Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple acquires Dark Sky

blog.darksky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 594 posts

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#561

Post by morganvachon »

kyledrake wrote: post #33

> Android and Wear OS App > The app will no longer be available for download. Service to existing users and subscribers will continue until July 1, 2020, at which point the app will be shut down. Subscribers who are still active at that time will receive a refund. IBM bought the Weather Underground app and ruined it, and now Dark Sky was bought by Apple and they're ruining that too. Now I will have zero good weather…

It's especially frustrating when two paragraphs above they said this:

> There is no better place to accomplish these goals than at Apple. We’re thrilled to have the opportunity to reach far more people, with far more impact, than we ever could alone.

So how exactly does cutting off literally billions of potential users allow them to "reach far more people"?

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#562

Post by IanCal »

> Our goal has always been to provide the world with the best weather information possible, to help as many people as we can stay dry and safe, and to do so in a way that respects your privacy.

> There is no better place to accomplish these goals than at Apple.

This is then followed by a list of services being shut down and access limited.

Awful news for those of us who make a lot of use of the android app and api.

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#563

Post by Moru »

sbahr001 wrote: post #435
realityking wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. How's Dark Sky competing with Apple? I don't think they derive much, if any, revenue from the Weather app. More likely they're paying for the data.

It might have to do with AccuWeather trying to make weather data harder to access, especially NOAA data. Dark Sky was one of the best API's for weather data too, and now Apple does not have to follow anyone else's rules. Tim Cook's big push for environmental responsibility can also be a reason for the acquisition as well. Having access to this type of data allows them to open the door to more environmental production…

I realy love the norwegian weather service, yr.no (Has english language selection on top). It works worldwide and has an open API [1]. Not sure where they get the data though but short term it's very good here in Sweden. Long term tends to be a bit exagerated though but improves the closer it gets.

[1] https://hjelp.yr.no/hc/en-us/categories/200450271-About-Yr-t...

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#564

Post by SiVal »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #327
sbahr001 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really sucks, I work for a stormwater environmental company and we were looking at darksky to replace our existing provider; DarkSky is one of the best providers of weather data.IBM also bought weather underground, I am really what these big tech companies want with forecasting/weather companies. I just wish they kept the API running though.

Have you considered using the National Weather Service API directly? To someone with only a casual interest in this stuff it seems like it has what I would want, curious about shortcomings compared with the many commercial offerings? Especially considering it's their data that e.g. DarkSky resells. https://www.weather.gov/documentation/services-web-api

The Dark Sky API combines lots of data sources, and its weather data is not limited to the US. I use it for cities all around the world. The US National Weather Service API cannot replace it.

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#565

Post by SiVal »

stephenr wrote: post #207
maliker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd be interested! I think it will be pretty hard to do well in open source though. Server costs and keeping things working when NOAA (etc.) sources change is probably going to be expensive.

If it’s open source there’s no specific requirement for the project to provide a hosted instance. Develop the (Ideally extensible) logic to parse a given government funded weather source into a common format, and have “API consumers” run their own instance of services (or set them up an instance for $ and use the profits to help with project costs).

Not disagreeing, just extending. Dark Sky merges multiple weather data sources, even in a single country, and I use it for a private app that deals with weather all around the world. An open source project could just be code, not a service, but that code should have a config where you specified which sources to fetch and how often instead of choosing "a given govt-funded weather source".

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#566

Post by ktosobcy »

> Our goal has always been to provide the world with the best weather information possible, to help as many people as we can stay dry and safe, and to do so in a way that respects your privacy. > > There is no better place to accomplish these goals than at Apple

Congrats et al but above just plainly contradicts itself - "reach wider audience"..."limit app only to apple".

I'm sad and furious at the same time :(

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#567

Post by m-p-3 »

Zelphyr wrote: post #378
Traster wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this acquisition going to give more people access to a great weather app or less people access to a great weather app? It's going to be the same people, working on the same product, but now, it's going to unavailable via their cheif competitor. Tell me how on earth you can consider that not killing competition.

When I first read "killing their competition" I thought it meant killing competition in the form of weather apps. That didn't make any sense to me since Apple makes no money off the Weather app. Only after re-reading that sentence a few times did I realize the OP meant killing Android. That said, I don't believe that to be the issue either. Death by a thousand cuts, maybe, but I seriously doubt closing off one app fr…

> That didn't make any sense to me since Apple makes no money off the Weather app

But now it won't have to pay for API access anymore, since they'll own the whole backend.

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#568

Post by wlesieutre »

nitrogen wrote: post #510
wlesieutre wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that Apple bought Primesense because they wanted to kill the competition of USB RGBZ cameras?

RGBZ in general. They killed a market just to have a minor feature in their phones. Also keep in mind that Primesense's biggest precious licensee was an Apple competitor.

They’re adding rear facing depth sensor for use with ARKit and are known to have an AR headset in development. I think the new sensor works differently from Primesense (which used a grid projector and a camera instead of LiDAR?) but clearly Apple is doing more with this. I'd be shocked if they didn't have years worth of prototype phones with Primesense systems on the back.

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#569

Post by kbutler »

CarlRJ wrote: post #438
kbutler wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html A monopoly exists when there is a single seller of a commodity. Copyrights and patents are government-granted monopolies. A broader definition is that a monopolist is a provider that has pricing power - the ability to set prices. Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. Anyone seeking to deliver an iOS app must accept Apple's terms, includin…

> Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. That's only a monopoly in the same sense that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs. It's within their own ecosystem. Customers can decide whether they want to buy into that ecosystem or choose an alternative (like Burger King, or Android).

Utilities within a city are monopoly providers of electricity, water, and sewer services.

"That's only a monopoly in the same sense that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs. It's within their own ecosystem. Customers can decide whether they want to buy into that ecosystem or choose an alternative" (like living in the next town over, or solar power, water delivery, and portable toilets).

The fact that alternatives exist (live somewhere else! live disconnected!) does not negate the fact that the utility is a monopoly provider of those services.

The primary difference between utility monopolies and the iOS monopoly is that utilities are a "natural" monopoly (there are significant infrastructure costs to enter the market of providing running water to homes in a city) whereas the iOS monopoly is government-granted via copyrights and contracts and digital locks that exclude competitors, and those locks are again protected by DMCA copyright law.

There is no natural reason there cannot be a competing app store on iOS, except that Apple wants to preserve its monopoly.

Would you let a home builder dictate what food delivery options you have? Why let a phone builder dictate what software delivery options you have?

Re: Apple acquires Dark Sky

#570

Post by Infinitesimus »

reaperducer wrote: post #232
Infinitesimus wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But shutting down the API and Android apps feels like an egregious move by Apple. Yes but that's inline with what you'd expect Apple to do though. They won't support any non-Apple ecosystem unless they have to - it's just their way of doing things

Yes but that's inline with what you'd expect Apple to do though. Is it? Did Shazam stop working on Android when Apple ate it? Honest question, since I don't have an Android device.

This is pure speculation but Shazam is a UK company and I'm 99% convinced that if they had locked the app to iOS, the European Commission would have blocked the deal and maybe sued them for anti-competitive practices.
Post reply on HN