This is basically an offer to buy your business for $0 and we might hire you as a contractor. It's a bad deal. I mean Jimmy Wales himself wouldn't have accepted this for Wikipedia.
Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing.
What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins,
however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Android spaces releases something incredible, the game will change quickly.
It’s highly unlikely for Apple to choke on hardware given their cash.
And as someone who’s done native for both, Android’s native SDK is a mess that even Android devs actually hate it.
Meanwhile, iOS’ SDK is incredibly exhaustive and coherent. I don’t know what your basis is for “better designed software”, but being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you? All while the competition can hardly build anything that actually lasts.
> being able to fork a desktop OS from 20 years prior, make it into a mobile OS, then to a tablet OS, then to a watch and a headset OS, and then have billions of users on it all and make a trillion-dollar company out of it⸺does that not sound like good engineering to you?
Microsoft and Google basically did the same thing, and in neither case it's really a testament to how "good" their respective software is engineered. If the amount of driver cruft on MacOS is anything to go by, the engineering underneath iOS and WatchOS is probably a fucking nightmare in most respects.
I used to be "the Android guy" at a big games publisher. In my time the billing component had to be rewritten three times solely because of Google changes. The Apple one was written once and left alone.
We can't even discuss why those Google changes happened because doing so would get you shot, or worse.
The tech direction that was going on at Apple was enormously better than other companies. It does feel like they've gone off the rails a bit, but things like Swift are underappreciated entirely because they're so successful, just with the wrong sort of developer.
Interesting, I have the exact opposite: I'm also a React Native developer and it's _always_ Android that creates all sorts of problems when developing where iOS is just fine. And it's not me: many devs in my team (and all the teams that I've also worked in the past) think the same way.
Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
I think that this boils down to people wanting a handheld computer that sometimes can make phone calls (android), or a phone that can do other stuff (apple).
Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.
I think that comparison would need some support. It is exceedingly rare that I hear any normal person mention doing something on Android that they couldn’t do on iOS, and the number of enthusiasts isn’t enough to drive a market that large.
As of today, there is no player in the Smartphone space who has even remotely the amount of secured income to come up with a similarly volume-scaled device, and there is little incentive for anyone to enter this space.
A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces.
So how would this normally work?
--> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate.
But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as:
1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them
2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and
3.) for Android you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start.
That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, and needs to be (wait for it:) regulated to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services.
What would I take with me? My photos and email will move just fine. The last app I bought was a while ago, and it was an app to block Google AMP. I’m honestly not sure I use any other paid apps.
Also no iTunes, Apple Music, Apple Messages, Apple Pay, Apple Fitness, any kind of native Mac integration (Safari Bookmark sharing, Shared Bluetooth devices, clipboard sharing, Continuity Camera, AirPlay,...)?
No Apple Wireless charger, Apple Watch, Airpods, Apple-specific Accessories, Apple App-based carkeys or Apple CarPlay?
As an experiment I recently switched from iPhone (last 10 years?) to Android. It's been a little painful but:
- nearly all apps support Android as well. The ones I used (navionics, banking apps, WhatsApp) you just log in on Android, no cost involved.
- most Apple first party apps have a Google equivalent (google wallet, google keep notes, google messaging etc.) that is very similar
- my AirPods work equally well with android
Fine - but that took Google billions and a decade of work to reach near-parity. A new entrant will not have any of that. Web apps can do much more than they could 10 or 15 years ago but still takes massive effort.
Google's been ahead of Apple on tons of core user-facing features since the start (widgets, backgrounds, folders). The two platforms have extremely slowly converged to near-total feature parity. The only "advantage" of Apple's total ecosystem lock-in is relative seamlessness due to the vertical integration between their various services.
The thing is, it's barely any harder to set up an equivalent Google/Android ecosystem and has been for well over a decade as well. The real issue on the Google side of things is the renaming/shifting of services. Messages -> Gmail Chat -> Talk -> Duo -> Messages, Google Play Music -> Youtube Music, etc.
Do you use MFA? How about meetings (zoom/teams)? What about MS Office or Google Apps? Is the new email client up to snuff? All of these are much better as apps.
Users do not want to browse the web on mobile for all their activities, when Apps are generally faster, more secure, and has all their prefs recorded EVEN if a webapp is functionally equivalent (and most are only 70-90% equivalent)
So the new entrant has to curry favor with all these large software vendors (some of whom are now competitors) and offer something for some key uses of a smartphone.
You're right that apps can be better, but phone apps seem to always miss functionality compared to desktop web versions of the same thing. Even phone web version of Google doesn't have functional parity with desktop web Google. The phone app for Google is even worse.
There were smartphones before the iPhone. I'm not sure you can label Apple's position as "first mover advantage".
They got where they did by leapfrogging the competition, dominating the supply chain, having incredible customer trust/service (with a sprinkle of Jobs' magic), thus reframing the entire category of smartphone.
It's unclear if anyone has delivered all these together. Google has dominated all other players at the OS level.
Apple isn't usually the first mover, though. It's not like the Mac was the first desktop computer, or the iPhone was the first smartphone, or the Apple Watch was the first smartwatch. Apple usually ends up with their market position whether or not they're the first mover.
gosh, if they hadn't basically created the market for phones like this it's hard to see how they would be dominating the market for phones like this, given their behavior.
because that's what first mover advantage is in this case. They created a market, in hardware - that's pretty difficult.
regarding other posts saying Apple wasn't first mover in smartphones:
Hey, I remember what those old things looked like. There was such a qualitative difference between the iPhone and its competitors at the time that it seemed like a whole new category of product.
I owned one. I barely used the keyboard. I barely used the internet connectivity. I even sat out the first iPhone. But I went into a store and tried one out and I knew I was getting the 3G when it came out. Phones may have had those features before, but they were strictly checkbox exercises. The iPhone was revolutionary.
Only: the iPhone did not have first mover advantages.
There were plenty of mobile phones out there before that could download and run apps, and Apple didn't even have their famous app store at the beginning of the iPhone, either.
They were the first device with a big display and a first-class web browser. That created the smartphone market you now take for granted but was completely revolutionary at the time when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
The other big thing is more subtle: the iPhone was the first major break in the carriers’ value-extraction model. It was common that you’d get phones with half the storage used by promo apps the carrier wouldn’t let you uninstall, and the carrier app stores were both limited and unbelievably expensive. We had multiple clients who were interested in mobile apps but the cost of being in the stores was like $50k per carrier plus half of the proceeds, and that was an improvement over the time Qualcomm demanded to see the balance sheet so they could decide what percentage of their TOTAL revenue was fair – we asked and they confirmed that they expected a cut of every sale, even ones which never involved the mobile app. The energy at WWDC08 was incredible because the app stores were both terms were so much better than anyone had gotten before, and you only had to do it once. I still think it should be better now but it used to be so much worse.
There were high-end WinCE and Symbian devices with large displays and no physical keyboards (or sliders where keyboard doesn't encroach on screen size). To remind, first-gen iPhone was 3.5" @ 320x480 in 2007; for comparison, Dell Axim was 3.7" @ 480x640 in 2005, and by 2007 there were some WinMo handhelds with 480x800.
The thing that really made iPhone different was capacitive touchscreen, and the OS designed around that. WinMo pretty much required the stylus for many things.
Also note “and a first-class web browser” in my compound statement. If you used devices of that era, the browsers sucked at handling most of the web. I knew people who had the previous generation devices (I’m excluding the PalmOS ones I owned since they required a stylus) but nobody used the mobile browser much because it was so unrewarding, and everyone I know replaced them with iPhones due to the web experience.
Opinions varied widely on that - the Flash experience on mobile was horrible enough that it works equally well as an argument that “the web” and Flash were substantially not the same.
It was definitely horrible, but given how pervasive Flash was on the web then, I think a more reasonable takeaway is to say that no mobile device had first-class browser support until HTML5 <video> became prevalent. To me, "first class" implies "I can visit any popular website and expect it to work", which was decidedly not the case for iPhone at introduction.
Everything you say might be true, but I wouldn't necessarily call that first mover advantage.
> [...] when most devices had tiny screens and half their physical size was a keyboard.
Ie Apple introduced a new, arguably better, entrant into an existing market, and managed to grow that market.
But I can see your argument that you can re-interpret being that first to really commit to a big touch-screen only and (almost) no buttons to be a 'first move'. (Though a different comment mentioned that Apple wasn't the first here either?)
Also note the part after “and” - I wrote that as a compound sentence because I saw more people than I expected go from both earlier smartphones or PDAs because the iPhone gave them the web in a way that earlier devices just didn’t. None of my clients had seen much in the way of public mobile web (or WAP) adoption prior to that, but that changed surprisingly quickly when the iPhone launched.
I worked with a number of organizations which built public web apps. Nobody really asked about support for mobile browsers before the iPhone - some people checked that, say, an order form was technically functional but the assumption was that if it was slow or hard to read that was more to be expected than something they were going to pay to improve.
Yes, though touchscreens weren't exactly an Apple invention either.
I seem to dimly remember that they had some early lead on multitouch. But that one specific nifty technology is a far cry from a general 'first mover advantage' in phones with apps.
Apps weren't what drove people to the original iPhone (the original iPhone didn't have an app store). Apple was essentially the first mainstream company to commit fully to the current smartphone design — a flat, rectangular, portrait aspect ratio brick, with a single slab of capacitive multi-touch glass. There were many other competing form factors at the time. Apple correctly deduced that touching your screen is the most intuitive way to interact with smaller devices, and they had a huge first mover advantage by committing to that paradigm early.
They also included WiFi in every model and iOS had transparent prioritization of WiFi over cellular. Apple's deal with Cingular (AT&T) also gave the iPhone plan unlimited data.
That meant the iPhone had a full fledged browser that you could actually use. The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular. A lot of smartphone plans also didn't include unlimited data. The BlackBerry plans were equally terrible, tied to BBM accounts, and the browsers were even worse.
The iPhone also had a real e-Mail client that could connect directly to a POP/IMAP server. A lot of competing smartphones only supported e-Mail through gateways run by the carriers or an enterprise connection. Even lacking features early on like BCC early iOS Mail was a lot better than the competition for normal users.
I think these all come down to Apple approaching the iPhone from asking what normal people might want to do with their phones instead of what "corporate" wanted people to do with their smartphones. This was 180° from the design approach of RIM, Microsoft, Palm, and even Nokia.
Nokia did pioneer using the smartphone as a decent digital camera (among other things).
For instance decent enough to take a picture of an A4 page and be able to read it afterwards.
And IMAP support.
And Opera mini was a good enough browser, though mostly for text, as indeed 3G cellular (which the first iPhone didn't have) then cost 1000€/Go (funnily enough, that felt cheap and fast at the time, because it indeed was compared to what came before).
(Also video calls, though those are still niche for phones.)
And I hear Nokias were themselves quite primitive compared to what Japan had ?
> The browsers on PalmOS and Windows Mobile were jokes compared to Safari and most devices didn't have WiFi so we're always stuck on relatively slow cellular.
Again, everything in your comment this seems like Apple made an arguably better offering in an existing market. That's not a first mover advantage.
If anything you can say, Apple was late to the party and learned from the mistakes of others?
> Again, everything in your comment this seems like Apple made an arguably better offering in an existing market. That's not a first mover advantage.
I never claimed Apple had a first mover advantage. They made a smartphone much more aligned to consumer desires than any of the competition. Palm, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia all approached smartphones from the angle of business/enterprise users.
You can call Apple's approach being late to the party but that presumes that them entering some market is a forgone conclusion. Apple has rarely if ever been truly first to market with a product.
Apple doesn't even have any data plans, do they? I mean Google sometimes plays at being an ISP with projects like Loon or Google Fibre, but Apple has never done that?
It was exclusive to the iPhone, in that the iPhone + ATT plan was the only unlimited data plan you could get at release on a non-carrier controlled general purpose smartphone.
Which is to say, not one that locked away features and functionality (ringtones! games!) to create additional revenue channels for carriers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but per memory Jobs used iPhone exclusivity to crack carrier "Our pipes" models open.
> in that the iPhone + ATT plan was the only unlimited data plan you could get at release on a non-carrier controlled general purpose smartphone.
I had unlimited data on non-carrier controlled phones pre-iPhone on AT&T, and it was far cheaper than the iPhone data plan. Dumbphone plans had cheap data add-ons in comparison, just take the SIM from the ultra-cheap phone they included in the plan and drop it in whatever unlocked GSM phone you wanted. It supported 3G before the iPhone even launched. You just had to get a 3G-enabled cheap dumbphone with your plan to ensure you got a 3G-activated SIM.
Obviously, they didn't market this so most consumers didn't know this was an option.
The reviewer asserts that the addon transmits data. It does not.
That may not be malice, of course. It could just be incompetence (someone running an automated scanner and not verifying that the results are correct), someone trusted with a job they're not capable of doing, or maybe it's just Mozilla pretending someone reviewed the addon while using shitty AI like ChatGPT to do all the work.
The email even directly links to resources that are supposedly "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated". That's simply not true.
Maybe it's the fact that 80+% of Mozilla's revenue comes directly from payment by Google who are extremely hostile to ad blockers (and UBO in particular) at the moment.
That should be obvious, honestly. The extension is a threat to the reviewer's paycheck...
UBO isn't even the extension that was scrutinized, and besides how do you even know that the reviewer (if they are a human which seems open to question) is a Mozilla employee rather than a volunteer, and that they were not acting out of sheer incompetence?
You can be familiar with Hanlons's razor and disagree that it is a good rule for dealing with faceless corporations. If you excuse everything as bening incompetence then that's exactly how malicious actors will hide.
The contracts usually state that they can go after the original owner if the new one can't pay. So even paying a terminally ill patient to take it over won't work.
Well, it is either a legal contract or an illegal contract that you will have to fight about in court. Rich people who can afford attorneys generally do not buy timeshares. No lawyer would ever suggest that any client buy a timeshare. So, in other words, anyone with access to a family lawyer would never buy a timeshare.
That’s why many countries have government “watchdogs” you can report illegal contracts to, who will investigate it and potentially sue the company if they believe its a scam or somehow against consumer rights.
>> you can simply not pay, and THEY have to fight it in court.
Yes. They will sue you in court. Then, when you don't answer and/or attempt to represent yourself, you will end up paying the default judgement. A judge isn't going to nullify a contract on their own. You have to explain to them why the contract is illegal, which is not as easy as everyone seems to think. That is what lawyers are paid to do.
Though from the wikipedia article [0], it looks like it has only been used successfully three times (2017, 2019, and 2020). There's a fourth in-progress by Johnson&Johnson, where the summaries state that the bankruptcy has been twice dismissed by courts as being invalid.
> Building more large, expensive homes that are gobbled up by investors or people 'parking' money isn't going to help people that need cheap dwellings to actually live in.
Investors that gobbled up properties are renting them to renters (assuming it isn't on airbnb) to pay their holding costs (mortgage, tax, maintenance), since they are by definition investors. They actually increase the pool of property for renters, keeping rent price lower, which fights rental inflation. This does drive up purchase price for the home itself, but that's a separate topic.
Same with people parking money, why would they be leaving the homes empty when they could rent it out for additional cash flow?
That's the theory, and the practice is that there's a serious undersupply of entry-level housing. There's simply not enough housing of type 3 BR, up to 1500 sqft being built, and the existing stock is deteriorating.
People will say, yabbut, airplane hangar houses out on the bajada, but you cannot subdivide those monstrosities into apartments.
If zoning was fixed as GP was saying, then more housing people want would get built rather than what pencils out best for developers.
Zoning issues like low height limits, and high parking requirements etc. contribute to the shortage by making it infeasible build a lot of 3BR/1500sqft units because returns are better by building 2 smaller units in the same footprint, and because there's a shortage of housing, they'll be able to sell less than optimal units to people that need them.
Can there be enough entry-level housing? Parcels of land near me are like $200k and I'm not in a swanky suburb... ? Every new house built out in the hinterlands (1hr+ from MPLS) is like $600k. I'm in MN which is considered affordable.
This is because of zoning. When it takes a year+ to get approval there's no reason to ever build anything but luxury. If we allowed more to be built and but red tape lower cost buildings would make sense.
> A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.
You just described what I missed about the older software. Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format. Modern software sorts data with an algorithm, with ads mixed in, and shows data in a card format, making it a lot less usable.
Exactly. My related observation: half of the SaaS products I see would be more useful and ergonomic for the user if they were implemented as an Excel sheet.
(I actually worked for one of such "better off as an .xls file" startup in the past, and its main competitor was an incumbent that sold the same stuff as an Excel extension. Trying to replace that with a React app is not a worthwhile use of life.)
Algorithms are fine. I'll happily apply the most advanced ones I can get. The problem is with who applies them to what - as you and GP said, it's about user control - or, currently, lack of.
I wonder if being a more powerful backing data store for Excel is one of the remaining reasonable uses for Microsoft Access, at least for users of the Windows desktop version of Office? Access is still included in many editions of that (although not on Mac or web or mobile). Officially it’s even still supported and not deprecated, although of course it’s very much not emphasized by MS any more.
Other options might be SQL Server Express or SQL Server Express LocalDB, the latter of which seems conceptually very much like SQLite within the MS ecosystem, and both of which are usable for production purposes at no cost within the technical limitations that differentiate them from paid editions.
The SaaS I am now working for is a react app + some fancy intelligence.
We are not front-end people, so the app is built with the expectation that people will be doing their filtering, searching and using the intelligence we provide, but in their home turf (excel).
Our app also lets users "track" certain events, and we do not use push notifications, rather we respect our user's attention and email them a short summary, and link to a csv that they can use!
That immediately made me think of the digital TV switchover. The elderly father of a friend of mine would spend much of his time in front of the TV, and could operate it without assistance, thanks to the simple 1:1 mapping between buttons and functions.
After the digital switchover, there was now a set-top box, and electronic program guide and three-figure channel numbers thrown into the mix, as well as stateful aspect such as whether the TV was set to AV or still trying to use its now-obsolete tuner.
For someone with poor eyesight, limited feeling in his fingers and limited ability (and admittedly willingness, too) to build a mental model of how the menus worked and how they can be navigated, it spelled the end of his unsupervised access to TV.
The big difference for me between database-query-driven and algorithmically-driven is that the latter makes it very hard to know when you've completed an exhaustive search. Indeed for the likes of meta and tiktok that's a feature, not a bug, since their goal is to keep you engaged and plugged into "their" content forever.
I have a "Roku TV". It has many pointless problems. But the biggest is that it takes a very long time to turn on. If you turn it on by remote control, there is no indication that anything has happened until the TV finally starts showing something. You just have to hope that the signal got through. It's fairly frequent that we fail to turn the TV on because we assume that it just isn't done getting ready to turn on yet.
You can avoid this by using the physical power button, which is conveniently located behind the TV. It will still take forever to turn on, but there's no ambiguity over whether you've started the process.
I still have trouble believing the device was allowed to reach customers in this state.
Not every change is for the better. You gotta admit that TVs used to be able to switch channels much faster then they do now. And analogue controls in cars are safer and better then touch screens for everything.
A lot of change is for the better, but quite a lot is a regression.
I have access to around 1000 "channels", if you include live broadcasts and network-like apps. How exactly were old TVs better at helping navigate that?
For one thing, the clicker seems to work instantly for analog TV because it will sync up on the next frame, which is 0.03 sec which is less than the 0.2 sec it takes the human mind to perceive two events as two different events.
With digital broadcast TV and cable whenever you switch to a different carrier there is a long delay (at least 0.5 sec) for the radio and the rest of the processing train to sync up. With streaming you have to do multiple network round trips to establish a stream. Either way you don't have the immediacy that old TVs had.
The question of UI in modern TV is interesting. 15 years ago the 500 channel problem looked difficult, my impression was that Comcast Xfinity (2010) was the first really good STB interface for the digital age.
I have a NVIDIA Shield which has an Android TV interface that convincingly makes FAST services like Pluto, Plex and Tubi look like linear TV on an STB. What you find though is that going "back" from one of those channels can put you, disorientingly, in the app for those channels, and also that you can usually navigate better if you start out with the FAST app (and have a more consistent experience watching FAST on a computer, tablet or XBOX) Except for those things which, for some reason, are easy to find in Android TV but hard in the app.
> 15 years ago the 500 channel problem looked difficult
Knowing what was on 500 channels may have been difficult, but that's equally difficult now. The problem of navigating 500 channels was solved more than 25 (not 15) years ago by remote controls that had numpad buttons on them. You navigate to channel 351 by pressing buttons 3, 5, and 1 in sequence.
Now you have to log into Netflix, check Netflix. Then log into Hulu, check Hulu. log into prime, then check prime. Then log into Disney plus, check Disney plus. Then check live tv, then find out it’s not in live tv but the tv stations app. So you log into peacock, navigate their insane UI. Finally get to watch what you want
Modern TV interfaces are way better at navigating 1000 channels, but whether or not having 1000 channels available through one TV interface is highly debatable. It's also not a given that the current way most TVs use is anywhere close to the optimal one (especially when you have multiple devices that all have to work together because the cable provider insists on their own box, made even worse when a helpful family member installs a sound system with its own dedicated remote).
It takes ages till the channel switches. I had already more channels then I needed, so more channels add nothing to it. There is no difference between having 800 vs 1000 channels. And when the TV is slow to change them, the discovery process becomes painful enough that I just go to do something else.
The problem is with cataloging and discoverability. After a certain number of photos (or movies, songs, whatever), finding what's relevant is non-trivial.
Or the problem is what's relevant, such as Spotify's 'what the user likes and is in our bargain bin for plays'. If the photo algo wants you to get multiple prints which mostly happen when you are sending them to others it's going to push group photos and baby pictures not that epic moonrise.
