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

Apps SDK

developers.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 397 posts

Re: Apps SDK

#161

Post by JumpCrisscross »

moralestapia wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We now know why Flash was murdered This is a stupid conspiracy given Apple decided not to support Flash on iPhone since before Jobs came around on third-party apps. (The iPhone was launched with a vision of Apple-only native apps and HTML5 web apps. The latter's performance forced Cupertino's hand into launching the App Store. Then they saw the golden goose.)

You ignore the state of things back then. HTML5 was new and not widely supported, the web was WAY more fragmented back then, to put things in perspective, Internet Explorer still had the largest market share, by far. The only thing that could provide the user with a rich interactive experience was Flash, it was also ubiquitous. Flash was the biggest threat to Apple's App Store; this wasn't a conspiracy, it was eviden…

> HTML5 was new and not widely supported

Yes. It was a bad bet on the open web by Apple. But it was the one they took when they decided not to support Flash with the original iPhone's launch.

> Flash was the biggest threat to Apple's App Store

Flash was not supported since before there was an App Store. Since before Apple deigned to tolerate third-party native apps.

You can argue that following the App Store's launch, Apple's choice to not start supporting Flash was influenced by pecuinary interests. But it's ahistoric to suggest the reason for the original decision was based on interests Cupertino had ruled out at the time.

Re: Apps SDK

#162

Post by risyachka »

whinvik wrote: post #153

Ads. They created ads. Now (or eventually) they can charge app developers to be featured first for a specific use case.

How else would the company sell their product? and keep people employed.

Of course ads will be there and this is good. A bad thing would be if they took a bunch of traffic from google and then gave no way to promote your products.

That would lead to companies closing and layoffs and economy decline.

Re: Apps SDK

#163

Post by jerojero »

somuchdata wrote: post #157
d4mi3n wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just worried they we’ll go from very obvious advertising to advertising that’s a lot harder to spot. I can block adds on a search engine. I cannot prevent an LMM from having hidden biases about what the best brand of vodka or car is.

Google could also have allowed invisible pay-for-placement without marking it as an ad. Presumably they didn't do that because undermining the perceived trustworthiness of their search results would have been a net loss. I wonder if chat will go in that same direction or not.

Pretty sure it's illegal to present advertisement and not label it as such in some form.

But as with everything, as new technologies emerge, you can devise legal loopholes that don't totally apply to you and probably need regulation before it's decided that "yeah, actually, that does apply to me".

Re: Apps SDK

#164

Post by famouswaffles »

seydor wrote: post #62
emilsedgh wrote: post #31

I see a lot of negative comments here but to me, it was obvious this is where OAI should land. They want to be the platform in which you tell what you want, and OAI does it for you. It's gonna connect to your inbox, calendar, payment methods, and you'll just ask it to do something and it will, using those apps. This means OAI won't need ads. Just rev share.

A platform requires a user moat or unfair advantage. Having a better quality model is neither

Consumer LLM apps have moat. As it is, ChatGPT (the app) spends most of its compute on Personal Non work messages (approx 1.9B per day vs 716 for Work)[0]. First, from ongoing conversations that users would return to, then to the pushing of specific and past chat memories, these conversations have become increasingly personalized. Suddenly, there is a lot of personal data that you rely on it having, that make the product better. You cannot just plop over to Gemini and replicate this.

[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34255/w342...

Re: Apps SDK

#165

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

thebigkick wrote: post #49
nicce wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means OAI won't need ads. Ads are defenitely there. Just hidden so deeply in the black box which is generating the useful tips :)

If you ask it to build a headless frontend web app, it immediately starts generating code with Next.js. I’ve always wondered how it was trained to default to that choice, given the smorgasbord of web frameworks out there. Next.js is solid, but it’s also platform-ware, tightly coupled to commercial interests. I wish there were more bias toward genuinely open-source technologies.

To me it feels like the default choice in the industry, perhaps it's not and I'm wrong but if I could have that feeling I can see how the AI can as well.

Re: Apps SDK

#166

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

jerf wrote: post #60
wiradikusuma wrote: post #43

In 2018, I founded a startup specializing in chatbot for events. At the time the platforms were Alexa Skills, Actions on Google, and Messenger Platform (and LINE Bot, for people in Asia). I guess what's old is new again, but with fancier tech. This time will be different?

We've actually got systems that can understand English now. Chatbots don't have to be glorified regular expression matches or based on inferior NLP. I've thought more than once that the true value of LLMs could well be that they essentially solve the language comprehension problem and that their ability to consume language is relatively underutilized compared to our attempts to get them to produce language. Under all…

Yeah this seems accurate to me. All the talk of a bubble etc, but LLMs see genuinely useful at tasks like this and I'm sure we'll find more uses as time goes on.

Re: Apps SDK

#167

Post by ryandrake »

peab wrote: post #148
munk-a wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruit…

agree. Thing is, for those who paid attention to the last chatBot hype cycle, we already knew this. Look at how Google Assistant was portrayed back in 2016. People thought you'd be buying starbucks via the chat. Turns out the starbucks app has a better UX

Yea, I don't want to sit there at my computer, which can handle lots of different input methods, like keyboard, mouse, clicking, dragging, or my phone which can handle gestures, pinching, swiping... and try to articulate what I need it to do in English language conversation. This is actually a step backwards in human-computer interaction. To use an extreme example: imagine instead of a knob on my stereo for volume, I had a chat box where I had to type in "Volume up to 35". Most other "chatbot solved" HCI problems are just like this volume control example, but less extreme.

Re: Apps SDK

#168

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

pphysch wrote: post #56
MaxPock wrote: post #42

This is honestly useful. "Find me hotels in Capetown that have a pool by the beach .Should cost between 200 dollars to 800 dollars a night "

[injected with guerilla ads] I don't see how this is a significant upgrade over the many existing hotel-finder tools. At best it slightly augments them as a first pass, but I would still rather look at an actual map of options than trust a stream of generated, ad-augmented text.

I think the end game is that rather than spitting out text back, the LLM transforms your plaintext request to something processable, and then chooses some relevant widgets to display the results.

Re: Apps SDK

#169

Post by potatolicious »

peab wrote: post #148
munk-a wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruit…

agree. Thing is, for those who paid attention to the last chatBot hype cycle, we already knew this. Look at how Google Assistant was portrayed back in 2016. People thought you'd be buying starbucks via the chat. Turns out the starbucks app has a better UX

It's also a matter of incentives. Starbucks wants you in their app instead of as a widget in somebody else's - it lets them tell you about new products, cross-sell/up-sell, create habits, etc.

This general concept (embedding third parties as widgets in a larger product) has been tried many times before. Google themselves have done this - by my count - at least three separate times (Search, Maps, and Assistant).

None have been successful in large part because the third party being integrated benefits only marginally from such an integration. The amount of additional traffic these integrations drive generally isn't seen as being worth the loss of UX control and the intermediation in the customer relationship.

Re: Apps SDK

#170

Post by nicce »

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #165
thebigkick wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask it to build a headless frontend web app, it immediately starts generating code with Next.js. I’ve always wondered how it was trained to default to that choice, given the smorgasbord of web frameworks out there. Next.js is solid, but it’s also platform-ware, tightly coupled to commercial interests. I wish there were more bias toward genuinely open-source technologies.

To me it feels like the default choice in the industry, perhaps it's not and I'm wrong but if I could have that feeling I can see how the AI can as well.

It is a trap. But once you realise that you are already too deeply invested.
Post reply on HN