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

Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

andjosh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#121

Post by pdonis »

O____________O wrote: post #116
pdonis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you decide what N is?

Not my problem. I'm only pointing out that the parent comment asked a question that implied a misunderstanding of GP.

I don't think the parent to your comment misunderstood the GP. I think he was making a valid point: that in order to pick the "right" value of N, you have to know what value of N will maximize the greater good. Unless you can do that, the proposed law does not make sense; and saying "I'm not trying to specify what the greater good is, I'm just picking a number N" does not change that.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#122

Post by pdonis »

amelius wrote: post #110
pdonis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the term "economies of scale" mean anything to you?

Even large programs can be structured such that they have small modules. The same can apply to companies.

"Can be" in some cases, yes. But in order for the proposed restriction on company size to make sense, it would have to be possible in every case. That's a much stronger claim, and one I find extremely improbable.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#123

Post by aapierce »

sangnoir wrote: post #118
mangecoeur wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the saying goes - if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer. People using twitter or google or facebook are not clients because they aren't paying. The clients are the people who pay those companies for valuable information and advertising space.

The saying is full of crock - it presents a false dichotomy. You might pay and still be a product. You pay for cable TV but they sell you to advertisers.

> You pay for cable TV but they sell you to advertisers.

That's not quite right. You pay your cable provider for television service. The cable provider pays networks for their content (the networks are the "suppliers" in this case). Some of those networks also collect payment from advertisers, but that advertising revenue probably wouldn't go to the cable company.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#124

Post by cbd1984 »

mangecoeur wrote: post #78
TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment such business stops being "idealistic" and makes that "logical step" is the moment it stops caring about providing value for customer - it reduces the value provided to monetize them better.

Well the saying goes - if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer. People using twitter or google or facebook are not clients because they aren't paying. The clients are the people who pay those companies for valuable information and advertising space.

> if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer.

That explains all of the ads I see on GNU Emacs.

/s

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#125

Post by cbd1984 »

Retric wrote: post #40
randomsearch wrote: post #9

I think the question is - better for who? Clearly for many businesses, walled gardens, avoiding "openness", works. That might be because they use it to create an artificial moat to protect their business (arguably LinkedIn here), or because it's the best way to serve their customers (Steve Jobs' argument, not saying I agree). For customers, if the best experience is gained through a native app, then a native app make…

As much as the tech world loves to hate Apple, walled gardens are a huge part of why their stuff 'just works'. Suppose you want an app to play videos. If your app uses a custom format no problem. If you support an open standard, the file might not, it might require more processing power than you have, it's probably for a different screen resolution, it... In the end tech people are willing to trade stuff breaking occ…

> their stuff 'just works'.

It doesn't, though. Apple hardware and software are fragile, buggy, and crash-prone. They beachball at the slightest provocation and destroy work with abandon.

And aside from that, well, "You're holding it wrong." If it only works for one narrow workflow, it doesn't work; it's a toy solution for a stripped-down toy problem.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#127

Post by BinaryIdiot »

liotier wrote: post #84
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #32

This is far too naive. User Experience drives everything. If your open protocol is the best thing since sliced bread but it's too complicated for the audience who should be consuming it? It will die and an application with great user experience will take its place. While I love open protocols and will use them as much as possible, at the end of the day I'm still going to do whatever it is that provides my users with…

Lack of open protocol implies that client choices will be essentially limited to what the service provider offers. This is bad user experience.

> Lack of open protocol implies that client choices will be essentially limited to what the service provider offers. This is bad user experience.

You're conflating the inability to develop for a protocol / platform for user experience. Having an open protocol can make a user experience better but it certainly doesn't have to.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#128

Post by chrismcb »

mangecoeur wrote: post #78
TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment such business stops being "idealistic" and makes that "logical step" is the moment it stops caring about providing value for customer - it reduces the value provided to monetize them better.

Well the saying goes - if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer. People using twitter or google or facebook are not clients because they aren't paying. The clients are the people who pay those companies for valuable information and advertising space.

Just because it is a saying, doesn't mean it is true. There are some things that are free (as in beer) and you are still not the product. In the case where companies are selling your data, you are both, whether or not you pay for it. The companies still need to work hard to retain you.

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#129

Post by amelius »

pdonis wrote: post #122
amelius wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even large programs can be structured such that they have small modules. The same can apply to companies.

"Can be" in some cases, yes. But in order for the proposed restriction on company size to make sense, it would have to be possible in every case. That's a much stronger claim, and one I find extremely improbable.

Well, we already know that the current form of capitalism isn't perfect either. So I don't think there is a need to prove anything for every possible case. Also, we can make exceptions when we get there (even though I don't believe they need to be made).

Re: Your App Is Not Better than an Open Protocol

#130

Post by liotier »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #127
liotier wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of open protocol implies that client choices will be essentially limited to what the service provider offers. This is bad user experience.

> Lack of open protocol implies that client choices will be essentially limited to what the service provider offers. This is bad user experience. You're conflating the inability to develop for a protocol / platform for user experience. Having an open protocol can make a user experience better but it certainly doesn't have to.

I understand your point - the proprietary applications offered might be so vastly superior to any potential alternatives that would use an open protocol as to make the whole idea irrelevant.

But that supposes that all user needs can be met that way, which in a resource-constrained world cannot be true: the proprietary application provider will inevitably have to prioritize some classes of users over others. Those users whose needs are not within the functional scope of the application are going to find their experience quite horrible.

Only open protocols guarantee the potential for diversity that can cover provide all users with good experience - or with an experience at all...

Post reply on HN