Agree that it's an abstraction that OP doesn't know the definition of, but there's also a tendency for people to
* over-abstract (where you could replace the abstraction name with a slightly more verbose but clearer definition)
* over-generalize (it's a meeting about handling returns in multiple physical locations but they keep talking about "channels" instead of physical locations)
* propagate abstractions without actually understanding the underlying concrete implementation (they know omni-channel means having multiple ways to return, but not exactly which ones)
But yeah as the consumer of abstractions you have to dig into the definition and understand the context in which it's applied in order to understand what's going on
It's not user-facing features that move users from one browser to another, it's the number of websites they use that don't break with one or the other.
Because I consider websites with obnoxious ads and a bunch of tracking "broken" Firefox gives people a lot of reason to switch, but unless they try it for themselves they have no idea what they're missing or how the pages they visit would look and be improved without all that junk.
I agree, and imho firefox should even bet more on user privacy (for example adopting strong measures against fingerprinting, and migrating away from google as a default search engine).
They recently signed a new deal with Google, and those deals more or less completely fund the development of Firefox, so I don't see a change there happening any time soon.
I think the major problem with a privacy focus from a business perspective is that not enough people care. So you have to spend both a lot of time and effort _being_ better at privacy and then also a bunch of time and effort trying to convince people that it matters.
For a minute there Firefox was running significant advertising against Chrome along these lines, and touting its improved speed, but I don't think it really moved the needle for them.
> . So you have to spend both a lot of time and effort _being_ better at privacy and then also a bunch of time and effort trying to convince people that it matters.
The good news for Mozilla is that the task of trying to inform the public on privacy issues doesn't fall to browser makers alone. Many businesses spanning multiple industries are offering services for people looking for better privacy and they're working to convince more people of the need. There are also several non-profits and online communities which are spreading the message about the importance of privacy and security. The news media also often reports on abuses of our data as they are discovered. As more and more people become aware of how they're being screwed over as a result of handing out the intimate details of their lives like candy the market will grow.
The bad news is that the largest and most powerful companies are making money hand over fist exploiting our private and personal data and they're working hard to normalize it and shield themselves from legal responsibility. The influence and money they possess, along with support from the state which also benefits by taking copies of that data for themselves is no small hurdle to overcome, but the entire system isn't sustainable if we really want freedom and equality so at a certain point the tide has to turn or we fall into total oppression.
I have not seen an important website genuinely break in a long time. Certainly not enough to build any sort of decision heuristic. Who are these people who have websites break all the time on Firefox but not in Chrome so much it drives them from one to another?
The problem with building a web browser is that if you introduce too many new features then you are breaking with web standards. The most you can do is add some user conveniences like sync, themes and extensions, but those don't go far enough to make enough users consider switching. A browser can, by definition, never have a "killer app".
There is so much more a browser can add beyond just rendering websites "correctly" - and even that does not mean always rendering them the way the designer wants. Just a few things that could win over power users:
- Better tab organization. Vertical, tree-style tabs are an improvement possible with extensions, but surely we can do even better, especially if with direct support from the browser.
- Better bookmarking. All bookmarks should take a snapshot of the website in case it disappears or changes and should have fast full-text search. And those are only the obvious parts that are missing.
- Integrated ad-blocking and user scripts/styles to enhance and fix user-hostile websites. Make it easy to share these with non-technical users. Really anything that puts the user in control. This includes the Browser UI too - firefox has been going backwards con customizability.
- Ability to keep up with websites directly through the browser. Aka bring back RSS support and actually make it useful.
- Anything that works against the centralization of the web. Allow users to comment and share websites with their friends or community right from the browser in a way that is resistant to censorship.
And this is just what I could think of right away.
Part of the problem is that the in-app purchase cut isn't just for payments infra, it also includes the rest of the infrastructure and value prop for the app store(s), which is otherwise only $100/year, which is nothing for huge companies. The problem is they also force users to use the official app store. tbf this is all less true on Android. I feel like a competitive market would have decoupled these costs.
Yeah I think its fair that Apple charges whatever they want for whatever service they provide. They can charge for the App Store, they can charge for the dev tools and SDK.
But that everything they charge money for, they _must_ allow alternatives to exist. If they want to charge a large fee for getting on the App Store, they must allow alternative app stores. The problem is not that they charge money, but that they use their massive user lock in to force people to pay for these services to exist in the market.
But… this is not true just about anywhere. I can’t go to. Ford dealership and buy a new Chevy or go to Kroger and buy Costco brand. Or when I go to some stores they don’t allow me to use American Express.
And yes you do have choices. There are plenty of other phone manufacturers out there. Can I install Ford UI on my Tesla? Do you think those companies won’t make you use their own payment processing once apps become prolific in car UIs? Can I hail Uber with the Lyft app? Why are they locking me in to only using Lyft on the Lyft app? Can I buy PlayStation games on Xbox?
If you’re against all of it fine, but let’s not pretend Apple is doing anything out of the ordinary here.
The problem is not the exact thing Apple is doing, but the scale they are doing it at. If Ford and Chevy owned every single commercial plot of land on the country and if you wanted to start up a new brand, you are told you just have to buy your own unpopulated island, start a civilization, convince people to move over, and then you can open a new store selling your own product. That would be where Apple and Google sit right now.
Are we talking about phones or operating systems? Apple has decent market share of course but there are other companies out there. You can buy a Pixel, or any number of other phones.
And even so, many of these “issues” are not problems on Android right? You can use 3rd-party app stores and so forth right?
I’d also suggest.. why does the scale issue matter? I prefer that Apple enforces Apple Pay. I prefer that Apple enforced Sign In with Apple. That’s why I buy an iPhone. If those things bothered me I’d buy something else.
It’s totally out of the ordinary. Apple sells about half the smartphones in the US. There are many other options for manufacturers but they all essentially share one other operating system. This big of a market with this little competition and this much vertical integration would normally be an obvious example of a monopoly. None of your examples come close.
But why does Apple have 50% market share? It’s because of these exact things that I as a user prefer. And on top of that, while 50% is obviously a great position, the other half is Android. And then if you compare based on phones there are still tons of options. If customers hated things like privacy warning labels or sign-in with apple they’d buy other phones. But they don’t. So it seems pretty clear to me the best product is winning.
You may stick with Apple because you like all of these policy decisions. Many stick with Apple because changing is so difficult. You lose iMessage, have to move your pictures out of iCloud, and repurchase your accumulated app library. The mere existence of another phone option doesn't necessarily make it viable. This level of lock-in is by design.
It was always like that, and on Android too. This isn't even lock-in, you have to move your files after buying new SSD, or relocate your documents after installing a new OS. It is a lock-in in the same way `apt-get install coreutils` is, because you can't just move to Windows and expect the same workflow.
Yes. Switching from Android is difficult as well. But, I disagree it's always been like this. When I buy software directly from the developer/publisher, I often can get a license that works on both Windows and macOS (or can get a dual license for a nominal fee). It wasn't really until mobile app stores took off that I needed to repurchase software if I went to another platform. And repurchasing that software would not be cheap. It's an actual cost of changing platforms.
I switch between Windows, Linux, and macOS with regularity and while there are platform-specific services, the mobile platform is considerably more walled off. Mobile storage stagnated for years while the apps and any captured media became larger, really pressuring you to use their cloud services in a way I've never had with a desktop. I can store data on a NAS and access it pretty easily with any of the desktop platforms. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to be able to be able to migrate off iCloud when moving to Android without involving a non-mobile computer. It doesn't appear to be anywhere as easy as copying files from one SSD to another or using AirDrop/SMB/NFS.
The iMessage thing is another layer to this. You may not want to call that lock-in, but there have been extensive threads about this topic recently [0][1]. The Epic lawsuit surfaced some emails that strongly suggest Apple views iMessage as a way to lock customers in [2].
Regardless, the original point is switching platforms isn't going to happen without a fair bit of cost and likely some social upheaval. Switching platforms is technically an option, but it's not a realistic one for many. I don't think it follows that if someone has stuck with the same platform for several years that they tacitly agree with all the policy decisions made by that platform.
This doesn't mean anything when so many things are coupled in to one product. I buy iphones because they have the best hardware and get updated for a long time. I don't buy iphones because they force one payment processor.
That is a very different argument than the one I replied to. It’s one thing to say this situation is ordinary, another to say that you’re fine with it.
Remember that there's nothing at all illegal about having a monopoly. If you have such a superior product to everyone else then it's the expected market outcome.
What's illegal is anti-competitive use of monopoly market position.
Since it is a two sided platform, not a single product ("phone and apps"), and as Apple is constraining the payment downstream market, and causing harm to the consumer (30% markup), there is a case.
Some textbook rulings will apply, since Apple exces admit that if they do no constrain downstream, no one will use their 30% markup product. So consumers could be better off by definition
although Apple will argue that they will charge more to downstream producers directly, but this is also difficult to argue (they can do this anyway and extract rents from consumers and producers at the same time).
If you have a monopolistic platform market on which you also produce, it seems rather hard not to get sued
You'd be wrong about going to a Ford dealership and buying whatever you want in most states. They are independent operators that again, have a high amount of independence from the manufacturer. They will gladly but your old car and sell it on their used lot.
This is why we talk about Tesla direct sales all the time. Because we are moving car sales to the apple model.
> I can’t go to. Ford dealership and buy a new Chevy or go to Kroger and buy Costco brand
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if a customer already purchased a ford car, and then tried to fix the car with a 3rd party repair person.
There are literal laws about this, for cars, that require ford to provide manuals, to 3rd parties, and require ford to sell replacement parts for 3rd parties to repair cars from.
The problem is that, effectively, it is customers making the decision to buy Apple products, but developers who have pay to get access to them. This split means the incentives don’t get to the people in power, and the mechanism breaks down.
It’s exactly the same dynamic as in net neutrality.
Developers have to pay Nintendo a lot to get access to customers with a SNES, Wii, Switch, etc as well, which is the OP's point - if someone makes a good product that gains a lot of market share (iOS, Nintendo Switch, Tesla, etc) that doesn't mean a bunch of 3p companies are entitled to access to those customers.
I think the same thing should apply, but it's just not as harmful to society currently, because it's just one platform among many, many others, and it's just for games. Whatever the proper regulation is to counter this, it might very well apply to pure gaming platforms as well, making it so that anyone is allowed to make, market and sell games on them, no matter how small.
> Developers have to pay Nintendo a lot to get access to customers with a SNES, Wii, Switch, etc as well, which is the OP's point
The different here is that Nintendo is not a 3 trillion dollar company, that owns 50% of a massively important market in the US.
Yes, anti-competitive practices are allowed if you aren't a huge company.
Literally it is the law, that if you become a big enough company, and have enough market power, then certain actions become illegal, that were not illegal if you weren't as powerful of a company.
> that doesn't mean a bunch of 3p companies are entitled to access to those customers.
It actually literally does mean that they are entitled to that.
For the same reason that 3rd party web browsers, were entitled access to windows users (and before you say it, yes I am aware that windows had a larger control of the market than apple, and it is not literally the same in every single exact way, but the same principle still applies, just in a smaller amount)
Payment processing trivially invalidates your premise: I can walk into a Ford dealership and buy any vehicle using any source of cash-like funds I'd like -- I don't have to use Ford's preferred lender.
Is that true? They aren’t required to sell you a car. I think they could require you to use their preferred lender as a condition of selling the car to you.
App store would be there even if they could charge no money for developers and have 0% cut - it's a prerequisite for the iPhone and they are making huge margins just in the devices, this argument that without allowing anti-competitive behaviour there would be no investment in the appstore is nonsense precisely becaus it's a first party integration.
For example I have no problem if a third party store forced one payment option only, but only allowing one store and one payment option is just milking your market position/rent seeking.
> For example I have no problem if a third party store forced one payment option only, but only allowing one store and one payment option is just milking your market position/rent seeking.
See that’s _exactly_ the problem I have. I don’t want to use your shitty payments system that’s likely less secure than anything Apple is doing. Allowing a single payment source that’s not Apple would directly harm consumers from a security and privacy perspective.
I am an exception. I use phone as a phone and offline GPS. Do not even have data plan. So yes anything that can make a call will do. Productivity: for me it is all on PC / servers.
I might reconsider my attitude when / if I can have phone as a generic computing device where I can download and install whatever I need without much hassles and where I can distribute my applications without needing to sacrifice a virgin first.
iOS safety measures do not rely on the App Store. The whole sandboxing and permissions model is there to protect one app from accessing things it shouldn't.
imo the value prop of the App store can be entirely propped up by the $100/year developer subscriptions. They don't even need a profit cut. The app store infra is a joke. You could probably fund it with under $1m/yr
iOS has allowed side loading for half a decade now. Companies that find $100 prohibitive have a free path that’s nearly identical to Android side loading.
iOS most certainly does not have real sideloading. You can if you recompile the app with your own key every 7 days. Or you can use testflight with some very serious restrictions like not being able to monetize at all.
Sideloading on iOS is nothing like sideloading on Android, you have to compile the app from source with your personal key and even then it's only valid on the device for 7 days.
There is tooling to manage self-signed certs beyond the seven day window. Unrelated but I find it weird that “you have to compile the app” is a bad thing now.
There are ways to go past 7 days but all come with even more downsides to both the end user and company trying to get users to sideload. "You have to compile the app" is extremely related if you're a company wanting users to install your app, especially since that requires more than just knowledge to be able to do.
To ask you the inverse question, in what way is any of this "nearly identical" to Android sideloading which allows indefinite sideloading via any delivery method, including installation of 3rd party stores, with no more than a click on an approval prompt from the user?
Optimizing for people who want to side load ~and~ cannot click the build button in Xcode seems wild to me. (No disrespect!)
It’s identical though in that <when one side loads> one is <completely disconnect from the ecosystem of the device manufacturer>.
Re: side loading binaries/APKs on my actual phone that’s logged into my actual bank account? Hard pass. There’s a time and place for lax security. This is what air gapping is for.
> Optimizing for people who want to side load ~and~ cannot click the build button in Xcode seems wild to me. (No disrespec
When you personally limit sideloading to be "I compile the app and manage a personal security chain to keep it active" it may seem wild, that's not what the vast majority of Android sideloading/3rd party stores is though. Xcode, beyond requiring installation, requires a macOS install to run it on. There are other ways to compile iOS apps, each even less accessible to users or distribution by companies. And again: the obvious statement that the vast majority of revenue generating apps on the App Store are not open source.
Even amongst the Android tech nerds 3rd party stores like F-Droid are popular because users don't want to compile their open source apps constantly... and there are even less requirements around compiling Android apps than iOS apps!
> It’s identical though in that <when one side loads> one is <completely disconnect from the ecosystem of the device manufacturer>.
Not true, sideloading apps on Android means loading them from a different source not disconnecting them from Google services or the Android ecosystem as a whole. It of course allows for that if it's what you're after but it's not limited in such a scope.
> Re: side loading binaries/APKs on my actual phone that’s logged into my actual bank account? Hard pass. There’s a time and place for lax security. This is what air gapping is for.
On Android sideloading is being able to pick which app sources you trust, even if that means "not Google". That could mean "I compiled it myself on an air gapped computer" to you, "I loaded it from a 3rd party store" to another, and "I downloaded it from the developers site" to a third. Which you personally choose is irrelevant as each user gets to pick their allowed sources so it can fit any user's need.
There are several methods for doing it but they are all crippled in ways that make it impossible to actually use the system for anything but QA testing and development.
You can install any app you compiled with your own key and it lasts for 7 days before requiring it to be recompiled.
AltServer can do it but in my experience the Windows version of AltServer is extremely unreliable. AltStore never really auto-renewed properly for me until I put AltServer on an old MacBook Air. Furthermore, the fact that this process needs a second device to bootstrap provisioning at all[0] might be a non-starter for some. Take a week-long vacation? Well, now all your sideloaded apps stop working.
A far bigger limitation for me is the three-app provisioning limit. There isn't any way to work around it[1], and if you do want to do serious sideloading you almost certainly will need to upgrade to a paid developer account.
[0] Specifically iOS only allows app provisioning over USB or Wi-Fi, not locally. Locally installed software cannot actually communicate with the remote debugging daemon. You can work around this with network extensions, but you don't get to use them in dev-signed apps unless you have a paid dev account that's been approved by Apple to use them.
For the record, that isn't to make sideloading harder; that's because Facebook went and shipped a spyware VPN with their enterprise cert.
[1] Personal experience time: Even when jailbroken, and with AltDaemon and Immortal installed, AltStore still bumps up against the three-app limit.
Yeah the comments in this thread are baffling (or they didn't read the 100 character tweet lol). The tweet is just describing domain specific database-like websites. Have people not heard of allrecipes.com? Yummly? Or one of the other thousands of recipe db sites? No blogspam, just structured recipe search. You can even search by ingredient!
Mayo clinic, Harvard health, and pubmeb do a great job with health info. IMDb for movies, Goodreads for books, *gearlab.com for reviews, booking.com for accomodations.
I think the biggest threat to Google isn't a better general search engine, it's user behavior switching to more domain-specific websites as the top of the funnel. E.g. people going directly to Amazon to search for products instead of first searching Google.
To some extent, Google has figured this out, which is why they now have a dedicated flight search, hotel search, product search (Google shopping still exists and it's pretty good!), etc.
Yeah this feels a little bit like a declarative configuration file for Hasura/Firebase (which is already a good idea). Looking forward to seeing how far you can take the frontend stuff!
A lot of commenters are focusing on the RPA part, but what seems to be more novel (to me at least) is the passive discovery of what could be automated with RPA. That seems like a generically hard problem, good luck!
Thank you, a great point! We have witnessed so many automation/RPA initiatives put on hold/buried because of the complexity or cost of process discovery, that's why a lot of R&D efforts are focused on this specific stage of automation lifecycle
What we do is a bit different from Process Mining, our approach is known as Desktop Activity Mining, but from a helicopter view it's pretty much the same
Yeah, this title is currently overadvertising the product. Without even getting into the non-OLTP DB parts of Firebase, Hasura is much further along towards being a Firebase replacement. It already handles auth and a basic admin UI for both the schema and data. I respect the vision and welcome more competition, but this seems to just stitch a "push" system to Postgrest for now (with no auth to boot).
Hasura also some limited support for generated multi-table transactional APIs, which Postgrest doesn't. Meanwhile, Firebase supports arbitrary read-modify-write transactions.
This team has its work cut out for them and I can see a fierce competition with Hasura and Firebase.
* over-abstract (where you could replace the abstraction name with a slightly more verbose but clearer definition)
* over-generalize (it's a meeting about handling returns in multiple physical locations but they keep talking about "channels" instead of physical locations)
* propagate abstractions without actually understanding the underlying concrete implementation (they know omni-channel means having multiple ways to return, but not exactly which ones)
But yeah as the consumer of abstractions you have to dig into the definition and understand the context in which it's applied in order to understand what's going on