5 ms·

Much like Adobe did to Macs in the 1990s, WeChat has become so powerful they control the platform. Apple can’t remove WeChat because most consumers would rathe

Much like Adobe did to Macs in the 1990s, WeChat has become so powerful they control the platform. Apple can’t remove WeChat because most consumers would rather change device hardware than lose access to WeChat.

sdfghswe 3y ago
> Much like Adobe did to Macs in the 1990s, WeChat has become so powerful they control the platform. I'd enjoy listening to the story here, spacebanana.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Adobe almost killed Apple by developing Windows-first and sometimes Windows-only products in the 1990s. Many professionals cared about Adobe software more than their hardware device, so moved platforms. Adobe’s motivation was largely revenge against Apple for opening up printing standards. Previously Adobe had a de facto monopoly license on these. Steve Jobs was extremely pissed off by seeing Apple get hurt for making a pro consumer decision that was good for the wider industry, and held the grudge for a long time. Even though he wasn’t CEO for much of this period. This article has more detail if you’re interested [1] [1] https://www.alphr.com/blogs/2010/05/05/apple-adobe-history/ https://www.alphr.com/blogs/2010/05/05/apple-adobe-history/
  - yreg 3y ago
    Steve eventually got his revenge: https://web.archive.org/web/20170615060422/https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170615060422/https://www.apple...
    - paulmd 3y ago
      This is a perfect explanation of apple’s relationship with NVIDIA and the CUDA platform too. Bumpgate affected AMD products too, this was the era of baking your 7850 to try and reflow the solder bumps, and apple was just trying to get the supplier to pay for the problems with the RoHS solders that apple specified in the product designs. Apple has always been a clientzilla that ruthlessly leans on its partners and suppliers (most recently Goldman Sachs is feeling the pain from the Apple Card) and believes that it’s a privilege to hold their business. And nvidia isn’t a company that got rich by bending over for that kind of treatment either (see also their relation with Microsoft). Apple really wanted to terminate their relationship with nvidia anyway and this was just them demanding a big check on the way out the door. Nothing like making your ex pay for the cost of you moving out during the breakup.
- pavlov 3y ago
  The story with Adobe on Mac in the 1990s is that their apps were so important to the platform that they practically had a veto on the API for Apple’s next-gen OS. When Apple acquired NeXT, the original plan was for the NeXT API (now called Cocoa) to become the only way to build apps on the new Mac OS. But Adobe made it clear they were not going to port everything to Objective-C. In response Apple came up with Carbon, which was a port of essential plain-C APIs from Classic Mac OS to the new environment. Apple retaliated pretty hard in 2007-2010 by first knifing 64-bit Carbon when it had already shipped in Leopard betas, and later strangling Flash.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    Well, asking to rewrite all your stuff, especially such large platforms as Photoshop is a very big undertaking and resource investment. Don't see where the grudge comes from. E.g. if someone comes to our organization and ask to rewrite half of what we do in their new language, we won't move. Should that someone hold a grudge against us?
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think Apple was the one who was unreasonable here, not Adobe. I loathe the idea of giving Microsoft credit for anything, but one thing they got right was their focus on backward compatibility. Certainly that has frayed at times here and there, but MS generally doesn't ask their developers to completely rewrite their applications to use a new application framework.
    - ack_complete 3y ago
      Except for UWP, where they are doing just that. Some OS features, such as multi-layer swap chains, are exclusive to UWP apps.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And because of that, even as far back as 2005, there were 10 ways to create a string in C and depending on which Windows API you were using, you had to convert between them constantly. Considering how Microsoft has failed to move past Windows while Apple uses the same OS more or less for watches, phones, tablets, monitors, set top boxes, etc without having to support legacy crap.
lessname 3y ago
Is it really the power of WeChat or the chinese government though?
- afavour 3y ago
  In this scenario it doesn’t really matter. They’re interchangeable.
- em-bee 3y ago
  it's wechat. you really need it in china. it's practically impossible to stay in touch with most people if you don't have it. a phone that can't run wechat is pretty useless.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    then they could simply just enable it in China and not in the US
  - ospider 3y ago
    Actually, it's both. Back in 2022, you have to install either WeChat or Alipay to scan the government's health code literally everywhere.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      hmm, i forgot about those. but i wonder if you really needed wechat and if it wasn't possible to scan them with the government provided app that tracks your healthcode too. i think offering wechat support was more out of convenience, and not to push people to use wechat.
  - gehsty 3y ago
    The app is obviously incredibly popular, but if it wasn’t back by the Chinese government I imagine apple would have enforced their App Store rules. I imagine some kind of deal along the lines of “no WeChat no iPhone in China” was done.
yreg 3y ago
App Store was never a totally level playing field either. Amazon Prime Video got a discount on App Store fees[0]. FaceBook[1] and Uber[2] did things for which they got a slap on the wrist. If a less-important developer did that, they would have been banned from the App Store forever. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-blocked-internal-ios-apps https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-b... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-store-fingerprint-program-tim-cook-travis-kalanick https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Always blows my mind that Epic lost to Apple, it is the clearest example of a champion - making monopoly that has ever existed.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    You don’t think Epic gets special comarketing deals from console makers?
  - ecf 3y ago
    Epic lost to Apple because the courts saw through Epic’s bullshit and realized they wanted to break up the monopoly only so they could enact their own.
fmajid 3y ago
Marc Andreessen famously predicted Netscape would reduce Windows to "a poorly debugged collection of device drivers". WeChat, as the "everything app" Musk aspires to turn Twitter into (ha!) has effectively done that to both iOS and Android.
- ecf 3y ago
  Marc Andreessen is out of touch and doesn’t deserve to be brought up anymore.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    That was in 1995.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> most consumers would rather change device hardware than lose access to WeChat This seems like an understatement.

sdfghswe 3y ago

> Much like Adobe did to Macs in the 1990s, WeChat has become so powerful they control the platform. I'd enjoy listening to the story here, spacebanana.

spacebanana7 3y ago
Adobe almost killed Apple by developing Windows-first and sometimes Windows-only products in the 1990s. Many professionals cared about Adobe software more than their hardware device, so moved platforms. Adobe’s motivation was largely revenge against Apple for opening up printing standards. Previously Adobe had a de facto monopoly license on these. Steve Jobs was extremely pissed off by seeing Apple get hurt for making a pro consumer decision that was good for the wider industry, and held the grudge for a long time. Even though he wasn’t CEO for much of this period. This article has more detail if you’re interested [1] [1] https://www.alphr.com/blogs/2010/05/05/apple-adobe-history/ https://www.alphr.com/blogs/2010/05/05/apple-adobe-history/
- yreg 3y ago
  Steve eventually got his revenge: https://web.archive.org/web/20170615060422/https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170615060422/https://www.apple...
  - paulmd 3y ago
    This is a perfect explanation of apple’s relationship with NVIDIA and the CUDA platform too. Bumpgate affected AMD products too, this was the era of baking your 7850 to try and reflow the solder bumps, and apple was just trying to get the supplier to pay for the problems with the RoHS solders that apple specified in the product designs. Apple has always been a clientzilla that ruthlessly leans on its partners and suppliers (most recently Goldman Sachs is feeling the pain from the Apple Card) and believes that it’s a privilege to hold their business. And nvidia isn’t a company that got rich by bending over for that kind of treatment either (see also their relation with Microsoft). Apple really wanted to terminate their relationship with nvidia anyway and this was just them demanding a big check on the way out the door. Nothing like making your ex pay for the cost of you moving out during the breakup.
pavlov 3y ago
The story with Adobe on Mac in the 1990s is that their apps were so important to the platform that they practically had a veto on the API for Apple’s next-gen OS. When Apple acquired NeXT, the original plan was for the NeXT API (now called Cocoa) to become the only way to build apps on the new Mac OS. But Adobe made it clear they were not going to port everything to Objective-C. In response Apple came up with Carbon, which was a port of essential plain-C APIs from Classic Mac OS to the new environment. Apple retaliated pretty hard in 2007-2010 by first knifing 64-bit Carbon when it had already shipped in Leopard betas, and later strangling Flash.
- deepsun 3y ago
  Well, asking to rewrite all your stuff, especially such large platforms as Photoshop is a very big undertaking and resource investment. Don't see where the grudge comes from. E.g. if someone comes to our organization and ask to rewrite half of what we do in their new language, we won't move. Should that someone hold a grudge against us?
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think Apple was the one who was unreasonable here, not Adobe. I loathe the idea of giving Microsoft credit for anything, but one thing they got right was their focus on backward compatibility. Certainly that has frayed at times here and there, but MS generally doesn't ask their developers to completely rewrite their applications to use a new application framework.
  - ack_complete 3y ago
    Except for UWP, where they are doing just that. Some OS features, such as multi-layer swap chains, are exclusive to UWP apps.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And because of that, even as far back as 2005, there were 10 ways to create a string in C and depending on which Windows API you were using, you had to convert between them constantly. Considering how Microsoft has failed to move past Windows while Apple uses the same OS more or less for watches, phones, tablets, monitors, set top boxes, etc without having to support legacy crap.

lessname 3y ago

Is it really the power of WeChat or the chinese government though?

afavour 3y ago
In this scenario it doesn’t really matter. They’re interchangeable.
em-bee 3y ago
it's wechat. you really need it in china. it's practically impossible to stay in touch with most people if you don't have it. a phone that can't run wechat is pretty useless.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  then they could simply just enable it in China and not in the US
- ospider 3y ago
  Actually, it's both. Back in 2022, you have to install either WeChat or Alipay to scan the government's health code literally everywhere.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    hmm, i forgot about those. but i wonder if you really needed wechat and if it wasn't possible to scan them with the government provided app that tracks your healthcode too. i think offering wechat support was more out of convenience, and not to push people to use wechat.
- gehsty 3y ago
  The app is obviously incredibly popular, but if it wasn’t back by the Chinese government I imagine apple would have enforced their App Store rules. I imagine some kind of deal along the lines of “no WeChat no iPhone in China” was done.

yreg 3y ago

App Store was never a totally level playing field either. Amazon Prime Video got a discount on App Store fees[0]. FaceBook[1] and Uber[2] did things for which they got a slap on the wrist. If a less-important developer did that, they would have been banned from the App Store forever. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-blocked-internal-ios-apps https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-b... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-store-fingerprint-program-tim-cook-travis-kalanick https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...

hackernewds 3y ago
Always blows my mind that Epic lost to Apple, it is the clearest example of a champion - making monopoly that has ever existed.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You don’t think Epic gets special comarketing deals from console makers?
- ecf 3y ago
  Epic lost to Apple because the courts saw through Epic’s bullshit and realized they wanted to break up the monopoly only so they could enact their own.

fmajid 3y ago

Marc Andreessen famously predicted Netscape would reduce Windows to "a poorly debugged collection of device drivers". WeChat, as the "everything app" Musk aspires to turn Twitter into (ha!) has effectively done that to both iOS and Android.

ecf 3y ago
Marc Andreessen is out of touch and doesn’t deserve to be brought up anymore.
- fmajid 3y ago
  That was in 1995.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> most consumers would rather change device hardware than lose access to WeChat This seems like an understatement.