6 ms·

This isn't very actionable advice, though, since there is basically no such thing as a software product that isn't built on somebody else's property. You might

by chc 6y ago

This isn't very actionable advice, though, since there is basically no such thing as a software product that isn't built on somebody else's property. You might think, "Ah-ha, web apps!" But no, Google can still casually destroy you there. Or you might think, "Ah-ha, desktop apps!" But the OS vendor can casually destroy you there.

lidHanteyk 6y ago
Maybe this means that software shouldn't be distributed as products, but as code. Maybe people should be free to run code of their choice on their computers.
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  I am not helping my parents compile Gentoo Linux.
  - account42 6y ago
    Not that they should, but the only ability that is required for installing Gentoo is to read and follow instructions.
_jal 6y ago
People have been complaining about $dominant_player's power to destroy forever. It was IBM, then it was Microsoft, now we have new overlords. (For that matter, Sun was big enough to be a little obnoxious for a bit.) That's unfortunate, but it is how the software market has worked thus far. Platform owners have massive power over those who build on them. For it to change, the market fundamentals will have to change. People thought the internet would change things, and it did - instead of one monster, we now have several, each with much more reach and control. As far as actionable advice, well, starting a company isn't easy or formulaic. All I can recommend is look for niches where you'll be hard to dislodge and avoid situations where you have asymmetrical dependence on an entity that has no reason to care about you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gmueckl 6y ago
This is actionable advice. The action is to create an offer that is not entirely depeneent on a single platform provider. Don't build browser extensions for just a single browser. Don't build an app based business solely around an iOS or Android app - support both platforms. And so on.
- rckoepke 6y ago
  This implies that a company could generally survive 50% of their revenue disappearing overnight. This may be true for 1-3 employee companies but past that I doubt it. Also generally the large majority of your revenue still comes from one of your platforms, making that one still likely an existential risk.
- Ndymium 6y ago
  > Don't build browser extensions for just a single browser. That won't matter if 60–70 % of the users are on that single browser.
  - aktenlage 6y ago
    Which is one big reason, why having one browser dominating the market is a bad thing. Use firefox or something else, people.
ximeng 6y ago
Invest in more open platforms. Not a great short term solution, but not many alternatives.
- cwyers 6y ago
  Microsoft threw in the towel, discontinued their web browser development and became a Chromium fork. How are these extension developers supposed to invest enough in platforms that complete with Chrome to succeed?
  - arsome 6y ago
    Their platform still does compete, it's a separate web store run by a separate entity and in fact for extension developers it makes ports even easier.
skrebbel 6y ago
> Or you might think, "Ah-ha, desktop apps!" But the OS vendor can casually destroy you there. Casually? The amount of effort and goodwill, say, Microsoft would need to spend to prevent me from installing $PROGRAM on my computer is significantly higher than the amount of non-effort a single extension reviewer would need to expend to click "no" arbitrarily because they are having a bad day. How would Microsoft do it? Add legit software to Defender? Ship a Win10 update that disables a key API call $PROGRAM uses? Add "if program == $PROGRAM then exit" to the CreateProcess code? All possible, none casual. To the best of my knowledge they've never done something like this. I'm less deep into Apple land but I expect something similar holds on macos.
- enedil 6y ago
  Microsoft could add the software to Defender's database of signatures. Or just probably revoke your certificate.
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    Have they ever done such a thing for legit software (akin to Pushbullet?) My point is not that they can't do it, my point is that they can't casually do it. It would be Real Work and it would risk major backlash.
- kire456 6y ago
  The OS vendor could "destroy" you by making changes to the OS that affect your app, right? The Old New Thing[0] is full of stories of apps that exploited undocumented implementation details of the OS, and were surprised that those aspects were in fact changed in a later OS version. To its credit (though not everyone agrees), MS has spent a lot of effort making compatibility shims, basically doing other people's work for them, but they have no such obligation. 0. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/
  - bmj 6y ago
    This strikes me as a different class of problem. Of course software developers are at the mercy of other software and hardware, and have been since the days of yore. And even in that case, you could still potentially debug the issue. This is a different class of problem. In this case, a gatekeeper is asking you to use their service to distribute software through their channel, and that channel is governed by vague rules that may, in fact, be enforced on a whim. Further, the gatekeeper isn't being clear with the rules, and why you may have run afoul of them.
im3w1l 6y ago
Here's some actionable advice. Go to your local president / prime minister. Preferably a populist. Tell them how you see the dominance of a few megacorps as a threat to national security. This argument is especially strong if from your point of view they are foreign megacorps. Throw in something about colonialism if it would help your case. Express your wish that they do something.
- nautilus12 6y ago
  What? Are you being sarcastic?
  - sdwedq 6y ago
    This is seems like a good advice to increase competition by using nationalist sentiments. The problem is that many of these nationalist countries would outright ban competition. So people who demanded local alternative will end up with less competition.
mcguire 6y ago
Technically, yes, you are right. But let's burn that bridge when we get to it. At the moment the issue is the app store concept; it is designed to be a choke point, it is designed to be obscure, and it is designed to casually destroy software the store owner doesn't approve of. (What is the status of Microsoft's app store, by the way?)

by chc 6y ago

lidHanteyk 6y ago

Maybe this means that software shouldn't be distributed as products, but as code. Maybe people should be free to run code of their choice on their computers.

PopeDotNinja 6y ago
I am not helping my parents compile Gentoo Linux.
- account42 6y ago
  Not that they should, but the only ability that is required for installing Gentoo is to read and follow instructions.

_jal 6y ago

People have been complaining about $dominant_player's power to destroy forever. It was IBM, then it was Microsoft, now we have new overlords. (For that matter, Sun was big enough to be a little obnoxious for a bit.) That's unfortunate, but it is how the software market has worked thus far. Platform owners have massive power over those who build on them. For it to change, the market fundamentals will have to change. People thought the internet would change things, and it did - instead of one monster, we now have several, each with much more reach and control. As far as actionable advice, well, starting a company isn't easy or formulaic. All I can recommend is look for niches where you'll be hard to dislodge and avoid situations where you have asymmetrical dependence on an entity that has no reason to care about you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gmueckl 6y ago

This is actionable advice. The action is to create an offer that is not entirely depeneent on a single platform provider. Don't build browser extensions for just a single browser. Don't build an app based business solely around an iOS or Android app - support both platforms. And so on.

rckoepke 6y ago
This implies that a company could generally survive 50% of their revenue disappearing overnight. This may be true for 1-3 employee companies but past that I doubt it. Also generally the large majority of your revenue still comes from one of your platforms, making that one still likely an existential risk.
Ndymium 6y ago
> Don't build browser extensions for just a single browser. That won't matter if 60–70 % of the users are on that single browser.
- aktenlage 6y ago
  Which is one big reason, why having one browser dominating the market is a bad thing. Use firefox or something else, people.

ximeng 6y ago

Invest in more open platforms. Not a great short term solution, but not many alternatives.

cwyers 6y ago
Microsoft threw in the towel, discontinued their web browser development and became a Chromium fork. How are these extension developers supposed to invest enough in platforms that complete with Chrome to succeed?
- arsome 6y ago
  Their platform still does compete, it's a separate web store run by a separate entity and in fact for extension developers it makes ports even easier.

skrebbel 6y ago

> Or you might think, "Ah-ha, desktop apps!" But the OS vendor can casually destroy you there. Casually? The amount of effort and goodwill, say, Microsoft would need to spend to prevent me from installing $PROGRAM on my computer is significantly higher than the amount of non-effort a single extension reviewer would need to expend to click "no" arbitrarily because they are having a bad day. How would Microsoft do it? Add legit software to Defender? Ship a Win10 update that disables a key API call $PROGRAM uses? Add "if program == $PROGRAM then exit" to the CreateProcess code? All possible, none casual. To the best of my knowledge they've never done something like this. I'm less deep into Apple land but I expect something similar holds on macos.

enedil 6y ago
Microsoft could add the software to Defender's database of signatures. Or just probably revoke your certificate.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Have they ever done such a thing for legit software (akin to Pushbullet?) My point is not that they can't do it, my point is that they can't casually do it. It would be Real Work and it would risk major backlash.
kire456 6y ago
The OS vendor could "destroy" you by making changes to the OS that affect your app, right? The Old New Thing[0] is full of stories of apps that exploited undocumented implementation details of the OS, and were surprised that those aspects were in fact changed in a later OS version. To its credit (though not everyone agrees), MS has spent a lot of effort making compatibility shims, basically doing other people's work for them, but they have no such obligation. 0. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/
- bmj 6y ago
  This strikes me as a different class of problem. Of course software developers are at the mercy of other software and hardware, and have been since the days of yore. And even in that case, you could still potentially debug the issue. This is a different class of problem. In this case, a gatekeeper is asking you to use their service to distribute software through their channel, and that channel is governed by vague rules that may, in fact, be enforced on a whim. Further, the gatekeeper isn't being clear with the rules, and why you may have run afoul of them.

im3w1l 6y ago

Here's some actionable advice. Go to your local president / prime minister. Preferably a populist. Tell them how you see the dominance of a few megacorps as a threat to national security. This argument is especially strong if from your point of view they are foreign megacorps. Throw in something about colonialism if it would help your case. Express your wish that they do something.

nautilus12 6y ago
What? Are you being sarcastic?
- sdwedq 6y ago
  This is seems like a good advice to increase competition by using nationalist sentiments. The problem is that many of these nationalist countries would outright ban competition. So people who demanded local alternative will end up with less competition.

mcguire 6y ago

Technically, yes, you are right. But let's burn that bridge when we get to it. At the moment the issue is the app store concept; it is designed to be a choke point, it is designed to be obscure, and it is designed to casually destroy software the store owner doesn't approve of. (What is the status of Microsoft's app store, by the way?)