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

The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 429 posts

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#291

Post by stale2002 »

notyourwork wrote: post #231
WWLink wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People keep having to learn that developers cannot be trusted either The problem with this is that Apple is also a developer trying to sell you things. I would feel better if Apple's goals and the user's goals were aligned all the time instead of just some of the time. Admittedly, Apple's real priority is just to make money on every transaction that occurs upon an idevice.

Yes businesses are in the business of making money. Apple is a business. The hope for you (a consumer) is that your needs and theirs are aligned sufficiently well that they solve problems you benefit from while minimizing how much they exploit you. It’s capitalism.

Oh got it.

So then Apple is just as bad as the other developers, and instead users should be able to use their own property to bypass any sort of Apple fees.

Problem solved. Let the user decide if they want to refuse to pay the Apple fee, and buy on alternative app stores.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#292

Post by samirillian »

I recently bought an iPhone due to peer pressure after using pixel for years. I think the ux is better on android, every common function takes more gestures on iPhone. Typing this comment reminds me of how annoying it is to edit text with an iPhone. I think there was maybe a time when iPhone ux was better but maybe not. Still I feel better from the perspective of pure vanity when I pull the iPhone out, or those blue texts show up. It sucks.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#293

Post by nerdix »

talldayo wrote: post #240
paulmd wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks. Running the IM equivalent of an open SMTP relay is a ghastly experience for users. You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam. Deep down you know exactly what would happen because we’ve all lived it with spam voice calls again recently - we’ve been try…

> Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks. Maybe Apple should lead the charge on that, or instead they'll be forced to use something truly godawful like OMEMO or RCS. I'd prefer they didn't, but it would be pretty funny if they were forced down that path in the long-run. It takes a haughty spirit before the fall. > Destroying a working, positive…

Exactly. Apple has more influence over the cellular industry in America than any single company including the carriers themselves.

They could completely design the spec by themselves with all the pro-consumer features that one could imagine including things like distributed spam filtering and then force the carriers to adopt it either by using the stick (force adoption by X date or lose the iPhone) or the carrot (shift proprietary iMessage features to the new standard so that users demand the carrier adopt it -- basically green bubble any carrier that doesn't use the standard). No other company in the country could do this.

But of course, complete control over a proprietary iMessage protocol that they can lock competitors out of is apart of the business strategy.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#294

Post by lenerdenator »

talldayo wrote: post #100
Jtsummers wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple didn't replace SMS. It is still there on every iPhone, and they expanded SMS reach for iPhone users who have other devices like iPad and macOs systems. In what universe do you exist where SMS was removed?

HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending. Apple didn't make some mistake putting iMessage and SMS in the same app, they want you reliant on their service so that SMS seems (rightfully) poor by comparison. There would be nothing wrong with that if Apple wasn't equally as miserly with that power as the carriers they want to valiantly protest against. I'm no fan of cell carriers eit…

The problem with "prevents fair competition" with regards to iMessage is that there were plenty of chances for fair competition and others (particularly Google) kept messing it up. How many chat platforms did they blow through?

I can absolutely install other messaging apps (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.) on my iPhone and contact other people on an Android device using that app. The thing that keeps me from doing so isn't the fact that said applications are locked out of a decent percentage of the phone market, but that the network effect helps Apple. Most of my friends don't know, or care to know, what Signal is, even though it's a better application re: privacy than iMessage.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#295

Post by stale2002 »

cjk2 wrote: post #3

I’ve got to be honest while I appreciate the direction they are forced in, I have yet to find anyone outside the tech industry who actually knows or gives a crap. Also the only reason Epic and Spotify are after them is not some altruistic reason but they want to be the guys charging the 30% margin. It’s a bit of a grey victory but I’ll take it.

That sounds horrible.

Maybe Apple should open up their ecosystem, that way multiple other app stores can compete and drive that percentage price down to zero.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#296

Post by Jtsummers »

nerdix wrote: post #287
Jtsummers wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple can't have their cake and eat it too, you either replace SMS and the multiplatform commitments that come with it or you don't. You keep suggesting that Apple replaced SMS. They didn't. So per this new statement, they have no multi-platform commitments because they haven't done anything to warrant it.

Is there an example of Microsoft ever actually "extinguishing" something? The extinguish bit is more about making the competing services non-viable. Microsoft's whole strategy was built around making it so a user on its platform either couldn't or wouldn't want to use a particular technology without their proprietary extensions. That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media…

> In fact, I'd argue that iMessage has been one of the most successful implementations of EEE ever. Maybe only behind ActiveX and Microsoft's slow adoption of web standards in the late 90s - mid 00s (but MS never actually replaced HTML or JavaScript with its proprietary stuff).

Is it? Globally, iMessage is far from the most popular messaging application. If it's an attempt at EEE it's not a great one. IE was far more successful in degree and longevity of impact.

And no, they didn't. They just implemented CSS and other things exactly counter to the spec in a number of spots, along with other incompatibilities in order to make developers have to choose: 80% to 90% of the market, or conform to standards?

> That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media about how iPhone users get the "ick" from seeing a green bubble.

The only people who care about that their own messages on their own phones show up as green bubbles are children. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. They see green bubbles because they use WhatsApp.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#297

Post by chisquared »

tammer wrote: post #218

I’ve come full circle on this but I now think native applications on smartphones was a mistake. There is no technological reason why applications can’t be distributed as PWA packages similar to the days prior to the App Store. This would serve two important functions: 1. Remove most if not all distribution monopoly concerns 2. Create application standards that function nearly identically across the myriad of screen s…

Steve Jobs would have agreed with you at one point.

I'm not sure what changed his mind (or if he ever even really did), but he also thought that aside from the native apps that came with the iPhone, everything else should just be a web app.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#298

Post by gumby271 »

simonh wrote: post #185
pompino wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing Apple cares about is Apple making more money. they will gladly gouge the end User so that their executives can line their pockets. there is nobody here you can actually ”trust”.

However for Apple to keep making money they need to satisfy their users, so as with all commercial relationships there is a direct commercial incentive that aligns customer and vendor interests. The interesting question is how and why those interests align, and when and where they diverge. The answer to that will be different for different customers, or potential customers. A lot of iPhone customers like me are quite…

The vast majority of people complaining about Apple aren't Apple customers because they don't agree with Apple's business practices or treatment of customers, I don't think that's surprising or invalidates those opinions.

I tend to agree that the focus on "3rd party app stores" is stupid, I'd much rather we force computer vendors to have unlockable bootloader's and focus on consumer rights legislation, ensuring people can own the things they buy.

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#299

Post by nerdix »

aurareturn wrote: post #34
pessimizer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies shouldn't be expected to individually make suboptimal decisions in order to preserve the health of the market. They should be regulated by a functioning government.

Let's just say that the government decided in the year 2005 that no private company can ship something that will replace SMS as the defacto messaging system because it wants interoperability. We would have never had iMessage, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc. Other countries would have far surpassed us in messaging communication tech. Regulations are a double edged sword.

It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable".

The web is what it is today because its open. The telephone network is what it is today because its interoperable. Imagine if the web was bifurcated based on the operating system you wanted to use (that was Microsoft's vision in the late 90s and early 00s: to create a large section of the web that required Windows). Imagine if a Verizon customer had a limited feature set when calling an AT&T customer (like the inability to leave a voicemail for instance). No one would tolerate these things. But yet people will argue in favor of this with messaging (as long as its Apple doing it)

Re: The walls of Apple's garden are tumbling down

#300

Post by cmrdporcupine »

nerdix wrote: post #273
cesarb wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Windows Mobile phones had apps distributed by wherever, you could go get them on a CD from Bestbuy if you wanted. This was also the case for Palm smartphones. Since they were an amalgam of a Palm PDA and a cell phone, they kept the app model of Palm PDAs. IIRC, you could even transfer apps from one Palm PDA to another through their infrared port, or through Bluetooth if both were fancy ones.

I think a lot of people forget that the iPhone was not the first smart phone. I was downloading apps, checking email, and sending IMs over the AIM network with Verichat on my Treo 650 well before the iPhone was a thing.

The two huge innovations of the iPhone were decent web browsing (I had a Treo, it sucked for the web) and the multitouch screen with corresponding gestures. Nobody else was doing anything like this yet, and I remember this being the thing that blew everyone away at the keynote.
Post reply on HN