecond if they even mentioned it.
| da768 wrote:
| If Android becomes the only platform with a worldwide reach, no
| one's going to bother writing apps for iOS anymore.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's a reach. If you want to make money in mobile apps, you
| target the US first. We could cut out the entirety of the
| rest of the world and the US market would still be plenty big
| enough to drive a lot of developers.
| beardyw wrote:
| Yes and no. iPhone only has about 25% of the world market,
| but developers are keen to develop for them because users are
| more willing to pay for apps. Reach isn't the same as value.
| 4ad wrote:
| There are plenty iOS-only apps already. Reach is worthless if
| you can't monetize it. iOS users simply bring in more money.
| robocat wrote:
| > no one's going to bother writing apps for iOS anymore
|
| Bullshit. By that logic there would be no Mac specific
| software. There was Mac software when Macs were 1% or less of
| computers. 2022: 74% of computers worldwide
| run on Windows, according to StatCounter. This dwarfs macOS,
| which accounts for 15%
| pavlov wrote:
| A quarter of Apple's revenue is from Europe. (This number
| includes the UK and a few other smaller non-EU markets, but
| it's close enough for comparison purposes.)
|
| I don't see what would be "short-term" about pulling out of
| this market entirely. If they lost 25% of their revenue, they'd
| have to increase revenue in other markets by 33% to make up for
| it. Where is that going to come from?
| cydonian_monk wrote:
| This depends on how high the operating costs are in Europe.
| If their profits are approaching zero in the market, pulling
| out of it entirely would have less of an impact. Obviously
| that isn't the case, but operating costs for the market also
| aren't zero.
| layer8 wrote:
| Apple gets 25% of their revenue from Europe, but only 7% of
| their app store revenue. This means that most of their
| Europe revenue is from hardware and AppleCare/services.
| Even if they opened up the app store completely, they would
| lose much less than when pulling out entirely. The fact
| that they work so hard at complicated solutions in order to
| open up the app store as little as possible shows that they
| think it's worth it.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| A lot of the value proposition of owning an Apple device
| is that it doesn't get bogged down by rogue software like
| other phones. So that 25% of revenue that doesn't involve
| App Store revenue can still go down if they mess up the
| App Store too much. But I think as long as rogue apps is
| something you have to opt into with full knowledge of the
| consequences, it should be fine.
| aetherson wrote:
| From Europe, yes, but less is from the EU. They don't break
| this out in public statements so we can only guess at the
| numbers, but less than 25%.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| They tried and lost. They can threaten all they want. The EU
| would let them and good riddance as far as we're concerned. But
| there is this pesky notion that it's a huge market and Apple
| earns a lot of money there. So, they really can't walk away
| from that. For the same reason they play by Chinese rules in
| China. Because it's a big market and they need to be in on that
| as well. And if you think the EU is picky, the Chinese are much
| worse. And of course there's a whole world outside the EU and
| China that is paying attention as well. Apple's negotiation
| position simply is not that strong. It has no real leverage.
| And Apple as a US only company would not be anywhere near it's
| current size and importance. Share holders would revolt. R&D
| investment would implode. It has to be an international company
| for it to justify its share price. So, it has to adjust and
| can't afford to exit markets. It has no choice.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The EU would let them and good riddance as far as we're
| concerned. But there is this pesky notion that it's a huge
| market and Apple earns a lot of money there. So, they really
| can't walk away from that.
|
| Does that not seem contradictory to you? If it's a huge
| market they make a lot of money in, then there's by
| definition a lot of people who don't think "good riddance" if
| they leave. Apple has more leverage than you give them credit
| for.
| alangibson wrote:
| American living in Europe here. in the EU, you can't just
| apply economic logic to everything like you can in the US.
|
| Policymakers will absolutely piss off a huge number of
| people over some basic principle. Look for instance at
| Germany's willingness to burn it's industrial base to the
| ground over Ukraine.
| geoka9 wrote:
| I would argue it's not (just) over Ukraine that Germany
| has finally decided to wean itself off the
| unrealistically cheap natural gas from Russia. In fact,
| the writing has been on the wall for decades; Russian
| leadership never made a big secret out of the fact that
| they considered their gas industry a geopolitical weapon.
| It took a big scare and popular demand to stop the
| wholesale selling out of the German political class to
| Russia.
| Longhanks wrote:
| > Policymakers will absolutely piss off a huge number of
| people over some basic principle.
|
| ...which is why a lot of countries are shifting to the
| right, people are fed up with policymakers ignoring the
| public will.
|
| (Examples: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Italy - next up:
| Germany in 2025, maybe France..?)
| t43562 wrote:
| They only do that because it has worked for them. They've
| done it and survived, which makes me think they haven't
| actually pissed off that many people.
| tebbers wrote:
| I honestly doubt opening up the App Store will cause much of a
| hit. Maybe 5% of users will download another App Store.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| And those users will be the whales who are benefiting from
| lower prices the most.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Yes they would leave something like 1/3 to 1/5 of the global
| revenue, sure that sounds brilliant.
| cjk2 wrote:
| I've got to be honest while I appreciate the direction they are
| forced in, I have yet to find anyone outside the tech industry
| who actually knows or gives a crap.
|
| Also the only reason Epic and Spotify are after them is not some
| altruistic reason but they want to be the guys charging the 30%
| margin.
|
| It's a bit of a grey victory but I'll take it.
| joecot wrote:
| > I have yet to find anyone outside the tech industry who
| actually knows or gives a crap.
|
| Lots of school kids who get mocked for being "Green Texters"
| with crummy images and videos in their group texts. They really
| want their parents to shell out for an iPhone so it stops. Just
| because non-tech people don't know the cause, doesn't mean it
| doesn't affect them.
| abaymado wrote:
| This is an outrageous take. Is iMessage the only group
| messaging app? If Apple was gate keeping all group messaging,
| I could see your point.
| jpalawaga wrote:
| no, it's not, but is the default that works well for a
| large chunk of people, with an (intentionally) poorly
| degrading experience if one person in the group is not with
| the "in-crowd."
|
| Yes, life would be better if everyone mutually agreed to
| use things crossplatform all of the time. but they
| don't/haven't, so there is this friction.
| jwagenet wrote:
| Blame the carriers for not implementing rcs and getting
| stuck in horrible mms. Then blame Apple if they don't
| implement it.
| hu3 wrote:
| Fortunately it's up to regulators to decide what favors
| the population best.
|
| At least in EU they seem to be active (USB iPhones
| anyone), albeit slower than I'd like.
| Longhanks wrote:
| In democracies, usually it's up to the population to
| decide what favors the population best.
|
| Also, in democracies with a somewhat free market, you can
| simply choose not to buy phones that do not ship the port
| you prefer.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| It's not a take; it's simply a description, and it's
| accurate. There is a significant and undeniable social
| pressure for young people in the US to have an iPhone.
|
| If you can't use iMessage, you'll simply be excluded from
| group chats.
|
| Speaking exclusively from the cross-platform perspective,
| things are better nowadays with the expectation of
| Instagram and Discord, but you'll still be excluded from
| group chats for not having iMessage.
|
| I think this is a pretty big generational difference. I
| think most US citizens born after 2000 are well aware of
| the green bubble stigma as a simple fact of life.
| gretch wrote:
| I think it's weird that governments would regulate a
| company on behalf of this reason.
|
| A bunch of teens got together and decided that some
| things were social stigma aren't.
|
| I'm sure there's some schools where you can't be included
| unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or have a MK
| purse. Is it time to step in there too?
| mopenstein wrote:
| When a person or entity doesn't do what you want, of
| course it's time to send in the goons to force them to
| behave.
|
| What's the point of having the goons if you're not going
| to use them?
| lynndotpy wrote:
| > A bunch of teens got together and decided
|
| No, they did not. There is no teenage illuminati pulling
| the strings. The green bubble phenomena appeared
| throughout teen social life as iPhones became widely
| adopted.
|
| > I'm sure there's some schools where you can't be
| included unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or
| have a MK purse.
|
| These are imagined phenomena which don't have bearing on
| the real phenomenon in question.
|
| > Is it time to step in there too?
|
| No. If there comes a time where Abercrombie and control
| widely used social infrastructure, in a way that
| prohibits non-Abercrombie wearers from participating
| through technological means, resulting a widely-
| acknowledged negative social phenomenon, then that'll be
| time to step in there.
|
| But the Abercrombie thing is imagined, and the iPhone
| thing is real and has been happening for a decade.
| gretch wrote:
| I assure it is not imagined as I attended public high
| school in the United States.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| Was I wrong to interpret the phrasing "I'm sure there's
| some schools" to imply you were assuming the existence of
| these schools?
|
| I'm sorry that was your experience, but it's not a
| widespread phenomenon like the green bubble phenomenon
| is.
| meowster wrote:
| It's a very common take that has been around for a very
| long time, so not outrageous in my opinion. Unless you mean
| outrageous on Apple's part, then I agree with you.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Not really. The Department of Justice cited this exact
| behavior in their investigation of Apple.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241443505/green-bubble-
| shami...
| cjk2 wrote:
| I'm not in the US but this is not a thing anywhere in the UK
| at least. Everyone uses WhatsApp. Same with all my friends in
| Europe. Same with my kids and their friends, although they
| all seem to be on SnapChat more than anything.
|
| Actually we don't even tend to bother even talking about
| which phones you have. It's just meh. My best friend doesn't
| even know what iMessage is as an example.
| hu3 wrote:
| It's a US problem. First link of a quick search:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/apples-green-
| bub...
| cjk2 wrote:
| So it's more a problem with the humans than the
| technology.
| rpdillon wrote:
| I think it's economic. The US has free texting these
| days, which means SMS has more usage here than in another
| countries. This has prevented the entire nation from
| coalesing around one chat app, as so many others have.
| cjk2 wrote:
| It has been the same here in the UK for longer. I haven't
| paid for an SMS for over 20 years.
| distances wrote:
| Every country in Europe I'm familiar with has free texts,
| but I think I can count with one hand the SMS I've
| received in the last ~10 years from actual people.
| Absolutely nobody sends SMS over here.
|
| Might be that US got the free texts first though. Not
| sure anymore what was the timeline with that.
| MindSwipe wrote:
| I've had unlimited free texting in western Europe for
| over a decade now, and so have many other western
| Europeans. I've had unlimited free texting for longer
| than I have had unlimited mobile data, yet I still use
| WhatsApp, I even used WhatsApp back when I didn't have
| free unlimited mobile data.
|
| It's not about free texting or not, IMO it's either about
| mobile data or laziness.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Texting has always been free so messaging apps never
| became popular. Most people have always used whatever
| came with the phone.
| t43562 wrote:
| It's very much a problem that Whatsapp isn't using an open
| protocol IMO. I really want to use Signal for my family and
| yet one has to jump from app to app to talk to other
| people.
|
| It's ridiculous - all I'm asking is for the convenience of
| email.
| paulmd wrote:
| > Lots of school kids who get mocked for being "Green
| Texters"
|
| So, you decided to try solving a social problem with a
| technological solution?
|
| Don't make me tap the sign.
|
| Open SMTP relays never made anyone not get bullied in the
| email days either. If the apple is a status symbol, then kids
| will use it to be cruel regardless of the internals or
| regardless of the services it uses on the backend. They will
| find something else to ostracize you over.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Because those same kids aren't going to get mocked for the
| brand of clothing (or lack there of) that they wear?
|
| Using something as an excuse to be a piece of shit is not the
| same as giving a crap. This isnt an example of a good reason
| to do this.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I was a kid not too long ago and no one gave a shit about a
| single luxury item other than iPhones. People who had fancy
| stuff were generally made fun of, the cool kids all wore
| stuff from the thrift store
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The point is that there will _always_ be something that
| kids use to single out and ostracize others. Kids are
| little barbarians who don 't know how to be decent human
| beings yet, it isn't going to change just because they
| have to pick on some other characteristic to mock.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Spotify does not want to charge a "30% margin". Spotify wants
| to not give up 30% of their revenue to Apple, who
| coincidentally had a competing service effectively free from
| the 30% tax.
|
| The epic game store charges 12%; against which developers are
| partially handcuffed due to steams price matching requirement.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Relevant: Spotify already hands over 70% of their revenue to
| music rights holders to cover the various performance and
| mechanical royalties. All of their other operating expenses
| have to fit into the remaining 30%, meaning they often have
| quarters that report a loss.
|
| Apple trying to take 30% of subscriptions while operating a
| competing service as a value-add that can afford to be a loss
| leader is highly anticompetitive.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Even the most extreme Apple position isn't trying to take
| 30% of all of Spotifys revenue, they're trying to take 30%
| of each subscription originated on-device, for the first
| year of that customer. Which is still a huge cut, and still
| a problem that doesn't encumber Apple Music, but the
| business question for Spotify is "do the incremental
| subscribers make sense (in quality and quantity), not "sell
| one subscription and Apple eats our entire operating
| budget".
|
| A better Apple (with less adversarial partners) might have
| tried to structure the commission as a profit share, not a
| rev share, to keep high and low margin businesses on the
| platform, but alas.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I'm not sure that needed clarification but sure
| toasterlovin wrote:
| The crazy thing is that Spotify has already proven that
| in-app subscription on iOS isn't necessary to their
| business, since they've already succeeded in becoming the
| most popular music service without it!
|
| But of course that's not going to keep them from asking
| their government to give them more.
| criddell wrote:
| Small correction: Apple was getting 15% from Spotify, not
| 30%.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Yes, but a sweetheart deal to avoid a legal battle for the
| greater good with the few entities that have sufficient
| mass to potentially win at court is a scummy thing in its
| own right
| kevingadd wrote:
| How is it "charging a 30% margin" to keep more of your own
| revenue? Epic wants everyone to be able to keep more of their
| own revenue; they proved this by rejecting the sweetheart deal
| Apple offered them. If a company's revenues are 30% higher they
| now have the ability to lower their prices (unless one of the
| major players demands price parity to thwart competition, as
| does happen)
| s1k3s wrote:
| > Apple executive Eddy Cue pushed for an Android iMessage app in
| 2016, but Craig Federighi responded in an internal email that
| "iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to
| iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
|
| This conversation happened 8 years ago and it was about a product
| released 12 years ago. If anything, this shows how slow
| regulators are before they take any action and how they are
| effectively contributing to building the garden walls, through
| inaction.
| aurareturn wrote:
| The truth is, all businesses do what Craig suggested.
|
| AirBnB isn't opening up their platform to Expedia. Meta isn't
| allowing your Instagram data to be accessed by another
| platform. Your own company isn't voluntarily making it easier
| for its customers to leave.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Exactly. It should be expected from any company to do this,
| which is why I'm blaming the regulatory agencies for being
| too slow to act.
| talldayo wrote:
| Well, yes. It's a great reason to not let businesses decide
| on these things, because their petty interpretation will
| _always_ override a communal solution. Once you reach Apple
| 's scale, you shouldn't expect to start replacing stuff like
| SMS with a proprietary alternative and get away with it.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| Maybe Apple's "scale" is because its users do not enjoy
| being shackled to crappy SMS?
| talldayo wrote:
| Maybe so; it doesn't really matter when you're looking at
| damages. It's Apple's job to solve interoperability with
| their own platform, and _not only_ have they failed to
| provide SMS-levels of interop, they actively work against
| it to promote ulterior products. It 's exactly the sort
| of anticompetitive bundling that harms the market without
| improving competition.
|
| Maybe Ma Bell's success was in-part due to their free
| long-distance calls. It's kinda moot speculation when you
| look at their top-down business strategy though.
| paulmd wrote:
| Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted
| internet messaging platforms because the experience
| sucks.
|
| Running the IM equivalent of an open SMTP relay is a
| ghastly experience for users. You literally have to
| gatekeep because the alternative is going back to
| circa-2000 levels of spam.
|
| Deep down you know exactly what would happen because
| we've all lived it with spam voice calls again recently -
| we've been trying to reach you about your car's
| warranty...
|
| Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple
| platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the
| explicit goal for a lot of people. The pain is the point
| - not to bring android up but simply to tear things down
| and walk away.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative
| is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam.
|
| The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by
| Google. What are you talking about? Do you not use
| e-mail? They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam
| - that is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if
| they wanted to. They just don't, because those same
| companies are Google Ads customers.
| paulmd wrote:
| > The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by
| Google. What are you talking about?
|
| It is certainly not lmao - try sending mail to google
| from your own smtp server on your own doma
|
| Seeing some spam occasionally doesn't mean the vast
| majority isn't being rej
|
| > They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam - that
| is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if they
| wanted to.
|
| opting into newsletters is explicitly not spam, so either
| you don't understand the basics of being on the internet
| or you're arguing in bad faith.
|
| Which is probably also implied by the "I saw a spam once
| therefore google runs an open SMTP relay" take honestly.
| You know that's not true either. We both know you know.
| Why are you doing this?
|
| again:
|
| Google doesn't provide your desired standard of openness
| either, in their own oligopolistic fiefs/gatekeeper
| domains like gmail. And everyone understand why it's a
| bad idea. Forced open interop is an unworkable idea and
| forcing an unworkable idea on iMessage is the whole goal.
| Flooding iMessage with spam 2000s-style by forcing an
| "open relay" into the system is the whole point, whether
| you realize it or not.
|
| Just like forcing "choice of browser" was never about
| giving users freedom either - but about wiping away the
| last counterbalance against chrome's dominance/monopoly
| in the browser market. Hence the flood of shit like web
| integrity and adtech ever since.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Marketing email subscriptions you were tricked into
| signing up for isn't what people consider spam. In fact,
| Google provides a nice feature to unsubscribe from those
| without looking for a link in the email.
|
| Now, the spam argument for iMessage makes little sense
| IMO - you're still going to get the same message via SMS.
| However, with Apple in charge, there is a chance that
| there will be some kind of "report + temporal ban"
| feature. Carriers have no incentive to create such
| feature.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted
| internet messaging platforms because the experience
| sucks.
|
| Maybe Apple should lead the charge on that, or instead
| they'll be forced to use something truly godawful like
| OMEMO or RCS. I'd prefer they didn't, but it would be
| pretty funny if they were forced down that path in the
| long-run.
|
| > Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple
| platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the
| explicit goal for a lot of people.
|
| A more believable motive than being one of the millions
| of non-Apple customers that are subject to using an
| inferior messaging standard? Apple made their bed by
| believing they could proprietate a public resource; now
| _you 've_ got to lie in it because you're their customer.
| Frankly I (and regulators) could care less what iMessage
| looks like once it's all done.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Apple users would be less shackled to crappy SMS if Apple
| put iMessage on Android.
| mfuzzey wrote:
| Why shackled to SMS? I don't have an iPhone don't use
| iMessager and haven't sent a SMS in the past 10 years.
| Everything these days is What'sApp / Telegram / Signal
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Apple didn't replace SMS. It is still there on every
| iPhone, and they expanded SMS reach for iPhone users who
| have other devices like iPad and macOs systems.
|
| In what universe do you exist where SMS was removed?
| talldayo wrote:
| HN tells me that there's only one more step left after
| embracing and extending. Apple didn't make some mistake
| putting iMessage and SMS in the same app, they want you
| reliant on their service so that SMS seems (rightfully)
| poor by comparison.
|
| There would be nothing wrong with that if Apple wasn't
| equally as miserly with that power as the carriers they
| want to valiantly protest against. I'm no fan of cell
| carriers either, but now that we see Apple's end-goal I
| don't think their cause is righteous at all. In the
| friendliest of interpretations, they are a competing
| alternative enabled by disproportionate first-party
| integration on Apple's behalf. It doesn't take long to
| extrapolate their motives for deliberately neglecting
| cross-platform interoperability to bolster their market
| presence.
|
| If it harms the market, prevents fair competition, and
| doesn't benefit the general public, there is no rational
| reason to let iMessage persist the way it is today.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple never got rid of SMS. And there has been no embrace
| or extend.
|
| All they did was put an optional message service in the
| same app.
|
| One that isn't even the most popular making it strange to
| say there is no competition.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > All they did was put an optional message service in the
| same app.
|
| They did a bit more than that. There were the glory days
| that if you ever left the Apple ecosystem, but iMessage
| ever had an awareness of your number, no other iMessage
| users could reach you until or unless you did some
| incantations that Apple didn't make obvious, ideally from
| an Apple device (that you may not own anymore), to allow
| your friends to keep sending you even green bubble
| messages?
|
| I know multiple people who had to go to Apple stores to
| try to do this process.
| simonh wrote:
| I don't see that removing or crippling an option a lot of
| users rely on improves the market, or competition.
|
| Doesn't benefit the public? Are happy iPhone users that
| rely on iMessage every day including it's SMS integration
| not benefited, or not the public?
| mopenstein wrote:
| Why let the businesses create anything at all? Why not
| regulate the creation of everything?
| talldayo wrote:
| Better question; why allow them access to the market if
| their only intention is to abuse it?
|
| Apple can create whatever they want, but they're going to
| get the scrutiny they deserve. iMessage should be an on-
| ramp to better communications for everyone; instead it's
| become the flaming symbol of Apple's deliberate
| negligence. This is absolutely the point regulators
| should be stepping in and ensuring Apple isn't headed
| down an anti-consumer pathway that ensures market harm.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Companies shouldn't be expected to individually make
| suboptimal decisions in order to preserve the health of the
| market. They should be regulated by a functioning government.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Let's just say that the government decided in the year 2005
| that no private company can ship something that will
| replace SMS as the defacto messaging system because it
| wants interoperability.
|
| We would have never had iMessage, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc.
| Other countries would have far surpassed us in messaging
| communication tech.
|
| Regulations are a double edged sword.
| manquer wrote:
| SMTP, IMAP and POP did not prevent gmail or outlook from
| launching products
|
| 2G/3G/4G/5g did not hinder the mobile industry it only
| fostered it .
|
| Standard payment interface like UPI did not stop apps for
| payments being built , India didn't need a Venmo or
| WeeChat to innovate here before standardization
|
| Innovations happen despite or without regulations if
| there is market demand for it . FRAND patents exist for a
| reason.
|
| I can't think of any common example where
| interoperability killed innovation
| aurareturn wrote:
| Sure, and SMS is the protocol equivalent.
|
| A lot of email protocol communication has been replaced
| by private, non-open solutions such as Slack, forums,
| Whatsapp, etc.
|
| There should be open and closed protocols. If you want to
| use an open one, then go ahead, If a closed one works
| better for you, then go ahead.
| adolph wrote:
| > SMTP, IMAP and POP did not prevent gmail or outlook
| from launching products
|
| . . . and likewise did not require regulation for
| companies to be interested in adopting.
| layer8 wrote:
| We had lots of progress despite regulation of technical
| standards in the past. And the regulation doesn't have to
| force a particular communication protocol, it could
| simply be forcing a separation between hardware and
| communication providers.
| taxikabs wrote:
| That's a poor option to regulate from. They could just as
| easily have required messaging apps to make their
| protocols open, allowing for competition in the app space
| messaging over them and not facing lock in.
| aurareturn wrote:
| So what's the financial incentive for companies to
| develop & maintain open standard messaging protocols? For
| example, I'm sure it costs Meta a pretty penny to
| facilitate messages with central servers, store
| historical messages, and pay engineers to maintain and
| develop new features. If they have then be forced to open
| up Messenger for free, they might not have started
| Messenger in the first place.
|
| Also, SMS is the open protocol so we have at least one
| interoperable standard for people to choose from.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Facebook users needed to be able to communicate with each
| other. That's a business requirement no regulation can
| deter.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| This is why executives should be tossed in jail instead of a
| company being fined.
| simonh wrote:
| If they break the law, sure, if they put features in their
| products that are perfectly legal but that you happen to
| dislike not so much.
| asah wrote:
| bad example? you can book hotels etc on AirBnB and everybody
| offers listing services which crosspost across the booking
| sites. There are few exclusives in the travel industry.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > "iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle
| to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
|
| This statement says a few extra things that Craig Federighi
| probably didn't realize he was saying.
|
| 1) It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its own
| in a market where interoperability with Android was easier.
| That demonstrates a lack of faith in it.
|
| 2) I've noticed that any time a corporation starts to clutch
| its fingers around its flagship product and make it less open,
| it starts to die. Oh sure, there's an upfront benefit perhaps
| in sales, but you're literally selling the future of your thing
| to profit from it today, by doing this.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its
| own in a market where interoperability with Android was
| easier
|
| It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to trump
| every other consideration, unless the difference is pretty
| big. See also airline ticket pricing and the race to the
| bottom in comfort & features. If there is no differentiator,
| a lot of people will just get Android phones because they
| cost less. They'll put up with quite a lot of abuse as long
| as they save a few bucks. It'd probably end up like gmail.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to
| trump every other consideration, unless the difference is
| pretty big.
|
| But, huge swaths of the public regularly pay much more than
| the minimum required to have better:
|
| * Cars
|
| * Clothing
|
| * Restaurants
|
| * Theater seats
|
| These are just the first few that come to mind.
|
| Now, is the difference between high- and low-end clothing
| "pretty big"? I guess it depends on what you mean, but both
| will fundamentally cover your body.
|
| For airlines, people just want to get from point A to point
| B, and nothing else really matters at the end of the day.
| Even on higher end airlines, flying is unlikely to be a
| truly pleasant experience, unless maybe you pay almost an
| order of magnitude more for first class or something.
| People just want to get it over with.
|
| I mean, I think we're saying the same thing here. But
| whereas I feel you're framing this as a "bug" in how
| consumers operate, I think they're behaving quite
| logically. People will pay more for things they actually
| care about. When they don't care, they choose the cheapest
| option.
| realusername wrote:
| That's exactly why both Apple and Google needs to be
| opened up. Cars, clothing and restaurants do compete on
| the offering.
| VelesDude wrote:
| Regarding No 2. That is very true but it is astounding just
| how much inertia is in the system that keeps iPhone going.
|
| Turns out that the curated experience of iPhone combined with
| a lot of fumbles from various android vendors has kept iPhone
| image of being the best and most desirable phone.
|
| It is very vaguely feeling like if another big player was to
| come in they could actually make some waves that causes
| everyone else to jump. To the benefit of the users. But I
| doubt that will happen.
| 0x457 wrote:
| After 5 years of android, I've never been happier to switch
| back to iPhone.
| sonofhans wrote:
| I'm struggling to see what's wrong with Federighi's argument.
| Why should he not want to protect Apple's position? Apple has
| no monopoly on mobile messaging or hardware, and they didn't 8
| years ago either, so they can do what they like here.
|
| What is Apple supposed to do? Spend time and money on interop
| to better the lives of Android users? There's nothing wrong
| with them doing so if they like, but I fail to see any
| obligation they have.
| Teever wrote:
| You're right. They obviously have no motivation to do the
| correct thing, so the solution is government regulation.
|
| We live in a world where every landline telephone can dial
| another with no trickery or fuckery from your phone
| manufacturer.
|
| That is a good thing. We should extend that functionally to
| smartphones.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _They obviously have no motivation to do the correct
| thing, so the solution is government regulation._
|
| The solution to what? Apple supports SMS/MMS. They've pre-
| announced (something they rarely do) RCS support. They
| support VoLTE for HD voice calls.
|
| Let's say the federal government eminent-domains iMessage
| protocols. Then what? Do you really think Apple's just
| going to carry traffic from untrusted devices, and for
| free?
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| what "correct thing"? i can text people who use android
| phones just fine. TBH this all boils down to the ridiculous
| blue / green bubble thing. that's the ONLY difference in
| texting between devices. i honestly have no clue why apple
| would be regulated in any way over this!
| stuartd wrote:
| It's not the only difference, at least where I live - I
| have to significantly reduce image sizes to send them to
| Android users..
| simonh wrote:
| Which is a limitation of the messaging protocol. Apple
| has announced they will add support for RCS this year,
| which should address these issues.
| Teever wrote:
| And why are they adding RCS?
|
| Because the EU is starting to regulate them so theyve
| stopped dragging their ass on this.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Because RCS has reached the point where it should be
| taken seriously.
|
| The bulk of apples iPhone business is on US carriers.
| Who, on a good day, are in the Stone Age.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| If you think that Apple supporting RCS has to do with the
| tech and not with regulatory pressure, I have a bridge in
| Arizona to sell you.
| selectodude wrote:
| It was actually China.
| robocat wrote:
| Costs me $0.5 to send an image or other MMS locally to
| Android. Even a txt costs me if the Android is overseas.
| I have a cheap plan in New Zealand.
|
| Blue/green might be irrelevant to you, but it is
| definitely not irrelevant to many people.
| gretch wrote:
| > Costs me $0.5 to send an image or other MMS
|
| > Even a txt costs me if the Android is overseas
|
| Sounds like your telecom sucks. Why are you demanding
| something of Apple. Why don't you get your government to
| regulate your own telecoms?
| robocat wrote:
| > Why are you demanding something of Apple
|
| Not me. I object to you making up bullshit about me. I
| just stated facts - no opinions given.
| simonh wrote:
| Sorry, you think Apple is charging you these carrier
| fees? Hilarious.
| robocat wrote:
| Whats with the false accusation?
| sonofhans wrote:
| You're going to have to be much more specific if you want
| to make any sense. All cell phones can already call other
| cell phones. All cell phones can already message other cell
| phones.
| Teever wrote:
| Yeah, exactly, and we should continue to see the
| regulated implementation of these kinds of
| interoperability at all levels of the stack.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| You ignore that for a while that actually wasn't the
| case. If you left the Apple ecosystem, for multiple years
| the steps to get your number/account disassociated from
| iMessage so your contacts could reach you by SMS again
| were not default, not obvious, and not disclosed.
| swingingFlyFish wrote:
| I think when companies become a 'necessity' like this, they have
| to be regulated or broken up. I'm not a big fan of Apple taking a
| commission if you port an app to their phone and I loathe the
| idea of having to use iCloud if I want to use Apple Pay, in fact,
| can't stand the idea of a phone company being my credit card
| company/bank either.
|
| And don't get me started on non standard USB...what was that? I
| applaud the EU stepping in and quite frankly i'm looking forward
| to Apple being broken up. It's that time.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I disagree. _I_ think that when companies become a "necessity"
| like this, they end up resting on their laurels because they
| won the economic game. And what happens next will happen
| regardless of regulation or not: They will begin their long but
| steady decline into irrelevance.
|
| I state this as a huge Apple fan since 1984 when my family
| bought the first Mac: The best things to ever happen to Apple
| were almost dying in 1997, and (essentially, despite the M
| chips being fantastic technologically) losing the PC war (which
| I will argue was not due to price, but to 2 things: 1) failure
| to embrace the AAA gaming market and thus the mindshare of the
| next generation, and 2) re-closing the Mac platform after it
| was open, which it only did because the news kept reporting
| only on the impact to Apple sales and not the overall Mac
| market, which was actually growing at the time!)
|
| > And don't get me started on non standard USB
|
| Do you mean Lightning? That was a massive improvement (both
| physically in terms of design, by being reversible and
| supporting higher voltages as well as being durable) on both
| mini and micro USB and came out long before USB-C existed. And
| to this day, Apple devices are STILL some of the few devices
| that fully support the USB-C spec, as opposed to all the
| Chinese crapware that uses a USB-C plug but will fail to charge
| when plugged into anything but a USB-A charger because someone
| picked the cheap way out.
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| Something I keep thinking about is how we're seeing the end of
| what I call the "tech zeitgeist".
|
| Started upon realizing that we've likely seen the end of the
| social network era. No new social networking startups have
| popped-off in a while, and the recent ones are arguably more
| about connecting you to entertainers than friends.
|
| Besides that, a lot of the tech ideas from 2012-2020 have kind of
| fizzled out. 3D printing will likely never enter the mainstream.
| VR/AR has failed to launch. In broad strokes, everything has
| either reached maturity or faded away.
|
| AI is the one exception it seems, and when you realize that you
| start to realize that all the hype and money being poured into AI
| may be more out of desperation than anything else. It's AI or
| nothing it seems.
|
| And then, you have Apple at what is arguably its most vulnerable,
| while many other tech giants go through some kind of
| enshittification phase.
|
| Can't wait for the end personally.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| I notice you didn't mention drones...
| pjmlp wrote:
| They are turning into a military success in Eastern Europe.
| delfinom wrote:
| The online tech space is reaching maturity. It went from
| nothing in the 90s to the global scale industry we have today.
| The winners have been chosen and the reality is infinite growth
| does not exist, infinite ideas do not exist.
|
| But for 2 decades it seemed like tech was the be it all path
| for infinite growth. VCs pumped in hundreds of billions of
| dollars into the industry. Marketing painted everything as the
| next big thing as the money flowed and you had 3000 clone
| startups for every potential SaaS.
|
| The money tap has run out (interest rates being one factor, but
| cracks were showing even before this), the bills are coming
| due. The industry is consolidating.
|
| AI however is the last big hurrah for the industry. Investors
| and companies see it potentially as a big new exlosive growth
| space.
|
| Yes, the entire stock market right now in the US is being held
| up by all the AI sentiment. Though it's starting to deflate.
| qiine wrote:
| It sure feels like 3D printing especially "desktop" has trouble
| improving recently, and is nowhere near democratized like
| classic printer, and its not entirely a hardware problem.
| sircastor wrote:
| Part of the trouble with 3D printing is that its utility is
| limited if you don't know how to design, and not everyone
| wants to learn.
|
| If you have no CAD/modeling experience, making something
| custom is limited to the simple variation available in the
| software, or you just buy off the shelf models. 3D printing
| skeptics said that 3D printers were just for making worthless
| junk.
|
| There's an opportunity coming with an LLM-style text-to-model
| generator. I saw one recently and it is pretty exciting.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Agree. For me personally, 3d printing has been a "hit" and
| the printers keep getting better, cheaper and more
| reliable. Good bed levelling, multi-head, failure detection
| etc are reaching the mainstream and the printers I have now
| are amazingly better than what I started with.
|
| But most people (reasonably) don't seem that interested in
| making small plastic things. It's a niche thing to want to
| do and as you point out, there's a learning curve. Plus
| materials and process limitations mean that a printed item
| will generally be inferior to a bought one unless you
| designed it yourself to meet your exact use-case.
| smokel wrote:
| I find this a strange perspective. There are many tech ideas
| which have barely even started. Quantum computing, space
| travel, DNA modification, climate control, to name a few. These
| will all affect a lot of humans in the future, unless we mess
| something up.
|
| Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment, and you focus
| more on the media and communication part of tech?
| VelesDude wrote:
| More on localized tech that we use directly day to day. All
| the things you mentioned are big scale things that need large
| economic inputs, some larger than entire small nations to get
| off the ground. While they can impact us, they are things
| that are much more nebulous and vague to experience.
| yinser wrote:
| Why is Apple the most vulnerable? What is the argument? Half
| the planet uses their devices and their users see it as a
| superior product.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| For you, is there nothing on earth beyond US borders? Last I
| checked, android was dominant, specially in poor countries
| (whereost people live)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The last thing we need is another race to the bottom.
| Android gets new features to be competitive, if they
| dominate by basically giving away their product it'll be
| the end of any innovation. And we have ample evidence that
| Google is not even slightly more altruistic than Apple.
| hnfong wrote:
| I'm guessing GP means the other Big Tech companies have some
| kind of rent-seeking operation because they already have a
| tight grasp of some big moat. Eg. Google has Search that
| isn't going anywhere soon; Meta owns pretty much all the
| social media platforms that are making money; Microsoft has
| inserted itself everywhere; etc...
|
| And the "only" thing that Apple has is just happy users, who
| aren't as bound to having to buy or use Apple products and
| could in theory switch whenever they wanted. It's much easier
| to give up using Apple products than say wean on Google
| products.
| yinser wrote:
| "AI is only successful because these other unrelated tech super
| cycles are failing (they're not)" is an insane argument. No one
| researches AI because 3D printing failed. Meta doesn't buy
| H100s as a last resort. It's a huge opportunity and the start
| of a an enormous super cycle that offers new services to
| customers and improves existing platforms.
| 015a wrote:
| > No one researches AI because 3D printing failed.
|
| Yes you do. Maybe not specifically, but: AI research only
| happens because companies and capital firms have invested
| billions of dollars into paying the salaries of people who do
| the research. AI is the latest category in a string of
| categories which have dominated the zeitgeist, to varying
| degrees of success; crypto was definitely the most recent
| prior, and AI definitely seems to be doing better than that.
|
| AI is only successful because there exists billions of
| dollars in undeployed capital looking for returns. That's
| reality; and it states something similar enough to "AI is
| only successful because the other super-cycles failed" that
| the statement gets a pass; if crypto still offered strong
| ROI, there would be a lot less capital available for AI, and
| AI is extremely capital intensive.
| evilduck wrote:
| > 3D printing will likely never enter the mainstream.
|
| I'm going to argue that it still might. I've been at it for
| about 5 years now and when I started printing my local Micro
| Center didn't carry anything related to 3D printers. Then they
| picked up the Ender 3 a few years back as the one printer they
| offered and they had a dozen basic color options of filament on
| the end of one side of an isle. Today that same store stocks at
| least 6 different printers on display and there's one and a
| half isles of a variety of filament options and another half
| isle of parts. And while Micro Center employees are usually
| more technically inclined than other retail employees, they
| themselves seemed to have gone from wondering what this odd
| Maker enthusiast carried up to the register to initiating
| conversations about your selections and comparing them to their
| own purchases. They wouldn't dedicate the floor space, let
| alone expand it continually and invest in larger and more
| expensive inventory if it wasn't selling at an increased rate.
| It's still a niche maker/techie hobby of course, but it's
| expanding more rapidly now than ever before.
| VelesDude wrote:
| I'm not sure that it will ever go 'mainstream' but it looks
| like it will have a vibrant and stable future ahead. It is
| taking the slow boring but reliable path upwards. Better than
| crashing and burning.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| My non-technical neighbors have 3D printers, so I think it is
| definitely heading mainstream. Maybe not for the older
| generation, but definitely for young people. And outfits like
| Bambu Labs are pushing it even farther that way. Automatic
| everything, pick models from your phone, just insert the
| filament into a hole and you're done. The real obstacle is the
| difficulty making your own models, but many people go quite a
| while before hitting that limit; you can get models for a lot
| of common everyday things without having to design it yourself.
| VelesDude wrote:
| It was bound to happen. Think about it. What was the last big
| application on the Desktop? Chrome in 2008 is probably the
| last.
|
| The last really big advance in apps? Big new social media as
| you said? New communication paradigm.
|
| Heck Smart watches where the real last big technology device
| and. Their sales while yes in the hundreds of millions are a
| shadow compared with things like smart phones.
|
| I think we are seeing the entire industry calcifying around us.
| And a lot of folks know this. Thus the rush from a subset of
| folks that are trying to get in on the ground floor of anything
| tech like that they can possible pump and dump their way to
| riches. Crypto, NFS, AI over hype, VR, AR, Web 3 etc.
|
| Soon we may have to accept that we are going form the fun fresh
| upstart stage to mature stable and boring faze. The entire tech
| industry will be IBM.
| 015a wrote:
| I think, at least, Apple has taken multiple losses over the
| past year which should concern long-time fans of the company.
| Vision Pro had very low expectations, and failed to even meet
| those, now almost forgotten by even some people who own one.
| They invested billions into developing a car, which never
| materialized and has now been shut down. They're pretty far
| behind in AI? Like, we'll see how far behind (or not) come WWDC
| I suspect, but the CEO of the Browser Company is throwing
| fighting words like "the situation is ten times worse than you
| think" [1]. And AI is damn bubbly anyway; it _may_ be the case
| that investments there don 't pay off.
|
| I'm not sure I entirely agree that we're coming to the end of
| the tech zeitgeist; tech still absolutely runs the markets and
| world. But I do believe a part of that, at least, is happening:
| Apple is losing control of the marketing narrative for consumer
| tech. And, its not obvious that anyone is well positioned right
| now to pick up their mantle. The next decade is going to be
| super exciting; I suspect we'll continue to see lots of
| experimentation, devices like the Humane pin and R1, lots of
| failures, hopefully some successes, as companies narrow in on
| what's next.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/lvw-85-6-4s?t=284
| fidotron wrote:
| The thing people love forgetting is a huge part of the iPhone
| success is based on the North American cellular comms industry
| being a trustless disaster area. The deal Apple did with AT&T
| opened the floodgates.
|
| Android was initially designed so that operators could customise
| it. The idea was apps were developed (and sold) only by
| operators, and everything else would be via the browser. If you
| had used a Nokia device in the EU in 2005 and then the exact same
| model in the customised form released on a US carrier you'd
| understand why this was such a terrible idea. The exclusion of
| carriers from being able to make modifications to the phone was,
| and remains, an active feature for end users.
|
| People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted
| either, someone somewhere will always trend towards the very
| worst thing they can do, and you need look no further than this
| forum for the levels of avarice which have overrun the tech
| industry. The EU regulators live in a parallel universe where
| they're all dependent on WhatsApp as they've never truly
| internalised that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that
| people see them as easy marks.
| api wrote:
| I summarize the second point as "the Internet is a dark
| forest."
|
| If it's bad and it can be done it will be done, and at scale.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| You have neatly summarized why I feel strongly that the
| Internet has become a liability to humanity. I have no
| illusions that we can shut it down or walk away... but on a
| personal level I am trying harder than ever to remove it from
| my own life. If I can stay off Reddit, well, I can eventually
| remove it all I think!
| api wrote:
| Use it for the things it's useful for and avoid the
| addictionware, rage bait, gambling, and other trash.
| grugagag wrote:
| It's still too much of a time sink and even staying away
| from the bad parts brings so much distraction that we
| forget how to enjoy the simple things in life that make
| it worthwhile. Reading a book or watching a movie offline
| are cherished experiences many forgot how to savor in
| peace. Or leaving some questions unanswered for a while
| without wanting instant responses. Not to mention many
| forgo the outdoors entirely just in favor of time spent
| doing one thing or another online.
| VelesDude wrote:
| I am down to Hacker news, local weather updates when I
| remember and the occasional wiki look up. A few podcasts .
| The local library is now more my jam.
|
| I have been tracking my data use and last year it was only
| 70GB. And I have trimmed a bit more out of that since,
| especially on the podcast side which was the bulk of the
| data. It is getting to the point where I might just use my
| photo data plan which now has 120GB a year as it is more
| than enough.
| lupusreal wrote:
| That's a nice history lesson but sideloading alternate
| appstores (namely F-Droid) on Android works great and Apple
| shouldn't be allowed to forbid the same on iOS. And I don't
| give a damn about the "grandma conned into sideloading scam
| apps" scenario. Grandma is getting scammed over regular
| phonecalls already anyway.
| glitchcrab wrote:
| So to extrapolate, you're fine with your grandma being
| scammed via a new avenue because she's already being scammed
| in other ways?
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I think the GP regards the scams as an acceptable price to
| pay for additional user choice, which is a reasonable
| position.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Scams exist because the scamming industry is a large
| fraction of gdp in some countries and the byzantine
| financial system doesn't allow for reversing charges.
| VelesDude wrote:
| It is also possible to keep safe guard in. You have to
| explicitly enable side loading side loading for instance.
| quickslowdown wrote:
| Sure, if you only focus on that one piece of their comment,
| but who wants to be that pedantic?
| lupusreal wrote:
| My grandma has an android phone and I'm fine with her
| having a phone that could permit her to sideload an app.
| Having a phone number at all is a far more serious threat,
| and I presume you are fine with your grandmother having one
| even though a scammer could talk her into giving up her
| bank details or buying dozens of gift cards and reading out
| the codes.
|
| The solution to the grandmother scenarios is to have a
| trusted relative that works closely with them, who they
| trust to copilot or handle completely all business
| dealings. If that's not possible, then they're at risk
| whether they have an iphone or android.
| fidotron wrote:
| So what you want is to remove the option of safety from those
| that want it because you personally do not see the need for
| it.
|
| iOS is not close to a monopoly. People are perfectly free to
| have Android devices and side load apps on to them. It is
| curious that the campaigning focuses so strongly on
| destroying the high trust part that exists and not on
| promoting a trusted setup on Android.
| jonp888 wrote:
| Erm, what? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
|
| It's perfectly reasonable for the default setting of a
| phone to forbid sideloading apps. And anyone who doesn't
| want to can leave it that way. That's the 'option of
| safety'.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| Until such time as a big player like Epic or Facebook
| decides that the only way you're getting their apps is by
| using a store they control and can bypass all permission
| controls on. When that happens it's going to become
| 2000's browser toolbars all over again
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That hasn't yet happened on Android. While it might
| happen on iOS, it's not reasonable to assume that it
| _will_ happen.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| It has already happened on android in the case of Epic.
| They require that you side load their launcher/store in
| order to play games such as Fortnite. There was a big
| lawsuit about google's fees which precipitated this.
|
| https://www.fortnite.com/mobile/android/new-
| device?lang=en-U...
| fr4nkr wrote:
| > People are perfectly free to have Android devices and
| side load apps on to them.
|
| And people who do not like "unsafe" technology are
| perfectly free to not use it at all.
|
| If you make something idiot-proof, they will simply provide
| a better idiot.
| labcomputer wrote:
| > And people who do not like "unsafe" technology are
| perfectly free to not use it at all.
|
| Not if legislators make it illegal to sell an
| alternative...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Grandma doesn't have to install an alternate app store or
| sideload apps, and she can sill rely on the same "high
| trust" environment that allows for apps like "LassPass" to
| scam her in the Apple App Store.
|
| Hell, when she is scammed, Apple apologists will tell her
| it's not really that bad, and to get off Apple's case about
| it...
|
| Gruber:
|
| > Instead, the scam LassPass app tries to steer you to
| creating a "pro" account subscription for $2/month,
| $10/year, or a $50 lifetime purchase. _Those are actually
| low prices for a scam app_ -- a lot of scammy apps try to
| charge like $10 /week.
|
| (emphasis mine)
|
| Lucky people, I guess? They could have been scammed for
| more?
|
| He also claims, without any way to know, that "it doesn't
| look like this was made to steal LastPass credentials".
|
| The whole article is very much a "yeah it sucks and
| shouldn't happen, but this is no big deal, really, why are
| you getting all up in Apple's face about it?" vibe.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's like talking about "removing the option" of slavery.
| Nobody is proposing keeping you from working for free, or
| from strictly using apps approved by and distributed from
| Apple.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Android was initially designed so that operators could
| customise it. ... The exclusion of carriers from being able to
| make modifications to the phone was, and remains, an active
| feature for end users.
|
| Japanese Android phones bought from carriers are fucking
| horrible because they have modifications both from the
| manufacturer (eg: Sony, Samsung) _and the carrier_.
|
| I wonder if this is partially why Japan is among the few
| markets led by iOS rather than Android. I hate iOS, but Android
| from Japanese carriers is such a hellscape it might just be
| worth tolerating the former.
| baby wrote:
| If you think about it, this is one of the reasons I like
| macOS. Back then, buying a PC with windows meant having a lot
| of crap installed by default. Not sure if it's still the case
| because I haven't bought a PC in ages, but I remember that
| formatting my computer and reinstalling windows was step 1
| when I was buying a brand new laptop/PC.
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| What you describe is the main reason I like Linux, but at
| last check the reinstall trick doesn't even work anymore
| because a lot of the preloaded software can get reinstalled
| automatically even if you install from non-OEM media. Its
| still probably better than trusting the preinstalled OS in
| the world of state sponsored spying and supply chain
| attacks.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Back then, buying a PC with windows meant having a lot
| of crap installed by default._
|
| Maybe in the US/West when you bought prebuilt form the
| likes of Dell. But in my home of EE, most PCs we had for
| sale in shops were locally assembled with no OS, or just
| vanilla OEM Windows installed (sometimes even pirated).
|
| Crap installed by default on PCs is not something I ever
| encountered where I live.
| ndiddy wrote:
| Windows still comes with a lot of crap installed by
| default, the difference is that Microsoft has decided to
| cut out the OEMs and preload the crap themselves (a clean
| install of Windows 11 Professional comes with apps for
| Roblox, TikTok, and Disney Plus among others) so the
| "install from retail media" trick no longer works unless
| you also pirate the LTSC or Education editions of Windows.
| jbr1ckl3y wrote:
| It's not simple but it is doable:
|
| 1. Format a flash drive with two partitions 2. Burn the
| Windows installer ISO to the first partition 3. Download
| all the drivers to the second partition 4. Flash the BIOS
| with the latest version 5. Ensure you are NOT connected
| to the Internet and boot flash drive 6. Install Windows,
| disallow the metrics they let you opt-out 7. Creating a
| local account works because offline 8. Install drivers
| avoid add-on software from manufacturer 9. Edit local
| group policy - enable "Turn off Microsoft Consumer
| Experience" 9a. Alternatively, edit the Registry,
| DisableWindowsConsumerFeatures in
| HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\CloudContent 10.
| Connect Internet, check for updates reboot a few times
| 11. Open Microsoft Store and uninstall any junk apps
| (stubs) 12. Install whatever other software you desire
| 13. Configure your update settings so it is less annoying
| jmholla wrote:
| Good guide. But holy hell.
| harpiaharpyja wrote:
| Pretty much. What made the PC era work as well as it did was a
| strong base of power users, that could choose what tech to use
| and what to sideline.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> What made the PC era work as well as it did was a strong
| base of power users_
|
| No, power users rarely influenced mainstream adoption of any
| tech. Apple and the rest didn't become trillion dolar corps
| by catering to power users. Power users are niche and very
| picky market not worth catering to if you want to make it
| big.
|
| What made the "WIntel/IBM" PC gain majority mainstream market
| share was that is was all open(not to be confused with open
| source) which allowed everyone, not just power users, but
| regular users too, and also any HW vendor and SW developer to
| decide what HW and SW they can develop and sell to users, and
| what users can install on their system, without the consent
| or added 30% tax from the original vendor or manufacturer of
| the system.
|
| It was basically an open bazaar and a cost race to the
| bottom, where the free market decided the winners and losers
| based on consumer preference, but there was no global
| authority to say "I'm not gonna allow your SW/HW to run on
| the platform we developed". Microsoft or Intel couldn't
| gatekeep what you installed or ran on the Intel/Windows
| platform.
|
| Sure, the PC platform had it's own set of issues due to
| overabundance of cheap low quality HW/SW that caused poor UX,
| and anti-trust issues from the Windows and Intel monopolies,
| but it was overall a net benefit due to the open playing
| field. Can you imagine 3dfx, ATI and Nvidia GPUs not being
| allowed to run on the PC platform because Intel had a closed
| PCI standard that only worked with their own GPUs?
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| This is neithere nor there. Apple not submitting to US carriers
| greedy customizations and Apple allowing users to customize
| their devices are two completely different matters. You are
| throwing everything in the same bin which is the same Apple
| wants everyone to believe
| pompino wrote:
| The only thing Apple cares about is Apple making more money.
| they will gladly gouge the end User so that their executives
| can line their pockets. there is nobody here you can actually
| "trust".
| simonh wrote:
| However for Apple to keep making money they need to satisfy
| their users, so as with all commercial relationships there is
| a direct commercial incentive that aligns customer and vendor
| interests. The interesting question is how and why those
| interests align, and when and where they diverge.
|
| The answer to that will be different for different customers,
| or potential customers. A lot of iPhone customers like me are
| quite happy with the devices more or less as they are. The
| vast majority of people complaining about iPhones aren't
| iPhone customers. Frankly I don't really see why I should
| care what they think.
|
| I'm more sympathetic to actual iPhone customers, or former
| customers that left, but looking at the numbers satisfaction
| levels with iPhones are through the roof. This is a teeny
| tiny proportion of customers. The case for Apple harming the
| interests of customers directly is super thin.
|
| The other main dimension to this is Apple's commercial
| relations with other companies, mainly app store developers.
| I'm sympathetic to the idea that such relationships should be
| regulated to at least some extent. I'm glad controls on links
| to external payment options are being opened up, and there's
| pressure towards more equitable revenue structures. I think
| this is the main area Apple's control of the platform is open
| to abuse, but IMHO that doesn't extend to third party app
| stores. The current app store should be properly regulated, I
| think third party stores are a complete distraction. They'll
| never take off, and are probably going to be a worse
| experience for users.
| pompino wrote:
| Just because I bought an iphone, doesn't mean my interests
| align with Apple when they price gouge me for extra
| storage, or when they use child labor, or when they
| continue to create products which fill up landfills due to
| their anti-repair stance. Apple will suck up as much money
| as they can get away with - which is capitalism. I would
| argue there is no "alignment" of anything here. Its up to
| each individual to examine the facts, and decide for
| themselves what their own personal threshold is.
| sashank_1509 wrote:
| Such a bad take, please go back to Reddit where you might be
| congratulated for garden variety "everyone else is greedy and
| evil, but I can see through them and speak truth to power".
| People here have higher standards on their takes.
|
| If all Apple cared about is making money, would they have
| spent upwards of 10 Billion+ on an Apple Car only to cancel
| it later. At its height, Vision Pro R&D cost 2 billion per
| quarter, yes you read that correctly, almost 25% of their
| yearly net profits went into development of Vision Pro Alone.
| Does this sound like gouging the customer to line their
| executive pockets to you?
|
| If Apple executives had lined their pockets, then why is the
| top Apple Executive only worth 2 Billion when Apple is worth
| close to 3 Trillion, that is less than 0.1% of Apple's
| valuation. Apple's top executive does not even make it to the
| world's top 100 by wealth. Does that not make you think?
| pompino wrote:
| No thanks, I don't want your fake "higher standards".
|
| >Does this sound like gouging the customer to line their
| executive pockets to you?
|
| Yes, it does, when they lobby to fight against right-to-
| repair. Yes, it does, when they price gouge the customer on
| storage upgrades. Yes, it does, when they hide defects in
| their products and push people to buy new products. Yes, it
| does, when they use child labor.
| rezonant wrote:
| > Android was initially designed so that operators could
| customise it. The idea was apps were developed (and sold) only
| by operators, and everything else would be via the browser.
|
| I'm not sure where you got this information. The Android
| Marketplace arrived with version 1.0 of Android on the T-Mobile
| G1. Side loading has been available since the very beginning.
|
| What you describe more closely resembles what iPhone did,
| except that it was never a given that Apple's carrier partners
| were going to be able to ship their own user facing software on
| the device.
|
| Operators and OEMs can absolutely customize Android and it was
| more allowed in the beginning than now. As a way to reduce
| fragmentation and gain more control over the platform, Google
| started attaching more and more stipulations to allowing it's
| suite of software (including Marketplace, now known as Google
| Play) to be included on handsets.
|
| Was there ever a case of a mobile operator launching their own
| software store on Android? Certainly OEMs did it, with the
| Samsung app store being the most prominent. Genuinely curious
| here, as others do note that (see the Japanese handsets post)
| OEMs have and even still do a bunch of customization and pre
| installed apps.
| pxeboot wrote:
| >Was there ever a case of a mobile operator launching their
| own software store on Android?
|
| I believe Verizon launched their own app store at one point.
| It was called V Cast.
|
| A quick search led me here: https://www.pcworld.com/article/4
| 98393/verizons_android_app_...
| fidotron wrote:
| > I'm not sure where you got this information.
|
| I was working in mobile games at the time and ended up
| working with Google on the Play Store launch, among other
| things.
|
| But what I mentioned was not some big secret. Everyone knew
| Android was supposed to be the response to google having to
| keep stashes of j2me devices in drawers, which is ironically
| what everyone ended up needing to do with Android devices.
|
| People have memory holed just what a shock the iphone caused,
| not just technically but strategically, and how it altered
| who has the power over distribution. The whole industry
| (google included) did not see this coming because of the
| power of the carriers.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Windows Mobile phones had apps distributed by wherever, you
| could go get them on a CD from Bestbuy if you wanted.
|
| > I was working in mobile games at the time and ended up
| working with Google on the Play Store launch, among other
| things.
|
| Well, mobile games are distributed via ads, not the
| "stores."
|
| I don't know. This distribution, network effects story.
| It's sort of, whatever. People were using chat apps then,
| and people are using chat apps now. The iOS App Store and
| Google Play are such shit shows, they are glorified
| installation wizards for 99.9% of people. Whether you have
| to install-wizard via sideloading or via a deep link or
| whatever, it's not super material nor revolutionary. I
| think this comes from conflating Steam with the App Store,
| ultimately Steam is a real, bonafide store, and the mobile
| app stores are more like technical restrictions that
| someone is using to take a 30% cut of revenues. Which is
| what everyone is saying anyway.
| cesarb wrote:
| > Windows Mobile phones had apps distributed by wherever,
| you could go get them on a CD from Bestbuy if you wanted.
|
| This was also the case for Palm smartphones. Since they
| were an amalgam of a Palm PDA and a cell phone, they kept
| the app model of Palm PDAs. IIRC, you could even transfer
| apps from one Palm PDA to another through their infrared
| port, or through Bluetooth if both were fancy ones.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| What people keep forgetting is the original iPhone had no App
| Store. There were no non-Apple native apps. Everything was
| supposed to be HTML5 web apps. Eventually, they had to convince
| Steve Jobs that this idea was profoundly retarded, and the App
| Store (and walled garden) was born. But it wasn't this way at
| the beginning.
|
| In fact, the original iPhone couldn't even receive MMS
| messages; rather, the carrier's gateway composed a URL which
| you opened in Safari to view the picture.
|
| People quickly forget the original 1st gen iPhone was, despite
| laying the foundation for some great technologies, hot garbage.
| Apple was still a computer company then, and it showed, as
| iPhone was a "pocket Mac" with some ancillary phone functions
| that occasionally worked.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _What people keep forgetting is the original iPhone had no
| App Store._
|
| It arrived one year later, in 2008:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)
|
| > _People quickly forget the original 1st gen iPhone was,
| despite laying the foundation for some great technologies,
| hot garbage._
|
| "Hot garbage" by what metric? Other phones introduced in
| 2007:
|
| * https://mowned.com/top-mobile-devices/2007
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile_phones_introd
| u...
|
| The Nokia N95 or RIM Curve 8320 were ranked higher by some
| folks:
|
| * https://www.mobilegazette.com/2007-review-07x12x12.htm
|
| * https://web.archive.org/web/20071214112358/http://reviews.c
| n...
| WWLink wrote:
| > People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted
| either
|
| The problem with this is that Apple is also a developer trying
| to sell you things. I would feel better if Apple's goals and
| the user's goals were aligned all the time instead of just some
| of the time.
|
| Admittedly, Apple's real priority is just to make money on
| every transaction that occurs upon an idevice.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Yes businesses are in the business of making money. Apple is
| a business. The hope for you (a consumer) is that your needs
| and theirs are aligned sufficiently well that they solve
| problems you benefit from while minimizing how much they
| exploit you. It's capitalism.
| riffic wrote:
| yall have to remember, there was a time you couldn't hook up
| your own landline telephone without it being one manufactured
| by Ma Bell herself (western electric) and rented out through an
| installment plan on your bill.
|
| Culturally the phone company (and the descendant cellular
| operators) were very much of this philosophical outlook.
|
| This page goes into particulars about the historically closed
| nature of the phone system and the cases that led to the
| eventual opening of bring your own equipment (Hush-a-phone,
| Carterfone etc):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer-premises_equipment
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Yes EU regulators are an easy mark that need Apple to protect
| them from WhatsApp or something.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in discussions of
| communications tech monopoly (or "monopoly" in many cases) is the
| risk of future political censorship by a hypothetical future evil
| Apple. Centralized market power here isn't just about unfair
| profits or bad products, it's also about control of information
| (and therefore control of minds).
| smokel wrote:
| There is a lot of discussion going on about this. Most of it is
| not very constructive, but "power structure" research is a
| scientific thing that might interest you.
| sircastor wrote:
| I think this is because we haven't really seen it. Though there
| is a subset of the right wing that's been saying exactly this
| is happening, to them in the context of Facebook and Twitter. I
| don't recall seeing any convincing evidence though.
| fsflover wrote:
| AFAIK we did see how Apple banned political apps in China and
| Russia.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| Especially considering how these big tech companies seem
| obsessed with gobbling up communication, and seem to want all
| of their users communication to go through them.
|
| Sure, Apple makes grandiose statements about its security and
| privacy. But they are protecting you from others. Apple has the
| keys to the kingdom and if they want they can just silently
| push a targeted software update to your device.
|
| They can make your phone send messages you never typed. They
| can make your phone show you things that never happened. They
| could trivially influence an election, and it doesn't even take
| the entire org being in on it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > They can make your phone send messages you never typed.
| They can make your phone show you things that never happened.
|
| How many microseconds do you think it'd take before someone
| noticed and made it into a huge PR nightmare?
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| If it was well targeted and thought out? We'd be lucky _if_
| someone even realized it happened. And even then, they 'll
| probably just blame it on a hack from $OTHERCOUNTRY
| r00fus wrote:
| Everything you said is hypothetically true but fails to
| withstand scrutiny.
|
| Apple has a brand of trust and security. If they decided to
| become even the tiniest bit evil in that dimension their
| "secure" brand would evaporate overnight.
|
| Unless you think they control all media and levers to power
| too?
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| The org has that brand. Could be that a small part of the
| org with access to the correct tech has different ideas.
| Like I said, the entire org doesn't have to be in on it.
|
| I don't actually believe this is actually happening, but it
| could.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| What, if they did something like set up a massive ad sales
| team after banning FBs competing tools and literally went
| to all the gaming advertisers and told them that Apple
| would still let them target on payment status?
|
| Something like that, perhaps?
|
| Fortunately we live in a world where corporations are never
| hypocrites, so that definitely didn't happen.
| r00fus wrote:
| First off, I'm far more concerned about end-user security
| and privacy than anti-competitive moves.
|
| For the latter I'm sure the FTC will cover that in their
| antitrust suit.
|
| Secondly do you have a link for your targeting claims?
| VelesDude wrote:
| Apple, we "care about privacy". But we will take billions of
| dollar every year to keep your data funneled towards Google
| via the defaults.
|
| Steve Jobs was barely out the door before Cook ran to allow
| PRISM access, something Job's had fought against for years.
| ChilledTonic wrote:
| I've been a recent convert to the iPhone. It gives me a unique
| perspective since I've spent almost my entire life in the Android
| ecosystem.
|
| I first bought an iPhone 5c on a whim, which is well out of
| support by apple, 5 versions behind the modern iOS. If you turn
| it on, all the default Apple apps work, in 2024.
|
| You can stream Apple Music and download podcasts with no App
| Store whatsoever. It's a powerful little device, more then ten
| years later.
|
| Compare this to the Android system, where google has wholesale
| deprecated their podcasts app. You'll have to find a 3rd party
| one if you want to access that functionality.
|
| The point I'm trying to make is that for Joe Consumer, everything
| on an iPhone just works. Modification isn't even something they
| consider doing.
|
| In the end, Epic and Spotify get a fat 30% boost in revenue and
| nobody notices anything different.
| s1k3s wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the classic Apple vs Android
| debate. It's about Apple's practices of pushing people to
| purchase the iPhone even if they might not want to.
| ChilledTonic wrote:
| Right, and I'm trying to state that those practices are
| ancillary at best reasons when the end user just sees a
| functional phone.
|
| Joe Consumer doesn't even notice the garden has walls.
| layer8 wrote:
| Just wait a bit, you will encounter lots of stuff that
| doesn't work, or that has you jump through hoops or buy a
| subscription, soon enough.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Can you name some examples, instead of being vague?
| layer8 wrote:
| HomeKit fails a lot for me, as does Safari syncing of
| favorites, including sometimes the wrong icons being
| shown for a given favorite. There are bugs in Safari
| browsing history, such as when you select some history
| entry, the underlying links of other entries sometimes
| get shifted (with respect to the displayed labels). Apple
| Mails takes multiple minutes to sync read/unread status
| between devices, and sometimes doesn't sync at all until
| you open the app. Even on the same device, the Mail app
| badge only updates half a minute or so after having read
| an email. When editing text and cutting and pasting
| around, the text suggestions tend to see a different
| internal state than what is displayed (you get
| suggestions for terms you have cut out or deleted
| concatenated with words that are still there or that you
| pasted). Apple services have regular hickups. Just today
| we had https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40177617.
| ICloud backup requires a subscription beyond 5 GB, or
| else you have to backup via Mac or PC, which at least on
| PC Apple doesn't allow you to automate. (You have to
| manually authorize each new connection to the PC, even
| after a small interruption. There used to be a persistent
| "trust this PC", but that's gone.) That's from the top of
| my head.
| hu3 wrote:
| Just an example I had recently, my friend replaced his
| iPhone 8 because after two years of it functioning
| perfectly fine, apps started crashing/closing out of
| nowhere. Not to mention he constantly complained about
| apps being slow.
|
| His Apple maps frequently pointed to slightly wrong
| places (like 50 meters off) when given coordinates shared
| by messaging apps. Sometimes closing the maps app and
| reclicking the link fixed the position. It got to a point
| that he started sharing destination coordinates with me
| so I could open Google Maps on my phone so we could
| navigate confidently.
|
| Also he complained that Canva and Instagram apps were
| slow or broken for some operations on the phone. For
| example trying to share a longer video in reels resulted
| in app crashing. But those are not Apple apps so I'm not
| even counting all these third party issues. But it was
| like death by a thousand cuts.
|
| Since replacing his iPhone for a newer model, everything
| was fixed. For now.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Joe Consumer doesn't know a lot of things. That doesn't
| mean the government should allow them.
| op00to wrote:
| SMS still works fine. No one is forced to purchase an iPhone
| because they want to message someone.
| hu3 wrote:
| In US, green bubble social peer-pressure does force many
| teens to buy iPhones.
| op00to wrote:
| "Force"? No one is forced to give in to peer pressure by
| buying something.
|
| It's one thing to want to fit in, but then we should also
| force clothing to not have visible brands so kids can't
| compare what clothes they have, and youth sports teams so
| kids can't exclude non-sports playing peers.
| hu3 wrote:
| The analogy doesn't hold because Nike shirts looks and
| behaves just the same regardless of my jeans brand.
|
| Whereas a green bubble means degraded experience for the
| entire messaging group just because of that one guy.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| By this rational the government should be forcing nike to
| part with the Jordan brand so someone can make a discount
| version that every one can buy.
|
| Changing the color of the bubbles would just shift the
| shitty behavior to another product.
| s1k3s wrote:
| The comparison doesn't make any sense, SMS and iMessage are
| not the same thing. It's incredible how many people bring
| it up in the comments here...
| earthling8118 wrote:
| When my Android phone broke in the past I was lent an iPhone 6s
| to use in the meantime. It was absolutely slow and many things
| didn't work. I ended up getting rid of it because having no
| phone was better than using it.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _Compare this to the Android system, where google has wholesale
| deprecated their podcasts app. You'll have to find a 3rd party
| one if you want to access that functionality._
|
| My Galaxy S1 still plays podcasts just fine....I keep it hooked
| up to bluetooth speakers just for that.
|
| Google disabled the ability to download new/updated apps that
| could run on this phone long ago, but the apps already on the
| phone still work. Indeed, it works better than the iPhone 5c,
| since I can use any micro usb connector to charge my phone, but
| the 5c is stuck with a proprietary connector that isn't made or
| sold anymore.
|
| _The point I'm trying to make is that for Joe Consumer,
| everything on an iPhone just works._
|
| This hasn't been true for years, if it ever was. Siri never
| worked properly, and most people complain about the horrible
| accuracy of the fingerprint and face unlock. Text messages sent
| to/by Apple users frequently disappear into the ether,
| discovered only when the communicants physically meet up. The
| cloud software is prone to overwriting files or accidentally
| deleting them. And don't even get me started about all the
| people holding their phones the wrong way...
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Nobody notices a difference when companies lose 30% of their
| revenue?
|
| Would anybody notice a difference if they lost 60% of their
| revenue? How about 95%? I mean it's just a third party's ledger
| right, so who cares?
| phmqk76 wrote:
| Guess what? Joe Consumer lives in a society that has an
| economy. And that economy thrives on open markets and
| competition. US antitrust law knew this from Teddy Roosevelt
| all the way until Ronald Reagan gutted that notion, and began
| to focus only on consumer harm. But consumers aren't the only
| part of an economy! They're probably not even the most
| important part. Open competition is vital for a diverse and
| open economy where all sorts of market entrants can
| participate, and create companies that pay taxes, and create
| jobs for people who are also, in turn, consumers. Sometimes
| higher prices are worth it if an economic sector is open and
| thriving. We know this intuitively when it comes to trade
| protections, as countries like Germany go to great lengths to
| protect domestic manufacturing at the expense of cheaper cars.
| 015a wrote:
| > In the end, Epic and Spotify get a fat 30% boost in revenue
| and nobody notices anything different.
|
| Well, let's be clear here: Neither Epic nor Spotify are selling
| anything with Apple today. Epic's games are not available on
| iOS, and Spotify requires you to make all purchases through
| their website.
|
| Spotify's motivation for wanting change on the iOS platform is
| primarily due to how limiting Apple's profit share and App
| Store rules are toward expanding its lines of business. Spotify
| wants to be able to sell one-off audiobooks; but the margins
| are already razor thin, and would become impossibly thin if
| Apple had to be paid 30% of every sale. In the most egregiously
| and obviously monopolistic thing Apple has ever done, they also
| sell audiobooks via the Books app, where I'm ( _wink_ ) certain
| they're paying the 30% fee to ( _wink_ ) themselves.
|
| One alternative Spotify hasn't tried is marking audiobooks up
| 30% to account for the fees. Maybe this is something that is
| contractually extremely difficult to do? Like, authors and
| publishing agencies don't assign pricing rights to Spotify,
| they have to sell the audiobooks at the same price they're
| available for sale on Amazon/Apple Books/etc. I don't know.
| But, regardless of that, it's a shit card to deal consumers,
| anyone with half a brain would just buy the audiobook from
| Apple Books where its 30% cheaper, and Spotify is very
| reasonably trying to drive traffic to platforms they have
| higher agency within.
|
| This isn't really about boosting revenue by 30%. Its about
| unlocking fundamentally different business models from Apple's
| grasp; business models which Apple has found extremely
| profitable for itself, yet refuses anyone else to share in.
| bozhark wrote:
| Apple grew from Big Brother into it's own Big Sister
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Being developer-hostile has always been part of Apple's identity,
| one unfortunate side of Steve Jobs's hubris enabled this stance,
| but it has worsened considerably under Tim Cook.
|
| The eccentric and slightly authoritarian leader knew how to offer
| just enough to sweeten the deal.
|
| Under Cook, on the other hand, Apple has turned tone-deaf and has
| continuously played hardball, making numerous faux pas along the
| way.
|
| I believe that developers good to be considerably worse now, and
| even if the numbers don't speak loudly yet, I have no doubt they
| will.
| VelesDude wrote:
| I always sucks when you have to quote Steve Ballmers but
| "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!".
| At least in principal Microsoft used to get it.
|
| I think they knew that without developers, Windows would be
| nowhere. Apple sort of gets it with the App store but not as
| deeply.
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| As a newish user of Apple (Macbook and the IPad mini) it was not
| as big a leap from Android and Windows as I had feared. I still
| live in Google services including Gboard on the IPad mini and
| apart from klutzing around with system settings occasionally the
| mini feels "not terribly different" from the android devices I
| use. The Macbook is a bigger challenge though.
|
| I only picked the mini because I couldn't get the same
| performance with that form factor in Android.
|
| I only entertained the mini because I was forced to use a Macbook
| for work and realized that apart from annoyances with keyboard
| shortcuts and system settings I could continue to live in a
| Firefox + Chrome + Edge + Google services ecosystem.
|
| I will now definitely consider Apple hardware if I don't find a
| good fit in the Android + Windows world
| phmqk76 wrote:
| And yet, in Apple's preferred world, they suck up 30% of all of
| the revenue made by developers who develop for their devices.
| The Mac model may not exist in 10 years if Apple can get rid of
| it and replace it with a locked down App Store from which they
| charge rents.
| baerrie wrote:
| I think the iphone becoming a commodity means the apps themselves
| are more of the focus. I am surprised Apple never put work into
| making killer social media app, a search engine, etc. these
| things live beyond the lifecycle of phones
| rpdillon wrote:
| They never developed a search engine because they were getting
| paid something like $18 billion a year by Google not to.
| VelesDude wrote:
| We all forget Ping.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Ping
| nox101 wrote:
| IMO most people here seem to be missing the point. The point is
| not directly about consumers or the choice between Android and
| iPhone. The point is about Apple (and Google's) market power.
|
| Imagine a self driving car that became popular. Imagine that car
| manufacture asking stores to sign up for a account to register
| their store so the car will know where to drive users. Imagine
| the experience using the car is amazing and it's widely
| successful. Imagine car company then demanding 30% of all sales
| any store the store drives someone, refuse to pay the 30% and the
| car will stop showing the store as a destination. Their market is
| so large, if you refuse to pay you immediately lose 40-60% of
| your customers.
|
| This is the power that Apple and Google have. It has nothing to
| do with choice in phones. It has to do with no app can escape
| this 30% tax on their business because the 2 gatekeepers control
| the entire market.
|
| There are many similar issues but they all boil down to market
| power over hundreds of thousands of companies, not phone choice.
| lamontcg wrote:
| In principle I like Apple being legally forced to crack open all
| their walled gardens, and I hate how far they've come from the
| open and hackable original Apple computers.
|
| In practice, I worry that they're going to imminently pivot to a
| more Google like model of selling their customers out to any
| third party with cash. Right now they have the means to do that,
| but they're selling privacy as one of their features and they've
| been largely benevolent with your data. The end result of opening
| up the walled garden could be the rapid Enshittification of
| Apple.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > I worry that they're going to imminently pivot to a more
| Google like model of selling their customers out to any third
| party with cash
|
| No need to worry about that happening in the future; it's
| already happening! iOS collects user data and builds an
| advertising profile for each user. This is used to sell ad
| space in the App Store.
| VelesDude wrote:
| It is only a matter of time until Apple ends up selling this
| data to 3rd parties. The quarterly market performance demands
| endless growth.
| VelesDude wrote:
| Jobs always hated that the original Apple 2 had expansion
| slots. Woz wanted them because it would allow folks other than
| Apple to make things. You know, Woz being Woz.
|
| Those expansion slots allowed Apple 2 to become what it was and
| practically made the foundation of Apple.
|
| Jobs ended up tolerating expansion slots but tried to minimize
| their availability where ever possible.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I think this article is overstating the effect that Apple's walls
| have on lock-in effect.
|
| I'm an Android user, and a little less than a year ago I actually
| _bought_ an iPhone, specifically due to Apple 's iMessage lock-in
| (nearly all of my friends have iPhones, and the especially broken
| group messaging between iMessage and Android was the primary
| driver of my desire to get an iPhone).
|
| Except the problem was that, after over a decade on Android, I
| had zero desire to switch over all of my data and apps over to
| iPhone. For better or worse the "Google ecosystem" is where all
| my stuff lives and I just didn't have a desire to spend a bunch
| of effort just to switch. I ended up giving the iPhone as a gift
| to an iOS-loving family member.
|
| That's the thing about _both_ iOS and Android platforms - I think
| you 'll find anyone who has been in those platforms for more than
| a couple years will be extremely reluctant to switch just due to
| the effort. Our cell phones are often the center of our digital
| lives now: apps, headphones, watches, etc. The lock-in I think is
| more from that "ecosystem effect" than any amount of particular
| lock down.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| You're right that lock-in isn't just about one application.
| Like a wall, it's made up of multiple bricks. But different
| bricks matter more to different customers: for some people
| (usually teenagers who have relatively little data invested in
| other apps) the blue-bubbles iMessage is the most important
| brick, for older users it's usually the piles of data in cloud
| services, password manager, photo library or purchased media.
| Typically companies use some features to bring people into
| their ecosystem, then gradually them in with all the others.
|
| Unfortunately our anti-trust laws were written in the 19th
| century, so they deal with very specific types of anti-
| competitive behavior. Modern tech firms basically grew up in an
| environment where the goal was to maintain the absolute minimal
| level of competition and user choice that stays within the law.
| tammer wrote:
| I've come full circle on this but I now think native applications
| on smartphones was a mistake.
|
| There is no technological reason why applications can't be
| distributed as PWA packages similar to the days prior to the App
| Store.
|
| This would serve two important functions:
|
| 1. Remove most if not all distribution monopoly concerns
|
| 2. Create application standards that function nearly identically
| across the myriad of screen sizes and input types that are now
| available.
|
| The current status quo of some service that makes my life easier
| or better only being available in a browser or only available on
| one or two of my devices (or, most often, available in a few ways
| but only bug-free or full-featured in only one method of access)
| isn't the future I want.
| asddubs wrote:
| my half-hearted counterpoints:
|
| 1. what about something like a usb flir heat camera? yes i know
| webusb exists, but having to go to a website to use a
| peripheral (and give it permissions to that peripheral) is not
| ideal
|
| 2. apps can change on you at any point, potentially
| maliciously. I'm not naive enough to think the app store will
| catch this kind of thing every time, but at least you have
| control over updating apps, and some guarantees that everyone
| gets the same binary
|
| 3. you can kiss any sort of ui-cohesion goodbye
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-27 23:00 UTC)