43
Wait I'm confused I was told that it was China that's stealing US tech? ๐Ÿค” (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by 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
[โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Yeah, and that's not the model of a super app. A super app provides APIs that it forces it's sub apps to use, as opposed to building an app that unifies a given app's published APIs.

It's literally just a "platform" under a different name, meaning that it's a tech company trying to build a closed layer that they control that everything is forced through so that they can eventuallg put up a tollbooth and commit highway robbery.

It's what Apple tried to turn iOS into before the EU slapped the fuck out of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, it is a platform that provides a common set of APIs that allow different apps to be unified within a single UI. This has nothing to do with closed layers, it's not different from the APIs app devs have to use on Android or iOS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yes it absolutely is different.

    Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, et al provide you APIs for interacting with the operating system, for instance if I want to send a request over the network, I tell the operating system to send this request through the network card.

    But they do not dictate what I draw for my app on the screen, how I send messages between apps, or really anything at the application later. The OS APIs are there as an interface between the hardware and the application layer and that's it.

    Like I said, iOS tries to dips it's finger far into the application layer and make itself a platform to have more control, not let apps compete with Apple's apps, and so that they can charge you at every application interaction.

    It is a story as old as tech. We build a wonderful open internet based on open standards, so social media companies come in and built a closed network on top of that so that they can control everything. Operating systems have historically been designed by big nerds as relatively open platforms, so what happens? Apple comes along and tries to turn iOS into a closed platform and everyone else comes along and tries to build a closed OS platform (a 'super app'), on top of the existing open platforms.

    Super apps and their design is 100% about enriching the controlling company and nothing else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And I'm explaining to you that having a unified interface is a benefit from user perspective because now each app is basically a service behind a single consistent UI layer. Perhaps thinking of how a browser works might help you understand this. It's pretty clear you're just doing demagogy here instead of actually trying to understand the tradeoffs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    So you're saying that we already have super apps, they're called the internet, and that the entire concept of an OS level super app is unnecessary and a clear attempt at a company to exert control and extract more money from consumers?

    Like I said, we already have that unified interface, it's called an OS and a web browser. A super app is just a closed off version of that.

    Again, you're defending close platforms run by giant corporations to extra money from you.

    Elon isn't interested in super apps because he cares about the common person, he cares about them because he can build a platform to extract your money with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I've explained myself very clearly, but it's clear that you don't intend to engage with what I'm actually saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I am engaging with what you're saying, and I'm explaining why what you're saying is wrong.

    I'm literally a professional software developer who writes applications. I know the difference between a traditional set of OS apis like you see with Linux, the platformized nonsense iOS apis, the concept of applications using other applications to create a new unified experience using their own published APIs, and apps that publish APIs to try and be platforms.

    I have literally used and build software under all of those models and have very clearly engaged with this conversation, so maybe you should be doing some self reflection instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Except nowhere have you explained anything about me being wrong. You ignore the obvious and tangible UX benefits that come with a unified UI platform. Maybe once you get a bit more development experience under your belt you'll be able to understand what I'm trying to explain to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I've explained repeatedly why you

    a) don't need a super app to do that, you can build applications with interfaces that unify other applications in whatever way you want, as long as those applications have published APIs, and

    b) why we already have unified UI platforms (operating systems & web browsers)

    All you have done is blindly defend super apps, while ignoring the point that they are fundamentally closed platforms designed to extract money from consumers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And I've explained to you repeatedly that nobody cares about what you personally want. What's being discussed is what's a better UX, which is obviously having a single unified UI backed by APIs. I've also explained to you deficiencies in the current UI platforms, but you evidently are unable to grasp these problems.

    All you have done is blindly defend super apps, while ignoring the point that they are fundamentally closed platforms designed to extract money from consumers.

    Nope, but keep repeating that since you don't actually have a sound argument to make.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    And I've explained to you repeatedly that nobody cares about what you personally want. What's being discussed is what's a better UX, which is obviously having a single unified UI backed by APIs. I've also explained to you deficiencies in the current UI platforms, but you evidently are unable to grasp these problems.

    Bruh, you've explained jack shit beyond saying 'but it's obviously nicer when apps integrate with each other', and you haven't once approached explaining why a super app is the architecture necessary to achieve that when we used to have it all the time before walled gardens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Perhaps work on your reading comprehension if you have trouble understanding what's being said to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    LMFAO, such engagement, such explanation.

    You're really living up to the .ml domain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thank you for taking your valuable time away from sniffing glue to write this insightful comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Keep promoting one corporation having control over all application interactions. Such a glorious future we can all look forward to under the watchful gaze of the CCP / advertising companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Literally has nothing to do with anything I said. Gotta put more effort into your trolling kiddo. ๐Ÿคฃ

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Whoosh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 0 points 2 years ago

    Indeed, you're utterly unable to engage with what's being said and bleat about see see pee being the dimwit that you are. You can't even comprehend the fact that if apps were designed as API first then it could be done using open source model because you lack cognitive capacity to carry this discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're trying too hard man, after about 2 rounds it became obvious that China way =good, 'Murica way=bad and that's the bottom line.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    thank you for providing peak liberal analysis

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Quite welcome, I'm sure the great worker's uprising will come one day and we shall all be forced to use the glorious app known as WeChat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Incredible how somebody could have such low intellect to utterly lack the capacity to separate the architecture from a specific app. I guess some people just lack the cognitive capacity needed to generalize concepts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Lmao, rich coming from you after I already explained why the architecture is inherently, and fundamentally about controlling all interactions, not about seamless UX which can be achieved with other architectures.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 years ago

    Lmao, rich coming from you after I repeatedly explained to you that it's absolutely not the case. In fact, this architecture can be implemented within a UI toolkit provided by the OS. The apps have to use the toolkit API to make a GUI, and the toolkit can expose this API as JSON for anyone to interact with. Your utter lack of understanding of the subject you're attempting to debate is showing. Maybe once you get a bit of programming experience under your belt, then you'll be able to talk about these things in a meaningful fashion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent