3 ms·

> Anyone who's maintained a private vs. a public API knows that one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other. Maybe this will finally give Apple so

> Anyone who's maintained a private vs. a public API knows that one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other. Maybe this will finally give Apple something to do with their $100 billion cash on hand.

averageRoyalty 2y ago
[flagged]
- kalleboo 2y ago
  Apple opening up these technologies would open the field for hundreds or thousands of startups
  - shuckles 2y ago
    It's very unlikely that's true. Why are there basically no such startups that are Android-only?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kalleboo 2y ago
      I would honestly like to read a treatise on why investment comes with Apple platforms first even though other platforms were there first, but we see it time and time again. Vision Pro is probably the first time that has faltered. My guess would be it's a combination of Apple users spend more money, some chauvinism among investors (they all use Apple platforms), and that it's the largest single development target (android fragmentation is still real when it comes to messier stuff like hardware access and background tasks)
      - shuckles 2y ago
        Apple Watch was at least as much as a platform failure as Vision Pro, though much of the story for the latter is yet to be written. I think there have been many small, successful hardware products. It's just that they look like relative failures or accessories to mobile phones in comparison because iPhone (and to a lesser degree smartphones in general) is just a colossal success and uniquely able to absorb so much new functionality.
  - quitit 2y ago
    Explain how.
    - kalleboo 2y ago
      Lots of opportunity in third-party AirPlay support. Smartwatch - we just saw the Pebble announcement. NFC emulation opens up for lots of payment scenarios. Background execution opens up access to all kinds of services that do not support APNS or need long-lived connections, and services like sync that had to rely on unreliable hacks like geofencing that get randomly denied by App Store approval. etc etc
      - quitit 2y ago
        Did you mean that hundreds or thousands of start ups would use these features? I don’t see how these changes will be the deciding factor for whether a start up could exist or not. To use your own example with pebble - it does exist despite the changes not being available.
shuckles 2y ago
I’d rather Apple continue returning excess cash flow to investors than to waste it on boondoggle regulatory requirements cooked up by people without a clue (Seriously? AirDrop alternatives? Who is asking for this?) which also have unintended consequences for other product development priorities.
- Gud 2y ago
  Ok, I would rather they put the users first.
  - shuckles 2y ago
    None of their users asked for this! It’s a list of demands come up by a small group of appointed bureaucrats. I can’t think of a single regular person who pines for AirDrop protocol alternatives. The loudest advocates for these changes are companies who distribute on Apple’s platform and developers who don’t want to wite native apps.
    - Gud 2y ago
      Actually there are a lot of users asking for exactly this. That Apple are using their monopoly to further their position is a classic, illegal tactic and these bureaucrats should have come after them a long, long time ago.
      - shuckles 2y ago
        > Actually there are a lot of users asking for exactly this. Can you point me to evidence that Apple users want AirDrop protocol alternatives?
        Gud 2y ago
        Absolutely something I want. That Apple has removed the functionality to interoperate between different operating systems is ridiculous. It used to be easy to transfer files over Bluetooth. I’m talking functionality that was there 20 years ago. Apple are using their monopoly against users who don’t know any better.

averageRoyalty 2y ago

[flagged]

kalleboo 2y ago
Apple opening up these technologies would open the field for hundreds or thousands of startups
- shuckles 2y ago
  It's very unlikely that's true. Why are there basically no such startups that are Android-only?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    I would honestly like to read a treatise on why investment comes with Apple platforms first even though other platforms were there first, but we see it time and time again. Vision Pro is probably the first time that has faltered. My guess would be it's a combination of Apple users spend more money, some chauvinism among investors (they all use Apple platforms), and that it's the largest single development target (android fragmentation is still real when it comes to messier stuff like hardware access and background tasks)
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Apple Watch was at least as much as a platform failure as Vision Pro, though much of the story for the latter is yet to be written. I think there have been many small, successful hardware products. It's just that they look like relative failures or accessories to mobile phones in comparison because iPhone (and to a lesser degree smartphones in general) is just a colossal success and uniquely able to absorb so much new functionality.
- quitit 2y ago
  Explain how.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    Lots of opportunity in third-party AirPlay support. Smartwatch - we just saw the Pebble announcement. NFC emulation opens up for lots of payment scenarios. Background execution opens up access to all kinds of services that do not support APNS or need long-lived connections, and services like sync that had to rely on unreliable hacks like geofencing that get randomly denied by App Store approval. etc etc
    - quitit 2y ago
      Did you mean that hundreds or thousands of start ups would use these features? I don’t see how these changes will be the deciding factor for whether a start up could exist or not. To use your own example with pebble - it does exist despite the changes not being available.

shuckles 2y ago

I’d rather Apple continue returning excess cash flow to investors than to waste it on boondoggle regulatory requirements cooked up by people without a clue (Seriously? AirDrop alternatives? Who is asking for this?) which also have unintended consequences for other product development priorities.

Gud 2y ago
Ok, I would rather they put the users first.
- shuckles 2y ago
  None of their users asked for this! It’s a list of demands come up by a small group of appointed bureaucrats. I can’t think of a single regular person who pines for AirDrop protocol alternatives. The loudest advocates for these changes are companies who distribute on Apple’s platform and developers who don’t want to wite native apps.
  - Gud 2y ago
    Actually there are a lot of users asking for exactly this. That Apple are using their monopoly to further their position is a classic, illegal tactic and these bureaucrats should have come after them a long, long time ago.
    - shuckles 2y ago
      > Actually there are a lot of users asking for exactly this. Can you point me to evidence that Apple users want AirDrop protocol alternatives?
      - Gud 2y ago
        Absolutely something I want. That Apple has removed the functionality to interoperate between different operating systems is ridiculous. It used to be easy to transfer files over Bluetooth. I’m talking functionality that was there 20 years ago. Apple are using their monopoly against users who don’t know any better.