7 ms·

Apple's done this for years. Most recent case I can recall is that f.lux program on iOS. AFAIK, people kind of mildly call them out on it and then forget about

Apple's done this for years. Most recent case I can recall is that f.lux program on iOS. AFAIK, people kind of mildly call them out on it and then forget about it a week later. It certainly hasn't seemed to actually damage Apple's business at all.

MBCook 11y ago
The term for that is Sherlocking, referencing a 3rd party tool they 'integrated' in either OS 8 or OS 9 (sorry, don't remember exactly). I'd argue the f.lux case is a bit different. Either way, haven't big retailers (Walmart, BestBuy, etc.) always done this?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- chc 11y ago
  For anyone curious: The third-party tool was Karelia's Watson, which was a tool that let you search websites, with the ability to add support for new websites through plug-ins. In OS X 10.2, Apple added the same functionality to their "find file" tool Sherlock (and IMO made the program worse than either Sherlock or Watson were on their own).
  - MBCook 11y ago
    Oh, I thought it was earlier than that. I also couldn't remember if Sherlock was the Apple tool or the 3rd party one. I didn't come back to the Mac until a hair before 10.4, so I don't have first hand experience.
  - mesh 11y ago
    They have also done this with Spotlight, taking over functionality of app launchers / utilities like Quicksilver and Alfred.
    - chc 11y ago
      Funnily enough, Apple also got into competition with Karelia's next product, Sandvox, when they released iWeb. That didn't seem to kill Sandvox the way Sherlock did Watson, though.
      - MBCook 11y ago
        To be fair... iWeb was pretty bad. I tried to use it. Nope.
EdHominem 11y ago
We expect products to get better and people to learn from public ideas. For customer's it's a good thing. But this really does burn developers of those original products who were originally brand partners. I don't think Apple "owes" them anything, but I think they would help themselves by treating it as if they did. Especially where it's obvious that the OS-bundled app will win simply by virtue of being bundled. It's probably a legal issue where if they gave someone anything they'd open the door to being sued for a fortune, but it's horrible PR towards their developers.
- TearsInTheRain 11y ago
  In the long run this isn't good for customers because it de-incentivises innovation. Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me?
  - Bjartr 11y ago
    It de-incentivises innovation that isn't worthy of a patent. Patents (ostensibly, in their original intent) exist in part to allow innovators to know that a competitor can't just go off and clone what they did, but has to license from them or counter-innovate a novel alternative. In practice this won't stop all possible competitors, specifically those that flaunt patent law, but I don't think Amazon is one of those. Amazon could likely buy a license to the innovation from the patent holder for less than dealing with the courts would cost, in which case the patent system would be working as intended.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    > Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me? This is what patents are supposed to be used for. You create a truly innovative idea and receive a patent for it. Then some large manufacturer, that has the scale to produce your product far more efficiently than you ever could individually, contacts you asking to license your idea. Together you work out a fair price for the rights, you get money for your invention, they get profit, you both leave happy, and the customer gets the best of both worlds.
BurningFrog 11y ago
The damage would be that fewer people bother developing software for their platform. Seems very hard to measure. So it's safe to speculate!

MBCook 11y ago

The term for that is Sherlocking, referencing a 3rd party tool they 'integrated' in either OS 8 or OS 9 (sorry, don't remember exactly). I'd argue the f.lux case is a bit different. Either way, haven't big retailers (Walmart, BestBuy, etc.) always done this?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chc 11y ago
For anyone curious: The third-party tool was Karelia's Watson, which was a tool that let you search websites, with the ability to add support for new websites through plug-ins. In OS X 10.2, Apple added the same functionality to their "find file" tool Sherlock (and IMO made the program worse than either Sherlock or Watson were on their own).
- MBCook 11y ago
  Oh, I thought it was earlier than that. I also couldn't remember if Sherlock was the Apple tool or the 3rd party one. I didn't come back to the Mac until a hair before 10.4, so I don't have first hand experience.
- mesh 11y ago
  They have also done this with Spotlight, taking over functionality of app launchers / utilities like Quicksilver and Alfred.
  - chc 11y ago
    Funnily enough, Apple also got into competition with Karelia's next product, Sandvox, when they released iWeb. That didn't seem to kill Sandvox the way Sherlock did Watson, though.
    - MBCook 11y ago
      To be fair... iWeb was pretty bad. I tried to use it. Nope.

EdHominem 11y ago

We expect products to get better and people to learn from public ideas. For customer's it's a good thing. But this really does burn developers of those original products who were originally brand partners. I don't think Apple "owes" them anything, but I think they would help themselves by treating it as if they did. Especially where it's obvious that the OS-bundled app will win simply by virtue of being bundled. It's probably a legal issue where if they gave someone anything they'd open the door to being sued for a fortune, but it's horrible PR towards their developers.

TearsInTheRain 11y ago
In the long run this isn't good for customers because it de-incentivises innovation. Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me?
- Bjartr 11y ago
  It de-incentivises innovation that isn't worthy of a patent. Patents (ostensibly, in their original intent) exist in part to allow innovators to know that a competitor can't just go off and clone what they did, but has to license from them or counter-innovate a novel alternative. In practice this won't stop all possible competitors, specifically those that flaunt patent law, but I don't think Amazon is one of those. Amazon could likely buy a license to the innovation from the patent holder for less than dealing with the courts would cost, in which case the patent system would be working as intended.
- Spivak 11y ago
  > Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me? This is what patents are supposed to be used for. You create a truly innovative idea and receive a patent for it. Then some large manufacturer, that has the scale to produce your product far more efficiently than you ever could individually, contacts you asking to license your idea. Together you work out a fair price for the rights, you get money for your invention, they get profit, you both leave happy, and the customer gets the best of both worlds.

BurningFrog 11y ago

The damage would be that fewer people bother developing software for their platform. Seems very hard to measure. So it's safe to speculate!