5 ms·

> Why pray tell would Apple want to “stifle” competition for FaceTime? It’s not like Apple makes money from it. FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the on

> Why pray tell would Apple want to “stifle” competition for FaceTime? It’s not like Apple makes money from it. FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. > And then they are stifling competition for their app - by “forcing” you to create an app that integrates with dialer and your call history? They force developers to choose / balance resources between iOS and the web. Because the desirable users are on iOS, resources must be wasted on proprietary native apps instead of cross-platform web apps that would theoretically work on any device/OS. They specifically want to funnel apps through the App Store, so that they can gouge developers for 30%. > Maybe your startup was “impacted” by not having the expertise or funding to create a native app like at least a dozen companies have done? My case isn't representative: we did have the expertise and the funding, we built the native app, we found product-market-channel-model fit, and after I stepped away, they've expanded internationally and closed a Series A this year. For us, the impact was diverting tens of thousands of dollars to Swift development. At the time we saw this as merely technical reality: we also built an Android app for performance reasons. That was years ago. By now, there should be many competitive video conferencing web apps that work across devices, and there aren't. At this point Apple's anti-competitiveness has become undeniable. It looks like the Justice Dept is setting up to slam them for bundling/tying Safari to iOS as they did Microsoft with IE/Windows (the ruling that popped the dot com bubble).

scarface74 7y ago
FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? iPads are the only tablets that actually sell worth anything and the average selling cost of Macs are twice that of the average PC. Also, the personal computer isn’t nearly as relevant as it use to be. Apple alone sells more iPhones than all consumer PCs combined and it only has about a 13% worldwide market share. My case isn't representative: we did have the expertise and the funding, we built the native app, we found product-market-channel-model fit, and after I stepped away, they've expanded internationally and closed a Series A this year. For us, the impact was diverting tens of thousands of dollars to Swift So you built an iOS app because of Safari and Apple’s evil lock in but you ended up spending money on an Android app anyway. So it was irrelevant because you couldn’t go to market with just a web app anyway.... They force developers to choose / balance resources between iOS and the web. Because the desirable users are on iOS, resources must be wasted on proprietary native apps instead of cross-platform web apps that would theoretically work on any device/OS. But you just admitted that you had to end up building an Android app anyway because the performance of the web app was unacceptable. So even though Chrome supported the standards you needed, the crappy hardware on most Android phones made you produce an Android app. I’m sure the desirable users only choose iPhones because of a FaceTime and “green bubbles”... They specifically want to funnel apps through the App Store, so that they can gouge developers for 30%. Again there is an existence proof that isn’t true. Not only does Apple not force app developers to go through their store for subscriptions - there are plenty that don’t - you can’t pay for a subscription to Zoom for instance through the App Store. At this point Apple's anti-competitiveness has become undeniable. It looks like the Justice Dept is setting up to slam them for bundling/tying Safari to iOS as they did Microsoft with IE/Windows (the ruling that popped the dot com bubble). There is an existence proof that you are wrong about the Justice Department “forced” Microsoft to unbundle IE and Windows. IE is still bundled with Windows over 20 years later. For us, the impact was diverting tens of thousands of dollars to Swift development. At the time we saw this as merely technical reality: we also built an Android app for performance reasons. That was years ago. By now, there should be many competitive video conferencing web apps that work across devices, and there aren't. Swift wasn’t introduced until 2014. Any startup that was crazy enough to use Swift then was making a very bad decision. Also the performance and hardware of the average Android phone is still crappy.
- maxwell 7y ago
  > So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may become seen as "grandma's phone" like Macs in the mid '90s. Scale effects and supply chain are contingent on demand. > WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular Grandma only knows how to use FaceTime. > iPads are the only tablets that actually sell > Also, the personal computer isn’t nearly as relevant Agreed, iPad and Mac sales are basically irrelevant compared to iPhone, because tablets and desktops and laptops are almost niche compared to the scale of mobile worldwide. No indication that any post-mobile devices (i.e. watches, glasses, goggles) will approach the size of the smartphone market. > So you built an iOS app because of Safari and Apple’s evil lock in but you ended up spending money on an Android app anyway. So it was irrelevant because you couldn’t go to market with just a web app anyway.... Yeah, in 2016. We were contending with iPhone 4s and the first generation of Android phones that could reasonably perform browser-based video calls and overheating handsets and draining batteries after 20+ min video surveys and no WebRTC support from Apple yet and a bunch of 3G. I didn't start thinking about Apple's potential antitrust violations ("evil lock in") until evaluating re-entering the video chat space in 2018. In 2020, with contemporary hardware, one shouldn't still need to download some native app in order to perform a video call. > Again there is an existence proof that isn’t true. Not only does Apple not force I specifically said funnel, not force. The strategy is to get developers into the sale pipeline and on the radar for competitive analysis. Zoom has considered handling payments through the App Store, but decided against it because they support multiple platforms and have the resources to build their own subscription infrastructure. > There is an existence proof that you are wrong about the Justice Department “forced” Microsoft to unbundle IE and Windows. IE is still bundled with Windows over 20 years later. Hah, yes—but now you can delete it! > Swift wasn’t introduced until 2014. Any startup that was crazy enough to use Swift then was making a very bad decision. Also the performance and hardware of the average Android phone is still crappy. I should have said "native iOS development." Swift over Objective-C felt like a good decision, we worked with strong contractors who were motivated to use newer tech, perf was good, the code was clean and didn't require much ongoing maintenance, our CTO was able to jump in later and make changes efficiently. It was just a huge distraction to need to build an iOS app, go through the App Store, etc., but we wouldn't have been able to get traction without it.

scarface74 7y ago

FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? iPads are the only tablets that actually sell worth anything and the average selling cost of Macs are twice that of the average PC. Also, the personal computer isn’t nearly as relevant as it use to be. Apple alone sells more iPhones than all consumer PCs combined and it only has about a 13% worldwide market share. My case isn't representative: we did have the expertise and the funding, we built the native app, we found product-market-channel-model fit, and after I stepped away, they've expanded internationally and closed a Series A this year. For us, the impact was diverting tens of thousands of dollars to Swift So you built an iOS app because of Safari and Apple’s evil lock in but you ended up spending money on an Android app anyway. So it was irrelevant because you couldn’t go to market with just a web app anyway.... They force developers to choose / balance resources between iOS and the web. Because the desirable users are on iOS, resources must be wasted on proprietary native apps instead of cross-platform web apps that would theoretically work on any device/OS. But you just admitted that you had to end up building an Android app anyway because the performance of the web app was unacceptable. So even though Chrome supported the standards you needed, the crappy hardware on most Android phones made you produce an Android app. I’m sure the desirable users only choose iPhones because of a FaceTime and “green bubbles”... They specifically want to funnel apps through the App Store, so that they can gouge developers for 30%. Again there is an existence proof that isn’t true. Not only does Apple not force app developers to go through their store for subscriptions - there are plenty that don’t - you can’t pay for a subscription to Zoom for instance through the App Store. At this point Apple's anti-competitiveness has become undeniable. It looks like the Justice Dept is setting up to slam them for bundling/tying Safari to iOS as they did Microsoft with IE/Windows (the ruling that popped the dot com bubble). There is an existence proof that you are wrong about the Justice Department “forced” Microsoft to unbundle IE and Windows. IE is still bundled with Windows over 20 years later. For us, the impact was diverting tens of thousands of dollars to Swift development. At the time we saw this as merely technical reality: we also built an Android app for performance reasons. That was years ago. By now, there should be many competitive video conferencing web apps that work across devices, and there aren't. Swift wasn’t introduced until 2014. Any startup that was crazy enough to use Swift then was making a very bad decision. Also the performance and hardware of the average Android phone is still crappy.

maxwell 7y ago
> So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may become seen as "grandma's phone" like Macs in the mid '90s. Scale effects and supply chain are contingent on demand. > WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular Grandma only knows how to use FaceTime. > iPads are the only tablets that actually sell > Also, the personal computer isn’t nearly as relevant Agreed, iPad and Mac sales are basically irrelevant compared to iPhone, because tablets and desktops and laptops are almost niche compared to the scale of mobile worldwide. No indication that any post-mobile devices (i.e. watches, glasses, goggles) will approach the size of the smartphone market. > So you built an iOS app because of Safari and Apple’s evil lock in but you ended up spending money on an Android app anyway. So it was irrelevant because you couldn’t go to market with just a web app anyway.... Yeah, in 2016. We were contending with iPhone 4s and the first generation of Android phones that could reasonably perform browser-based video calls and overheating handsets and draining batteries after 20+ min video surveys and no WebRTC support from Apple yet and a bunch of 3G. I didn't start thinking about Apple's potential antitrust violations ("evil lock in") until evaluating re-entering the video chat space in 2018. In 2020, with contemporary hardware, one shouldn't still need to download some native app in order to perform a video call. > Again there is an existence proof that isn’t true. Not only does Apple not force I specifically said funnel, not force. The strategy is to get developers into the sale pipeline and on the radar for competitive analysis. Zoom has considered handling payments through the App Store, but decided against it because they support multiple platforms and have the resources to build their own subscription infrastructure. > There is an existence proof that you are wrong about the Justice Department “forced” Microsoft to unbundle IE and Windows. IE is still bundled with Windows over 20 years later. Hah, yes—but now you can delete it! > Swift wasn’t introduced until 2014. Any startup that was crazy enough to use Swift then was making a very bad decision. Also the performance and hardware of the average Android phone is still crappy. I should have said "native iOS development." Swift over Objective-C felt like a good decision, we worked with strong contractors who were motivated to use newer tech, perf was good, the code was clean and didn't require much ongoing maintenance, our CTO was able to jump in later and make changes efficiently. It was just a huge distraction to need to build an iOS app, go through the App Store, etc., but we wouldn't have been able to get traction without it.