this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025

43 points (77.2% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.ml

43,262 readers

2,342 active

260 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 7 years ago

moderators

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

Wait I'm confused I was told that it was China that's stealing US tech? 🤔 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/21/why-us-companies-struggle-to-replicate-chinas-wechat-super-app-.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (32 children)

An operating system doesn't solve the problem because it's fundamentally a UX problem. You can look at a super app as an OS that also handles the UI layer and apps are just APIs below that layer. This is not how the OS works on Android or iOS however where each app couples its API with its own UI.

parent

hideshow 32 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 2 points 2 years ago* (31 children)

@yogthos You misunderstand. If you make a "Super App", you ARE making an operating system. Yes most OS's have UX problems that prevent this level of integration, but the critical difference is that you're giving complete control to a single entity.

The client-server pattern perpetuates power imbalances, and "Super apps" make that problem much much worse.

parent

hideshow 31 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (30 children)

No, I don't misunderstand. I'm explaining to you that the nature of this operating system is different because there's a single unified UI backed by a bunch of APIs. The critical difference is that you have a unified UX that results in better user experience. It has fuck all to do with giving up control to anything. You don't seem to understand the subject you're attempting to debate here.

parent

hideshow 30 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (29 children)

@yogthos No need to use strong language, I understand what you're trying to say.

As a UX dev of over 10 years, UX is important but secondary to safeguards against being toyed with by power-tripping tech bros. That's why I use fedi, that's why I build with ipfs instead of http.

There's nothing I need so bad that I would give up my digital freedoms.

parent

hideshow 29 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (28 children)

The is a non nonsequitor, because having a single UI framework has little to do with power tripping tech bros.

parent

hideshow 28 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 2 points 2 years ago* (27 children)

@yogthos I'm not even talking about UI frameworks anymore, but the UX and client-server or distributed models that you'd build with them.

You can't build a super-app without also creating a massive power imbalance.

parent

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (26 children)

I completely agree with you. This could be done at the OS level if everybody would agree on a common API. This what I'm trying to explain here, the concept of a unified UX experience is a net positive for the users, and it doesn't need to be implemented as an app. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

parent

hideshow 26 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 2 points 2 years ago (25 children)

@yogthos Windows 8 made a legitimate effort to provide unified OS-level APIs that apps could hook into and deeply integrate with. The "People Hub" was easily the best example of this, plus Charms, Settings integration, etc.

Everyone hated it because they didn't understand it.

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (24 children)

Meanwhile, WeChat managed to do it in a way that everybody loves.

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (23 children)

@yogthos Doing inside an app is easier and significantly more of a power-grab.

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (22 children)

I'm not sure why its easier, and don't see how it's more of a power grab than what Google and Apple already do with their platforms.

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (21 children)

@yogthos Building walled gardens apps where you control everything is easier than building a walled garden OS where you control everything.

One is an App and the other is an OS, but both can be turned into a "walled garden trap" for consumers.

"But they did it" isn't an excuse to do it more. We have enough of this going around already with Apple and X and WeChat, governments and tech bros trying to maintain control over the masses. Nah.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (20 children)

Both Android and iOS are very much a walled gardens last I checked.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (19 children)

@yogthos Right so are you saying we should make the problem bigger?? I'm confused what you're trying to say here

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (18 children)

I don't see the OS providing a unified UI that allows people to write apps as services as a problem. I'm likewise confused about what you're actually try to say here. You're conflating your ideological stance with technical functionality as far as I can tell. It's perfectly possible for an open platform to do the same things WeChat does, and that would result in a much better user experience than the current approach. I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp this.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (17 children)

@yogthos They literally JUST banned and unbanned Tiktok at the whim of an annoying orange, and Twitter as we knew it is dead because of a rich billionaire.

You're glossing over real problems in the name of good ux.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (16 children)

What does this have to do with anything being discussed here.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (15 children)

@yogthos Everything, this entire thread and several others that people have started with you.

It's worth saying twice:

The client-server pattern perpetuates power imbalances, and "Super apps" make that problem much much worse.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 2 years ago (14 children)

The client-server pattern perpetuates power imbalances, and “Super apps” make that problem much much worse.

It's just something you keep repeating, but that's just not true. Coupling the UI with the business logic of the application is a fundamentally wrong approach. It makes it effectively impossible to compose apps the way you can compose command line utils with piping. Apps should be designed as client/server by default, and then you could always leverage the service API for the app any way you want, slap a custom UI, use it in automation scripts, etc. It’s just way more flexible that way.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

@yogthos Nobody in their right mind couples UI to business logic, we have MVVM for that and it enables some very impressive integration and UI switching in apps.

However, thinking at the application level is ignoring everything I just said about the ways that apps communicate.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Pretty much no app provides APIs to access the business logic layer outside the UI. You're just trolling at this point.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago* (11 children)

@yogthos MVVM stands for Model-View-ViewModel, and is a pattern commonly used in dotnet and winui apps for decoupling backend business logic from frontend UI.

For example, this: https://youtu.be/Nb6fEeYfDAU

I feel like I'm the one being trolled here.

What on earth do you mean by "no app provides APIs to access the business logic layer outside the UI?" These apps are using APIs to begin with, the app doesn't NEED to provide them. The devs provides them to the app, the other way around.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

I understand how MVC works perfectly fine. This is not what the discussion is about. What you're being told is that apps you'll find in the wild typically DO NOT provide APIs that can be leveraged in the way I described. You completely ignored that.

Show me what Android or iOS apps can be used at API level to create a custom UI on top of them using a third party app.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

This isn't MVC
I directly addressed that-- APIs exist independent of any one app.
This question about using an App as an API doesn't make sense. Apps use APIs, they do not provide them.

Also--- nobody is telling me. I've been doing this for over a decade.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Show me what Android or iOS apps can be used at API level to create a custom UI on top of them using a third party app.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

@yogthos Bro that's not how apps work. What you're describing is a platform.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

That's my whole point bro. This is how apps should work, but they don't work this way.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

@yogthos You're describing a Platform, but we have an actual oligarchy of tech platforms now. When they get too big, they just become power grabs, hence why Mastodon and Lemmy and fedi in general started picking up recently.

It's not worth even a scrap of good UX if these platforms can take away our voices on a whim. Fedi is on the right track.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Again, there is absolutely nothing that prevents this from being implemented in open source fashion. And this is a completely different use case from Fedi. This is basically extending the Unix philosophy to applications and it would put control in the hands of the user in how they want to interact with the app. For example, you could take a bunch of apps and make your own custom UI that leverages their functionality to solve a specific workflow you have. Try stepping out of your demagogy for a minute and actually think about this.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

Huh?

"Demagogy is the action or fact of winning support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas."

Are you saying that fedi isn't a morally good idea?

I agree that morals should fuel our discussion and not emotion, but I'm sensing strong emotions from you.

Regardless, I see what you're saying because I've built things like this. I specialize in abstractions in my work-- Strix Music is a prime example of that.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm saying this is a completely different use case from fedi. Perhaps you might be having strong emotions that you're projecting onto me here?

I've also built this type of software and the benefits are very clear to me.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Arlodottxt@fosstodon.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

@yogthos I've enjoyed our discussion, but I don't appreciate the strong language, the projections, or the claims of others projecting in order to defend your own projections. Thank you for engaging with me, see you around.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 0 points 2 years ago

Weird thing to say after trying to psychoanalyzing me. See you around I guess.

parent