6 ms·

The whole app ecosystem(android and apple) is carefully constructed for maximum market owner value extraction, user value is a secondary consideration. Basical

by somat 3y ago

The whole app ecosystem(android and apple) is carefully constructed for maximum market owner value extraction, user value is a secondary consideration. Basically, it is what the web would look like if it were developed by corporate interests, conversely "apps" could have been a better designed web[1], but instead are this comparatively clunky gated process where you have to explicitly install the app first only then can you use it. 1. The web was designed to deliver pages, this was well designed, application like functionally grew organically afterwards and is quite the mess.

cosmojg 3y ago
Oh, the tragedy of what could have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
- fsflover 3y ago
  Mobian, PureOS and pmOS are here today. Sent from my Librem 5.
- umeshunni 3y ago
  But that would have required someone other than Mozilla to run Firefox
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  Also MeeGo, which was killed off before it really had a chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9
catlikesshrimp 3y ago
To be fair, this evolved naturally. The TI calculators were progamable, my brother used those. Then the pocket pcs (windows ce) had 3rd party programs, those were distributed as files by the publisher. Program stores were webpages were people sold their files. I used the skyscape medical books; you installed the program as usual, then you bought a code specific for your version and file. All that done through a webpage Then we have android. Google had the Marketplace (now playstore) as we know it today, except packages didnt use google services to validate licenses, Many times it was just a package (a file) The main progress was ease of use. Then comes iOS and their extreme BS of not being able to "sideload" "apps" The store is no longer a convenience, it is a requirement. For your safety, of course. The main "progress" here is that they convinced many "Americans" that a commodity affordable phone with a painted cartoon of a bitten apple is "Exclusive", as VIP only. I compare it to the NFT phenomena, except the fruit cartoon did stick.
- redundantly 3y ago
  > For your safety, of course. I know they have ulterior motives for their walled garden, but this is a product of said garden. The App Store is by far much safer to use than Google's Play Store. Plus the parental controls on android are essentially non-existent. I'm happy in this walled garden.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The premise of a walled garden is to keep unwanted things out, not to imprison you inside. Apple maintaining a store where they've vetted everything in it is fine, and if you like you can refuse to install anything from outside of it. That doesn't justify them prohibiting you from installing anything from outside of it. It should be up to you. If you wanted to, you could even configure your phone to not add any new stores without a factory wipe. But maybe first you want to add in the repositories that have only free and open source software, or the stores of some respected game publishers who offer lower prices if you use their own stores for their games. And maybe the existence of these stores would encourage Apple to charge lower fees, and then you benefit from the lower fees even if you choose never to install anything from those stores, since your option to exerts competitive pressure on the stores(s) you are willing to use.
    - redundantly 3y ago
      I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be opened up. I'm just stating that by being a walled garden it is safer. When things eventually open up, when Apple is finally forced to permit other app stores on their mobile devices, I'll take a hard pass on them.
      - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
        Consider these two statements: 1) I happy having a walled garden, I feel safe 2) I am happy being imprisoned in a walled garden with no door, I feel safe
        3y ago
endisneigh 3y ago
There’s literally nothing stopping someone from distributing their app as a web app, and no PWA isn’t necessary for distribution.
- berkes 3y ago
  > There’s literally nothing stopping There's literally apple stopping that. By limiting APIs, by removing the ability to treat them as other apps (home screen icons), by blocking apps that are hybrids etc.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    You don’t need any of that to distribute a web app and thus make money.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Strictly speaking, you don't need to distribute anything more than ads to "thus make money" off a webapp. The end-goal of webapps is not to challenge Apple's revenue though, it's to offer meaningful (see: persistent) capabilities that write-once and ship-anywhere. You're being a reductive troll. Stop making bad-faith arguments if that's the only way you intend to contribute to the discussion.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        You can use indexeddb today on apple devices to enable some offline functionality. Calling people a troll? Are you a child?
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > some offline functionality. There's the kicker. > Calling people a troll? No, I'm saying that your prior comments are trolling. "There’s literally nothing stopping someone" and "You don’t need any of that" is both untrue and a bad-faith response to the parent's post. You might as well have not commented if your intention was to defend your personal opinion about webapps.
OCASMv2 3y ago
> The whole app ecosystem(android and apple) is carefully constructed for maximum market owner value extraction, user value is a secondary consideration. And it has become the norm because both developers and consumers have readily and happily accepted that deal.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  Did developers and consumers have a choice? Maybe at some micro niche level, but the capitalistic status quo is driven by mass production and monopolistic forces, by design.
berkes 3y ago
> The web was designed to deliver pages, this was well designed It was well designed, using Hypermedia. Which works extremely well for hyperlinks and forms. Instead of leveraging and improving these primitives, corporates¹ and web-devs threw it all out and re-invented it. Multiple times². ¹ The worst offenders obviously being those that have held back web-apps just so they can extract more money from native apps. i.e. Apple. ² jQuery, then Angular et. al. Then react. Now WASM. In which we throw all all the REST concepts and push a mongrel data format, JSON, over the web. When we had XML with strong typing, meaning, hypermedia, permissions, etc. We have - by now- reinvented all these on top of JSON, but worse and poorer. And, finally we are full circle back to HTMX. How often will web-devs keep re-inventing wheels? Why can't we see that problems have been solved since early '00s and that improving these is also possible?

by somat 3y ago

cosmojg 3y ago

Oh, the tragedy of what could have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS

fsflover 3y ago
Mobian, PureOS and pmOS are here today. Sent from my Librem 5.
umeshunni 3y ago
But that would have required someone other than Mozilla to run Firefox
ryukafalz 3y ago
Also MeeGo, which was killed off before it really had a chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9

catlikesshrimp 3y ago

To be fair, this evolved naturally. The TI calculators were progamable, my brother used those. Then the pocket pcs (windows ce) had 3rd party programs, those were distributed as files by the publisher. Program stores were webpages were people sold their files. I used the skyscape medical books; you installed the program as usual, then you bought a code specific for your version and file. All that done through a webpage Then we have android. Google had the Marketplace (now playstore) as we know it today, except packages didnt use google services to validate licenses, Many times it was just a package (a file) The main progress was ease of use. Then comes iOS and their extreme BS of not being able to "sideload" "apps" The store is no longer a convenience, it is a requirement. For your safety, of course. The main "progress" here is that they convinced many "Americans" that a commodity affordable phone with a painted cartoon of a bitten apple is "Exclusive", as VIP only. I compare it to the NFT phenomena, except the fruit cartoon did stick.

redundantly 3y ago
> For your safety, of course. I know they have ulterior motives for their walled garden, but this is a product of said garden. The App Store is by far much safer to use than Google's Play Store. Plus the parental controls on android are essentially non-existent. I'm happy in this walled garden.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The premise of a walled garden is to keep unwanted things out, not to imprison you inside. Apple maintaining a store where they've vetted everything in it is fine, and if you like you can refuse to install anything from outside of it. That doesn't justify them prohibiting you from installing anything from outside of it. It should be up to you. If you wanted to, you could even configure your phone to not add any new stores without a factory wipe. But maybe first you want to add in the repositories that have only free and open source software, or the stores of some respected game publishers who offer lower prices if you use their own stores for their games. And maybe the existence of these stores would encourage Apple to charge lower fees, and then you benefit from the lower fees even if you choose never to install anything from those stores, since your option to exerts competitive pressure on the stores(s) you are willing to use.
  - redundantly 3y ago
    I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be opened up. I'm just stating that by being a walled garden it is safer. When things eventually open up, when Apple is finally forced to permit other app stores on their mobile devices, I'll take a hard pass on them.
    - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
      Consider these two statements: 1) I happy having a walled garden, I feel safe 2) I am happy being imprisoned in a walled garden with no door, I feel safe
      - 3y ago

endisneigh 3y ago

There’s literally nothing stopping someone from distributing their app as a web app, and no PWA isn’t necessary for distribution.

berkes 3y ago
> There’s literally nothing stopping There's literally apple stopping that. By limiting APIs, by removing the ability to treat them as other apps (home screen icons), by blocking apps that are hybrids etc.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  You don’t need any of that to distribute a web app and thus make money.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Strictly speaking, you don't need to distribute anything more than ads to "thus make money" off a webapp. The end-goal of webapps is not to challenge Apple's revenue though, it's to offer meaningful (see: persistent) capabilities that write-once and ship-anywhere. You're being a reductive troll. Stop making bad-faith arguments if that's the only way you intend to contribute to the discussion.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      You can use indexeddb today on apple devices to enable some offline functionality. Calling people a troll? Are you a child?
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > some offline functionality. There's the kicker. > Calling people a troll? No, I'm saying that your prior comments are trolling. "There’s literally nothing stopping someone" and "You don’t need any of that" is both untrue and a bad-faith response to the parent's post. You might as well have not commented if your intention was to defend your personal opinion about webapps.

OCASMv2 3y ago

> The whole app ecosystem(android and apple) is carefully constructed for maximum market owner value extraction, user value is a secondary consideration. And it has become the norm because both developers and consumers have readily and happily accepted that deal.

wildrhythms 3y ago
Did developers and consumers have a choice? Maybe at some micro niche level, but the capitalistic status quo is driven by mass production and monopolistic forces, by design.

berkes 3y ago

> The web was designed to deliver pages, this was well designed It was well designed, using Hypermedia. Which works extremely well for hyperlinks and forms. Instead of leveraging and improving these primitives, corporates¹ and web-devs threw it all out and re-invented it. Multiple times². ¹ The worst offenders obviously being those that have held back web-apps just so they can extract more money from native apps. i.e. Apple. ² jQuery, then Angular et. al. Then react. Now WASM. In which we throw all all the REST concepts and push a mongrel data format, JSON, over the web. When we had XML with strong typing, meaning, hypermedia, permissions, etc. We have - by now- reinvented all these on top of JSON, but worse and poorer. And, finally we are full circle back to HTMX. How often will web-devs keep re-inventing wheels? Why can't we see that problems have been solved since early '00s and that improving these is also possible?