Apple just made your app obsolete? You've been 'Sherlocked'
text.npr.org
text.npr.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.lux
That app was doing warm-light adjustment /blue-light reduction before anyone else, and then the major OS vendors all started introducing their own "night mode" settings baked into the OS, and eliminated the APIs to let third-party apps do the same.
F.lux had all the hallmarks of any other tweak-style standalone application. Prefs, launcher, icons, update channel, etc
It was so good and groundbreaking that it was adopted by every OS. Victim of it’s own success
I think you can do that now, at least mine does that and I don't have anything special installed.
Another one was the ability to control volume of each app separately. I ended up buying SoundSource to fix this, which includes some additional useful features.
And I'm supposed to be upset about this?
The example in the article says an $80/year subscription is being provided to me free by a company I trust. Why wouldn't I be happy?
- Konfabulator vs Dashboard (only caught up to Konfabulator with widgets in Sonoma)
- Growl vs. Notifications Center (I think Growl is still more configurable even now).
I use Alfred, not Spotlight.
I use CleanshotX, not the built-in tool.
I use 1Password, not Passwords.
I use Drafts, not Notes.
And the list goes on. Apple will only ever address the 80% use-case (which for most people is more than enough) and for the power users there exist apps that are updated more often or try out new things that Apple won’t.
In fact, I think Apple is shooting itself in the foot by not opening up the App Store to more types of apps that they could copy. See: early jailbreaking days, and how many great ideas came out of that which Apple “copied”. For example, I wish clipboard managers were available on iOS but it’s just not possible (yes, I know about the PiP trick, I don’t care to do that). Now clipboard managers on macOS haven’t driven Apple to implement their own version but at least on the Mac apps can prove their value since it’s more open.
Is there an alternative that doesn't require spending money for an app that includes only one year of updates?
Copyright and patent law were intended to prevent this, but software has no real moat from this. The little plants in the garden get to prove the concept just before the giant redwoods draw all the water from the soil and block the light -- and the legal system is setup to favor this.
As a founder, always be thinking about that moat and plan for the day you do have competition. If you’re building something of value that demonstrates success you will have competition at some point, and probably from someone bigger than yourself. That’s the nature of life. Fortunately, a rising tide often lifts all boats, so a big competitor can help address the biggest challenge most companies face: capturing mindshare. Think of how you can survive and even flourish in this bigger ocean, be it through better marketing, more advanced features, or addressing more specific use cases in a larger market.
For makers above the platform layer, it's like trying to build on sand -- or the sarlacc monster slowly digesting everything above it.
Funny thing is DropBox didn't fail, they're still alive and kicking.
Yes, all appstores are just marketing research for the big platforms. You better not trust your company future on them.
He was talking to a well-known third-party Mac developer (I think Panic, but maybe it was a different one) and asked what they were going to be working on next. "Well, we're thinking about doing an MP3 player". Jobs just said "Don't." (this was not long before iPod/iTunes came out).
So they didn't, no doubt saving them a lot of development time and money.
Otherwise, it's no different than trying to legitimize even more middlemen.
If you tie your financial interest to complementing an existing product, you should understand that your financial interest is at the whim of that product's owner.
It's no different than someone who makes accessories for cars.
I'm sure we'd have many more VCs investing in such industries if they'd believe there's any money to be made there, but there isn't because Amazon will eat whatever margin there is.
It's so stupid that I recognized that this would happen more than a decade ago and had a free ride on Amazon stocks that likely most VCs never did, even with ZIRP.
Apple, Amazon, and others are clearly abusing their market position. Governments should regulate those companies so they can only operate in their area of interest.
Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger.
In the space of consumer retail, your business differentiation is marketing and pricing scheme. What Amazon does isn't even new, people are getting upset over it because the media is bored and they are paid off by Walmart and co. But retailers have been doing the _exact_ same thing as Amazon does for decades before, with Walmart being the biggest player. It actually gets funnier because even "bidding for the buybox" that Amazon does is just repeating "bidding for the shelf space" that all retailers have done for a long time (eye level shelves are more desirable).
And marketing and pricing applies to even beyond selling through big retailers. Tons of more unique things get Chinese copycats, it's branding, support and continued innovation that keeps those companies afloat.
>Apple shouldn't be allowed to make apps, only to publish APIs that would make it possible to make more interesting apps. If you've ever tried making apps, you'd know how limited what they offer in comparison to the data and possibilities your phone has. Check their phone usage API as an example, it's virtually null. They'll keep using the excuse that they can handle your data better than third party apps, all their narrative is about making them bigger.
Ok, but I want that to apply to everything. The phone should come with absolutely nothing on it. Even the Store and Dialer are apps. Hey, you might have to pay a subscription fee to call someone now, but it'll be what you want.
That's the problem with your whole argument up there. If you can't even think of this, it shows that your thoughts are very shallow and that you don't have the expertise in this industry to be able to talk about this with the confidence that you are clearly showing.
As long as we have people writing those dumb arguments, we'll have Google, Apple, Amazon et al running circles around FTC and governments.
We need smarter people and we'll break those monopolies apart and bring innovation back.
Thank you.