5 ms·
Part of the problem is that Apple and Google will steal any successful idea and incorporate it into the OS. Categories that could be thriving competitive market
by guelo 11y ago
Part of the problem is that Apple and Google will steal any successful idea and incorporate it into the OS. Categories that could be thriving competitive markets are subsumed and the category killed. Huge potential markets like notes, calendar, voice recording, video conferencing, fitness tracking, game leaderboard/achievements. Even little utilities like flashlight. Some categories are outright prohibited, like phone apps or app stores on iPhone.
Basically the game is rigged, apps are just a testing ground for ideas that Google and Apple can ripoff at their will. If you're extremely successful and lucky the best you can hope for is an acquihire. But usually they just steal the idea and kill the market.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> steal any successful idea and incorporate it into the OS Your idea is worthless. Execution is what matters. If Google and Apple can integrate your idea that easily into their ecosystem, its overvalued as an idea.
- untog 11y ago> Your idea is worthless. Execution is what matters. That strikes me as an overplayed sentiment. Your execution can never be as good as one done at the OS level by the company that owns it. That does not mean your idea is 'overvalued'. In fact, quite the opposite - it usually means you have proved that your idea has enough value that it should be bundled up and given to every single person who uses the OS. You just won't benefit from it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 11y agoLet's me try again then. If you're unable to extract value from your idea, but someone else can, the idea has no value to you. Does it have value? In the right hands, probably. That doesn't entitle you to that value though.
- untog 11y agoSure. But how do you know which ideas Apple will integrate into their OS and which they won't? That knowledge imbalance is paralyzing, and in effect means that if you take that path of thinking to its conclusion, there are extremely few apps worth making.
- dsjoerg 11y agoCorrect.
- ams6110 11y agoIf you're paralyzed by the idea that someone will compete with you, startups are not where you should be.
- askafriend 11y agoIt means that you've got to own the original content. E.g. Facebook, or Gmail.
- p4wnc6 11y agoDoesn't this just mean that Apple, Google, etc., are rent seeking? If there's a creek behind my house where the community comes to get fish, that's value for those people. If I see them doing it and build a giant fence and start charging money for creek access and fishing permits, that's pure rent seeking. I didn't create the value or extract value from something where others couldn't extract value. I artificially prevented people from extracting value they otherwise easily could have, and then charged them for access. It's mostly the same with apps that are copied into OS features. What entitles Apple, Google, etc., to the value of that idea beyond some kind of might makes right argument? They're big and they spend money on regulatory capture and legal battles, so that alone entitles them? I mean, it does entitle them, at least currently, if we take only a very narrow understanding of "entitled" to mean "that which does actually happen and isn't prevented." But that's not really the spirit of the laws, public sentiment, or how this stuff relates to overall human welfare.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
- duncanawoods 11y agoIts not a matter of execution. ISVs competing against platform providers have to compete against free. It just destroys markets rather than offers genuine competition. The platform providers don't seek direct revenue, they just want to channel cattle in their hardware/advertising cages and killing off any ISV that could ever grow powerful enough to challenge them is a bonus.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI don't disagree. The solution would either be a) regulation (not going to happen) or b) build your own platform (HAH!) or c) deal with the status quo.
- bkjelden 11y agoHow is this different from the days of Windows desktop software? Microsoft could copy any popular desktop apps (and in some cases, they did). But it didn't stop companies from becoming wildly successful building desktop software.
- cft 11y agoThe only "wildly successful" Windows app company that comes to mind is Adobe. Some instant messengers enjoyed success ( but were never as big as Adobe in terms of revenue) due to the fact that the OS makers (msft, apple, google) are typically incompetent in social.
- guelo 11y agoBefore the government started regulating them Microsoft was able to kill off Wordpress and Lotus 123 which could have been big companies.
- guelo 11y agoSince Windows was considered a monopoly the government stepped in and prevented Microsoft from bundling too much or restricting access to the platform. In a way, Apple should be grateful to Android for keeping the government at bay.
- melling 11y agoAndroid has over 80% market share. I think you have it backwards. Google has the near monopoly.
- jaegerpicker 11y agoA market share without profit is a useless metric Apple has nearly twice the app revenue Google is no where near a monopoly. Billions of cheap throw away devices matter very little. Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly either.
- melling 11y agoYou could have made the same invalid argument for Apple and Microsoft over the past 3 decades. If you're trying to make a living from a little app that could be "Sherlocked" you don't have much of a business model.
- dave1619 11y agoAgreed. Apple/Google have a ton of engineers and they must make major improvements to their OS each and every year. The easiest fruit is just to copy what's been successful and incorporate it into the OS itself. The solution is to be better than Apple/Google with your app/business or to be in a niche that Apple/Google doesn't want to get into because it's too small.
- wnevets 11y agoYou make this sound like a bad thing. I would rather have the flashlight option built into the OS than having to download some random app.
- _delirium 11y agoEspecially since a huge portion of those apps were malware of various kinds (why does a flashlight app need permissions for your location and address book?). I see Google finally adding a flashlight to the base Android as mostly an anti-malware mitigation measure, more than an actual feature addition.
- guelo 11y agoWe're obviously talking from an entrepreneurs perspective here. But, it was entrepreneurs that discovered that a flashlight is a very desired utility. I suppose the danger for users is that future entrepreneurs won't experiment if they can't reap any benefit.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe silly candy bar phone I had 12 years ago had a dedicated flashlight with a physical button. I think a bigger part of the explanation is that the camera feature race led to leds being in every phone.
- draw_down 11y agoBad for business (except Apple's business), good for user experience. As you point out.
- RankingMember 11y agoYep. I recall the "Brightest Flashlight" app being at the top of the ratings for flashlight apps. Then this happened: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-approves-final-order-settling-charges-against-flashlight-app https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-a...
- superuser2 11y agoHate to say it, but this is what patent protection was intended to be for.
- tracker1 11y agoIMHO patents were to allow for providing solutions to problems that had expensive research and development costs, in order to provide for a more open nature. IE, not loosing the ability to make concrete for a millennia. In terms of ideas implemented in software alone, it's trivial and the vast majority of ideas can be easily implemented by anyone working on the platform, thus not deserving protection. Anything obvious and trivial is not deserving of patent protection imho.