31 ms·

>Obviously there's web, Android, Windows, Linux, gaming consoles, and smart tvs, so there are some work-arounds to avoid the evil empire So obviously, effectiv

>Obviously there's web, Android, Windows, Linux, gaming consoles, and smart tvs, so there are some work-arounds to avoid the evil empire So obviously, effectively all other forms of computing (including by the way, Apple's own general purpose computers). But this one single OS, distributed by one single company, for two (counting the iPad) hardware platforms, which are also manufactured and distributed exclusively and only by this same single company "has near complete control over what software and and cannot be published, and [gets] to take a tax on all software sold"? Being kind and not dismissing this as outright hyperbole of the highest order, why is this the case? I'm a fan of open source software and hardware, so the fact that this is the case seems like a MASSIVE failure of the entire computing industry at all levels. How is it a company that was famously described as "beleagured" for decades, that supposedly needed a cash infusion by Microsoft of all companies to even stay alive, that has always and famously been singularly focused on their own vision of computing and never been particularly concerned with compatibility or openness, how have they become the single dominating player in the the computing world? How have they gained "near complete control", when the platform they supposedly wield all this control from didn't even have a software store to begin with, and their conditions are as onerous on developers as they always have been? Why did developers flock to this system? Why did consumers? It's not like this is a bait and switch situation. The iPhone was NEVER an open development platform. The 70/30 split has been there from the day the app store was announced. In app purchases weren't a thing to begin with, and when they were announced they too had that same 70/30 split. So how in the world has Apple come to dominate and why hasn't the entire rest of the computing industry managed to come up with anything close to an answer? What is it that Apple is selling to consumers and developers that make their clearly marked and publicly restrictive ecosystem to enticing when the open options are sold right next door? And how have they managed this dominance without even being the majority? Android to the best of my knowledge as more installs, so why is Apple the one controlling the market? In what other industry does the #2 player control the field?

marcus_holmes 2y ago
Good questions. I can only point at [1] and say that this has always been the case with domestic computing. The parking lot giving away tanks for free never did as much business as the slick salesman selling the badly-engineered sedans with the easy UI. And that was 1999. I guess people really like European luxury cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Command_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Co...
- tpmoney 2y ago
  So ultimately, I guess the conclusion is despite the amount of chatter it gets in tech circles and among high profile software developers like facebook and epic, the answer is Apple is in the position its in because it's selling what people actually want and care about. Which then leads us to ask, why can't the open platforms sell the same thing? Unfortunately, I can only think of 2 answers to that: 1) They are technically unable to. It would appear Apple is right about the security and technical challenges, and making the trade offs they have is the only way to sell what they're selling. And no one can make enough money to fund developing both a fully open OS along with all the other benefits (security, streamlined payment systems, streamlined sync, tight platform integrations, whatever other things you think are part of Apple's "secret sauce"). Fundamentally "open platform" and "everything adheres to a single standard" are incompatible goals that can not be accomplished simultaneously. 2) They are unwilling to. Either none of the developers care, or they don't want to do the hard dirty grunt work, or none of the other players are willing to "share the glory" so to speak with their competition.
  - marcus_holmes 2y ago
    I think it's similar to what I describe as my "Kardashian Problem" - that I don't understand why the Kardashians are famous. Not their problem, obviously; they are wildly successful, rich, famous, etc. They clearly understand their market very well and know how to address it. I have no idea why their market likes them, and that means I should never try to build a mass-market product. Tech geeks (of which I am one) don't understand what's important to non-tech-geeks. And we don't care. We're building Linux for us, and what we care about is choice, transparency, privacy, ease of configuration, etc. Clearly the general public don't give a shit about any of that, and have other priorities (e.g. does it look pretty?). So they look at Linux and see a shitshow of nasty tech, and look at Apple and see a beautiful shiny product. While we look at Linux and see a happy playground, and look at Apple and see a prison.

marcus_holmes 2y ago

Good questions. I can only point at [1] and say that this has always been the case with domestic computing. The parking lot giving away tanks for free never did as much business as the slick salesman selling the badly-engineered sedans with the easy UI. And that was 1999. I guess people really like European luxury cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Command_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Co...

tpmoney 2y ago
So ultimately, I guess the conclusion is despite the amount of chatter it gets in tech circles and among high profile software developers like facebook and epic, the answer is Apple is in the position its in because it's selling what people actually want and care about. Which then leads us to ask, why can't the open platforms sell the same thing? Unfortunately, I can only think of 2 answers to that: 1) They are technically unable to. It would appear Apple is right about the security and technical challenges, and making the trade offs they have is the only way to sell what they're selling. And no one can make enough money to fund developing both a fully open OS along with all the other benefits (security, streamlined payment systems, streamlined sync, tight platform integrations, whatever other things you think are part of Apple's "secret sauce"). Fundamentally "open platform" and "everything adheres to a single standard" are incompatible goals that can not be accomplished simultaneously. 2) They are unwilling to. Either none of the developers care, or they don't want to do the hard dirty grunt work, or none of the other players are willing to "share the glory" so to speak with their competition.
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  I think it's similar to what I describe as my "Kardashian Problem" - that I don't understand why the Kardashians are famous. Not their problem, obviously; they are wildly successful, rich, famous, etc. They clearly understand their market very well and know how to address it. I have no idea why their market likes them, and that means I should never try to build a mass-market product. Tech geeks (of which I am one) don't understand what's important to non-tech-geeks. And we don't care. We're building Linux for us, and what we care about is choice, transparency, privacy, ease of configuration, etc. Clearly the general public don't give a shit about any of that, and have other priorities (e.g. does it look pretty?). So they look at Linux and see a shitshow of nasty tech, and look at Apple and see a beautiful shiny product. While we look at Linux and see a happy playground, and look at Apple and see a prison.