3 ms·

Exactly this - the points he makes in the article are all correct, but they're all related to monopoly. His point is merely 'Anything that prevents others makin

Exactly this - the points he makes in the article are all correct, but they're all related to monopoly. His point is merely 'Anything that prevents others making better products is good for me'. That may be, but it's bad for the consumer. It's like if Microsoft made it harder to write Office software for Windows, it would be good for sales of MS Office, but wouldn't be good for the consumer if it prevented people developing competing, better software.

maxklein 17y ago
What about the case where a large amount of apps are in the store. This is bad for both the consumer and the seller.
- j_baker 17y ago
  How is that bad for the consumer? Lots of apps means lots of supply, which means lower prices for the consumer.
  - maxklein 17y ago
    The lowest price is already mandated by Apple. There is no lower price possible. Lots of apps means a big discovery problem by the consumer. They can't find the good apps then. So prices stay the same and the customer does not find what he wants.
    - mquander 17y ago
      Firstly, what do you mean, they can't find the good apps? There are already tens (hundreds?) of thousands of apps, and people seem to do OK with the store rankings, ratings, and with word of mouth. Secondly, I'm curious where you found a magic oracle to tell you how to eliminate all the bad apps from the store, but keep all the good ones. I don't think that "(eq language objective-c)" is that oracle.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Apple promotes good apps, right? And then there's various ways of advertising and word of mouth. Has anyone actually said "I can't find the apps I want?" Is this a reported problem, or are you guessing? It sounds to me like you're rationalizing something that benefits you as a single developer also benefits the consumers.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    When the only market available for you to distribute your app gets saturated by zillions of other apps with similar characteristics and similar ratings, the expected RoI on the development of an app is reduced. This, in turn, leads to a decreased investment by the developers and, thus, to a high number of lower quality apps fueled by the new entrants in the market.
    - keltex 17y ago
      That argument doesn't hold water. The web is a completely open platform with zillions of websites "with similar characteristics". And sure there are crappy ones, but there are tons of great ones too.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        The web is not a walled garden you have to ask for permission to offer your products in.
    - j_baker 17y ago
      Of course, now you're begging the question: if there are already zillions of apps in the store and you're not providing anything they don't, does the world need you to develop it? On the other hand, if the market does get flooded with low-quality apps, it should be pretty easy for developers to make money by simply making good apps.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        > does the world need you to develop it? Possibly not, but you can't distinguish a moderately superior offering in an environment that saturated.
- smackfu 17y ago
  That's the current situation, without the new clause and where Apple "reviews" every app.
stcredzero 17y ago
Control brings certain benefits, but there's a trade-off. The trade-off is less innovation on your platform in the long term. I think Apple made this choice deliberately. They'd rather have more control over image and UX and let everyone else "innovate" features in software, then follow with their own slick version. They remind me of the old Mercedes in this regard.

maxklein 17y ago

What about the case where a large amount of apps are in the store. This is bad for both the consumer and the seller.

j_baker 17y ago
How is that bad for the consumer? Lots of apps means lots of supply, which means lower prices for the consumer.
- maxklein 17y ago
  The lowest price is already mandated by Apple. There is no lower price possible. Lots of apps means a big discovery problem by the consumer. They can't find the good apps then. So prices stay the same and the customer does not find what he wants.
  - mquander 17y ago
    Firstly, what do you mean, they can't find the good apps? There are already tens (hundreds?) of thousands of apps, and people seem to do OK with the store rankings, ratings, and with word of mouth. Secondly, I'm curious where you found a magic oracle to tell you how to eliminate all the bad apps from the store, but keep all the good ones. I don't think that "(eq language objective-c)" is that oracle.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Apple promotes good apps, right? And then there's various ways of advertising and word of mouth. Has anyone actually said "I can't find the apps I want?" Is this a reported problem, or are you guessing? It sounds to me like you're rationalizing something that benefits you as a single developer also benefits the consumers.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  When the only market available for you to distribute your app gets saturated by zillions of other apps with similar characteristics and similar ratings, the expected RoI on the development of an app is reduced. This, in turn, leads to a decreased investment by the developers and, thus, to a high number of lower quality apps fueled by the new entrants in the market.
  - keltex 17y ago
    That argument doesn't hold water. The web is a completely open platform with zillions of websites "with similar characteristics". And sure there are crappy ones, but there are tons of great ones too.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      The web is not a walled garden you have to ask for permission to offer your products in.
  - j_baker 17y ago
    Of course, now you're begging the question: if there are already zillions of apps in the store and you're not providing anything they don't, does the world need you to develop it? On the other hand, if the market does get flooded with low-quality apps, it should be pretty easy for developers to make money by simply making good apps.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      > does the world need you to develop it? Possibly not, but you can't distinguish a moderately superior offering in an environment that saturated.
smackfu 17y ago
That's the current situation, without the new clause and where Apple "reviews" every app.

stcredzero 17y ago

Control brings certain benefits, but there's a trade-off. The trade-off is less innovation on your platform in the long term. I think Apple made this choice deliberately. They'd rather have more control over image and UX and let everyone else "innovate" features in software, then follow with their own slick version. They remind me of the old Mercedes in this regard.