3 ms·

I'm sorry for the snark, but: > The whole reason the App Stores succeeded (past tense) is they enabled developers to make money. How will the internet, the bi

by oblio 3y ago

I'm sorry for the snark, but: > The whole reason the App Stores succeeded (past tense) is they enabled developers to make money. How will the internet, the biggest money maker in the history of the world, ever enable developers to make money? > Monetizing the web directly is practically impossible, certainly without resorting to intrusive ads (which are often blocked) and the attention span of people is incredibly short, so they will bounce. In order to survive you need a compelling reason for people to keep coming back and some source of revenue which is not the web site itself. Subscription fees, ads, etc, basically everything mobile apps do now, too.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I don't think this is snark. It just misses the point. The App Store has payment infrastructure built into it. Much, much easier to use for a developer and for a user than a different bespoke payment integration for each website.
- oblio 3y ago
  Frankly, both payment infrastructures (Apple/Google) should be opened up. Heck, I wish there was a way to mandate building standard/open payment infrastructure for the web. It's not there because platform vendors don't want it. We could have had it decades ago.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm not sure this is relevant. Having open infrastructure (whatever that means) doesn't mean that there'll be a seamless one-click purchase option for users; nor a zero-cost integration mechanism for developers.
    - oblio 3y ago
      Open infrastructure was too vague. An open payment standard, like OpenID/OAuth/FIDO. There should be a standard, distributed payment system, it should be easy to switch providers, and it should be easy to make payments without going through all these proprietary systems. It won't ever happen because there's nothing to gain for whoever builds it. And it needs to be build by the platform owners, precisely those that don't want it because they have their own payment systems (Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc).
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Understood. I wouldn't say that OpenID or OAuth are particularly standardised to the point where you can freely switch providers, though. That's where companies such as Auth0 are required, just as Stripe abstracts over different payments APIs.

by oblio 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

I don't think this is snark. It just misses the point. The App Store has payment infrastructure built into it. Much, much easier to use for a developer and for a user than a different bespoke payment integration for each website.

oblio 3y ago
Frankly, both payment infrastructures (Apple/Google) should be opened up. Heck, I wish there was a way to mandate building standard/open payment infrastructure for the web. It's not there because platform vendors don't want it. We could have had it decades ago.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I'm not sure this is relevant. Having open infrastructure (whatever that means) doesn't mean that there'll be a seamless one-click purchase option for users; nor a zero-cost integration mechanism for developers.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Open infrastructure was too vague. An open payment standard, like OpenID/OAuth/FIDO. There should be a standard, distributed payment system, it should be easy to switch providers, and it should be easy to make payments without going through all these proprietary systems. It won't ever happen because there's nothing to gain for whoever builds it. And it needs to be build by the platform owners, precisely those that don't want it because they have their own payment systems (Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc).
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Understood. I wouldn't say that OpenID or OAuth are particularly standardised to the point where you can freely switch providers, though. That's where companies such as Auth0 are required, just as Stripe abstracts over different payments APIs.