5 ms·

Should that work in that way on desktop also? With Microsoft/Apple being free to restrict apps to their store only, and taking a cut of every transaction made o

Should that work in that way on desktop also? With Microsoft/Apple being free to restrict apps to their store only, and taking a cut of every transaction made outside the browser? If not, what's the difference with phones/tablets?

simonh 6y ago
The difference is just a historical choice. The desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to. Games console makers chose to go the locked down route at about the same time (in the grand scheme of things). The Mac launched long after many locked down games consoles existed. They just chose different strategies.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to They probably did. The industry was small. Attracting developers in significant numbers meant convincing people to become developers. That is a huge hurdle. Platforms with entry fees didn't build app ecosystems that attracted end users. By the time the iPhone was announced, developers were plenty and the software business model proven. Apple had resources to subsidize onboarding with a well-documented, rich API and good native apps.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Apple takes some yearly fees from developers though, that's nearly a platform tax for Mac os.
  - simonh 6y ago
    So what? I’d you dont want it, don’t pay for it.
swebs 6y ago
No, but it seems to be the direction those two companies are moving anyway. Just look at Windows 10 "S mode". I'm just glad we have Linux as an option on the desktop to get away from that nonsense.
indigochill 6y ago
> what's the difference with phones/tablets? The difference I see is more about Apple specifically, because unlike, say, Google with Android, they have full vertical integration. They make both the hardware and the OS. Everything about Apple is focused on complete corporate control over the experience. If Apple decided to only permit apps distributed through App Store X on OS X, I wouldn't be at all surprised. That's Apple's MO. And there is a customer segment I think that serves, which is the consumer market which doesn't want to think about maintaining their own digital security, because Apple seems like a reasonably benevolent dictator in this respect, as much as developers dislike the cut they take. Requiring Apple to open their devices to third-party app stores would break this vice grip they have on the experience and, IMO, degrade the experience for Apple's end users (even if it might make things nicer for developers).
Spivak 6y ago
I think they should be allowed to do it. If we let them get away with it because the alternatives are worse then that's our own fault. Hard to fault a business for realizing that they have a stupid amount of leverage because people have made themselves dependent on you and charging more.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Hard to fault a business What? If a business is causing a large negative externality, that's a bad thing. Just because you can't "fault" people for pursuing profit doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it any way possible? I just really don't understand this worldview.

simonh 6y ago

The difference is just a historical choice. The desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to. Games console makers chose to go the locked down route at about the same time (in the grand scheme of things). The Mac launched long after many locked down games consoles existed. They just chose different strategies.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to They probably did. The industry was small. Attracting developers in significant numbers meant convincing people to become developers. That is a huge hurdle. Platforms with entry fees didn't build app ecosystems that attracted end users. By the time the iPhone was announced, developers were plenty and the software business model proven. Apple had resources to subsidize onboarding with a well-documented, rich API and good native apps.
kzrdude 6y ago
Apple takes some yearly fees from developers though, that's nearly a platform tax for Mac os.
- simonh 6y ago
  So what? I’d you dont want it, don’t pay for it.

swebs 6y ago

No, but it seems to be the direction those two companies are moving anyway. Just look at Windows 10 "S mode". I'm just glad we have Linux as an option on the desktop to get away from that nonsense.

indigochill 6y ago

> what's the difference with phones/tablets? The difference I see is more about Apple specifically, because unlike, say, Google with Android, they have full vertical integration. They make both the hardware and the OS. Everything about Apple is focused on complete corporate control over the experience. If Apple decided to only permit apps distributed through App Store X on OS X, I wouldn't be at all surprised. That's Apple's MO. And there is a customer segment I think that serves, which is the consumer market which doesn't want to think about maintaining their own digital security, because Apple seems like a reasonably benevolent dictator in this respect, as much as developers dislike the cut they take. Requiring Apple to open their devices to third-party app stores would break this vice grip they have on the experience and, IMO, degrade the experience for Apple's end users (even if it might make things nicer for developers).

Spivak 6y ago

I think they should be allowed to do it. If we let them get away with it because the alternatives are worse then that's our own fault. Hard to fault a business for realizing that they have a stupid amount of leverage because people have made themselves dependent on you and charging more.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Hard to fault a business What? If a business is causing a large negative externality, that's a bad thing. Just because you can't "fault" people for pursuing profit doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it any way possible? I just really don't understand this worldview.