4 ms·

Ngl, but if the "app" is simply an straight forward compliment to an existing feature of the phone, I don't consider it a sustainable and viable long term busin

Ngl, but if the "app" is simply an straight forward compliment to an existing feature of the phone, I don't consider it a sustainable and viable long term business nor something the original manufacturer should shy away from implementing. Otherwise, it's no different than trying to legitimize even more middlemen.

BenFranklin100 2y ago
Good point, some of the apps, while useful, are clearly ‘currently missing feature but almost surely will be implemented’ type of apps. As a founder, you need to be thinking about the moat.
LudwigNagasena 2y ago
It’s not even a novel or peculiar idea.
jamil7 2y ago
Just to build off this a little, there are also quite a few examples of cases in which Apple "sherlocked" an app and the original app(s) continued being successful as they offered a much more advanced feature-set than the basic version Apple introduced. In some cases app authors talked about getting more publicity as the feature or utility became more mainstream and more people searched for functionality that wasn't available from Apple.
- shinycode 2y ago
  It happened to Astropad and they wrote an interesting post about the aftermath, it made them better and stronger
devmor 2y ago
I'm of the same opinion, personally. If you tie your financial interest to complementing an existing product, you should understand that your financial interest is at the whim of that product's owner. It's no different than someone who makes accessories for cars.
null_investor 2y ago
That's such a nonsense argument; one could apply the same argument to Amazon's products by using their third-party sellers to do product research for them. Why even try to invent a better vacuum cleaner if both Chinese copycats and Amazon itself will eat your pie? This is clearly monopolist and anti-competitive behavior. I'm sure we'd have many more VCs investing in such industries if they'd believe there's any money to be made there, but there isn't because Amazon will eat whatever margin there is. It's so stupid that I recognized that this would happen more than a decade ago and had a free ride on Amazon stocks that likely most VCs never did, even with ZIRP. Apple, Amazon, and others are clearly abusing their market position. Governments should regulate those companies so they can only operate in their area of interest. Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger.
- delfinom 2y ago
  >That's such a nonsense argument; one could apply the same argument to Amazon's products by using their third-party sellers to do product research for them. Why even try to invent a better vacuum cleaner if both Chinese copycats and Amazon itself will eat your pie? In the space of consumer retail, your business differentiation is marketing and pricing scheme. What Amazon does isn't even new, people are getting upset over it because the media is bored and they are paid off by Walmart and co. But retailers have been doing the _exact_ same thing as Amazon does for decades before, with Walmart being the biggest player. It actually gets funnier because even "bidding for the buybox" that Amazon does is just repeating "bidding for the shelf space" that all retailers have done for a long time (eye level shelves are more desirable). And marketing and pricing applies to even beyond selling through big retailers. Tons of more unique things get Chinese copycats, it's branding, support and continued innovation that keeps those companies afloat. >Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger. Ok, but I want that to apply to everything. The phone should come with absolutely nothing on it. Even the Store and Dialer are apps. Hey, you might have to pay a subscription fee to call someone now, but it'll be what you want.
elpocko 2y ago
>Ngl Thank you.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Good point, some of the apps, while useful, are clearly ‘currently missing feature but almost surely will be implemented’ type of apps. As a founder, you need to be thinking about the moat.

LudwigNagasena 2y ago

It’s not even a novel or peculiar idea.

jamil7 2y ago

Just to build off this a little, there are also quite a few examples of cases in which Apple "sherlocked" an app and the original app(s) continued being successful as they offered a much more advanced feature-set than the basic version Apple introduced. In some cases app authors talked about getting more publicity as the feature or utility became more mainstream and more people searched for functionality that wasn't available from Apple.

shinycode 2y ago
It happened to Astropad and they wrote an interesting post about the aftermath, it made them better and stronger

devmor 2y ago

I'm of the same opinion, personally. If you tie your financial interest to complementing an existing product, you should understand that your financial interest is at the whim of that product's owner. It's no different than someone who makes accessories for cars.

null_investor 2y ago

That's such a nonsense argument; one could apply the same argument to Amazon's products by using their third-party sellers to do product research for them. Why even try to invent a better vacuum cleaner if both Chinese copycats and Amazon itself will eat your pie? This is clearly monopolist and anti-competitive behavior. I'm sure we'd have many more VCs investing in such industries if they'd believe there's any money to be made there, but there isn't because Amazon will eat whatever margin there is. It's so stupid that I recognized that this would happen more than a decade ago and had a free ride on Amazon stocks that likely most VCs never did, even with ZIRP. Apple, Amazon, and others are clearly abusing their market position. Governments should regulate those companies so they can only operate in their area of interest. Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger.

delfinom 2y ago
>That's such a nonsense argument; one could apply the same argument to Amazon's products by using their third-party sellers to do product research for them. Why even try to invent a better vacuum cleaner if both Chinese copycats and Amazon itself will eat your pie? In the space of consumer retail, your business differentiation is marketing and pricing scheme. What Amazon does isn't even new, people are getting upset over it because the media is bored and they are paid off by Walmart and co. But retailers have been doing the _exact_ same thing as Amazon does for decades before, with Walmart being the biggest player. It actually gets funnier because even "bidding for the buybox" that Amazon does is just repeating "bidding for the shelf space" that all retailers have done for a long time (eye level shelves are more desirable). And marketing and pricing applies to even beyond selling through big retailers. Tons of more unique things get Chinese copycats, it's branding, support and continued innovation that keeps those companies afloat. >Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger. Ok, but I want that to apply to everything. The phone should come with absolutely nothing on it. Even the Store and Dialer are apps. Hey, you might have to pay a subscription fee to call someone now, but it'll be what you want.

elpocko 2y ago

>Ngl Thank you.