The term for that is Sherlocking, referencing a 3rd party tool they 'integrated' in either OS 8 or OS 9 (sorry, don't remember exactly).

I'd argue the f.lux case is a bit different.

Either way, haven't big retailers (Walmart, BestBuy, etc.) always done this?

For anyone curious: The third-party tool was Karelia's Watson, which was a tool that let you search websites, with the ability to add support for new websites through plug-ins. In OS X 10.2, Apple added the same functionality to their "find file" tool Sherlock (and IMO made the program worse than either Sherlock or Watson were on their own).

They have also done this with Spotlight, taking over functionality of app launchers / utilities like Quicksilver and Alfred.

Funnily enough, Apple also got into competition with Karelia's next product, Sandvox, when they released iWeb. That didn't seem to kill Sandvox the way Sherlock did Watson, though.

To be fair... iWeb was pretty bad. I tried to use it. Nope.

Oh, I thought it was earlier than that. I also couldn't remember if Sherlock was the Apple tool or the 3rd party one.

I didn't come back to the Mac until a hair before 10.4, so I don't have first hand experience.

We expect products to get better and people to learn from public ideas. For customer's it's a good thing.

But this really does burn developers of those original products who were originally brand partners.

I don't think Apple "owes" them anything, but I think they would help themselves by treating it as if they did. Especially where it's obvious that the OS-bundled app will win simply by virtue of being bundled. It's probably a legal issue where if they gave someone anything they'd open the door to being sued for a fortune, but it's horrible PR towards their developers.

In the long run this isn't good for customers because it de-incentivises innovation. Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me?

It de-incentivises innovation that isn't worthy of a patent. Patents (ostensibly, in their original intent) exist in part to allow innovators to know that a competitor can't just go off and clone what they did, but has to license from them or counter-innovate a novel alternative.

In practice this won't stop all possible competitors, specifically those that flaunt patent law, but I don't think Amazon is one of those. Amazon could likely buy a license to the innovation from the patent holder for less than dealing with the courts would cost, in which case the patent system would be working as intended.

Amazon can undercut you whether you sell on their website or not. So can any other major corporation if your product catches their eye. Lastly this particular product was on Amazon for a decade (per article) before Amazon choose to complete. And the answer to your question is develop something you can patent or can compete in other ways that scale and price.

If you sell on Amazon's site, then they know your sales numbers. This is a specific advantage of their position as a distributor.

I run a little side-business, making a hardware gadget. My sales volume data is a sort of first-mover advantage. To compete with me, you have to risk guessing wrong about how many potential customers are out there.

> Why should I develop a new product when amazon can make a ripoff and use their scale to undercut me?

This is what patents are supposed to be used for. You create a truly innovative idea and receive a patent for it. Then some large manufacturer, that has the scale to produce your product far more efficiently than you ever could individually, contacts you asking to license your idea. Together you work out a fair price for the rights, you get money for your invention, they get profit, you both leave happy, and the customer gets the best of both worlds.

The damage would be that fewer people bother developing software for their platform.

Seems very hard to measure. So it's safe to speculate!