6 ms·

Too bad that's a very outdated way of thinking. Today there is just no getting around "Sharecropping". If you want your app in front of actual people you're goi

Too bad that's a very outdated way of thinking. Today there is just no getting around "Sharecropping". If you want your app in front of actual people you're going to use a platform owned by Google, Apple, Microsoft or Blackberry. Sure the web is still a place where you're not really a "Sharecropper" but compared to native solutions the web doesn't give you everything you need for a fully integrated and awesome user experience. As much as I'd love for this to not be true it is and there isn't a way around it. Even if you used an abstraction so you never technically write code specific to Apple, Google, etc in the end it's still going to be deployed to their platforms via their stores. Unless, of course, your market is strictly the tiny niche of jailbreaks / manual installers of software.

jclulow 11y ago
It is not outdated, but _prescient_. Any third party (company, or otherwise) that you depend on for your business can elect to make your life more difficult (or nigh on impossible) at any time. You may choose to depend on a vendor to an extent, but structure your application in a way that a sudden change in the rules would not be the end of you; e.g., there is more than one cloud provider on which one can use the same Docker images to deploy an application. And you may choose a business where there are no options _other_ than to depend on a third party; e.g., you wish to sell a native iOS application to iPhone users. Risk is still risk: a potential pitfall or peril. Sometimes the risk is great enough, compared with the potential return, that the only way to win is not to play. Regardless, this article discusses a set of risks which exist now more then ever; to enumerate and understand these risks is not outdated thinking, it's just good business.
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  Any third party (company, or otherwise) that you depend on for your business can elect to make your life more difficult (or nigh on impossible) at any time. This applies to so many things involving computers, and of course most aspects of modern life. Back in the good (bad?) old days there were no such things as "personal" computers. We created our programs on punched cards and trudged down to the computer center to run them. And that, to me, was what I hated the most about the computers of the time. I was dependent on the good graces of the University to get a few precious minutes of computer time to use to run my programs. So, when the first usable PCs were invented, people flocked to them. 8K bytes of RAM meant you could run a BASIC interpreter on your own computer. Once you bought it, you could use it as much as you wanted to, for any reason that you wanted to. Period. It's unfortunate that so much of modern computer life once again depends on the good graces of others.
cookiecaper 11y ago
We need to rethink how we assign the intangible digital "property" that is intrinsic to the Information Age. Little guys are getting raked over the coals by the incumbents because our legal system is not equipped to handle these issues fairly.
- pc86 11y ago
  How would you suggest it be handled in this case? Does the author have a right to access to the Google Maps API even if Google itself offers a similar product? He admits in the article that his product is basically a wrapper for a more full-featured Google alternative.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    My opinion on this is still very much in development, so I don't suggest that this is the only right answer. But here's a potential solution: since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Both parties have responsibilities and expectations and the lease can't break the fundamental rules in the law, which usually includes mandatory notice periods to terminate tenancy if a tenant is month-to-month, a prescription for informing the landlord of maintenance issues and giving him time to repair, a legally protected remedy if the landlord fails to repair something that he's legally obligated to maintain (like withholding rent), and finally, an eviction process that the landlord can use to force the tenant out of the property when he's been found in violation of the lease. I think this sort of relationship should exist at a minimum. It would make it so Google et al couldn't just kick you off whenever they got bored and decided your product was cool and they didn't have anything to do with their 20% time so they're gonna clone it, they could only cut you off at the conclusion of your contract. If there's a legitimate reason to kick someone off the API before this time, they can take it to an API tenancy court and get the judge to sign off on the access key's eviction (which should be thousands of times more practical for both parties than the current route, which is a CFAA lawsuit). The ability to "buy land" on the platform and own an API key that can't be deprived from you would be interesting too, but I'm not sure on the details of how that would work right now.
unethical_ban 11y ago
Colo your hardware, run open source software, and don't tie in to external services. Most mobile apps can be mobile-web optimized, as a fallback if App stores shut you out. I like native apps mostly for their speed, but unless you're doing something requiring a sensor on the phone, mobile web can do it all.
- ebiester 11y ago
  ...except get discovered by customers who look to the app store for trust.
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't trust jack from the Android store unless I already know the vendor.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Really? If you don't trust app stores and you end up with malware on your phone, how do you expect to be able to write an incredulous blog post?
- gertef 11y ago
  > Colo your hardware That's still sharecropping.
  - hueving 11y ago
    Not quite. You can just move your hardware if something goes south. There is no proprietary magic sauce you are depending on from the colo. That's similar to saying everyone that uses electricity from the grid is sharecropping.
    - knughit 11y ago
      Sharecropping literally means farming on someone's land and paying rent.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
If this is the case, then that's just sad. What have we done to ourselves?????

jclulow 11y ago

It is not outdated, but _prescient_. Any third party (company, or otherwise) that you depend on for your business can elect to make your life more difficult (or nigh on impossible) at any time. You may choose to depend on a vendor to an extent, but structure your application in a way that a sudden change in the rules would not be the end of you; e.g., there is more than one cloud provider on which one can use the same Docker images to deploy an application. And you may choose a business where there are no options _other_ than to depend on a third party; e.g., you wish to sell a native iOS application to iPhone users. Risk is still risk: a potential pitfall or peril. Sometimes the risk is great enough, compared with the potential return, that the only way to win is not to play. Regardless, this article discusses a set of risks which exist now more then ever; to enumerate and understand these risks is not outdated thinking, it's just good business.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Any third party (company, or otherwise) that you depend on for your business can elect to make your life more difficult (or nigh on impossible) at any time. This applies to so many things involving computers, and of course most aspects of modern life. Back in the good (bad?) old days there were no such things as "personal" computers. We created our programs on punched cards and trudged down to the computer center to run them. And that, to me, was what I hated the most about the computers of the time. I was dependent on the good graces of the University to get a few precious minutes of computer time to use to run my programs. So, when the first usable PCs were invented, people flocked to them. 8K bytes of RAM meant you could run a BASIC interpreter on your own computer. Once you bought it, you could use it as much as you wanted to, for any reason that you wanted to. Period. It's unfortunate that so much of modern computer life once again depends on the good graces of others.

cookiecaper 11y ago

We need to rethink how we assign the intangible digital "property" that is intrinsic to the Information Age. Little guys are getting raked over the coals by the incumbents because our legal system is not equipped to handle these issues fairly.

pc86 11y ago
How would you suggest it be handled in this case? Does the author have a right to access to the Google Maps API even if Google itself offers a similar product? He admits in the article that his product is basically a wrapper for a more full-featured Google alternative.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  My opinion on this is still very much in development, so I don't suggest that this is the only right answer. But here's a potential solution: since API clients are essentially renting the vendor's platform and launching businesses based on this, there needs to be some legally-enforced stability. I would like to see something like a landlord-tenant relationship. Both parties have responsibilities and expectations and the lease can't break the fundamental rules in the law, which usually includes mandatory notice periods to terminate tenancy if a tenant is month-to-month, a prescription for informing the landlord of maintenance issues and giving him time to repair, a legally protected remedy if the landlord fails to repair something that he's legally obligated to maintain (like withholding rent), and finally, an eviction process that the landlord can use to force the tenant out of the property when he's been found in violation of the lease. I think this sort of relationship should exist at a minimum. It would make it so Google et al couldn't just kick you off whenever they got bored and decided your product was cool and they didn't have anything to do with their 20% time so they're gonna clone it, they could only cut you off at the conclusion of your contract. If there's a legitimate reason to kick someone off the API before this time, they can take it to an API tenancy court and get the judge to sign off on the access key's eviction (which should be thousands of times more practical for both parties than the current route, which is a CFAA lawsuit). The ability to "buy land" on the platform and own an API key that can't be deprived from you would be interesting too, but I'm not sure on the details of how that would work right now.

unethical_ban 11y ago

Colo your hardware, run open source software, and don't tie in to external services. Most mobile apps can be mobile-web optimized, as a fallback if App stores shut you out. I like native apps mostly for their speed, but unless you're doing something requiring a sensor on the phone, mobile web can do it all.

ebiester 11y ago
...except get discovered by customers who look to the app store for trust.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't trust jack from the Android store unless I already know the vendor.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Really? If you don't trust app stores and you end up with malware on your phone, how do you expect to be able to write an incredulous blog post?
gertef 11y ago
> Colo your hardware That's still sharecropping.
- hueving 11y ago
  Not quite. You can just move your hardware if something goes south. There is no proprietary magic sauce you are depending on from the colo. That's similar to saying everyone that uses electricity from the grid is sharecropping.
  - knughit 11y ago
    Sharecropping literally means farming on someone's land and paying rent.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

If this is the case, then that's just sad. What have we done to ourselves?????