4 ms·

I discount the claims that it’s not so easy to move. I know quite a few (regular non-tech) people who have moved, and none of them have had any difficulties.

by zepto 6y ago

I discount the claims that it’s not so easy to move. I know quite a few (regular non-tech) people who have moved, and none of them have had any difficulties. I think people assume it’s hard to explain why there isn’t more switching, when really there just isn’t much incentive to switch. It also seems essentially impossible to regulate ease of switching, since not every app is available on both platforms.

enos_feedler 6y ago
To me, this means we’ve reached a steady state where the duopoly has copied enough from each other to make their own customer base happy. The biggest incentive to switch would be you are fed up with your current platform about something that matters to you.
- zepto 6y ago
  Yes - I generally agree with that. I wouldn’t say it that way because I think ‘duopoly’ is an overstatement. If a market is ripe for low end disruption, it’s not a duopoly or a monopoly. It just happens not to have had new entrants at this time. I also think that most people aren’t really fed up with the current two platforms, and certainly adding more app stores isn’t going to change anything. The only thing that will do that, is a platform (or more likely ecosystem, since I am proposing that it be open) that enables substantive changes to the way mobile devices work, which the current platforms do not. I mean really, do we think an open general purpose mobile computing platform would enable purposes which are not served by Android or iOS, or not?
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    Thats the big question. If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get?
    - zepto 6y ago
      Great points: > If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. Yes, but only over time. It took years for iOS to cause a problem for the existing players. > It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Definitely. I’d say that’s why this wasn’t relevant before now. > Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. Yes - they need to see something they don’t have, or question the value of what they do have. > I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Imagine a gaming phone with some exclusive content in an Epic store, and a truly first/class built out PWA / installable web app story. Those are two things that Apple wouldn’t want to copy. > Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. Not necessarily. Yes, generally low end disruption means not overserving. But... > But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get? It doesn’t mean literally simplifying existing conventions. People are holding onto iPhones for longer and longer - so a 4 year old set of hardware capabilities would be a decent entry point. Software wise - my guess is that if we really have an open platform, there would be a lot of room for creativity which we don’t see on Android or iOS, particularly in the basic features. And then there are all kinds of not illicit but not fitting into the Apple model kinds of thing. E.g. - Signed apps based on distributed models of reputation. - Genuinely decentralized messaging and crypto wallets. - First class, on device programming environments. - Peer to peer distribution of code. - Private local backup mechanisms that don’t require trusting a cloud provider If you think in terms of the an open computer that the end-user really controls, the list opens up quite quickly. Also, the number of users who are sophisticated continue to increase.
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        The gaming phone is neat idea and I’ve been actually thinking this is the way Microsoft gets back into phones. Leverage their XBox platform to build a phone meets Nintendo DS like device. Thats what I thought the Surface Duo was going to be. If MS could extend their embrace of PWA (since they don’t have a mobile app ecosystem of their own) this starts to look a lot like the Epic phone idea. However, in either case doesn’t this just create another closed platform to compete with existing ones? Everyone would start with Android forks it seems and want to control an app store. From your examples I see 3 categories of things: 1. control over operating system feature (cloud vs local backup) 2. API access to platform compilers, linkers, loaders, at runtime (to build programming environments) 3. decentralized distribution (no single fault, p2p, etc) As a user not a developer, the only one I feel is missing is runtime programmability which would enable all sorts of first class development tools on my ipad or iphone. I wouldnt be limited to xcode, or swift playgrounds. I do feel this is coming soon, it’s just Apple being careful with safety and security. Swift playgrounds is dogfooding these APIs that will eventually open up. local backup vs cloud is interesting. I thought Apple allows this through a USB cable? At some point I stopped bothering with local backups because it takes up precious local space and I don’t trust my own ability to maintain computer hardware. “The cloud” does this better. To me, cloud backup is just 1 of N operating system features that depend on cloud services. I suppose an open platform could be service-less by default. EDIT: not trying to say that Apple is the holy grail or anything, just trying to figure out what an open ecosystem would add that changes the calculus for people using iphones. What does decentralized app distribution get us?

by zepto 6y ago

enos_feedler 6y ago

To me, this means we’ve reached a steady state where the duopoly has copied enough from each other to make their own customer base happy. The biggest incentive to switch would be you are fed up with your current platform about something that matters to you.

zepto 6y ago
Yes - I generally agree with that. I wouldn’t say it that way because I think ‘duopoly’ is an overstatement. If a market is ripe for low end disruption, it’s not a duopoly or a monopoly. It just happens not to have had new entrants at this time. I also think that most people aren’t really fed up with the current two platforms, and certainly adding more app stores isn’t going to change anything. The only thing that will do that, is a platform (or more likely ecosystem, since I am proposing that it be open) that enables substantive changes to the way mobile devices work, which the current platforms do not. I mean really, do we think an open general purpose mobile computing platform would enable purposes which are not served by Android or iOS, or not?
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  Thats the big question. If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get?
  - zepto 6y ago
    Great points: > If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. Yes, but only over time. It took years for iOS to cause a problem for the existing players. > It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Definitely. I’d say that’s why this wasn’t relevant before now. > Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. Yes - they need to see something they don’t have, or question the value of what they do have. > I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Imagine a gaming phone with some exclusive content in an Epic store, and a truly first/class built out PWA / installable web app story. Those are two things that Apple wouldn’t want to copy. > Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. Not necessarily. Yes, generally low end disruption means not overserving. But... > But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get? It doesn’t mean literally simplifying existing conventions. People are holding onto iPhones for longer and longer - so a 4 year old set of hardware capabilities would be a decent entry point. Software wise - my guess is that if we really have an open platform, there would be a lot of room for creativity which we don’t see on Android or iOS, particularly in the basic features. And then there are all kinds of not illicit but not fitting into the Apple model kinds of thing. E.g. - Signed apps based on distributed models of reputation. - Genuinely decentralized messaging and crypto wallets. - First class, on device programming environments. - Peer to peer distribution of code. - Private local backup mechanisms that don’t require trusting a cloud provider If you think in terms of the an open computer that the end-user really controls, the list opens up quite quickly. Also, the number of users who are sophisticated continue to increase.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      The gaming phone is neat idea and I’ve been actually thinking this is the way Microsoft gets back into phones. Leverage their XBox platform to build a phone meets Nintendo DS like device. Thats what I thought the Surface Duo was going to be. If MS could extend their embrace of PWA (since they don’t have a mobile app ecosystem of their own) this starts to look a lot like the Epic phone idea. However, in either case doesn’t this just create another closed platform to compete with existing ones? Everyone would start with Android forks it seems and want to control an app store. From your examples I see 3 categories of things: 1. control over operating system feature (cloud vs local backup) 2. API access to platform compilers, linkers, loaders, at runtime (to build programming environments) 3. decentralized distribution (no single fault, p2p, etc) As a user not a developer, the only one I feel is missing is runtime programmability which would enable all sorts of first class development tools on my ipad or iphone. I wouldnt be limited to xcode, or swift playgrounds. I do feel this is coming soon, it’s just Apple being careful with safety and security. Swift playgrounds is dogfooding these APIs that will eventually open up. local backup vs cloud is interesting. I thought Apple allows this through a USB cable? At some point I stopped bothering with local backups because it takes up precious local space and I don’t trust my own ability to maintain computer hardware. “The cloud” does this better. To me, cloud backup is just 1 of N operating system features that depend on cloud services. I suppose an open platform could be service-less by default. EDIT: not trying to say that Apple is the holy grail or anything, just trying to figure out what an open ecosystem would add that changes the calculus for people using iphones. What does decentralized app distribution get us?