| |
| ▲ | Sharlin 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It just doesn’t seem to make any business sense to turn an app into an API invisible to the user. A visible, established brand is a "moat" as they say. Without user-facing brandable software you’re basically nothing. Only techies are interested or even understand the
concept of a service that only exists as an API. I also think you’re way overestimating (based on one datapoint?) the number of people who want to use their devices from within an LLM chat app, even if at some point they should become aware of the idea. | | |
| ▲ | booty 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | overestimating (based on one datapoint?) the number of
people who want to use their devices from within an LLM
chat app,
I don't know about that. "Apps" were a step forward in many ways, but when spending time with older and/or non-technical users they are pretty overwhelmed by the sheer number of apps.I think they would really like to have one unified, plain-language interface. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you. That might be why people only use a few apps even if they download 100. It's just really hard to learn the user interface of every single app. Nice username btw. | | |
| ▲ | booty 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Non-technical users also get REALLY confused/upset about routine app updates that change the UX in any way whatsoever. They learn these apps differently than "we" do. They (again, particularly older users who didn't grow up with GUIs) don't understand GUI paradigms, so they compensate by memorizing... even a small change to their memorized flow is highly disruptive because they cannot reason about how to get back onto the happy path. (It's like the old, pre-GPS-navigation days when you went on a road trip with a stack of printed out directions from MapQuest. It was great, until you missed a turn and had no idea how to get back on track...) Ideally, yeah, non-technical users could just invest a little time learning common UX paradigms. But a lot of people just won't. And really, GUIs were just a means to an end anyway. Maybe we just need to meet them where they're at with a more unified, naturalistic interface. The word "maybe" is of course doing a lot of work. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aurareturn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If there is a demand for it, people will invent businesses to fill that demand even if a pre-AI company like Spotify is resistant to the change. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > If there is a demand for it, people will invent businesses to fill that demand even if a pre-AI company like Spotify is resistant to the change. Only if structurally it makes sense. There's demand for many many things on this planet without a business model that would satisfy that demand. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn a day ago | parent [-] | | The world is moving towards this whether legacy businesses want to or not. I'm sure the internet was bad for Yellow Pages' phone book business and Yelp ate their lunch regardless. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | booty 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tangent about music recommendations specifically, not the overall discussion... I've played around a lot with using my own AI to generate music recommendations and build playlists. > I don't want to use Spotify's AI. I want to use my own AI, who knows me more It's pretty tough to beat what Spotify (or Apple, or whatever your platform is) knows about you w.r.t. listening habits and preferences. My successful experiments have involved exporting Spotify / Apple Music data into sqlite and a skill that tells my agent how to query this data. It works pretty well! Still, I'd say it's only roughly on parity with the AI stuff Spotify is working on. The main benefit to rolling my own is being sure (at least, for now) that the recommendations aren't being corrupted by sponsored placement which I'm sure is Spotify's end goal. I have no real point to this point, just blabbering. Have you cooked up any good solutions via rolling your own? | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You may not want to, but the company wants you to use their AI. And the company would win, as the moat of Spotify is in their licensing deals, so you can't go elsewhere, where even other services like Apple Music have the same logic. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I personally think the Spotify would not win this fight. The better user experience will win. If Spotify won't do it, then maybe Apple Music might. Youtube Music might. Tidal might. Deezer might. Or a new service might. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I doubt it, look at Amazon which denied access to other chatbots and subsequently their Alexa for Shopping app shot up in downloads. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn a day ago | parent [-] | | They allow Alexa to shop on Amazon so clearly there is some demand for AI agents to shop. It all depends on market share. If Amazon thinks they'll make more money letting ChatGPT/Grok/Gemini/Muse to shop, they will. I think they will personally. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem a day ago | parent [-] | | The point is every company as I mentioned before will have their own AI agent as it's not worth it for them to relinquish control to an AI company because said company can easily float competitors such as telling the user there are better deals on Temu for example. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | illiac786 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “My own AI” will be Apple Intelligence or Gemini for 99% of users. You will be the exception. |
|
