3 ms·

I don’t download any apps except maybe 3 or 4. What have they stolen?

by f6v 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) > The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community. (Honestly, I think the fuss over Sherlock was overblown, but they definitely have a bit of a reputation for this.)
- jahnu 3y ago
  Here are a few more recent examples https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/16/sherlocked-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/16/sherlocked-apps/
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    I mean... you can call some of those things Sherlocked if you want but that's a pretty bad list. Does Apple build features into their core products that resemble other products on the market? Absolutely but often it helps raise the bar for that type of software. It gives users who were never going to go looking for another app something they didn't have before, it sets the floor for what they type of app should do/how it should look, and it gives existing apps a space to carve out a pro/prosumer space with features that Apple will never implement. Spotlight (specifically the Command+space popup) exists and I think that's a net win for macOS, I don't use it, I use Alfred and have no plans to leave. Same with Notes vs Drafts or Weather vs Carrot Weather or Reminders vs Things, and the list goes on. Does it clear out some of the bottom of the barrel versions? Yes, I'm fine with that. Does it sometimes integrate deeper into the system in a better way than a 3rd party can (Sidecar being a good example or Camera Continuity)? Yes, but should we all deal with a hacky/crappy experience just so that Apple doesn't Sherlock someone? My answer is no.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  This should be an antitrust violation solvable by Apple cash and stock and a third party valuation.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I really don't see an antitrust violation in "we added the ability to more easily search your Mac, in a similar fashion to an existing app". Even the original Watson seems based largely off Google's "what if the search UI was just a single text field?" approach.
    - artsytrashcan 3y ago
      It's analogous to the MS/IE/Netscape situation 20 years ago. They would lose/have to settle on similar grounds, I suppose.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        They'd have to have a Microsoft-esque monopoly first. Apple doesn't currently have one in computers, mobile devices, or VR.
        artsytrashcan 3y ago
        The Microsoft decision was based on dominance of a particular portion of the computing industry, x86 CPU-based PCs, not "computers, mobile devices, or VR". The equivalent here is passthrough-capable spatial computing devices running on ARM chips. That's a market that's in its infancy. It's hard to say what it looks like in 5-10 years. Because the AVP is currently singular in its capabilities (and priced as such), it can be argued that it's the only product available in the space it occupies. If they Sherlock any of the applying apps or platforms in that environment, it would seem to be an antitrust violation, as they'd be the only game in town for substantially similar hardware platforms.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      that's not the antitrust violation and that's not what Apple is doing, the violation would be "come into our walled garden where you pay to agree to these onerous and arbitrarily applied terms, we analyze every possible app to see every app and idea per version, and then copy the ones that take off allowing it to function outside the constraints of our walled garden while continuing to apply these arbitrarily enforced terms to you debilitating your business in unnecessary ways" the regulator and existing antitrust statutes can override the clauses that someone agreed to that perpetuates this, and they should. with the alternate route for Apple being to pay the developer beginning at an independent third party's valuation.
- nodamage 3y ago
  When people complain about Apple providing built-in operating system functionality that you previously needed a third-party app for it always comes across as bizarre to me. The user experience is much better if certain functions are available out of the box. Or do these people really think we were better off when the App Store had a thousand flashlight apps? What's next, should they not ship Safari or Preview with the operating system either?
ycombinete 3y ago
F.lux is another to add to the pile. IIRC apple broke the part of their API flux used in the same release that they added the feature to iOS.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  I used F.lux for many years but Night Shift is better IMHO. Should Apple instead refuse to build in feature if a version exists in the world? Also F.lux was free, so I'm not sure exactly what was lost, it seems like it's still around if you prefer that over Night Shift.

I don’t download any apps except maybe 3 or 4. What have they stolen?

by f6v 3y ago

I don’t download any apps except maybe 3 or 4. What have they stolen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) > The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community. (Honestly, I think the fuss over Sherlock was overblown, but they definitely have a bit of a reputation for this.)

jahnu 3y ago
Here are a few more recent examples https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/16/sherlocked-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/16/sherlocked-apps/
- joshstrange 3y ago
  I mean... you can call some of those things Sherlocked if you want but that's a pretty bad list. Does Apple build features into their core products that resemble other products on the market? Absolutely but often it helps raise the bar for that type of software. It gives users who were never going to go looking for another app something they didn't have before, it sets the floor for what they type of app should do/how it should look, and it gives existing apps a space to carve out a pro/prosumer space with features that Apple will never implement. Spotlight (specifically the Command+space popup) exists and I think that's a net win for macOS, I don't use it, I use Alfred and have no plans to leave. Same with Notes vs Drafts or Weather vs Carrot Weather or Reminders vs Things, and the list goes on. Does it clear out some of the bottom of the barrel versions? Yes, I'm fine with that. Does it sometimes integrate deeper into the system in a better way than a 3rd party can (Sidecar being a good example or Camera Continuity)? Yes, but should we all deal with a hacky/crappy experience just so that Apple doesn't Sherlock someone? My answer is no.
yieldcrv 3y ago
This should be an antitrust violation solvable by Apple cash and stock and a third party valuation.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I really don't see an antitrust violation in "we added the ability to more easily search your Mac, in a similar fashion to an existing app". Even the original Watson seems based largely off Google's "what if the search UI was just a single text field?" approach.
  - artsytrashcan 3y ago
    It's analogous to the MS/IE/Netscape situation 20 years ago. They would lose/have to settle on similar grounds, I suppose.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      They'd have to have a Microsoft-esque monopoly first. Apple doesn't currently have one in computers, mobile devices, or VR.
      - artsytrashcan 3y ago
        The Microsoft decision was based on dominance of a particular portion of the computing industry, x86 CPU-based PCs, not "computers, mobile devices, or VR". The equivalent here is passthrough-capable spatial computing devices running on ARM chips. That's a market that's in its infancy. It's hard to say what it looks like in 5-10 years. Because the AVP is currently singular in its capabilities (and priced as such), it can be argued that it's the only product available in the space it occupies. If they Sherlock any of the applying apps or platforms in that environment, it would seem to be an antitrust violation, as they'd be the only game in town for substantially similar hardware platforms.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    that's not the antitrust violation and that's not what Apple is doing, the violation would be "come into our walled garden where you pay to agree to these onerous and arbitrarily applied terms, we analyze every possible app to see every app and idea per version, and then copy the ones that take off allowing it to function outside the constraints of our walled garden while continuing to apply these arbitrarily enforced terms to you debilitating your business in unnecessary ways" the regulator and existing antitrust statutes can override the clauses that someone agreed to that perpetuates this, and they should. with the alternate route for Apple being to pay the developer beginning at an independent third party's valuation.
nodamage 3y ago
When people complain about Apple providing built-in operating system functionality that you previously needed a third-party app for it always comes across as bizarre to me. The user experience is much better if certain functions are available out of the box. Or do these people really think we were better off when the App Store had a thousand flashlight apps? What's next, should they not ship Safari or Preview with the operating system either?

ycombinete 3y ago

F.lux is another to add to the pile. IIRC apple broke the part of their API flux used in the same release that they added the feature to iOS.

joshstrange 3y ago
I used F.lux for many years but Night Shift is better IMHO. Should Apple instead refuse to build in feature if a version exists in the world? Also F.lux was free, so I'm not sure exactly what was lost, it seems like it's still around if you prefer that over Night Shift.