5 ms·

I get this sentiment, but where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t OS makers (Apple, Microsoft) add additional apps just because third party developers have done it

I get this sentiment, but where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t OS makers (Apple, Microsoft) add additional apps just because third party developers have done it already?

pixl97 4y ago
I would state it as this "If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device, you have the legal right to choose your app store and applications installed on it seperate from manufacture demands". The particular problem with Apple is not only duplicate your app, they can underprice it by 30% because they don't self pay their own store tax, and they can kick you out of the only app store for whatever reason they choose to make up that day.
- Cheezmeister 4y ago
  > If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device Point of clarity, the devices we are discussing are neither telephones, nor are they general purpose. They are smartphones, a sort of miniature computer with a bunch of general-purpose sensors, and actuators viz. a screen and a speaker and some haptic feedback. They don't really do much computing per se; we outsourced most of that to The Cloud some 15-odd years ago. These things are just highly capable I/O devices, or clever terminals if you prefer. And while Android has the PlayStore or whatever they call it this week, one can usually choose to load rogue APKs and one can usually succeed; and things like the Pinephone or Fairphone have been attempted that leave more power (and responsibility) in the hands of the user, but in practice it seems that they simply don't _work_ that well. I agree with you wholeheartedly; I just think the "if" part is a bit out of sync with reality.
- vel0city 4y ago
  I remember back in the early days of the iPhone, new feature releases would coincide with lots of apps being removed from the app store with the reason "this app duplicates core functionality of iOS."
- abbusfoflouotne 4y ago
  I like this view, though many people aren't just purchasing the phone from Apple, they are purchasing the OS and integration into the Apple ecosystem. Definitely think the user should have the option to pick the app store though
- arghnoname 4y ago
  Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much. Instead it's mostly used to increase the value of the hardware. The stuff I've seen them incorporate that at one time were apps weren't 30% cheaper when bought from Apple, they were free (i.e., they came with the device). If they think some third party feature should be part of the core experience, they're going to incorporate it. This is true when building on anyone's platform (e.g., Microsoft, Facebook). Non-core experiences, like domain specific software, are less likely to suffer this fate. It's similar to when MS decided to ship a browser. God help you when the platform you're on decides they want to subsume your features.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much. This is veritably false, they made $80 billion selling software this year. You might not see the App Store as software revenue, but Apple certainly does.
    - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
      The context of the text you quoted seems to pretty clearly be about Apple selling their own software, e.g., as a publisher, not as a distributor. This whole branch of the discussion thread is, after all, about whether Apple adding end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups is "sherlocking" other cloud backup providers (spoiler: no).
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software As sheer hardware revenue growth slowed, they moved their focus to services [0]. That’s also what we’re seeing on their push into more ads for instance, and this new feature goes the same direction: to benefit these encrypted backups you’ll need to sign up for storage. For most people wanting to cover more than one device, they’ll probably end up with the 2Tb plan which is at 10 bucks a month, the bare minimum 50GB being at 1$ a month. [0] https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/how-services-became-apple-s-fastest-growing-revenue-category/ https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/how-services-bec...
- scarface74 4y ago
  And neither does Spotify or Netflix. They haven’t had in app subscriptions for years. Amazon seems to be doing well despite Apple Books.
enjo 4y ago
That's exactly the antitrust issue Microsoft ran into isn't it?
- bink 4y ago
  Microsoft had something around 95% of the desktop market share in the 90s. Apple is not anywhere close that. I would agree it's similar in behavior but not intent. Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet. Apple is arguably adding these features because it's what their user's want.
  - spogbiper 4y ago
    > Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet I see reflections of this throughout the history of the iPhone. Apple has always controlled how people access both the internet and even what applications they can install. Every "browser" on iOS is just Safari with a skin for example, because Apple will not allow any other browser engine.
    - danaris 4y ago
      Apple will not allow other browser engines because they are a subset of "programs that run arbitrary code". Allowing anyone to put their browser engine on iOS through the App Store would open the door to a wide variety of security problems. It would also effectively bypass the App Store, as Google (just as a totally random example) could release their own iOS "browser" that's actually their own platform for apps that they sell. Not to mention inserting their own ads into anything people browsed on it. And tracking literally every single tap and text entry that people do in that browser, including bank passwords, credit card info, etc. On a platform like the Mac, that doesn't matter very much, because it's small enough that basically no one would bother. On iOS? If you could get 0.0001¢ per website visit from even 1% of iOS users, that would be a money-printing machine.
  - smoldesu 4y ago

I get this sentiment, but where do we draw the line? Shouldn’t OS makers (Apple, Microsoft) add additional apps just because third party developers have done it already?

pixl97 4y ago

I would state it as this "If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device, you have the legal right to choose your app store and applications installed on it seperate from manufacture demands". The particular problem with Apple is not only duplicate your app, they can underprice it by 30% because they don't self pay their own store tax, and they can kick you out of the only app store for whatever reason they choose to make up that day.

Cheezmeister 4y ago
> If you buy a phone or general purpose computing device Point of clarity, the devices we are discussing are neither telephones, nor are they general purpose. They are smartphones, a sort of miniature computer with a bunch of general-purpose sensors, and actuators viz. a screen and a speaker and some haptic feedback. They don't really do much computing per se; we outsourced most of that to The Cloud some 15-odd years ago. These things are just highly capable I/O devices, or clever terminals if you prefer. And while Android has the PlayStore or whatever they call it this week, one can usually choose to load rogue APKs and one can usually succeed; and things like the Pinephone or Fairphone have been attempted that leave more power (and responsibility) in the hands of the user, but in practice it seems that they simply don't _work_ that well. I agree with you wholeheartedly; I just think the "if" part is a bit out of sync with reality.
vel0city 4y ago
I remember back in the early days of the iPhone, new feature releases would coincide with lots of apps being removed from the app store with the reason "this app duplicates core functionality of iOS."
abbusfoflouotne 4y ago
I like this view, though many people aren't just purchasing the phone from Apple, they are purchasing the OS and integration into the Apple ecosystem. Definitely think the user should have the option to pick the app store though
arghnoname 4y ago
Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much. Instead it's mostly used to increase the value of the hardware. The stuff I've seen them incorporate that at one time were apps weren't 30% cheaper when bought from Apple, they were free (i.e., they came with the device). If they think some third party feature should be part of the core experience, they're going to incorporate it. This is true when building on anyone's platform (e.g., Microsoft, Facebook). Non-core experiences, like domain specific software, are less likely to suffer this fate. It's similar to when MS decided to ship a browser. God help you when the platform you're on decides they want to subsume your features.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software very much. This is veritably false, they made $80 billion selling software this year. You might not see the App Store as software revenue, but Apple certainly does.
  - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
    The context of the text you quoted seems to pretty clearly be about Apple selling their own software, e.g., as a publisher, not as a distributor. This whole branch of the discussion thread is, after all, about whether Apple adding end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups is "sherlocking" other cloud backup providers (spoiler: no).
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > Apple doesn't seem to be in the business of selling software As sheer hardware revenue growth slowed, they moved their focus to services [0]. That’s also what we’re seeing on their push into more ads for instance, and this new feature goes the same direction: to benefit these encrypted backups you’ll need to sign up for storage. For most people wanting to cover more than one device, they’ll probably end up with the 2Tb plan which is at 10 bucks a month, the bare minimum 50GB being at 1$ a month. [0] https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/how-services-became-apple-s-fastest-growing-revenue-category/ https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/how-services-bec...
scarface74 4y ago
And neither does Spotify or Netflix. They haven’t had in app subscriptions for years. Amazon seems to be doing well despite Apple Books.

enjo 4y ago

That's exactly the antitrust issue Microsoft ran into isn't it?

bink 4y ago
Microsoft had something around 95% of the desktop market share in the 90s. Apple is not anywhere close that. I would agree it's similar in behavior but not intent. Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet. Apple is arguably adding these features because it's what their user's want.
- spogbiper 4y ago
  > Microsoft was terrified of the Internet and applications that could "run anywhere" so they tried to control how people accessed the Internet I see reflections of this throughout the history of the iPhone. Apple has always controlled how people access both the internet and even what applications they can install. Every "browser" on iOS is just Safari with a skin for example, because Apple will not allow any other browser engine.
  - danaris 4y ago
    Apple will not allow other browser engines because they are a subset of "programs that run arbitrary code". Allowing anyone to put their browser engine on iOS through the App Store would open the door to a wide variety of security problems. It would also effectively bypass the App Store, as Google (just as a totally random example) could release their own iOS "browser" that's actually their own platform for apps that they sell. Not to mention inserting their own ads into anything people browsed on it. And tracking literally every single tap and text entry that people do in that browser, including bank passwords, credit card info, etc. On a platform like the Mac, that doesn't matter very much, because it's small enough that basically no one would bother. On iOS? If you could get 0.0001¢ per website visit from even 1% of iOS users, that would be a money-printing machine.
- smoldesu 4y ago