11 ms·

In China: - There is no single Play Store equivalent, so the barrier to make people install a relatively unknown app is higher. - Phones do not come with Goog

by 4cao 6y ago

In China: - There is no single Play Store equivalent, so the barrier to make people install a relatively unknown app is higher. - Phones do not come with Google Services Framework, so the barrier to develop a networked app is higher. - Just like everywhere else, people will use whatever is available because a suboptimal solution is still better than opting out completely from the benefits these solutions bring. I don't think in China specifically it's about low-end devices or data cost at all. South East Asia - perhaps, but all in all the situation reflects the structure of the economies (the prevalence of monopolistic conglomerates with a finger in every pie). Most of the time the most widespread solution is far from excellent because it only has to be better than the competition. Even more so when competition is limited by entry barriers to the point it hardly exists. So while the article is a good summary of the situation, it ends up being a bit like wondering why people use Windows. Android is already one abstraction layer on top of another, there is no intrinsic technological benefit of adding yet another one OS-like super app on top of it, or at the very least any such benefits remain to be demonstrated.

swiley 6y ago
> - Phones do not come with Google Services Framework, so the barrier to develop a networked app is higher. Looking at f-droid: hobbyists seem to do just fine without google play services. I feel like this gives you a business advantage rather than a technical one.
- duxup 6y ago
  f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. I go searching and I can't figure out what some of the apps even "DO", others are "Here is this app, you need to install these other things too to make it work, also it only works with X, so maybe it will work for you I duno....". Now I get why it is the way it is, I don't expect much more from folks putting out software for me like that, but it's a terrible user experience.
  - swiley 6y ago
    >f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO This has very little to do with what I said (arguing some library doesn’t make things easier) but ok. >I go searching and I can't figure out what some of the apps even "DO", It’s been a couple years but I don’t remember the play store being different. >Here is this app, you need to install these other things too to make it work Like the Termux API app needing termux? That’s the only one I remember being like that. Most of the apps I used were self contained. Do you have an example? From memory F-droid was much better than google play except for the lower selection but it has been a while.
  - stallmanite 6y ago
    Conversely I always look on FDroid first because for me the quality of apps is higher and the level of shady BS is minimal. I only resort to the Play store if there’s no open source alternative.
  - 4cao 6y ago
    > f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. It's not good for app discovery. You already need to know what you are looking for. Other than that, most of the time it works fine. In other words, it's a bit like Amazon.
  - LockAndLol 6y ago
    > f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. What are you installing to make it a bad user experience? I don't have google services (no google account) at all, only use F-Droid and Aurora store and haven't any problems. Even convinced a friend to go the same route with minimal handholding and they aren't technically inclined - no problems.
- 4cao 6y ago
  People who don't run Play services by choice will typically use MicroG [1], which still uses Google infrastructure. F-Droid is doing fine but mostly with a certain kind of apps that either run entirely on the device, or connect to third-party networks via more or less established protocols like IMAP, XMPP, OpenDAV, etc. Google provides Cloud Messaging, Firebase, etc. free of charge. Everything can be worked around with enough money thrown at it of course but choices like this tip the scale in favor of going for a mini-app instead of a standalone one. 1. https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Not all users who eschew Google Play services are using MicroG. I would be surprised if even a majority were. These days, the sole remaining large community for bare Android is Lineage, and not only does it ship without MicroG, any discussion of MicroG is banned on its channels. I have set up Android phones with Lineage for several relatives, and if the user is comfortable doing online banking through the browser instead of a bank-provided app, then there is really no need for Google Play services or the MicroG substitute. Whatsapp runs fine without Play services, and in my region OSM-based maps are a viable competitor to Google Maps.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Remember the Fire Phone? Android without Google didn't go so well for Amazon.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    The Fire Phone had other issues. It was a new player in a crowded market and had no reason to exist. It had one gimmick, but it was forgettable enough that I can’t even remember what it was right now, but I remember it was dumb. Google themselves has struggled in this market: see the Nexus line.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Parallax screen tilt
      - toast0 6y ago
        And swipe up for back, with just a home button. And that awful launcher.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Outdated hardware too.
tanilama 6y ago
> Android is already one abstraction layer on top of another, there is no intrinsic technological benefit of adding yet another one OS-like super app on top of it, or at the very least any such benefits remain to be demonstrated. This has to be prove by market. If the OS-ish super apps are winning, means the customers are approving it.
- 4cao 6y ago
  > If the OS-ish super apps are winning, means the customers are approving it. If people are not eating meat in North Korea, it doesn't necessarily mean they're supporting vegetarianism.
  - tanilama 6y ago
    People are using Android, just not GMS. It is funny, that GMS itself is yet another layer built upon Android. How is it different that Tencent distributing this layer via WeChat, other than Google bundles this layer through GMS? Tencent does have its counterpart of GMS, like piece by piece, but that approach isn't winning against WeChat either.
    - echevil 6y ago
      The way WeChat distributes additional content is in the form of mini-apps, which has no similarly to GMS. It is something that does not exist in the ecosystem of US apps.
echevil 6y ago
In China and other emerging markets, downloading apps from app store are just something that many users would rarely do, no matter it is App Store, Play Store, or many other Android App Stores available in China. It is a big obstacle that most US developers never realised. The main benefit of super apps, and why it is so popular in those countries, is that it doesn't require users to download anything to use new feature. In some use cases I also found that so convenient. Just as an example, WeChat has an ecosystem of mini-apps. When you go to a restaurant in China, you can often find QR code on each table. If you can that QR code, it would open a mini-apps that lets you place orders and make payments, without waiting for the waiter to serve you. A mini app is like a website that doesn't require download and storage on the phone, but the user experience feels more native and is tightly integrated with features available in WeChat. It would be much harder to get users if the same thing requires you download an app.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Could you effectively replicate the restaurant example by having a qr code that leads to a website when scanned? A nice, smooth, mobile-optimized website, I mean.
  - echevil 6y ago
    Possible, but I see two big obstacles: 1. Mini-apps are optimized for this one purpose and feels much faster and native, websites won't be able to achieve the same. 2. Some features provided by WeChat is actually important, especially the payment part. Websites won't be able to integrate something like WeChat pay seamlessly as mini-apps do. If it requires users to put in credit card information, it would instantly fail in these countries
    - wenc 6y ago
      I can't comment on 1 but for 2, I'm seeing a lot more merchants (probably Shopify merchants) support mobile payments on their websites (yes websites, not mobile apps) these days. I can now go to a vendor's website (say jrwatkins.com, etc.) on my phone, checkout, do a fingerprint/face scan on Apple Pay and the transaction is done in under 5 seconds. I assume the experience with Google Pay is similar. There's no longer a need to create an account on the website. The delivery address defaults to the one on Apple Pay (and can be modified at time of payment). Delivery method can also be selected on the Apple Pay screen. My credit card number is never transmitted. This type of frictionless checkout that was once the domain of companies like Hoteltonight is now becoming more common on ecommerce sites.
analyst74 6y ago
I think what you said have merits, which I'm in no position of judging, but a couple facts are incorrect: - there are multiple play store equivalent, i.e. Mi Store, Baidu store, and several others. There is actually more competition at app store level in China, as opposed to Google's monopoly on that front, which might be the reason why user behaviors are different. - not sure how you define OS-like abstraction layer, but Chrome is also basically a super app. In fact, developing for Wechat is more similar to developing website than native app.
toast0 6y ago
> Phones do not come with Google Services Framework, so the barrier to develop a networked app is higher. What do developers do for push messaging? In older versions of Android, you could maintain a connection to your server in the background, but recent versions make it really hard to stay active, even if you're big enough to get whitelisted by phone OEMs --- if you're small, is it even possible?

by 4cao 6y ago

swiley 6y ago

> - Phones do not come with Google Services Framework, so the barrier to develop a networked app is higher. Looking at f-droid: hobbyists seem to do just fine without google play services. I feel like this gives you a business advantage rather than a technical one.

duxup 6y ago
f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. I go searching and I can't figure out what some of the apps even "DO", others are "Here is this app, you need to install these other things too to make it work, also it only works with X, so maybe it will work for you I duno....". Now I get why it is the way it is, I don't expect much more from folks putting out software for me like that, but it's a terrible user experience.
- swiley 6y ago
  >f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO This has very little to do with what I said (arguing some library doesn’t make things easier) but ok. >I go searching and I can't figure out what some of the apps even "DO", It’s been a couple years but I don’t remember the play store being different. >Here is this app, you need to install these other things too to make it work Like the Termux API app needing termux? That’s the only one I remember being like that. Most of the apps I used were self contained. Do you have an example? From memory F-droid was much better than google play except for the lower selection but it has been a while.
- stallmanite 6y ago
  Conversely I always look on FDroid first because for me the quality of apps is higher and the level of shady BS is minimal. I only resort to the Play store if there’s no open source alternative.
- 4cao 6y ago
  > f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. It's not good for app discovery. You already need to know what you are looking for. Other than that, most of the time it works fine. In other words, it's a bit like Amazon.
- LockAndLol 6y ago
  > f-droid is a horrible experience though IMO. What are you installing to make it a bad user experience? I don't have google services (no google account) at all, only use F-Droid and Aurora store and haven't any problems. Even convinced a friend to go the same route with minimal handholding and they aren't technically inclined - no problems.
4cao 6y ago
People who don't run Play services by choice will typically use MicroG [1], which still uses Google infrastructure. F-Droid is doing fine but mostly with a certain kind of apps that either run entirely on the device, or connect to third-party networks via more or less established protocols like IMAP, XMPP, OpenDAV, etc. Google provides Cloud Messaging, Firebase, etc. free of charge. Everything can be worked around with enough money thrown at it of course but choices like this tip the scale in favor of going for a mini-app instead of a standalone one. 1. https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Not all users who eschew Google Play services are using MicroG. I would be surprised if even a majority were. These days, the sole remaining large community for bare Android is Lineage, and not only does it ship without MicroG, any discussion of MicroG is banned on its channels. I have set up Android phones with Lineage for several relatives, and if the user is comfortable doing online banking through the browser instead of a bank-provided app, then there is really no need for Google Play services or the MicroG substitute. Whatsapp runs fine without Play services, and in my region OSM-based maps are a viable competitor to Google Maps.
dehrmann 6y ago
Remember the Fire Phone? Android without Google didn't go so well for Amazon.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  The Fire Phone had other issues. It was a new player in a crowded market and had no reason to exist. It had one gimmick, but it was forgettable enough that I can’t even remember what it was right now, but I remember it was dumb. Google themselves has struggled in this market: see the Nexus line.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Parallax screen tilt
    - toast0 6y ago
      And swipe up for back, with just a home button. And that awful launcher.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Outdated hardware too.

tanilama 6y ago

> Android is already one abstraction layer on top of another, there is no intrinsic technological benefit of adding yet another one OS-like super app on top of it, or at the very least any such benefits remain to be demonstrated. This has to be prove by market. If the OS-ish super apps are winning, means the customers are approving it.

4cao 6y ago
> If the OS-ish super apps are winning, means the customers are approving it. If people are not eating meat in North Korea, it doesn't necessarily mean they're supporting vegetarianism.
- tanilama 6y ago
  People are using Android, just not GMS. It is funny, that GMS itself is yet another layer built upon Android. How is it different that Tencent distributing this layer via WeChat, other than Google bundles this layer through GMS? Tencent does have its counterpart of GMS, like piece by piece, but that approach isn't winning against WeChat either.
  - echevil 6y ago
    The way WeChat distributes additional content is in the form of mini-apps, which has no similarly to GMS. It is something that does not exist in the ecosystem of US apps.

echevil 6y ago

In China and other emerging markets, downloading apps from app store are just something that many users would rarely do, no matter it is App Store, Play Store, or many other Android App Stores available in China. It is a big obstacle that most US developers never realised. The main benefit of super apps, and why it is so popular in those countries, is that it doesn't require users to download anything to use new feature. In some use cases I also found that so convenient. Just as an example, WeChat has an ecosystem of mini-apps. When you go to a restaurant in China, you can often find QR code on each table. If you can that QR code, it would open a mini-apps that lets you place orders and make payments, without waiting for the waiter to serve you. A mini app is like a website that doesn't require download and storage on the phone, but the user experience feels more native and is tightly integrated with features available in WeChat. It would be much harder to get users if the same thing requires you download an app.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Could you effectively replicate the restaurant example by having a qr code that leads to a website when scanned? A nice, smooth, mobile-optimized website, I mean.
- echevil 6y ago
  Possible, but I see two big obstacles: 1. Mini-apps are optimized for this one purpose and feels much faster and native, websites won't be able to achieve the same. 2. Some features provided by WeChat is actually important, especially the payment part. Websites won't be able to integrate something like WeChat pay seamlessly as mini-apps do. If it requires users to put in credit card information, it would instantly fail in these countries
  - wenc 6y ago
    I can't comment on 1 but for 2, I'm seeing a lot more merchants (probably Shopify merchants) support mobile payments on their websites (yes websites, not mobile apps) these days. I can now go to a vendor's website (say jrwatkins.com, etc.) on my phone, checkout, do a fingerprint/face scan on Apple Pay and the transaction is done in under 5 seconds. I assume the experience with Google Pay is similar. There's no longer a need to create an account on the website. The delivery address defaults to the one on Apple Pay (and can be modified at time of payment). Delivery method can also be selected on the Apple Pay screen. My credit card number is never transmitted. This type of frictionless checkout that was once the domain of companies like Hoteltonight is now becoming more common on ecommerce sites.

analyst74 6y ago

I think what you said have merits, which I'm in no position of judging, but a couple facts are incorrect: - there are multiple play store equivalent, i.e. Mi Store, Baidu store, and several others. There is actually more competition at app store level in China, as opposed to Google's monopoly on that front, which might be the reason why user behaviors are different. - not sure how you define OS-like abstraction layer, but Chrome is also basically a super app. In fact, developing for Wechat is more similar to developing website than native app.

toast0 6y ago

> Phones do not come with Google Services Framework, so the barrier to develop a networked app is higher. What do developers do for push messaging? In older versions of Android, you could maintain a connection to your server in the background, but recent versions make it really hard to stay active, even if you're big enough to get whitelisted by phone OEMs --- if you're small, is it even possible?