That might explain why it looks like all of the comments are about one or the other.
That might explain why it looks like all of the comments are about one or the other.
Fortunately, if you're not interested in the digital PS4 copy, you can purchase a DRM free download from their itch.io [1] which works on Windows, Mac, or Linux. Its a game that would run on a toaster, so not having a gaming computer isn't a barrier.
Think of iOS devices like gaming consoles with a GSM chip and you'll have a better analogy.
You can't install your own software on an Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through some hoops. Neither can you get any random piece of software in their stores without complying with their rules.
It's the exact same thing with iOS.
I do feel they're an interesting analogue; they sell hundreds of millions of units, the scale is there, but why do I, if no one else, hold them to a different standard than phones? At the end of the day, I do hold them to a different standard, even if I don't have a fully logical argument for why.
I'm satisfied enough with three reasons, though none represent a fully logical argument.
First, they have very limited scope. Every game console does one thing: play games. Some game consoles do a second thing: watch movies and tv. There are platform features to support those goals (parties, voice chat, friends, etc), but that's effectively it.
In comparison, phones have undefined potential scope. They're used for everything anyone could need computing for, usually only limited by the screen size, input systems, processing power, and in the iPhone's case, Apple's 2010s attitude about what your phone is for.
Second, that limited scope described above is wholly "non-critical infrastructure". I love gaming; definitely more than most people. I have a Series X and a PS5 sitting next to my TV, while I'm typing this on a PC with a RTX 2070. Gaming can lead to some very powerful, life-changing moments for some people, and its been a godsend during this pandemic for many. But, its still Just Gaming.
I would define both Communication and News, among others, as computing scopes which are critical infrastructure; these are both things people use their phones for, and they're both scopes which Apple has a demonstrated history of assaulting on the iPhone.
Third, there's very little conversation from actual stakeholders concerning game consoles changing. I try to keep apprised with the games industry, and by extension how game developers feel about the major platforms; the discussion about Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo opening their platforms simply isn't happening. While they do have final control over what is allowed to be played on each console, even with the physical disc market, there's very few incidents of them abusing that control to restrict distribution of a game that desired distribution on each console. There certainly are games which haven't even attempted approval and would be shut down (steam has many anime porn games like this), but the problem certainly isn't as severe as on iOS (due to the limited scope, combined with specialized development skillset, combined with individual investment necessary to get a game working on each platform, I imagine).
There's a second argument, the Fortnite one, that secondary marketplaces aren't just necessary for freedom of speech, but also for revenue. All of these companies force games to use their IAP frameworks, which I'm sure takes something around 30%. Its definitely strange to me that Epic railed against Apple for the same policies they accept freely on Xbox, PS4, and Switch, and I have a less cogent explanation for this; either (1) they should be fine paying that tax to gain access to the platform, or (2) they shouldn't be, and thus should take issue with every platform exerting that control. Unfortunately, the reality is probably (3) Sony owns 2% of Epic, Epic cuts special deals with every platform, and those deals have kept them happy for now, despite not applying to the majority of game developers, and Apple is actually in the right on this specific issue in never giving special deals.
Its important to remember that the way Apple and Google treat game developers is, frankly, garbage. That previous statement I made about Apple never giving special deals actually isn't true: Amazon uses their own IAP framework for digital purchases on Kindle and Prime Video. Fortnite is definitely the same scale as these use cases, but they couldn't negotiate a special deal. Google allows applications to use whatever IAP framework they want (IIRC), but not Games; Games have to use Google's 30% tax IAP framework. Due to these policies, Google and Apple are both Top 5 "Gaming Companies" by revenue, despite not producing a single game. By comparison, real gaming platform holders (Sony, MS, Nintendo) negotiate all the time, and find middleground that keeps developers happy.
This conversation is, of course, happening every day with iOS. Nearly every app developer has a story about how Apple has slighted them. Most experience a weird review and recover from it. Some don't. Many have similar stories concerning Google and the Play Store, but its a far less interesting narrative because there are alternatives for Android users and developers. In fact, the best selling Android devices come with an alternative store pre-installed (Galaxy), all of the first-party apps on Samsung phones are distributed and updated through there (in other words, its users use it), and you can go download Fortnite there right now.
So, its not the "exact same". Its similar enough to where I keep an open mind, and I'm ready to join the cerebral fight for mindshare if the need for openness in consoles should occur, but I don't feel we're there yet. The first thing I'd need to see is actual game developers rally against a platform; maybe that isn't happening due to fear of retribution, but I think even considering that we'd be hearing anonymous rumblings, and I'm not even hearing that.
Americans drop a loser like a brick. Taking Parler off the app stores seriously de-legitimizes their cause and their celebrity. If you read Apple's language [1] its very clear Apple believes Parler is operating in extremely bad faith, that they either lack the ability to moderate or are only doing so as a temporary token gesture. This means Parler's user demographic will become more and more full of fringe radical elements that scare off the silent majority less radical crowd.
[1]: "Your response also references a moderation plan “for the time being,” which does not meet the ongoing requirements in Guideline 1.2 – Safety – User Generated content"
Apple should have the right to control what they distribute through their app store; this is undeniable in my mind. A reasonable, though not as obviously sound, argument could be made that at some level of scope and scale its alright to sell general purpose hardware limited to one operating system which delegates control over executable code to the manufacturer. I believe its also clear that Apple is far past any values of scope and scale where this is reasonable for them, specifically.
No one in these comments is talking about Google. Same thing happened with Fortnite; the conversation is all about Apple. This is a signal that the issue here really isn't their decision to allow or ban specific apps; its the core platform decision to allow or ban application distribution channels.
Not that I don’t trust MS’s recent design direction, but I have to wonder if such a major overhaul is warranted.
Of course not. You simply re-design every few years.
The re-design will be supported by evidence like "its cleaner" and "it increases visual clarity" or "it unifies our brand", because phrases like that mean nothing but who would ever vote against cleaning something up?
They do have a threading model now (if you are talking about replying to a message in a channel and having your reply clearly show what you are responding to). If you are talking about 1-on-1 chats with other people in your same server then yes, that is still lacking IMHO in discord. The whole "you have to be friends" to start a chat (or maybe that's just for a on-the-fly group) is annoying.
Keep in mind you're comparing daily active users vs monthly active users. I'd guess most slack users are online weekday for pretty much the entire day (because it's for work and your boss expects you to be online), whereas a good chunk of discord users are only logging in a few hours a week when they're gaming.
Minecraft official server: 190k online users. | Fortnite official server: 180k online users. | Valorant official server: 170k online users. | Jet's Dream World (community): 130k online users. | CallMeCarson server (YouTuber): 100k online users. | Call of Duty official server: 90k online users. | Rust (the game) official discord: 80k online users. | League of Legends official server: 60k online users. | Among Us official server: 50k online users.
Their scale is insane. Even with their usage spiking during after-hours gaming in major countries, their baseline usage at every hour of the day, globally, makes it one of the most used web services ever created.
Slack's DAU and MAU numbers are probably pretty close to one-another. Discord's MAU/DAU ratio is probably bigger than Slack's. That just means that Discord is, again, solving a harder problem; they have much bigger (and more unpredictable) spikes in usage than Slack. Yet, its a far more stable and pleasant product.
The really impressive thing about Discord's scale is the size of their subscriber pools in the pub-sub model. Discord is slightly different than Slack in the sense that every User on a Server receives every message from every Channel; you don't opt-in to Channels as in Slack, and you can't opt-out (though some channels can be restricted to only certain roles within the Server, this is the minority of Channels).
Some of the largest Discord servers have over 1 million ONLINE users actively receiving messages; this is mostly the official servers for major games, like Fortnite, Minecraft, and League of Legends.
In other words, while the MAU/DAU counts may be within the same order of magnitude, Discord's DAUs are more centralized into larger servers, and also tend to be members of more servers than an average Slack DAU. Its a far harder problem.
The chat rooms are oftentimes unusable, but most of these users only lurk. Nonetheless, think about that scale for a second; when a user sends a message, it is delivered (very quickly!) to a million people. That's insane. Then combine that with insanely good, low latency audio, and best-in-class stability; Discord is a very impressive product, possibly one of the most impressive, and does not get nearly enough credit for what they've accomplished.
For comparison; a "Team" in Microsoft Teams (roughly equivalent to a Discord Server or Slack Workspace) is still limited to 5,000 people.
IME messages just fail to send with Slack, then you can retry but they're not properly idempotent and you end up sending the messages twice.
It's really poor.
* iMessage, which likely handles something in the range of 750M-1B monthly actives.
* WhatsApp, 2B users [1], though no clarity on "active" users.
* Telegram, 400M monthly actives [2]
* Discord, 100M monthly actives [3]
* Slack, 12M daily actives [4]
* Teams, which is certainly more popular than Slack, but I shudder to list it because its stability may actually be worse.
The old piece of wisdom that "real-time chat is hard" is something I've always taken at face-value as being true, because it is hard, but some of the most stable, highest scale services I've ever interfaced with are chat services. iMessage NEVER goes down. I have to conclude that Slack's unacceptable instability, even relative to more static services like Jira, is less the product of the difficulty of their product domain, and moreso something far deeper and more unfixable.
I would not assume that this will improve after they are fully integrated with Salesforce. If your company is on Slack, its time to investigate an alternative, and I'm fearful of the fact that there are very few strong ones in the enterprise world.
[1] https://blog.whatsapp.com/two-billion-users-connecting-the-w...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/24/telegram-hits-400-million-...
[3] https://wersm.com/discord-reaches-100m-monthly-active-users-...
[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/slack-says-it-crossed-12-mil... (this was also announced on Slack's blog, but that's down).
The idea that the internet is just a "town square" except "everyone on the planet" simply does not work. Period. Human behavior was never designed to scale like that; we can't handle the discourse, we can't handle using that power responsibly, or internalizing what we read responsibly.
Many are afraid of a rogue AI taking over the world. The internet, and social media specifically, is that AI. Every human is a neuron, programmable by exploiting flaws in human evolution, or even self-programmable by living in feedback bubbles where their own fears and doubts are amplified. Every human is an actor; capable of traumatic harm by executing on that programming and, say, storming the capital.
Even my fears about this reality we live in are a byproduct of the programming I've received via the sites I visit, and the feedback bubbles I decide to live in online.
I cannot believe that my programming, and the programming many of the people in this Hacker News bubble receive every day, is any more or less dangerous to the fabric of society than the programming the people on Parler received. I'm angry at what transpired in the Capital and on Parler. I'm angry at AWS, Google, and Apple for reacting the way they did. I'm scared that something like that could happen to the products I'm working on, even though that's crazy because I work on dumb data entry and not social media for revolutionists. My fear and anger comes from reactions to actions taken by other people who were scared and mad; their fear and anger came from reactions to actions taken by the left, from the right, from the left, from the right, this is the feedback bubble; not between revolutionists on Parler, but between Us and Them. Because, it is Us and Them; it shouldn't be, but it always has been. The comments I've seen here over the past few days just confirm this; Parler gets shut down then hacked, by-and-large we applaud it.
I think about the idea of the Great Filter, and I wonder if what we're seeing here is the most likely filter for civilization. What happens when you give a billion products of survival-focused evolution the ability to talk to each other, with no limits, filters, or self-control? What happens to society? I want to believe that, if a Filter exists, its at least something outside our control like a virus, or its something we did to ourselves like global warming. But, maybe its actually just Us. Maybe products of evolution can never work together well enough to reach any stage of science-fiction like enlightenment.
I no longer believe there's any course a company or government could take to stop this. Its happening too fast, and by the time anyone in power realizes how much damage this has done, and is doing, to our society, it will be too late. At the very least, we need to shut down Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News, and every other platform which allows peer-to-peer broadcast-like communication between everyone on the planet. Even the act of me posting this and you reading it is part of the problem. But, that won't happen in the west.
I suppose the only course of action I can take is to remove myself from the equation. If everyone did that, then the world would be a better place. Not everyone will, but its the only step I'm capable of. I guess, to some degree, it was fun while it lasted.