Back in the day a large number of us likely had huge (exceptionally legally questionable) MP3 libraries that we managed. And while, yea having 100GB of music with just about everything was nice, it is also a major pain in the ass. So much so that Winamp pretty much died after streaming (long with legal issues in MP3s) took over the market.
Now, if the music market wasn't legally locked down, would there be better streaming apps? I believe so. So it appears we may be asking the wrong questions. Not why apps are getting slower, but why it seems the market has fewer competing apps at all levels.
> So it appears we may be asking the wrong questions. Not why apps are getting slower, but why it seems the market has fewer competing apps at all levels.
This is exactly the phenomenon I recently started describing on HN with the phrase "software is resisting commoditization". It's rare these days to see an app you could use for a while and then replace with an equivalent alternative.
I think SaaS is a big driver of this - by keeping important functionality (and user data) server-side, the user ends up being locked into your software. No need to rely on IP protections - there's just no way for them to pirate the bits running on your infrastructure. And even if someone reverse-engineered your APIs and built a better frontend, the users of that alternative would still be tied to your backend, and thus your service.
This means there's no business in making alternative frontends. Instead, it's better to start your own SaaS and go after a different market slice. Even seemingly equivalent products quickly drift apart, each optimizing strongly for slightly different audience. It's easier than to fight another company over their users directly.
A tailored set of features is a good "unique value proposition" for a while, but it may be too easy for someone to eventually replicate. Taking user data hostage is better, but users don't like it very much. The best UVPs seem to have nothing to do with software.
Spotify is a stellar example here: the real value they own isn't software or infrastructure, it's all the relationships and contracts they've established in the music industry. This moat is impervious to nearly all competition - unless you're insider on the music label side, or plugged into Softbank's infinite money hose, you're not going to replicate it. Spotify, in turn, doesn't have to give a shit about its music player anymore.
How to fix this? I'm not sure if it can be. We'd need to destroy the ability for businesses to prop their software with some unique propositions that can't be easily copied by competitors. I can't see it happening without a total overhaul of intellectual property and computer crime laws. Things like Data Portability section of GDPR help a little, but ultimately there's just too many ways to create those tiny moats that make applications non-substitutable.
I mean, kinda but not really.
Back in the day a large number of us likely had huge (exceptionally legally questionable) MP3 libraries that we managed. And while, yea having 100GB of music with just about everything was nice, it is also a major pain in the ass. So much so that Winamp pretty much died after streaming (long with legal issues in MP3s) took over the market.
Now, if the music market wasn't legally locked down, would there be better streaming apps? I believe so. So it appears we may be asking the wrong questions. Not why apps are getting slower, but why it seems the market has fewer competing apps at all levels.