5 ms·

Tools that empower individuals on a mass scale are threatening to existing power structures.

anotheryou 7y ago
Any evidence for active discouragement of tool building? I actually don't see that for general purpose tools, only where censorship or free speech come in to play.
- robenkleene 7y ago
  Point blank I think Mac App Store restrictions, iOS restrictions, and the current decrepit state of AppKit are all a systemic approach by Apple to prevent new powerful tools from emerging that threaten their current market dominance. Ben Thompson wrote the canonical piece about this situation[0], but I think this paragraph from a different article is the best summary[1]: > The reality for Jobs and Apple was that the company’s users needed Office (along with Adobe’s products) more than they needed a Mac. I’ve long argued that being in this position is a big reason why Apple hasn’t enabled sustainable apps: never again would a software developer hold Apple hostage. The irony, though, is that when it came time to launch the iPad Pro, Apple had no one else to turn to. [0]: https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain... [1]: https://stratechery.com/2015/from-products-to-platforms/ https://stratechery.com/2015/from-products-to-platforms/
  - anotheryou 7y ago
    fair point, thanks. Not my universe I guess...
  - zepto 7y ago
    This seems like a bizarre point of view - AppKit may not be getting as much investment as some other elements, but the overall platform has received massive investments. What would Apple be doing differently if they weren’t hypothetically trying to hold back tools for thought?
    - robenkleene 7y ago
      The platform investment it's getting makes macOS more like iOS. Almost all of those changes simultaneously have an effect of making it difficult to develop powerful, platform-defining software for it. As I'm fond of pointing out, Sketch is the last major triumph of the Mac as a platform and it was released the year before the sandboxing requirement came to the Mac App Store. I'd argue there would be more Sketch like success on the Mac if Apple were trying to cultivate it as a platform for powerful software instead of actively hurting it. But that's what they’re doing by trying to make it like iOS, which is an OS that has produced no new industry-defining software like the desktop produced Adobe CS, MS Office, Ableton Live, and Sketch. If you don't think that's caused by Apple's policies than what do you think it's caused by? For the arguments that it is caused by Apple's policies, there's the two Thompson pieces I linked to above, and I cover more details myself in this piece https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-have-failed-creative-apps/ https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-ha...
      - zepto 7y ago
        It seems like what you and the linked piece are taking about are a narrow set of heavyweight old-school creative apps that are analog to the Adobe suite. I see how the App Store impedes existing apps of that kind, but the presence of newcomers like Pixelmator and Pixelmator pro seems to imply that it’s more about legacy than about anything fundamental. I also don’t see how this is about the wider category of ‘tools for thought’. MindNode for example is a world class tool for thought that thrives on the App Store too. Given these examples it’s hard to see how there is any general conspiracy against tools for thought, although I grant that meeting the needs of people like Adobe is a low priority.
        robenkleene 7y ago
        Pixelmator was launched in 2007 and used the same strategy as Sketch, it’s similarly based on the AppKit frameworks that Sketch is based on. It would be great if Apple had continued to create those kinds of powerful APIs instead of say, bringing iOS share sheets to macOS. MindNode’s about page lists seven people. That’s pretty close to the maximum level of success Apple’s policies allow on their platforms. If you don’t care about ambitious apps sure, no big deal, but I care. Couple of other quick points: I’m less concerned about existing apps like Adobe (they’ll be fine), I want new apps that are powerful like those apps. Also, and this is pretty subtle, I don’t think there’s any kind of conspiracy here, I know I talk like it is, but I don’t think executives are sitting in a room saying let’s make our products bad for powerful apps, it’s more like indifference, and “hey iOS is making us so much money, why not just use that same stuff everywhere?” But an implication of that is it moves the Mac to a more iOS-like software market, and that’s a market that’s failed to produce technology that’s the same caliber as things like Adobe, Office, Ableton. Whereas what Apple was doing before the iPad was producing apps of that caliber with the OmniGroup’s apps, and Sketch.
  - andymatuschak 7y ago
    FWIW: I'm one of the co-authors of the article, and I worked at Apple during the early App Store years, but I saw no evidence of this. Based on my experiences, I believe the current situation is more a function of neglect and distraction than anything intentionally orchestrated.
    - robenkleene 7y ago
      Agreed 100%, I know I talk like it's some big conspiracy but I really don't believe that (I talk more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150163), I totally think the main reason is "neglect and distraction", just like you said. Really this is just my frustration coming through over seeing the platform I love being neglected, but frankly I should probably stop letting that seep into my commentary since I don't think it's helping my case. But... with that said, I do think there is something more insidious going on, and just because it's not a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not systematic. If you go upstream and look for the cause of the neglect and distraction, the root reason is simply that Apple's incentives don't line up with creators anymore. The majority of Apple's revenue no longer comes from this type of customer, like it once did, and in fact, per Ben Thompson article Apple has a lot to lose if a new killer app emerges, because those apps threaten Apple's control of their platform. Apple in 1996 had to listen to Adobe and Microsoft (and still has to listen to them on the Mac), but they don't on iOS, and that's because the restrictions on iOS haven't allowed a apps like Adobe's and Microsoft's to emerge. It's hard for me not to think that some of the reason so many security features get pushed through on macOS isn't because deep down there's some desire for that iOS-like control on the Mac as well. A companies incentives emerge from their cumulative decisions over time, even if it's not done consciously.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- djdusuwj3g 7y ago
  Censorship in the modern context typically just means discouraging a particular type of tool or specific tool trait. Platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are just social tools that are in a persistent stage of development after all. And given their broad use cases I'd argue they're some of the most versatile tools in history behind simple machines and electricity. The same could even be said of previous social tools like the telephone and the radio. Not that no regulation is good either, but it seemed worth pointing out since it's unclear to me why you're making a distinction between social tools and other types of tools.

Any evidence for active discouragement of tool building? I actually don't see that for general purpose tools, only where censorship or free speech come in to play.

robenkleene 7y ago
Point blank I think Mac App Store restrictions, iOS restrictions, and the current decrepit state of AppKit are all a systemic approach by Apple to prevent new powerful tools from emerging that threaten their current market dominance. Ben Thompson wrote the canonical piece about this situation[0], but I think this paragraph from a different article is the best summary[1]: > The reality for Jobs and Apple was that the company’s users needed Office (along with Adobe’s products) more than they needed a Mac. I’ve long argued that being in this position is a big reason why Apple hasn’t enabled sustainable apps: never again would a software developer hold Apple hostage. The irony, though, is that when it came time to launch the iPad Pro, Apple had no one else to turn to. [0]: https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain... [1]: https://stratechery.com/2015/from-products-to-platforms/ https://stratechery.com/2015/from-products-to-platforms/
- anotheryou 7y ago
  fair point, thanks. Not my universe I guess...
- zepto 7y ago
  This seems like a bizarre point of view - AppKit may not be getting as much investment as some other elements, but the overall platform has received massive investments. What would Apple be doing differently if they weren’t hypothetically trying to hold back tools for thought?
  - robenkleene 7y ago
    The platform investment it's getting makes macOS more like iOS. Almost all of those changes simultaneously have an effect of making it difficult to develop powerful, platform-defining software for it. As I'm fond of pointing out, Sketch is the last major triumph of the Mac as a platform and it was released the year before the sandboxing requirement came to the Mac App Store. I'd argue there would be more Sketch like success on the Mac if Apple were trying to cultivate it as a platform for powerful software instead of actively hurting it. But that's what they’re doing by trying to make it like iOS, which is an OS that has produced no new industry-defining software like the desktop produced Adobe CS, MS Office, Ableton Live, and Sketch. If you don't think that's caused by Apple's policies than what do you think it's caused by? For the arguments that it is caused by Apple's policies, there's the two Thompson pieces I linked to above, and I cover more details myself in this piece https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-have-failed-creative-apps/ https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-ha...
    - zepto 7y ago
      It seems like what you and the linked piece are taking about are a narrow set of heavyweight old-school creative apps that are analog to the Adobe suite. I see how the App Store impedes existing apps of that kind, but the presence of newcomers like Pixelmator and Pixelmator pro seems to imply that it’s more about legacy than about anything fundamental. I also don’t see how this is about the wider category of ‘tools for thought’. MindNode for example is a world class tool for thought that thrives on the App Store too. Given these examples it’s hard to see how there is any general conspiracy against tools for thought, although I grant that meeting the needs of people like Adobe is a low priority.
      - robenkleene 7y ago
        Pixelmator was launched in 2007 and used the same strategy as Sketch, it’s similarly based on the AppKit frameworks that Sketch is based on. It would be great if Apple had continued to create those kinds of powerful APIs instead of say, bringing iOS share sheets to macOS. MindNode’s about page lists seven people. That’s pretty close to the maximum level of success Apple’s policies allow on their platforms. If you don’t care about ambitious apps sure, no big deal, but I care. Couple of other quick points: I’m less concerned about existing apps like Adobe (they’ll be fine), I want new apps that are powerful like those apps. Also, and this is pretty subtle, I don’t think there’s any kind of conspiracy here, I know I talk like it is, but I don’t think executives are sitting in a room saying let’s make our products bad for powerful apps, it’s more like indifference, and “hey iOS is making us so much money, why not just use that same stuff everywhere?” But an implication of that is it moves the Mac to a more iOS-like software market, and that’s a market that’s failed to produce technology that’s the same caliber as things like Adobe, Office, Ableton. Whereas what Apple was doing before the iPad was producing apps of that caliber with the OmniGroup’s apps, and Sketch.
- andymatuschak 7y ago
  FWIW: I'm one of the co-authors of the article, and I worked at Apple during the early App Store years, but I saw no evidence of this. Based on my experiences, I believe the current situation is more a function of neglect and distraction than anything intentionally orchestrated.
  - robenkleene 7y ago
    Agreed 100%, I know I talk like it's some big conspiracy but I really don't believe that (I talk more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22150163), I totally think the main reason is "neglect and distraction", just like you said. Really this is just my frustration coming through over seeing the platform I love being neglected, but frankly I should probably stop letting that seep into my commentary since I don't think it's helping my case. But... with that said, I do think there is something more insidious going on, and just because it's not a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not systematic. If you go upstream and look for the cause of the neglect and distraction, the root reason is simply that Apple's incentives don't line up with creators anymore. The majority of Apple's revenue no longer comes from this type of customer, like it once did, and in fact, per Ben Thompson article Apple has a lot to lose if a new killer app emerges, because those apps threaten Apple's control of their platform. Apple in 1996 had to listen to Adobe and Microsoft (and still has to listen to them on the Mac), but they don't on iOS, and that's because the restrictions on iOS haven't allowed a apps like Adobe's and Microsoft's to emerge. It's hard for me not to think that some of the reason so many security features get pushed through on macOS isn't because deep down there's some desire for that iOS-like control on the Mac as well. A companies incentives emerge from their cumulative decisions over time, even if it's not done consciously.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
djdusuwj3g 7y ago
Censorship in the modern context typically just means discouraging a particular type of tool or specific tool trait. Platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are just social tools that are in a persistent stage of development after all. And given their broad use cases I'd argue they're some of the most versatile tools in history behind simple machines and electricity. The same could even be said of previous social tools like the telephone and the radio. Not that no regulation is good either, but it seemed worth pointing out since it's unclear to me why you're making a distinction between social tools and other types of tools.