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.

Whoosh.

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 / corporate America.

LMFAO, such engagement, such explanation.

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

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.

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.

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.

I have massive issues with IP law, but it is literally the only mechanism that actually gets those researchers paid and to have jobs so I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah man, that’s called an application.

MSN Messenger had an application, ICQ had an application, both had APIs though, so you then had third party apps that integrated and unified them.

Designing an app a certain way is not technology in any kind of protectable IP way and is NOT what people are talking about when they talk about China stealing tech.

No one cares that China released an app that looks like Facebook, Facebook regularly apes the design of all its rivals.

What people care about China stealing is stuff like a company’s internal research documents describing how to engineer high strength low, weight steel that took a team of PhD researchers in multiple high tech labs ten years and millions of dollars to research and develop. That is the kind of IP and technology that China steals that people care about, not a software UX that an intern can whip up in a week.

You’re literally just describing apps that have open APIs and can integrate with each other.

That used to be the norm here too. The problem is entirely one of capitalism encouraging anti-competitive walled gardens.

The joke still works fine, just replace PS2 with PS5 in your head.

https://theonion.com/broke-dad-makes-son-playstation-2-for-christmas-1819565860/

You’re literally describing the process of learning.

The difference is that Uber’s model of using an app to show you the route, give driver feedback, be able to report problems and monitor and track the driver, etc. is actually a huge improvement to both rider safety and experience compared to calling a cab company and then waiting who knows how long for someone to show up and hopefully bring you where you want to go.

Not saying that their model of gig workers, or dodging up front training is good, but they legitimately offered up a fundamentally better taxi experience than anything that came before, which I think encouraged regulators to really drag their feet on looking into them.

You’re talking about the people who lowered a car from a rocket crane onto the surface of another planet, you can be thoughtfully critical, but their technical record has earned them a lot more than surface level dismissal.

“This isn’t a meeting about the budget per se”

“This isn’t exactly a meeting about the budget”

If you finish those sentences, it becomes clear why per se is used:

“This isn’t a meeting about the budget per se, it’s a meeting about how much of the budget is spent on bits of string”

“This isn’t exactly a meeting about the budget, it’s a meeting about how much of the budget is spent on bits of string”

In this situation, using per se provides a more natural sentence flow because it links the first part of the sentence with the second. It’s also shorter and fewer syllables.

“Steve’s quite erudite.”

“Steve’s quite intellectual.”

I think intellectual might be a closer synonym, but intellectual often has more know-it-all connotations than erudite which seems to often refer to a more pure and cerebral quality.

“Tom and Jerry is a fun cartoon because of the juxtaposition of the relationship between cat and mouse.”

“Tom and Jerry is a fun cartoon because of the side by side oppositeness of the relationship between cat and mouse that is displayed”

For those to say precisely the same thing it would have to be more like the above which doesn’t really roll off the tongue.

“I don’t understand, can you elucidate that?”

“I don’t understand, can you explain?”

Elucidate just means to make something clear in general, explaining something usually inherently implies a linguistic, verbal, explanation, unless otherwise stated.

Honestly, these all seem like very reasonable words to me for the most part. I can understand not using them in some contexts, but for the most part, words exist for a reason, to describe something slightly differently, and it takes forever to talk and communicate if we only limit ourselves to the most basic unnuanced terms.