Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bogwog | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

bogwog

So to get this you need to apply by giving your app idea to a company notorious for stealing third party app ideas?

View on HN

Don't worry, they aren't going to steal your app idea. They will wait for it to get successful first.

They also reserve the right to kick you out of the app store once they have their clone ready :D

Which apps have they done that to?

I remember something about phone usage trackers.

FlickType: https://www.inverse.com/input/tech/apple-blocked-the-flickty...

Remember Tiles?

You don't get Sherlock'd until you've proven your idea works when your app becomes popular. That way, you take all the risk and they don't even need to think about what ideas are worth stealing!

In this case, it'd probably be wise to patent your app before even applying for the dev kit, just in case. You'll still be fighting Apple in court eventually, but you'll make more money through hostile takeovers than when you get copied, replaced, and dumped.

I don't think they're interested in ideas and potential, they seem interested in proven track record teams that have existing apple apps

Ideas don’t belong to anyone. I can think of a search-my-files idea just as well as anyone can, and Apple can do the same.

There’s a common fallacy that a brilliant idea is the hard part of building a business. People who consider themselves “idea people” see execution as a footnote that any pleb can do.

The reality is exactly the opposite: ideas are a dime a dozen, good execution is hard.

After twenty years of hearing the same thing over and over again I believe the actual fallacy is that ideas are a dime a dozen, good execution is hard.

Now I learned ideas and execution are minimum requirement, good execution is common, great execution is hard, good ideas are hard, great ideas aren’t worth it.

Starting with a good idea can save you plenty of opportunity cost, money and tears; but many can’t explain nor tell apart what a good idea really is.

Then you have the metaphorical sand trap of great ideas. Don’t get stuck in those.

And, finally, it doesn’t even matter if it’s good ideas nor good execution, if people don’t know your story nor are they willing to retell your story then none of this matters in the market.

Please say more about this “great ideas aren’t worth it”; sounds interesting.

as opposed to putting it on their store as people have done for 10+ years?

Do you use an Android phone, by any chance? I hate to break it to you… hard to have it both ways.

I don’t download any apps except maybe 3 or 4. What have they stolen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)

> The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community.

(Honestly, I think the fuss over Sherlock was overblown, but they definitely have a bit of a reputation for this.)

Here are a few more recent examples

https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/16/sherlocked-apps/

I mean... you can call some of those things Sherlocked if you want but that's a pretty bad list.

Does Apple build features into their core products that resemble other products on the market? Absolutely but often it helps raise the bar for that type of software. It gives users who were never going to go looking for another app something they didn't have before, it sets the floor for what they type of app should do/how it should look, and it gives existing apps a space to carve out a pro/prosumer space with features that Apple will never implement.

Spotlight (specifically the Command+space popup) exists and I think that's a net win for macOS, I don't use it, I use Alfred and have no plans to leave. Same with Notes vs Drafts or Weather vs Carrot Weather or Reminders vs Things, and the list goes on.

Does it clear out some of the bottom of the barrel versions? Yes, I'm fine with that. Does it sometimes integrate deeper into the system in a better way than a 3rd party can (Sidecar being a good example or Camera Continuity)? Yes, but should we all deal with a hacky/crappy experience just so that Apple doesn't Sherlock someone? My answer is no.

This should be an antitrust violation solvable by Apple cash and stock and a third party valuation.

I really don't see an antitrust violation in "we added the ability to more easily search your Mac, in a similar fashion to an existing app". Even the original Watson seems based largely off Google's "what if the search UI was just a single text field?" approach.

It's analogous to the MS/IE/Netscape situation 20 years ago. They would lose/have to settle on similar grounds, I suppose.

They'd have to have a Microsoft-esque monopoly first.

Apple doesn't currently have one in computers, mobile devices, or VR.

The Microsoft decision was based on dominance of a particular portion of the computing industry, x86 CPU-based PCs, not "computers, mobile devices, or VR". The equivalent here is passthrough-capable spatial computing devices running on ARM chips. That's a market that's in its infancy. It's hard to say what it looks like in 5-10 years. Because the AVP is currently singular in its capabilities (and priced as such), it can be argued that it's the only product available in the space it occupies. If they Sherlock any of the applying apps or platforms in that environment, it would seem to be an antitrust violation, as they'd be the only game in town for substantially similar hardware platforms.

that's not the antitrust violation and that's not what Apple is doing, the violation would be

"come into our walled garden where you pay to agree to these onerous and arbitrarily applied terms, we analyze every possible app to see every app and idea per version, and then copy the ones that take off allowing it to function outside the constraints of our walled garden while continuing to apply these arbitrarily enforced terms to you debilitating your business in unnecessary ways"

the regulator and existing antitrust statutes can override the clauses that someone agreed to that perpetuates this, and they should. with the alternate route for Apple being to pay the developer beginning at an independent third party's valuation.

Thus far, the courts haven't been a big fan of this idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

When people complain about Apple providing built-in operating system functionality that you previously needed a third-party app for it always comes across as bizarre to me. The user experience is much better if certain functions are available out of the box.

Or do these people really think we were better off when the App Store had a thousand flashlight apps? What's next, should they not ship Safari or Preview with the operating system either?

F.lux is another to add to the pile. IIRC apple broke the part of their API flux used in the same release that they added the feature to iOS.

I used F.lux for many years but Night Shift is better IMHO. Should Apple instead refuse to build in feature if a version exists in the world? Also F.lux was free, so I'm not sure exactly what was lost, it seems like it's still around if you prefer that over Night Shift.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com