5 ms·

I’m sympathetic to my fellow product developers. As a user, I’m glad Apple adds features to iOS without charging for updates, and does so using a consistent and

I’m sympathetic to my fellow product developers. As a user, I’m glad Apple adds features to iOS without charging for updates, and does so using a consistent and legible privacy/security model. Unlike on macOS, every “sherlocked” iOS app costs Apple App Store revenue, so they’re working against incentives to make a feature first-party. That suggests the decisions are at least motivated by a belief in doing right by users. Still, I’d like developers to be compensated for being put out of business.

benologist 7y ago
The EU has grumbled about platform owners also being publishers so hopefully they intervene at some point. Look at how well-behaved Microsoft the iOS publisher is, compared to where and when they have dominated as both platform and publisher. I think we will all be better off when the iOS app store has a mandate not to compete. Same with Twitter on their platform, Amazon with theirs, Facebook, Google etc.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  I’m inclined to agree with you about Apple Music and Spotify. Most of the Sherlocked apps become core features of iOS and watchOS, so I don’t know if a publisher/platform split would make a difference. These third party apps would need to be protected by a mandatory OS feature freeze, which seems unlikely. Microsoft’s iOS apps also use good ideas from smaller third party apps, especially Outlook and OneNote. Since Apple made macOS and iWork free, and done the same on iOS, with no ulterior goal to eventually sell higher priced office software or operating systems, it isn’t analogous to Windows and Office, though customers should certainly maintain demand for that not to change.
- selestify 7y ago
  Was Office on Windows not well-behaved or something?
  - benologist 7y ago
    Many years ago when Windows represented close to 100% of computing, before smartphones as we know them, Microsoft deliberately killed off competing browsers by bundling IE for free and coupling it so deeply with Windows you couldn't even uninstall it for the longest time. Just by being able to bundle their own software they had a huge competitive edge because to use anything else meant downloading browsers on dial-up internet, and they leveraged that to destroy all other browsers' market share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars The first browser war ended with Internet Explorer having no remaining serious competition for its market share. This also brought an end to the rapid innovation in web browsers; until 2006 there was only one new version of Internet Explorer since version 6.0 had been released in 2001. It wasn't until Firefox that browser competition emerged again then some years later Chrome followed. IE was so prolific iirc both Firefox and Chrome had extensions that would actually use IE6 or IE7 to power a tab so you could access sites with IE-only technology or support. After antitrust cases in the US and EU the software bundled with Windows didn't really grow in variety again, and we got browser selection choices and stuff forced upon Microsoft. Today on iOS and Android where MS is only a publisher they compete on the merits of their software instead of unfairly leveraging the platform. We also see Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Amazon pretty wantonly leveraging their platforms against the people using them to displace them with official alternatives. I don't really feel like Google is or has been as predatory but might just be out of my purview.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Only if you have on rose colored glasses. It was a point of nerd pride if your operating system could handle constant Netscape crashes well - Macs couldn’t.
    - will4274 7y ago
      And yet... Every smartphone on the market bundles a browser and none of them make it possible to disable or remove the browser from the rest of the OS today. History has proven Microsoft's argument - a web browser is a core part of the modern operating system.
wtmt 7y ago
> As a user, I’m glad Apple adds features to iOS without charging for updates... A minor nitpick: on the accounting side, Apple does set aside part of the price of devices to provide software updates and features (imagined and not yet imagined at the time of sale) for a few years, deferring full revenue recognition on sold devices until then. So the cost of updates and addding software features has already been charged upfront to the buyer.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  This sounds more like a scheme to reduce their tax obligations (something Apple is very good at).
  - dhagz 7y ago
    I forget the name of it, but there is a regulation that requires them to do that. You used to have to pay a small fee for iOS updates (I think just for the iPod Touch) - they got around it for the iPhone by doing this trick to have it considered a "subscription device".
    - wilg 7y ago
      Wasn't it to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act ?
ineedasername 7y ago
Not really working against incentives when such features and free apps make people more willing to buy iPhones. It's just trading short term revenue for much longer term success.

benologist 7y ago

The EU has grumbled about platform owners also being publishers so hopefully they intervene at some point. Look at how well-behaved Microsoft the iOS publisher is, compared to where and when they have dominated as both platform and publisher. I think we will all be better off when the iOS app store has a mandate not to compete. Same with Twitter on their platform, Amazon with theirs, Facebook, Google etc.

1123581321 7y ago
I’m inclined to agree with you about Apple Music and Spotify. Most of the Sherlocked apps become core features of iOS and watchOS, so I don’t know if a publisher/platform split would make a difference. These third party apps would need to be protected by a mandatory OS feature freeze, which seems unlikely. Microsoft’s iOS apps also use good ideas from smaller third party apps, especially Outlook and OneNote. Since Apple made macOS and iWork free, and done the same on iOS, with no ulterior goal to eventually sell higher priced office software or operating systems, it isn’t analogous to Windows and Office, though customers should certainly maintain demand for that not to change.
selestify 7y ago
Was Office on Windows not well-behaved or something?
- benologist 7y ago
  Many years ago when Windows represented close to 100% of computing, before smartphones as we know them, Microsoft deliberately killed off competing browsers by bundling IE for free and coupling it so deeply with Windows you couldn't even uninstall it for the longest time. Just by being able to bundle their own software they had a huge competitive edge because to use anything else meant downloading browsers on dial-up internet, and they leveraged that to destroy all other browsers' market share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars The first browser war ended with Internet Explorer having no remaining serious competition for its market share. This also brought an end to the rapid innovation in web browsers; until 2006 there was only one new version of Internet Explorer since version 6.0 had been released in 2001. It wasn't until Firefox that browser competition emerged again then some years later Chrome followed. IE was so prolific iirc both Firefox and Chrome had extensions that would actually use IE6 or IE7 to power a tab so you could access sites with IE-only technology or support. After antitrust cases in the US and EU the software bundled with Windows didn't really grow in variety again, and we got browser selection choices and stuff forced upon Microsoft. Today on iOS and Android where MS is only a publisher they compete on the merits of their software instead of unfairly leveraging the platform. We also see Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Amazon pretty wantonly leveraging their platforms against the people using them to displace them with official alternatives. I don't really feel like Google is or has been as predatory but might just be out of my purview.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Only if you have on rose colored glasses. It was a point of nerd pride if your operating system could handle constant Netscape crashes well - Macs couldn’t.
  - will4274 7y ago
    And yet... Every smartphone on the market bundles a browser and none of them make it possible to disable or remove the browser from the rest of the OS today. History has proven Microsoft's argument - a web browser is a core part of the modern operating system.

wtmt 7y ago

> As a user, I’m glad Apple adds features to iOS without charging for updates... A minor nitpick: on the accounting side, Apple does set aside part of the price of devices to provide software updates and features (imagined and not yet imagined at the time of sale) for a few years, deferring full revenue recognition on sold devices until then. So the cost of updates and addding software features has already been charged upfront to the buyer.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
This sounds more like a scheme to reduce their tax obligations (something Apple is very good at).
- dhagz 7y ago
  I forget the name of it, but there is a regulation that requires them to do that. You used to have to pay a small fee for iOS updates (I think just for the iPod Touch) - they got around it for the iPhone by doing this trick to have it considered a "subscription device".
  - wilg 7y ago
    Wasn't it to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act ?

ineedasername 7y ago

Not really working against incentives when such features and free apps make people more willing to buy iPhones. It's just trading short term revenue for much longer term success.