[jtth]

I don't get how a pro photo app is supposed to be mobile-only and subscription-gated. One of the greatest things about flickr is that I can embed it almost anywhere, even hotlinking on my blog or on forums, and anyone, anywhere can see it on any device. (And if I pay, they can see a 6k version, served on the web, not through a download link.) I am really, really into photography but I do not have any interest in viewing image galleries on my phone when I have a 27" iMac 5k and Flickr shows me over a decade of photos collected from every type of photography enthusiast.

[mkr-hn]

I used a few Flickr embeds on my site and it reminded me of all the promise of composability and interoperability in the early web. I miss it.

[Abishek_Muthian]

> promise of composability and interoperability in the early web. I miss it.

Then avoiding embeds altogether and choosing hyperlinks is the way to go. Came to this realization after having to remove embeds from what was a cool platform to begin with and later turning out to be soul sucking privacy nightmare.

[mkr-hn]

Why would I do that? Flickr embeds still work fine after almost 20 years and did even when Yahoo owned it. They're now owned by a company that sells real, actual things in service to paying customers and has for a long time (older than Flickr), so I don't see any reason they would go the route most widget/embeds did and pile trackers in.

Incentives are the key. AdTech took over most things, but this is a rare oasis of that lost web.

[Abishek_Muthian]

My comment was neither specific to Flickr nor whether embeds technically work but on the issue of privacy, security and performance of a website especially since the notion of 'early web' was invoked.

[mkr-hn]

Suggesting someone stop doing what they're doing without regard for need or circumstance is rarely going to be helpful advice.

[efraim]

Not mobile-only, iphone-only. This is a good example of how ios is a seperate market and Apple has the monopoly.

[pedalpete]

It's wise to launch on only one platform to start, focus on there, learn, and then launch on alternative platforms. Particularly if you're developing everything native.

Are there any non-Apple created apps with large user base that are truly iOS only? There probably are, but as an android user, I don't know.

[kitsunesoba]

> It's wise to launch on only one platform to start, focus on there, learn, and then launch on alternative platforms. Particularly if you're developing everything native.

Particularly when the app in question is more technically demanding and has greater need to use platform facilities.

If it's a bog standard CRUD app, that might be reasonable to take multiplatform on launch day, but on the other hand something like touch friendly version of Final Cut Pro would be much more challenging to have both iOS and Android versions of right out of the gate.

[Jcowell]

Still mobile only. The PS4 Spiderman game is Console only even if it’s a PS4 exclusive.

[jdavis703]

Android has a larger user base, and it's not like Apple bribes developers to be iOS-only. I'm curious what kind of regulations are needed here. Is the idea that developers should be forced to launch on at least two mobile platforms? If so, that would kind of suck for hobbyist and independent developers who may not have the skills to launch on Android.

[makeitdouble]

You don't need to bribe devs if you can wall in the customers.

Regulation should be more on punishing lock-in past a threshold of customer harm. Basically forcing the opening of iMessage to other platforms and perhaps portability for iTunes content?

[Bilal_io]

It'll be people voting with their money/download. As an example, I will not be using Clubhouse when it launches on Android, they had a long time to launch and took their sweet time.

[dreyfan]

> I will not be using Clubhouse

Nobody uses Clubhouse on any platform. Being forced to listen to long-form narrations of bullshit LinkedIn wall posts is an excruciating form of torture.

[ddoolin]

Regulations on whom? If I don't want to make an Android app, I won't. Last I checked, Apple's App Store brings in more money with a smaller user base (unsure if this still holds). Maybe Android could try making the experience better or more lucrative for developers?

[drusepth]

This seems like a good example of how some devs treat ios like a separate market and lose out on a significant portion of the potential user pie.

[ZephyrBlu]

iOS users are likely to be much higher value than Android users.

[tinus_hn]

Perhaps they have a reason to make that decision when it’s their money on the line, like ‘that’s where the people that actually spend money are’.

If you want to vote with your feet, buy apps on your platform and spend money through it.

[Razengan]

Holy heck will you people give that shit a rest.

The PlayStation is a separate market and Sony has the mOnOpOlY.

The Switch is a separate market and Nintendo has the MoNoPoLy.

The Xbox is a separate market and Micro$oft has the m0n0p01y.

[tinus_hn]

Walmart is a separate market and Walmart has the MoNoPoLy!

[AnotherGoodName]

The very second photo on the above link is an example of a shared photo on the glass.photo website?

I think the app is required to manage your collection but it appears you can absolutely share links publicly.

Eg. https://glass.photo/om/3lyGawR7MzJx2M46BMqpsV

^That worked fine?

[ghego1]

And their web sharing link works also without JS, which is quite uncommon for image sharing sites and a very nice find!

[clusterfish]

Maybe the actual target audience is people who think they're pros when they aren't? Sounds about right for both photographers and consumer electronics enthusiasts.