iOS 18 could 'sherlock' $400M in app revenue
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Add-on makers should have no expectation that the value they have captured will not be captured by the platform at some point.
Yes, platforms add features. Yes those features may be domething previously supplied by a 3rd party. There is no way, to stop this, and stopping this would be very bad.
The platform might be an OS, a browser, some web site, a programming language, whatever. It doesn't matter. They are growing and their growth will overlap you at some point.
Should we not have Developer Tools in the browser because Firebug? Or Search on a Mac because Watson? Or Windows on DOS because of earlier windowing systems?
I get the angst of a developer when some revenue-generator becomes obsolete, but writing something doesn't mean you "own" a feature for ever - that's not how it works, nor should it.
Building on another's platform has risks. This is one of them.
Secondly most of what I make (and most apps that are in play here) are not patentable. You can patent some implementation detail, but not the overall idea.
Lastly, even if you had a patent, you can't fight the platform. They are bigger than you and have more lawyers. You'll likely lose, and even if you win it'll be years of distraction. (Not to mention that the platform can simply break your program as an opening salvo.)
So no, I don't think patents are a defense, nor should they be.
When you are building on another's platform you need to be aware of this risk.
Some platforms are more aggressive in this than others. Apple in particular literally coined the phrase "sherlocked". Do not be surprised when a platform behaves the way they always have.
I wouldn't build on Apple, I won't build on Google API's. There's no judgement for those that do. It's simply my choice. On the other hand I'll happily build on Windows. And I'm aware that can burn me.
If anything it may drive engagement… many people will find AllTrails or Strava after hitting whatever arbitrary limits Apple places on the feature, as well as the normal Apple pattern of neglect.
Even marquee apps like fitness are very limited — Apple doesn’t provide great tools for runners, for example. Garmin does, and seems to be doing ok.
People are paying for access to the social data layer on top of that - the reviews, the ride logs, the recommended routes, the reports of trail conditions and closures. And apple can’t just take that, because that’s the data that takes years to build up.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40721711 - literally the same link, too
If all you want to do is look at a trail, I'm sure you can do that for free. But if you want to:
- Find trails by distance from current location
- Save maps offline (the app is worthless without this unless you're hiking in areas with cell coverage)
- Go hiking without being bothered by ads
- Gain access to a variety of map types (e.g. topo maps)
Then you're going to be paying for the app.
I personally never used the features you're describing with the exception of the overall star rating for a trail, which is already free.
I can easily imagine a scenario where I no longer need to consider AllTrails+ if Apple built up a decent enough library of routes.
I'm not an avid/serious hiker, but hike enough that I need the features that are currently behind the paywall. While ride logs and reviews sound useful, I frankly have never used them. I aspire to hike more, and to be getting on trails where that kind of data would be worth paying for, presumably for safety reasons. But that's not where I'm at right now, and I'd forego that data if it means I can save on subscription costs and limit my realtime location sharing to Apple.
I'm the type of user Apple will be attracting, and I don't think my experience/usage is that atypical.
“Reviews, routes reports of trail conditions” is probably the biggest scam of AllTrails for me, there was literally nothing for the one I was looking at. Ironically, there are better information on Washington Trails Association website.
As one random example, I have a pixel phone and I used to use the included Google podcast app, until they pulled the plug on it recently. Then I had to test a bunch of alternatives to see which was free or ad supported or paid, which had rough feature parity with my old one, which one I liked or disliked. After trying a few that I ended up not liking because they had intrusive ads or subpar interface I eventually found an open source one that was good enough (although it lacks some discovery features to find new things I might be interested in). And then I had to go down the rabbit hole of finding a random battery saver option and white listing the app so it wouldn't get randomly shut off when I was listening to something in the background.
Contrast all that to the experience of an iPhone which has a podcast app out of the box that works great, free, no fuss or research and is supported by Apple. I'm still on my pixel but that type of friction can add up to a competitive advantage.
Apple cares about selling iPhones and other devices. If your idea can help them sell more, and they can do it better, they will.
I think that’s perfectly natural and OK - and what’s more, I think it’s on the app developers to understand this and to plan for it.
You might get a few years head start on Apple, but you gotta be able to read the tea leaves.
There's lots of talk about downloads for some app categories, but the $ amounts all seem to be estimated ... not sure what it is based on.
And as other's have noted Apple isn't going to 'sherlock' these apps and then charge for them.
That it is given a euphemism is tacit support of this behaviour: platform abuse.
For password managers, however, I'm a big believer that those shouldn't be a required 3rd party purchase. Effective password management should be a built-in feature of every OS. (And for the love of God, every browser should use core OS password management so you can switch browsers and still easily log in to websites.)