3 ms·

I agree with the article in many respects, but I find there's a giant blind spot that needs addressing given the author. I don't understand how Marco can't vie

I agree with the article in many respects, but I find there's a giant blind spot that needs addressing given the author. I don't understand how Marco can't view Apple as a proprietary monoculture, and one that is somewhat worse in the sense that you can't clone the features of it without being sued (what if Reader had patents covering it and sued if you tried to create a clone?) Apple frequently force upgrades users and develoeprs, some would say by planned obsolescence. For example, early on in IOS, people built apps that allowed in-app purchases and subscriptions, because Apple had no API for them, so we had a federated, open system for that feature. Then Apple changed their T&C and mandate use of Apple infrastructure to do this, and people now have to resort to hacks (remember Dropbox getting banned because of a link to sign up?) Slowly, the apps were forced onto Apple monoculture services. Basically, when Apple introduces monoculture, it is viewed as a good. It simplifies user experience, etc. But for everyone else, it's somehow bad and evil.

ricardobeat 14y ago
Apple wants a cut of the money you make. That's it. Dropbox could have a sign up link if they agreed to pay the 30% fee. I do think it's a bit shortsighted, but they don't block open protocols or monopolize services.
- cromwellian 14y ago
  They don't? Apple early on blocked alternative Mail clients and Google Voice or other apps which "duplicate" functionality builtin apps provide. They relaxed those rules now, but under the original rules, Google Maps would have been banned.
  - rimantas 14y ago
    And you couldn't have any third party apps on an original iPhone. So?
chipotle_coyote 14y ago
I'd argue that a lot of us in the "Apple fan community," including Marco, understand that there are negatives to Apple's approach to, well, nearly everything. It's apparently very easy for people to pick up on the approval we give Apple while glossing over the criticism, I suspect in part because we don't tend to see iOS's locked-down nature as the existential crisis that, well, Hacker News readers tend to sometimes see -- and because we don't see a problem with something that they see as a deal-breaker, then, well, we must never say anything bad about Apple. In fact, we often do. Having said that, there's at least a practical difference in the kind of "monoculture" that the iOS App Store represents and the kind of monoculture that Google Reader represented: while Apple may change the terms, it's highly unlikely they'd ever make the App Store just go away. I'm not sure there are any commercial products that were in the App Store and were then removed because of a change in Apple's TOS rather than for a violation that they should have been aware of when they submitted it. There are some high-profile cases of stupid rejections, to be sure, but that's not the same thing. And, it's at least worth noting that a major difference there is that Apple derives revenue from their services. Say what you will about them, but that's a pretty good incentive to not just take their ball and go home. Google Reader didn't bring in any revenue, and that's what ultimately doomed it. (as in beer) does work, but not indefinitely.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  > I'm not sure there are any commercial products that were in the App Store and were then removed because of a change in Apple's TOS Well, at the very least, the removal gun has been pointed at a lot of commercial apps when Apple has decided to "re-interpret" the TOS. For instance, it used to be standard practice to kick someone out to your website to buy an ebook (i.e. the appropriate alternative to IAP). Over the course of several months, it became a TOS violation. Apps that required an external subscription used to include sign-up links on their login screen. Now they don't. How many commercial apps were hit by the Apple's app store programming language restriction? Or, if we're including the Mac App Store, how many apps and developers have left it over sandboxing? Yes, Apple isn't likely to shut down their app store completely. But, whenever they want, they can (and might sometimes do) kill a part of it that you care about, for their own internal reasons.
- 14y ago

ricardobeat 14y ago

Apple wants a cut of the money you make. That's it. Dropbox could have a sign up link if they agreed to pay the 30% fee. I do think it's a bit shortsighted, but they don't block open protocols or monopolize services.

cromwellian 14y ago
They don't? Apple early on blocked alternative Mail clients and Google Voice or other apps which "duplicate" functionality builtin apps provide. They relaxed those rules now, but under the original rules, Google Maps would have been banned.
- rimantas 14y ago
  And you couldn't have any third party apps on an original iPhone. So?

chipotle_coyote 14y ago

I'd argue that a lot of us in the "Apple fan community," including Marco, understand that there are negatives to Apple's approach to, well, nearly everything. It's apparently very easy for people to pick up on the approval we give Apple while glossing over the criticism, I suspect in part because we don't tend to see iOS's locked-down nature as the existential crisis that, well, Hacker News readers tend to sometimes see -- and because we don't see a problem with something that they see as a deal-breaker, then, well, we must never say anything bad about Apple. In fact, we often do. Having said that, there's at least a practical difference in the kind of "monoculture" that the iOS App Store represents and the kind of monoculture that Google Reader represented: while Apple may change the terms, it's highly unlikely they'd ever make the App Store just go away. I'm not sure there are any commercial products that were in the App Store and were then removed because of a change in Apple's TOS rather than for a violation that they should have been aware of when they submitted it. There are some high-profile cases of stupid rejections, to be sure, but that's not the same thing. And, it's at least worth noting that a major difference there is that Apple derives revenue from their services. Say what you will about them, but that's a pretty good incentive to not just take their ball and go home. Google Reader didn't bring in any revenue, and that's what ultimately doomed it. (as in beer) does work, but not indefinitely.

fpgeek 14y ago
> I'm not sure there are any commercial products that were in the App Store and were then removed because of a change in Apple's TOS Well, at the very least, the removal gun has been pointed at a lot of commercial apps when Apple has decided to "re-interpret" the TOS. For instance, it used to be standard practice to kick someone out to your website to buy an ebook (i.e. the appropriate alternative to IAP). Over the course of several months, it became a TOS violation. Apps that required an external subscription used to include sign-up links on their login screen. Now they don't. How many commercial apps were hit by the Apple's app store programming language restriction? Or, if we're including the Mac App Store, how many apps and developers have left it over sandboxing? Yes, Apple isn't likely to shut down their app store completely. But, whenever they want, they can (and might sometimes do) kill a part of it that you care about, for their own internal reasons.
14y ago