This is because those who think these solutions will change things have no idea where the problem is coming from. Basically they are solving the wrong problem. They must first sit down and think hard about why it is that Apple and Google have so much power. It's because they have built products people can't live without on a daily basis (Android and iPhone)

PWA won't get you anywhere because at the end of the day your success is still at the mercy of those platform providers. Currently Google and Apple just let them be because they're just cute experiments that don't threaten their business model. But when it does become threatening, they may easily shut down access to PWAs overnight and there's nothing we can do about it other than bitching on public forums like HN.

The point is, if you want to beat Google or Apple you need to start from a platform that doesn't rely on them at all. PWA completely fails there.

> Some interesting innovation might be Dapps inside the Coinbase Wallet or Status IM. What are some reasons it is futile to take on this marketplace.

For the same reason, this "DAPP" is even sillier. Unless these "DAPP" guys are going to build their own device, at the end of the day they still rely on iOS and Android for their users to interact with their "Decentralized" app. What a joke.

The solution is not about building a "decentralized app store" or "fight against Apple and Google". It's about building something that comes out of nowhere and disrupts the current status quo in ways never expected. No other way around it.

You limit the capabilities of the web apps, like not allowing notifications from websites.

PWAs make use of in-browser APIs that enable native-app-like features. For example, a service worker (i.e. the Service Worker API [0]) enables us to build offline-first web apps. Other examples include the Payment Request [1], Web NFC [2], Notifications [3], Web Speech [4], Contact Picker proposal [5] and more. Google and Apple can choose what they support and could remove APIs from their popular browsers. I think removing APIs is rare because browsers generally care about backwards compatibility but one notable exception is the sunsetting of Flash.

I'm no expert but I think Google is betting on PWAs succeeding (or at least sees them as inevitable) and is trying to put themselves in the best position for when/if it succeeds. For example, ChromeOS supports PWAs and Chrome shipped APIs, that could be useful when building PWAs, that aren't supported in other browsers (e.g. the Web OTP API might be coming to Chrome soon [6] and makes inputting 2FA codes from SMS real quick). I'd be surprised if Google tried to "shutdown" PWAs. However, if PWAs were to succeed then we wouldn't rely on native app stores as much as we do today and that could mean the end of the Google/Apple duopoly on mobile operating systems. I wrote a short post about this on my personal website [7].

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Wor...

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Payment_Req...

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_NFC_API

[3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Notificatio...

[4] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Speech_...

[5] https://wicg.github.io/contact-api/spec/

[6] https://blog.chromium.org/2020/05/chrome-84-beta-web-otp-web...

[7] https://konaraddi.com/writing/2019/2019-01-06-pwas-could-hel...

My stock android (samsung) was like having a parasite running on your hardware that eats your battery and maybe also tracks what you're doing all the time.

I wish there was another OS like what Linux is to Windows and Apple that had atleast the few basic apps like Uber, Youtube, etc. It is really the need of the hour

[1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-m30s/how-to/guide-de...

This is by no means unique to our times and tech. Happened many times in the past.

PS. When was the last time that Wilshire 5000 actually had 5000 companies in it? Google tells me it was in Dec 2005.

It was exactly like this before Android and iPhone. I had a Nokia E71 and before that a Sony Walkman phone. They could run J2ME apps and games and you could download from a site called getjar.com and others. Nokia Symbian could run more powerful native apps - I wrote one myself.

They all sucked. Most of the apps were full of malware and you never knew which one would lock up your phone, infect your phone, or upload all your data to somewhere.

AppStore and Playstore exist for the same reason that CA certificates exist - most people are good but some are terrible and they damage the ecosystem. For CA we have LetsEncrypt now. But phones are way more complex than that. Most of the phone stack is thankless but highly specialized work - you won’t get that for free in volume anytime soon.

It’s more complicated because people expect the latest phones. Older generation mobile technology is worthless right now. Cutting edge technology needs investment and has substantial market. This market is also winner takes all. There is maybe place for 3 players but not anymore in an efficient, commodity market that’s also capex heavy.

As great as the hardware and cell network of 2001 allowed anyway. The worst thing an apl ever was was sucky or stupid, never harmful.

I had apps to do every random thing you could think of from trivial little things like calculating a netmask or decoding resistor color codes, to fully functional clients for ssh, irc, email, web, even vnc, audible.com, several db-app-dev type apps like handbase (like access right on the phone), a phone dialer app that integrated with the contacts db because the built-in dialer didn't even do that yet...

It was like all the good parts about dos & windows where anyone could write an app and anyone could install anyone's app.

It was 100% great with no downside or horror story at all. Certainly dos/win gained malware, and surely some harmful palmos apps must have existed, but somehow from the first Kyocera palmos phone, through the SPH-i300 & 310 or 330 whatever the updated model# after i300, through a few Treos, and finally the Palm Pre, I never once ran into one.

In 2001.

Iphone came out in 2007, with no 3rd party apps at all.

I say this argument is at least questionable.

The App Store has become a protection racket. "Nice app you have there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it." The only practical way to fix this is the way all protection rackets are fixed: The government comes in and says "Stop this or we put you in jail."

I used to think we could build a new platform in a sandbox on top of the old platforms (like a browser), but the duopoly has gotten so confidently aggressive that they'll squash out of existence any new platform before it has a chance to grow.

I actually thought Expo (the React Native runtime) had a chance to do this "platform on a platform" thing, but Apple wouldn't even allow their debug tool to exist once they realized you could preview apps by plugging a URL into their runtime client, and that those apps were actually good.

So yeah: government intervention, or a few decades of lost progress and value creation. Thankfully for those of us still living in a democracy, we get some choice in the matter.

Isn't this extremely obvious?

I said legally-justifiable antitrust claims. Apple has a minority of the smartphone market. You can make anything into a "monopoly" if you define it narrowly enough but that's not legally justifiable in any way.

Unless you want to legally force every company to surrender their source code (which I enthusiastically would support), there's no legal basis for Apple not being able to have their proprietary feature phone locked down.

Though if you'd like, you can look at Keurig, which does limit what you can put into it to "only Keurig products" or one of the millions of other things that limit what you can put into it.

Whatabout...

Initial set of iPhone app developers made a whole lot of money from App store, if not money they scaled their business to new heights - Whatsapp, Instagram, Snapchat etc. Since android was late to catch up in the developed economy, Apple got away with its ridiculous monopolistic practices with Appstore.

But now times have changed, people care more about apps than the platform they run on e.g. Spotify. WhatsApp on KaiOS on a single device in a single country(albeit large population) made that OS a significant player in the smartphone ecosystem - a feat which even Microsoft failed to achieve; that explains the importance of apps over the platform currently.

I think Apple might showcase the support for PWA in Safari as a way to defend its anti-trust litigations in the future. Although I personally want the PWA to succeed as it's the only way pure Linux smartphone ecosystem could capture market i.e. it's more important to break the smartphone duopoly than to break the app store monopoly (IMO), for security and sanity of mobile computing.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application#Ba...

Their native SDK was probably just not ready yet for the release and they knew about Android which they wanted to beat to market.

30% wasn't super generous but it was much better than anything else, and Apple was a kind of underdog in the mobile market, at first.

Today, things are different, we have a duopoly, in practice that's the same as a litteral monopoly.

Antitrust laws should apply, but it will take time, a lot of time, big corporations have huge lobbying power.

That's why we have a government, because when companies get big enough, that's the only entity left that can restore the balance of power.

Since we're living in a corporatocracy, it has become unclear which corporate abuse gets a slap on the wrist and when, because there are so many. It's become profitable to do what you want now, ask for forgiveness later. It turns out you can even ruin the world's economy and instead of getting punished, receive a bail-out and your usual hefty bonuses!

I can only assume these decisions get made behind closed doors by groups of politicians and multi-national corporations. When a consensus gets reached, they announce it to the public, not unlike when crime syndicates get together with the police and give them a few sacrificial lambs, to continue business as usual.

And no the ISA is not ARM. It resembles ARM but it contains secret Apple sauce. And there's lots of crypto chip voodoo going on; we'd also have to figure out how to disable all that.

In any case the requisite reverse engineering could be done with enough money. It's not a technical problem. But it definitely is a money problem: I don't know how to make a good enough business case for offering IOS device owners a completely alternative OS because most of the muggles just don't care.

I have an android device and never considered a third party app store. It is hard enough to trust most apps in the approved store, let alone a stranger's. At best, I go straight to the content owner and use their website.

Sandstorm tried something like this, but never took off because most people- producers and consumers alike- don't find them more helpful than what already exists.

The answer is of course no. You have the same Chinese Big Tech dominating, like Tencent or Qihoo. You have tech companies that have nothing to do with apps, but make app stores nonetheless just because they can. You still have app stores operated by carriers (China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom). And then you have small app stores that struggle to survive, and even then usually resorting to unscrupulous measures that would be utterly unacceptable elsewhere.

Does this approach of multiple app stores benefit app developers? I don't think so. Developers would rather have one single store and their rules and requirements to deal with. So much so that there are now intermediaries in China whose job is to get apps distributed on multiple stores so that developers don't have to worry about it. It's just become another middleman that eats into the profits. Or they decide app distribution is so difficult that they make their app a simple web view wrapper, and lose many benefits of a native app like tighter integration with the rest of the system.

Does this help consumers? I'm afraid not either. Do you really want consumers to remember which store they downloaded an app from? Not to mention app stores overwriting apps downloaded by other app stores, a dark pattern to boost their own numbers, or an app store forcibly silencing the update notification from a competing app store, etc.

So what are the innovations you are expecting?

I think most people disregard what conditioning does to human behavior.

Conditioning takes a long time and consistency, and you have OS's that funneled users during YEARS of usage to use what they provided as a way to find and install applications.

Apple is an extreme of enforcing the App store, but for Android you could install other appstores/distributors, hell manufacturers tried this (Samsung, Huawei, and many others) to bring their proprietary solutions. Yet it didn't scratch the Playstore marketshare. Why is that? I think it's because for a long time, the Playstore was the only solution and that was just enough time to be established for users as well as developers.

Why, on the other hand, for Windows people don't gravitate towards windows store?

Here I think it's because windows had apps for their OS being sold from shelves on shops, given away as demos on magazines, to .exe files you could download from the web, or that could be transfered by your neighbor via Floppy/CD/USB Stick. People are used to look for Windows Apps in a plethora of distribution channels. Hell people still factored the possibility of having virus on the apps according to the distribution channel.

If you look at MacOS, people are conditioned to look at one place - and it doesn't take too long of usage to achieve this.

People are lazy, in a good way. We want the most effective way to achieve our goals, with the right conditioning it becomes extremely hard to shift.

Front end web architecture is going to have to undergo a more radical evolution before native apps can reasonably be displaced. React and family were the first step of that, and I would guess the next step is building something like it into browsers themselves.

Since the Euro zone is lucky enough not to have an app store in it, they might be able to force Apple to open up the app store, maybe even publish the information and tools to develop iOS software without a Mac.

Another answer is to develop web applications instead of apps. Almost always we get pestered to first use the app, second use the mobile web site, third use the desktop web site, but usually the quality of the user experience is the other way around.

An app store is not a public utility or place of public accommodation that entitles people to a certain kind or level of access. Or a right to sue, claiming that a certain price is fair.

Feel free to make something newer and better.

Book recommendation: Modern Monopolies by Alex Moazed

What we have is not a technology problem. The problem is that what you build is worthless unless you get people to adopt it. And right now, that requires:

* Building a phone/piece of hardware that can run apps and replace the iPhone/android phones * Investing in a marketing campaign to get your hardware into the mainstream, so people will buy your phone instead of an android or iphone. * Convincing companies and app makes to build for your new hardware.

That breaks down to a tremendous amount of R&D, building a cloud network that can rival Google's and Apple's cloud systems, convincing app makers to build for a platform despite it not having any users, and convincing users to buy into your platform despite not having any apps.

It's tremendously expensive.

It was a worthwhile expense for Apple: they literally invented the new ecosystem and were the only option at the start. Their return was guaranteed.

It was a worthwhile expense for Google: they already had the cloud services, were a household name, operated arguably the largest ad network to market their new platform, and had plenty of cash on hand to get things moving fast. They may not have been able to match Apple's competition-less returns, but had a low cost to entry and even half of the pie is great value.

For any new competitor, having to share the pie with Apple and Google limits the potential return. Couple that limit with having huge expenses to build out a competing product and getting people to use it, and it's not a very appealing investment. At best, you get what's left after Google's and Apple's shares. At worst, you spend millions (billions?) for nothing. We've already seen the Windows Phone and the Fire Phone fail to enter, and if giants like Microsoft and Amazon deemed it not worth their while, who will?

So that's where we are now. So long as the masses use Apple and Google products, they will continue to default to those app stores. And it doesn't make financial sense for anyone to enter the market and compete with them (with any significance, at least).

I could see some very niche phones/tools coming into play, but with very limited functionality and only a narrow user base that actively seeks that niche. Eg. security-seeking engineers. Someone could make a phone with very limited features (at least, "native" functionality ala gmail) and see success with an audience seeking that subset, but it wouldn't be a mainstream option.