5 ms·

I don't understand why people are putting moral dimensions on this business conflict. If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it.

I don't understand why people are putting moral dimensions on this business conflict. If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. All the users and developers are there by choice. Their alternatives were worse. And Apple didn't make them worse. I was active in the mobile development world starting in 1999. It was awful. Would I like it if Apple took a lower cut? Sure. I would prefer a 5% cut. Do I want world's governments coming in and imposing more terms on these markets? No. Businesses respond to the expressed preferences of consumers and other businesses, whereas world governments have, in practice, far weaker accountability mechanisms.

echelon 6y ago
> If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. This isn't an option! There are no alternatives. Most people do computing on their smartphones today. Apple has prevented web from being a first-class native construct on their devices. There's no technical reason web couldn't have a native-like experience with native windowing, sensor access, persistence, multithreading, and WASM speed. Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet. > All the users and developers are there by choice. I strongly beg to differ. > Their alternatives were worse. Thanks largely to Apple. > Do I want world's governments coming in and imposing more terms on these markets? No. Thousands of us do. The answer is a robust web distribution model where web gains native capabilities (and sandboxing). First class web apps would be portable between Apple and Google and there would be zero gatekeeping tax or threat of removal for doing something either company doesn't like. Mozilla needs to get on this. And we need to harp on our legislators to make it happen. It's how all of this should have evolved in the first place. Think about all the wasted human and innovation capital it takes to implement the same app twice for two different platforms! It is so incredibly expensive to maintain two wholly different apps. And then they have the gall to take 30% on top. The real cost is far steeper. I'm not mad. I'm enraged. It's such a waste and we should be building more innovation instead of jumping through hoops.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Their alternatives were worse. Thanks largely to Apple. I don’t recall anyone willing to take on the mobile networks in the US other than Apple. HP/Dell/Microsoft/Palm/Blackberry were all willing to let mobile networks interfere with the device and lock them to various networks.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  > Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/ https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/
- millstone 6y ago
  Web technologies and software distribution are separate. Heavily-curated app stores may arise on the web and gain market power. Likewise native apps could be loaded directly from URLs. I strongly disagree that "implementing the same app twice" is wasted effort. Write-once-run-everywhere is a recipe for shitty software. But a native app designed for the platform it runs on can be very high quality. This is why the iPhone succeeded: its software was just so much higher quality than the alternatives at the time. And this is also why the iPhone's original web-app plan (the "sweet solution") failed.
- spideymans 6y ago
  > All the users and developers are there by choice. > I strongly beg to differ. How? Which users are being forced to use an iPhone? This is a bizarre statement when fully eighty five percent of smartphone users are not on the iPhone.
  - hamandcheese 6y ago
    Anyone who cares about privacy, anyone who bought in to the Apple ecosystem long ago so now the switching cost would be huge, anyone who is non-technical and had their children choose an iPhone for them (i.e. my parents). Also, in the US iPhone has >50% market share.
  - mrep 6y ago
smnrchrds 6y ago
> If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it Why should not using a company's products be the maximum you ever do if you don't like their practices? You are essentially arguing that if you are not happy with a company's business practices, you should at most personally not use them. "You don't like that De Beers trades in blood diamonds? Don't buy diamonds from De Beers, but don't go around being angry at them or badmouthing them either. You don't like Shell's environmental record? Buy an electric car, but don't you dare write to your member of parliament asking for tighter enforcement of environmental standards on Shell. You don't like Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage equality? Go eat at Popeye's, or go vegetarian, but don't even think about protesting opening a new location". I don't understand your point of view. You are basically saying your actions towards a company should be either supportive (buying their products) or neutral (not buying their products). Why shouldn't it be negative (advocating against them, raising awareness, asking for regulation, etc.) if you perceive their actions to be wrong?
- dsjoerg 6y ago
  Fair enough, point well made. I don't think regulation is in the long-term public interest here. But that's a debate worth having.
damnyou 6y ago
How much choice is it really if you're excluded from your friend groups because they don't like green bubbles? (True story, happened to a couple people I know.) Apple excels at various kinds of lock-in. The more it does that the less tenable the "it's a choice" theory becomes. If things like iMessage were available on non-Apple platforms, I'd be more sympathetic to Apple, to be honest.
ubercow13 6y ago
So you don't agree with any antitrust regulation?
bravoetch 6y ago
| If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. Some of us care about other people's experience too, and the greater good. We don't all stomp off with our toys if we're unhappy with the game. We can engage and make it better. | Businesses respond to the expressed preferences of consumers and other businesses, Not today's businesses. They manipulate government policy for their own benefit, and use invasive tracking and manipulative marketing and anti-patterns and unfair business practices.

echelon 6y ago

> If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. This isn't an option! There are no alternatives. Most people do computing on their smartphones today. Apple has prevented web from being a first-class native construct on their devices. There's no technical reason web couldn't have a native-like experience with native windowing, sensor access, persistence, multithreading, and WASM speed. Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet. > All the users and developers are there by choice. I strongly beg to differ. > Their alternatives were worse. Thanks largely to Apple. > Do I want world's governments coming in and imposing more terms on these markets? No. Thousands of us do. The answer is a robust web distribution model where web gains native capabilities (and sandboxing). First class web apps would be portable between Apple and Google and there would be zero gatekeeping tax or threat of removal for doing something either company doesn't like. Mozilla needs to get on this. And we need to harp on our legislators to make it happen. It's how all of this should have evolved in the first place. Think about all the wasted human and innovation capital it takes to implement the same app twice for two different platforms! It is so incredibly expensive to maintain two wholly different apps. And then they have the gall to take 30% on top. The real cost is far steeper. I'm not mad. I'm enraged. It's such a waste and we should be building more innovation instead of jumping through hoops.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> Their alternatives were worse. Thanks largely to Apple. I don’t recall anyone willing to take on the mobile networks in the US other than Apple. HP/Dell/Microsoft/Palm/Blackberry were all willing to let mobile networks interfere with the device and lock them to various networks.
jonny_eh 6y ago
> Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/ https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/
millstone 6y ago
Web technologies and software distribution are separate. Heavily-curated app stores may arise on the web and gain market power. Likewise native apps could be loaded directly from URLs. I strongly disagree that "implementing the same app twice" is wasted effort. Write-once-run-everywhere is a recipe for shitty software. But a native app designed for the platform it runs on can be very high quality. This is why the iPhone succeeded: its software was just so much higher quality than the alternatives at the time. And this is also why the iPhone's original web-app plan (the "sweet solution") failed.
spideymans 6y ago
> All the users and developers are there by choice. > I strongly beg to differ. How? Which users are being forced to use an iPhone? This is a bizarre statement when fully eighty five percent of smartphone users are not on the iPhone.
- hamandcheese 6y ago
  Anyone who cares about privacy, anyone who bought in to the Apple ecosystem long ago so now the switching cost would be huge, anyone who is non-technical and had their children choose an iPhone for them (i.e. my parents). Also, in the US iPhone has >50% market share.
- mrep 6y ago

smnrchrds 6y ago

> If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it Why should not using a company's products be the maximum you ever do if you don't like their practices? You are essentially arguing that if you are not happy with a company's business practices, you should at most personally not use them. "You don't like that De Beers trades in blood diamonds? Don't buy diamonds from De Beers, but don't go around being angry at them or badmouthing them either. You don't like Shell's environmental record? Buy an electric car, but don't you dare write to your member of parliament asking for tighter enforcement of environmental standards on Shell. You don't like Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage equality? Go eat at Popeye's, or go vegetarian, but don't even think about protesting opening a new location". I don't understand your point of view. You are basically saying your actions towards a company should be either supportive (buying their products) or neutral (not buying their products). Why shouldn't it be negative (advocating against them, raising awareness, asking for regulation, etc.) if you perceive their actions to be wrong?

dsjoerg 6y ago
Fair enough, point well made. I don't think regulation is in the long-term public interest here. But that's a debate worth having.

damnyou 6y ago

How much choice is it really if you're excluded from your friend groups because they don't like green bubbles? (True story, happened to a couple people I know.) Apple excels at various kinds of lock-in. The more it does that the less tenable the "it's a choice" theory becomes. If things like iMessage were available on non-Apple platforms, I'd be more sympathetic to Apple, to be honest.

ubercow13 6y ago

So you don't agree with any antitrust regulation?

bravoetch 6y ago

| If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. Some of us care about other people's experience too, and the greater good. We don't all stomp off with our toys if we're unhappy with the game. We can engage and make it better. | Businesses respond to the expressed preferences of consumers and other businesses, Not today's businesses. They manipulate government policy for their own benefit, and use invasive tracking and manipulative marketing and anti-patterns and unfair business practices.