5 ms·

I never really got into "phone" progrmaming, always waiting for the shenanigans to die down. But somehow the shanigans have gotten worse and for a significant c

I never really got into "phone" progrmaming, always waiting for the shenanigans to die down. But somehow the shanigans have gotten worse and for a significant chunk of the world population, the phone is the only computation device they have at all.

donmcronald 1y ago
I never got into it because I was convinced developers would refuse to give up control over distribution when Apple started doing it. I wish I was right, but here we are.
- saganus 1y ago
  Money is a powerful motivator. For better or worse.
- worldsayshi 1y ago
  Developers sometimes seem to be as in control as farmers are of the distribution of their produce. There's no absolute rule that gives the owners of large scale distribution networks power over both producer and consumer. It's just laws of convenience. It's easier for everyone to go through a few or just a single common broker. There's no law against a more democratic way to implement the broker either but it requires interesting methods of coordination and/or decision making that doesn't seem to exist yet?
  - donmcronald 1y ago
    It limits choice. I don’t have any experience building mobile apps because I didn’t want to buy into an unfair ecosystem. That means fewer mobile apps even if distribution networks change tomorrow.
    - brailsafe 1y ago
      > I don’t have any experience building mobile apps because I didn’t want to buy into an unfair ecosystem Seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to compare that statement to not starting a business because the economy is unfair. People indeed don't start businesses when the bureaucratic or tax overhead outweighs the financial benefit, but nobody loses sleep over an individual's hypothetical missed opportunity to learn a new skill but them. Doesn't matter to the platform owners unless it also stops being profitable, so it's their job to maintain the profitability for their ecosystem despite whatever barriers they put up.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    > There's no law against a more democratic way to implement the broker either but it requires interesting methods of coordination and/or decision making that doesn't seem to exist yet? It's not enough to not have a law against it, we need to have and enforce laws requiring it.
    - worldsayshi 1y ago
      I'm not so sure that we can even rely on legislation for this. I think we need new ways or new technology for collective decision making that doesn't rely on a pre existing healthy legislative environment.
- askafriend 1y ago
  Developers want a stable, secure platform where they can reach customers that trust the platform and are willing to transact. Everything is downstream of that, including any philosophy around control. Developers are businesses and the economics need to work. For that, safety and security is much more important than openness.
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    Oh! Classic Survivorship bias. You're only looking at the devs who went into business in the phone ecosystem in the first place. I'm thinking that they're there despite the barriers to entry ('shenanigans'), and the ones you encounter happen to be those who happen to place a higher value on 'other values'. As the ecosystem gets locked down more, this effect becomes stronger. Meanwhile, you're not looking at those who left, or those who decided to never enter a broken market dominated by players convicted of monopolistic practices. This seems much more intuitive than a hypothesis where somehow people would prefer to enter a closed market over a fair and open market with no barriers to entry. Remember, monopolists succeed because they are distorting the market, not because they are in fact the most efficient competitor. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
    - askafriend 1y ago
      I'm actually quite familiar with the history of app stores and getting people to pay for software on the internet. I grew up in this timeline so I have first-hand experience too. Before the App Store, the picture was mostly a disaster of security, reliability and quality. There was no trust and so people didn't bother parting with their credit card information to buy software...especially not on their phone. Apple's App Store model dramatically grew the pie because it was one of the few platforms that people were willing to actually transact confidently on and trusted. This is why millions of developers flocked to the platform. This is also why Apple has traditionally maintained an iron grip on it; it was beneficial for everyone involved. Over time, they are being proven right as more open platforms realize that openness at the expense of trust doesn't work for the masses.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  Some developers did. Others, who didn't care so much, got into the app store instead, and got rich off it. Users didn't care about such principles and mobile-first has been a viable strategy for a long time now. Not having something of an app is a problem if you want to stay in many markets.
lawlessone 1y ago
i made and released some apps in the early days. Got tired of it and got tired of the reminders from google to add banners, screenshots, submitting icons to support multiple resolutions.. notifications that apps i haven't touched in decade are no longer compatible etc. so much extra work involved that isn't building the app. I worry how this will affect fdroid etc.
- ahdanggit 1y ago
  Got tired of this with a few extensions I made too. It felt like every year or so they'd completely break some API and I'd have to go switch to the new one, then they wanted a privacy policy, then justification for permissions, etc etc. Wasn't worth the trouble eventually and I just let them die.
rmah 1y ago
Software distribution control didn't start with phones, it started with game consoles.
- goku12 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - 827a 1y ago
    Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me. The vast majority of reasoning for why the judiciary makes the decisions it does is because of "precedent". Slippery slope is how the world operates. It surfaces everywhere, and when the slope we're sliding down matters, like this one, we have to fight back with fervor. Google isn't doing this in a vacuum; they're doing this because there's precedent for it, and because all they want is to assert more power over the world. Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. Everyone who even glances near this decision should feel overwhelming shame. If you have a shred of political power to fight this internally, you are a failure to yourself, your customers, and the world if you choose to stay silent. They'll read comments like these and think "we're right, we're being brave", because they have convinced themselves that there is bravery in wielding overwhelming power against their users.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - goku12 1y ago
      > Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me. I don't know if I got this wrong, but the 'slippery slope' argument by itself never appeared to be a logical fallacy to me. There are numerous valid examples of it, and that's the context of its use in my previous reply. There certainly is a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but I thought it meant that you are misapplying/misusing the slippery slope argument where it isn't valid or doesn't apply. > Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. I was going to apply the Nazi label on them everyone else who use such sleazy tactics. I hesitated because a lot of people are still emotional about the holocaust (it has been 80 years) and object to equating anything with Nazism. But I sometimes wonder if the objection is meant only to silence the critics. While their actions haven't yet reached the magnitude of atrocities committed by the Nazis, their actions certainly are consistent with the Nazi tactics. Besides, it's not as if they had any qualms labeling ordinary people 'Pirates' for sharing media. Therefore I feel it's quite appropriate to apply to them and promote the label of 'Supply Side Nazis'.
bobajeff 1y ago
You now need to have an online account to setup and login on a Windows desktop. It's obvious what the trend is and it's not allowing consumers control over their stuff.
- gaudystead 1y ago
  Not related to the OP, but no you don't. Just look up how to skip the "OOTB (out of the box) experience" and you can still bypass having to set up a cloud account on Windows 11 and can just set up a local account like normal. :)
  - WD-42 1y ago
    For now. History has shown that workarounds for defaults tend to stop working at some point.
  - kmacdough 1y ago
    A stepping stone on a path. Have a login. Pin features to a login. Mandate a login but w/ backdoor. Close the back door. "It's a backdoor, why not use the front door?"
  - goku12 1y ago
    I have been a computer user, developer and a system administrator for longer than I care to recount. I don't like Windows and I don't use it at work or home. But I do encounter it from time to time, and the experience is worse each time. The last time it happened, I couldn't figure out the way to skip/bypass the cloud account set up. Would it have been possible if I tried harder, starting with a web search? Perhaps. But there is no way an average system user is going to have the patience or often the skill necessary to do it. I'm not challenging their intelligence. But people have other priorities than to jump through a dozen hoops just to preserve privacy. I would do the same if I had to set up a Windows system for urgent work. These sorts of hurdles exist to push more and more users to their favorite workflow until the dissenting voice is too feeble to notice when they finally pull the plug on the straightforward method. The intent is certainly there, since they are quite evidently boiling the frog. Just wait for the fine day when you wake up in the morning to see an HN story just like this one about Windows login as well.
paxcoder 1y ago
[dead]
frollogaston 1y ago
I got into it then got out. Everything about the Apple ecosystem was infuriating. I don't even care about the ideology here, just the annoyance.

donmcronald 1y ago

I never got into it because I was convinced developers would refuse to give up control over distribution when Apple started doing it. I wish I was right, but here we are.

saganus 1y ago
Money is a powerful motivator. For better or worse.
worldsayshi 1y ago
Developers sometimes seem to be as in control as farmers are of the distribution of their produce. There's no absolute rule that gives the owners of large scale distribution networks power over both producer and consumer. It's just laws of convenience. It's easier for everyone to go through a few or just a single common broker. There's no law against a more democratic way to implement the broker either but it requires interesting methods of coordination and/or decision making that doesn't seem to exist yet?
- donmcronald 1y ago
  It limits choice. I don’t have any experience building mobile apps because I didn’t want to buy into an unfair ecosystem. That means fewer mobile apps even if distribution networks change tomorrow.
  - brailsafe 1y ago
    > I don’t have any experience building mobile apps because I didn’t want to buy into an unfair ecosystem Seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to compare that statement to not starting a business because the economy is unfair. People indeed don't start businesses when the bureaucratic or tax overhead outweighs the financial benefit, but nobody loses sleep over an individual's hypothetical missed opportunity to learn a new skill but them. Doesn't matter to the platform owners unless it also stops being profitable, so it's their job to maintain the profitability for their ecosystem despite whatever barriers they put up.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > There's no law against a more democratic way to implement the broker either but it requires interesting methods of coordination and/or decision making that doesn't seem to exist yet? It's not enough to not have a law against it, we need to have and enforce laws requiring it.
  - worldsayshi 1y ago
    I'm not so sure that we can even rely on legislation for this. I think we need new ways or new technology for collective decision making that doesn't rely on a pre existing healthy legislative environment.
askafriend 1y ago
Developers want a stable, secure platform where they can reach customers that trust the platform and are willing to transact. Everything is downstream of that, including any philosophy around control. Developers are businesses and the economics need to work. For that, safety and security is much more important than openness.
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  Oh! Classic Survivorship bias. You're only looking at the devs who went into business in the phone ecosystem in the first place. I'm thinking that they're there despite the barriers to entry ('shenanigans'), and the ones you encounter happen to be those who happen to place a higher value on 'other values'. As the ecosystem gets locked down more, this effect becomes stronger. Meanwhile, you're not looking at those who left, or those who decided to never enter a broken market dominated by players convicted of monopolistic practices. This seems much more intuitive than a hypothesis where somehow people would prefer to enter a closed market over a fair and open market with no barriers to entry. Remember, monopolists succeed because they are distorting the market, not because they are in fact the most efficient competitor. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  - askafriend 1y ago
    I'm actually quite familiar with the history of app stores and getting people to pay for software on the internet. I grew up in this timeline so I have first-hand experience too. Before the App Store, the picture was mostly a disaster of security, reliability and quality. There was no trust and so people didn't bother parting with their credit card information to buy software...especially not on their phone. Apple's App Store model dramatically grew the pie because it was one of the few platforms that people were willing to actually transact confidently on and trusted. This is why millions of developers flocked to the platform. This is also why Apple has traditionally maintained an iron grip on it; it was beneficial for everyone involved. Over time, they are being proven right as more open platforms realize that openness at the expense of trust doesn't work for the masses.
jeroenhd 1y ago
Some developers did. Others, who didn't care so much, got into the app store instead, and got rich off it. Users didn't care about such principles and mobile-first has been a viable strategy for a long time now. Not having something of an app is a problem if you want to stay in many markets.

lawlessone 1y ago

i made and released some apps in the early days. Got tired of it and got tired of the reminders from google to add banners, screenshots, submitting icons to support multiple resolutions.. notifications that apps i haven't touched in decade are no longer compatible etc. so much extra work involved that isn't building the app. I worry how this will affect fdroid etc.

ahdanggit 1y ago
Got tired of this with a few extensions I made too. It felt like every year or so they'd completely break some API and I'd have to go switch to the new one, then they wanted a privacy policy, then justification for permissions, etc etc. Wasn't worth the trouble eventually and I just let them die.

rmah 1y ago

Software distribution control didn't start with phones, it started with game consoles.

goku12 1y ago
[flagged]
- 827a 1y ago
  Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me. The vast majority of reasoning for why the judiciary makes the decisions it does is because of "precedent". Slippery slope is how the world operates. It surfaces everywhere, and when the slope we're sliding down matters, like this one, we have to fight back with fervor. Google isn't doing this in a vacuum; they're doing this because there's precedent for it, and because all they want is to assert more power over the world. Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. Everyone who even glances near this decision should feel overwhelming shame. If you have a shred of political power to fight this internally, you are a failure to yourself, your customers, and the world if you choose to stay silent. They'll read comments like these and think "we're right, we're being brave", because they have convinced themselves that there is bravery in wielding overwhelming power against their users.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - goku12 1y ago
    > Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me. I don't know if I got this wrong, but the 'slippery slope' argument by itself never appeared to be a logical fallacy to me. There are numerous valid examples of it, and that's the context of its use in my previous reply. There certainly is a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but I thought it meant that you are misapplying/misusing the slippery slope argument where it isn't valid or doesn't apply. > Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. I was going to apply the Nazi label on them everyone else who use such sleazy tactics. I hesitated because a lot of people are still emotional about the holocaust (it has been 80 years) and object to equating anything with Nazism. But I sometimes wonder if the objection is meant only to silence the critics. While their actions haven't yet reached the magnitude of atrocities committed by the Nazis, their actions certainly are consistent with the Nazi tactics. Besides, it's not as if they had any qualms labeling ordinary people 'Pirates' for sharing media. Therefore I feel it's quite appropriate to apply to them and promote the label of 'Supply Side Nazis'.

bobajeff 1y ago

You now need to have an online account to setup and login on a Windows desktop. It's obvious what the trend is and it's not allowing consumers control over their stuff.

gaudystead 1y ago
Not related to the OP, but no you don't. Just look up how to skip the "OOTB (out of the box) experience" and you can still bypass having to set up a cloud account on Windows 11 and can just set up a local account like normal. :)
- WD-42 1y ago
  For now. History has shown that workarounds for defaults tend to stop working at some point.
- kmacdough 1y ago
  A stepping stone on a path. Have a login. Pin features to a login. Mandate a login but w/ backdoor. Close the back door. "It's a backdoor, why not use the front door?"
- goku12 1y ago
  I have been a computer user, developer and a system administrator for longer than I care to recount. I don't like Windows and I don't use it at work or home. But I do encounter it from time to time, and the experience is worse each time. The last time it happened, I couldn't figure out the way to skip/bypass the cloud account set up. Would it have been possible if I tried harder, starting with a web search? Perhaps. But there is no way an average system user is going to have the patience or often the skill necessary to do it. I'm not challenging their intelligence. But people have other priorities than to jump through a dozen hoops just to preserve privacy. I would do the same if I had to set up a Windows system for urgent work. These sorts of hurdles exist to push more and more users to their favorite workflow until the dissenting voice is too feeble to notice when they finally pull the plug on the straightforward method. The intent is certainly there, since they are quite evidently boiling the frog. Just wait for the fine day when you wake up in the morning to see an HN story just like this one about Windows login as well.

paxcoder 1y ago

[dead]

frollogaston 1y ago

I got into it then got out. Everything about the Apple ecosystem was infuriating. I don't even care about the ideology here, just the annoyance.