Apple’s $1T Milestone Reflects Rise of Powerful Megacompanies(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Apple’s $1T Milestone Reflects Rise of Powerful Megacompanies
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/apple-trillion.html
175 comments
Apple are engaged in collecting and holding data, they hold personal files, emails, photos, calendars, location data etc. There is a financial incentive for them to make it difficult for people to move away. Apple have also led the trend for 1000+ dollar disposable electronics, with glued and soldered components that cannot be easily repaired or upgraded.
Personal files - install iCloud Drive on your computer and copy the files. You don't even have to do that. You can log on to iCloud.com and download your files.
Emails, Calendars - they use standard protocols. You can use any email client to get the data off
Photos - you just plug your phone into your computer and copy the files.
Disposable electronics - seeing that Apple is releasing iOS 12 for the iPhone 5s released in 2012, how do you figure? How many Android phones from 2015 let alone 2012 are still getting updates? Sure the phone is easy to repair - I just take it to the Apple Store.
Emails, Calendars - they use standard protocols. You can use any email client to get the data off
Photos - you just plug your phone into your computer and copy the files.
Disposable electronics - seeing that Apple is releasing iOS 12 for the iPhone 5s released in 2012, how do you figure? How many Android phones from 2015 let alone 2012 are still getting updates? Sure the phone is easy to repair - I just take it to the Apple Store.
> seeing that Apple is releasing iOS 12 for the iPhone 5s released in 2012, how do you figure?
That's a false comparison.
A disposable device is one where the preferred method of service is replacement rather than repair. And probably where replaced parts are discarded or recycled rather than refurbished.
It has nothing to do with support of the hardware or software.
It's evident that the new versions of iOS are not optimized or very well supported on older hardware. You could argue that Apple's support of OS upgrades on older devices is primarily to avoid having to support old versions of the OS.
That's a false comparison.
A disposable device is one where the preferred method of service is replacement rather than repair. And probably where replaced parts are discarded or recycled rather than refurbished.
It has nothing to do with support of the hardware or software.
It's evident that the new versions of iOS are not optimized or very well supported on older hardware. You could argue that Apple's support of OS upgrades on older devices is primarily to avoid having to support old versions of the OS.
This argument is a red herring. People like new things. People like things that work all the time without modification. Almost no one actually wants a phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires maintenance.
The disposable / non disposable distinction doesn’t really make sense. On a long enough time horizon, everything is disposable. And it’s not like you can’t replace anything on an iPhone or Mac - you can replace things like screens, storage, memory, keyboards and so on.
The disposable / non disposable distinction doesn’t really make sense. On a long enough time horizon, everything is disposable. And it’s not like you can’t replace anything on an iPhone or Mac - you can replace things like screens, storage, memory, keyboards and so on.
> This argument is a red herring. People like new things. People like things that work all the time without modification.
Apple and others have convinced people that they need to upgrade to the latest and greatest device each year. Because if they don't then it negatively impacts Apple's revenue and stock price.
> Almost no one actually wants a phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires maintenance.
That's a false dichotomy, you're assuming that in order for a computer to have a modular or maintenance friendly design, that it has to be big and bulky. Lenovo doesn't seem to have any problems producing laptops with similar dimensions to Apple's that are almost entirely modular.
> The disposable / non disposable distinction doesn’t really make sense. On a long enough time horizon, everything is disposable.
That same logic can be used to invalidate pretty much everything. The distinct makes perfect sense when framed within the usable life of the device. I have a 3rd generation iPod Touch going on a decade old that still works, are you saying I should just throw it away because it's more than a year old?
> you can replace things like screens, storage, memory, keyboards and so on.
Putting aside the fact that Apple doesn't permit most of those upgrades and that they don't actually sell most of those parts.
On which devices specifically can you upgrade storage, memory and keyboards?
On all iOS devices since ever, and on all the MacBooks since 2016 the storage and memory are soldered directly to the motherboard. They are non user serviceable parts.
The keyboards on all Macbooks with butteryfly keys are riveted to the aluminum unibody so a keyboard replacement is literally replacing half the machine.
On the Mac Pro they keyboard and mouse are the only things you can upgrade.
Apple and others have convinced people that they need to upgrade to the latest and greatest device each year. Because if they don't then it negatively impacts Apple's revenue and stock price.
> Almost no one actually wants a phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires maintenance.
That's a false dichotomy, you're assuming that in order for a computer to have a modular or maintenance friendly design, that it has to be big and bulky. Lenovo doesn't seem to have any problems producing laptops with similar dimensions to Apple's that are almost entirely modular.
> The disposable / non disposable distinction doesn’t really make sense. On a long enough time horizon, everything is disposable.
That same logic can be used to invalidate pretty much everything. The distinct makes perfect sense when framed within the usable life of the device. I have a 3rd generation iPod Touch going on a decade old that still works, are you saying I should just throw it away because it's more than a year old?
> you can replace things like screens, storage, memory, keyboards and so on.
Putting aside the fact that Apple doesn't permit most of those upgrades and that they don't actually sell most of those parts.
On which devices specifically can you upgrade storage, memory and keyboards?
On all iOS devices since ever, and on all the MacBooks since 2016 the storage and memory are soldered directly to the motherboard. They are non user serviceable parts.
The keyboards on all Macbooks with butteryfly keys are riveted to the aluminum unibody so a keyboard replacement is literally replacing half the machine.
On the Mac Pro they keyboard and mouse are the only things you can upgrade.
Apple and others have convinced people that they need to upgrade to the latest and greatest device each year. Because if they don't then it negatively impacts Apple's revenue and stock price.
So Apple “convinces” people that they need the latest products because they introduce better products every year? Even though they also are releases the latest OS for all iPhones back to 2012?
I know for a fact that any device that can at least run iOS 5 - devices back to 2010 can still download older versions of apps directly from the App Store. If your device isn’t compatible with the newest version, you are given the option to download “the last compatible version”.
So Apple “convinces” people that they need the latest products because they introduce better products every year? Even though they also are releases the latest OS for all iPhones back to 2012?
I know for a fact that any device that can at least run iOS 5 - devices back to 2010 can still download older versions of apps directly from the App Store. If your device isn’t compatible with the newest version, you are given the option to download “the last compatible version”.
On which devices specifically can you upgrade storage, memory and keyboards?
memory -- 27" iMacs storage -- seeing that Thunderbolt is more than fast enough to handle external memory, all Macs. keyboards -- Mac Mini, iMac, MacPro.
What laptops allow you to update keyboards?
memory -- 27" iMacs storage -- seeing that Thunderbolt is more than fast enough to handle external memory, all Macs. keyboards -- Mac Mini, iMac, MacPro.
What laptops allow you to update keyboards?
> What laptops allow you to update keyboards?
ThinkPads, for example.
ThinkPads, for example.
> This argument is a red herring. People like new things. People like things that work all the time without modification. Almost no one actually wants a phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires maintenance.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like throwing $1000 once a year to have latest and greatest. I did went through several phones but that's only because they became unusable with time as applications required more and more resources.
We eventually got phones that are powerful enough to last for longer and even the mid range phones are no longer crappy.
This is why the revenue of companies producing phones dropped recently. Most people don't want to change their device that often.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like throwing $1000 once a year to have latest and greatest. I did went through several phones but that's only because they became unusable with time as applications required more and more resources.
We eventually got phones that are powerful enough to last for longer and even the mid range phones are no longer crappy.
This is why the revenue of companies producing phones dropped recently. Most people don't want to change their device that often.
I used an iPhone 5S until iPhone 8 came out last year. I'm still using a MacBook Air from mid 2012. Do the amortized cost math and it comes out to be way cheaper than the internet & mobile data costs for those devices.
This is why the revenue of companies producing phones dropped recently. Most people don't want to change their device that often.
The revenue of phone companies (except for Apple) haven't been great since Android became popular. There is no differentiation except for price and all of the other manufacturers are in a race to the bottom -- it happens in all commoditized markets -- PC's, TVs, etc.
The revenue of phone companies (except for Apple) haven't been great since Android became popular. There is no differentiation except for price and all of the other manufacturers are in a race to the bottom -- it happens in all commoditized markets -- PC's, TVs, etc.
Unless you just throw your "old" iPhone away when getting new one you can easily get back a substantial part of that $1000.
Apple offers repair programs back to the 4s
https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service/pricing
https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service/pricing
Correction -- the 3G (circa 2008)
Have you actually tried using an alternative email client with iCloud mail? You might get lucky, but for sure it is only tested with Apple Mail as a client. They might claim standard protocol adherence, but are they actually testing for it? Likewise, your assessment of how easy it is to get ones photos exported with metadata intact is not true in practice.
Android phones are indeed as bad or worse than Apple with regard to lifespan, but this was a trend that Apple started. A Nokia 3310 purchased in 2000 would still work fine today. Apple would even like to see something as simple and universal as a headphone jack disappear in order to regularly sell new headphones (!)
Android phones are indeed as bad or worse than Apple with regard to lifespan, but this was a trend that Apple started. A Nokia 3310 purchased in 2000 would still work fine today. Apple would even like to see something as simple and universal as a headphone jack disappear in order to regularly sell new headphones (!)
How hard is it to plug a phone up to your computer and drag files from it?
A Nokia 3310 would be a 2G GSM phone. Both GSM carriers in the US have turned off 2G support.
If you wanted, there is nothing stopping you from using an iPhone 3G released in 2008. In fact, I have a first gen iPad. You can still download older versions of Netflix, Hulu, Spotify etc and they still work.
Seeing that you can still buy standard Bluetooth headphones from anywhere and an adapter comes in the box. There is nothing stopping you from using third party headphones.
A Nokia 3310 would be a 2G GSM phone. Both GSM carriers in the US have turned off 2G support.
If you wanted, there is nothing stopping you from using an iPhone 3G released in 2008. In fact, I have a first gen iPad. You can still download older versions of Netflix, Hulu, Spotify etc and they still work.
Seeing that you can still buy standard Bluetooth headphones from anywhere and an adapter comes in the box. There is nothing stopping you from using third party headphones.
> How hard is it to plug a phone up to your computer and drag files from it?
The internal filesystem layout used by photos is not intended to be manually browsed, it is non-trivial and undocumented. I might be able to recover the original jpg files, but any metadata such as organisation structure, tags, albums is locked up in proprietary closed formats. They offer an export function which gets you the jpgs, but not much else.
> there is nothing stopping you from using an iPhone 3G released in 2008
Security for one. Apple and Google have both built an extremely complex phone OS that needs constant patching to even remain "reasonably secure".
> you can still buy standard Bluetooth headphones
My concern is longevity, simplicity and sound quality. I would not want to use bluetooth.
The internal filesystem layout used by photos is not intended to be manually browsed, it is non-trivial and undocumented. I might be able to recover the original jpg files, but any metadata such as organisation structure, tags, albums is locked up in proprietary closed formats. They offer an export function which gets you the jpgs, but not much else.
> there is nothing stopping you from using an iPhone 3G released in 2008
Security for one. Apple and Google have both built an extremely complex phone OS that needs constant patching to even remain "reasonably secure".
> you can still buy standard Bluetooth headphones
My concern is longevity, simplicity and sound quality. I would not want to use bluetooth.
The iPhone doesn’t expose the entire file system to Windows. It exposes a simple folder with just the JPEGs.
What “tags”? The photos app doesn’t support tagging.
Exactly what exploits do you expect to have on an iPhone 3G? Keyloggers? Viruses? Data exfiltration apps?
What “tags”? The photos app doesn’t support tagging.
Exactly what exploits do you expect to have on an iPhone 3G? Keyloggers? Viruses? Data exfiltration apps?
I was talking about the OSX "photos app" - an iPhone typically won't have enough storage to hold all photos at once, so doesn't seem like the best way to transfer photos away from iCloud.
An exploit means that someone can remotely gain permanent control over your iPhone, including the ability to record conversations and/or initiate activity on your behalf. iOS exploits have been possible via SMS/MMS and WiFi, so even turning off Web and Email won't make it secure.
An exploit means that someone can remotely gain permanent control over your iPhone, including the ability to record conversations and/or initiate activity on your behalf. iOS exploits have been possible via SMS/MMS and WiFi, so even turning off Web and Email won't make it secure.
This is true. All photos in Photos library are stored essentially in a zip(?) file that you cannot browser via finder or shell.
This is a major inconvenience for me since my photo library is spread around multiple SSDs and NAS. In Lightroom, I just tell it where different photos are.
In Photos App, if you want your photos to sync to iCloud, you need to copy them. This increases size of your Photos Library file. You can choose to Optimize storage but then you have one point of failure (iCloud).
Right now, I use rsync to backup my photos to onsite NAS. And then I use Google Drive and iCloud for offsite backup. Google Drive works with photos where ever they are, SSD, NAS, etc. But iDrive needs all photos in Photos app to sync.
BTW iDrive and Google Drive are not true backup solutions, so be careful if that is your only “backup” solution.
This is a major inconvenience for me since my photo library is spread around multiple SSDs and NAS. In Lightroom, I just tell it where different photos are.
In Photos App, if you want your photos to sync to iCloud, you need to copy them. This increases size of your Photos Library file. You can choose to Optimize storage but then you have one point of failure (iCloud).
Right now, I use rsync to backup my photos to onsite NAS. And then I use Google Drive and iCloud for offsite backup. Google Drive works with photos where ever they are, SSD, NAS, etc. But iDrive needs all photos in Photos app to sync.
BTW iDrive and Google Drive are not true backup solutions, so be careful if that is your only “backup” solution.
> zip
Last time I checked, it was a bundle, which is just a folder, and you can browse it easily by right clicking and picking Show Package Contents. Both originals and modified images are readily available, and Photos stores some metadata (even tags) straight in the EXIF part.
Last time I checked, it was a bundle, which is just a folder, and you can browse it easily by right clicking and picking Show Package Contents. Both originals and modified images are readily available, and Photos stores some metadata (even tags) straight in the EXIF part.
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s been awhile since I tried to setup rsync with Photos library file.
And you know of documented unpatched exploits for iOS 4 - the last version of iOS that works with the 3G?
I was talking about the OSX "photos app" - an iPhone typically won't have enough storage to hold all photos at once, so doesn't seem like the best way to transfer photos away from iCloud.
What does the iPhone not having space to store all of your photos have to do with using iCloud?
I was talking about the OSX "photos app" - an iPhone typically won't have enough storage to hold all photos at once, so doesn't seem like the best way to transfer photos away from iCloud.
What does the iPhone not having space to store all of your photos have to do with using iCloud?
> What does the iPhone not having space to store all of your photos have to do with using iCloud?
Because iCloud is a big part of their lock-in strategy. The issue is not about transferring a few photos adhoc from a phone. It is about having potentially terabytes of family movies and photos stored and organised on iCloud. Like I said, there is a financial incentive for them to make it difficult for people to move away. There is no easy way to transfer everything off, including all metadata.
Because iCloud is a big part of their lock-in strategy. The issue is not about transferring a few photos adhoc from a phone. It is about having potentially terabytes of family movies and photos stored and organised on iCloud. Like I said, there is a financial incentive for them to make it difficult for people to move away. There is no easy way to transfer everything off, including all metadata.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204055
It's pretty well supported?
It's pretty well supported?
If they stored terabytes of any data on a cloud based system, wouldn't they run into the same issues? I think I sort of get where OP is coming from, but I can't say I ran into the same issues.
Ive personally used the export / archive features of iCloud when i went from iOS to android. the longest part was waiting for the pics / vids to download from icloud and upload to google drive.
I even exported stuff out of google's ecosystem and back into iCloud when I moved back. This was a month or two ago.
I know many many years ago I had issues with iCloud, but that was before they fixed / improved their web interface (and everything else).
Ive personally used the export / archive features of iCloud when i went from iOS to android. the longest part was waiting for the pics / vids to download from icloud and upload to google drive.
I even exported stuff out of google's ecosystem and back into iCloud when I moved back. This was a month or two ago.
I know many many years ago I had issues with iCloud, but that was before they fixed / improved their web interface (and everything else).
As I said, you can only export the original media files and none of the organisation/folders/albums/tags. An analogy might be a filesystem where you can copy files out but not the folder structure.
Are there open formats for the metadata?
The iPhone's default mail application uses 3rd party email services just fine. I suspect that's how most people use email on Apple products.
Not only does it uses third party email just fine, there are explicit wizards for Yahoo, Gmail, Outlook, and one or two more.
[deleted]
Yup, mine is hooked up to gmail
the ultimate way of making it difficult to move away is to make a better product. so far it looks like apple is executing that strategy quite well (judging from the stock price).
Apple's stock price is based on its ability to make money, it has very little to do with the quality of its products.
So exactly how do they make money? Unlike Google and Facebook thier business model is very simple, they make stuff people want and people give them money.
Not really. They do make stuff that people buy, but often they take out loans to buy those things ("free with 2 year contract") which changes the economics a bit. They sit in the middle of every transaction on those devices you bought, telling you which applications you can and cannot use. They sit in the middle of any content you purchase; instead of your New York Times subscription supporting journalism, 30% of that goes to Apple instead for the privilege of owning "your" device. They intercept your text messages to provide iMessage. Who knows what happens to things I've stored on iCloud after I delete them.
I don't have a problem with any of this stuff, but Apple is hardly a just a scaled up lemonade stand. They are just Google and Facebook but better at brand image.
I don't have a problem with any of this stuff, but Apple is hardly a just a scaled up lemonade stand. They are just Google and Facebook but better at brand image.
They sit in the middle of any content you purchase; instead of your New York Times subscription supporting journalism, 30% of that goes to Apple instead for the privilege of owning "your" device. They intercept your text messages to provide iMessage. Who knows what happens to things I've stored on iCloud after I delete them.
The content producers have choices.
- they can force you to pay for content outside of the App Store (Spotify, Amazon)
- they can allow you to pay for content either in the App Store at a higher price or outside of the App Store at s lower price (CBS All Access)
- they can allow you to buy content in or out of the App Store for the same price (Udemy, Hulu, Netflix).
As far as “intercepting your text messages”, they are end to end encrypted where neither Apple nor your carriers can see the messages. Unlike Google’s latest text messaging app.
But as a user, I know my transaction cost - the price I pay to Apple. With Google and Facebook, the price is tracking, embedded ads, crapware (in the case of Android phones), etc.
The content producers have choices.
- they can force you to pay for content outside of the App Store (Spotify, Amazon)
- they can allow you to pay for content either in the App Store at a higher price or outside of the App Store at s lower price (CBS All Access)
- they can allow you to buy content in or out of the App Store for the same price (Udemy, Hulu, Netflix).
As far as “intercepting your text messages”, they are end to end encrypted where neither Apple nor your carriers can see the messages. Unlike Google’s latest text messaging app.
But as a user, I know my transaction cost - the price I pay to Apple. With Google and Facebook, the price is tracking, embedded ads, crapware (in the case of Android phones), etc.
The App Store makes up about 5% of Apple's total revenue. The vast majority of their revenue comes from selling products to consumers. Their business model is not comparable to Google's, because Google gets most of its revenue from advertising.
Google and Facebook models are pretty simple too: they make stuff people want and companies give them money to put inject their ads in the service.
How many people know that a third party can for instance give Facebook a list of emails then FB matches that list up to thier subscribers for ads? How many people know that Google records every time you open any app on Android and logs the activity? I found out when I logged into my dad’s account.
How many people knew that third parties can get information about you if your friends sign up to something?
How many people knew that third parties can get information about you if your friends sign up to something?
Okay...in this particular instance you can find and you can opt out of certain things but not a lot though. Something that rarely gets mentioned in the discourse is that Facebook is offering a product to 1billion+ people for free. At somepoint you have to think that there is a cost someone where. Very few people work for free...I fail to see how they don't realise that companies produces products at a cost and they must make the money somehow. In the case of Facebook it is from data. As an aside I wonder if people knew what goes on restaurant kitchens, processed supermarket foods, they'd still buy it. My guess is yes...:-)
Yes. Everyone knows that Facebook makes money from advertising. I’m sure most people know that they make money by targeting advertising based on your expressed interest and the profile you create. But how many people know that FB follows you around the web?
There are plenty of people fixing Apple hardware and it's worth doing because the residual value is so high.
I can replace the keyboard in my Thinkpad myself. Who apart from Apple can replace the (flawed) keyboard in new the MacBook Pro?
That may make it inconvenient for you but it isn't necessarily an environmental problem. Most people don't take their hardware apart, they take it back to the store.
It becomes an environmental problem when Apple stop offering to fix it, or make the cost of repair uneconomical. I can still buy a replacement keyboard for a 20 year old Thinkpad for ten dollars and pay someone to install it.
Granted, there are some aspects of Apple hardware that can still be repaired/replaced by third-parties, but their trend is away from this.
Granted, there are some aspects of Apple hardware that can still be repaired/replaced by third-parties, but their trend is away from this.
I have a fifteen year old iMac on my desk right now.
That's great! But it's unlikely that today's MacBook Pro will last anywhere near 15 years.
That's apple's and oranges. Laptops move a lot, which opens them up to damage. I fully suspect an iMac to last 15 years.
I have a first revision intel macbook pro from 2006 that still works just the same as it always have.
not quite 15 years though, so I guess OP is right...
not quite 15 years though, so I guess OP is right...
Better not buy a new high-end car built after 2010 or so then. You should see how difficult they make it to work on them.
> If you could copy Apple's tech, you could (theoretically) make an iPhone-clone
Apple's competitive edge isn't just its hardware, just as Google's competitive edge isn't just its software. Apple has decades of user research, hoards of talent, piles and piles of IP (patents etc.), mountains of cash and, yep, you bet they have data, huge warehouses of it. We haven't even mentioned the app-store ecosystem.
You are about as able to compete with Apple as you are with Google et al. It's a different kind game, but make no mistake, taking on Apple isn't as simple as cloning their hardware.
Apple's competitive edge isn't just its hardware, just as Google's competitive edge isn't just its software. Apple has decades of user research, hoards of talent, piles and piles of IP (patents etc.), mountains of cash and, yep, you bet they have data, huge warehouses of it. We haven't even mentioned the app-store ecosystem.
You are about as able to compete with Apple as you are with Google et al. It's a different kind game, but make no mistake, taking on Apple isn't as simple as cloning their hardware.
The point is that the data google and Facebook carry are more frightening in scope of what control they have over your life.
I agree with you. How much you should worry about a company is relative to how that company makes their revenue. Here's a breakdown for Apple I made for a friend: https://imgur.com/a/uujaLjS
Even with the growth in services (this doesn't reflect the recent quarters numbers), the hardware sales just dominate their numbers by so much.
Even with the growth in services (this doesn't reflect the recent quarters numbers), the hardware sales just dominate their numbers by so much.
Thanks for the chart - surprising to see that "Services" is now #2! Can't sleep on that iCloud / Apple Music growth
That kind of puts things into perspective.
That giant slice of blue is composed of people who say, "But Android phones are for poor people! Of course I'll spend $1000 on a phone I'll use 1-2 years!"
That giant slice of blue is composed of people who say, "But Android phones are for poor people! Of course I'll spend $1000 on a phone I'll use 1-2 years!"
No need to start a flame war. Also, considering the pie chart is Apple-only rather than having anything to do with market share, I don't get what Android has to do with anything.
I have 2 Android phones and a couple of IPhones lying around as well. One of the Androids, using sweet-cookie-icecream-sundae whatever version, has the camera app crash on startup pretty regularly.
I'm sure "I'm a fool" for using the vendor-supplied crapware and not doing a fresh reinstall and rebuild with this one custom kernel XXX_sw33tH4x_69 put on that forum that uses gcc -03 optimizations, but no, I don't think Androids are for poor people per se, they're just for the same people who thought buying a Wintel laptop in '08 was a good decision. Yeah, it might work out of the box, and you might get "support" from your vendor for the next 6 months, but only if you're lucky. You also might get spyware, adware, and shitware that crashes and makes your CPU's heat up your living room 24/7/365. You never know.
Androids are either for people who don't care, or for people who really really know what they're doing and can wipe/clean the OS - same people who bother with Linux at home because they like to tinker. I'm a tinkerer, so I get it, and it's why I have Androids - I'd just never depend on one.
Otherwise - I have no idea why anyone would bother. I'll take that new IPhone for $1000 now, thanks.
I'm sure "I'm a fool" for using the vendor-supplied crapware and not doing a fresh reinstall and rebuild with this one custom kernel XXX_sw33tH4x_69 put on that forum that uses gcc -03 optimizations, but no, I don't think Androids are for poor people per se, they're just for the same people who thought buying a Wintel laptop in '08 was a good decision. Yeah, it might work out of the box, and you might get "support" from your vendor for the next 6 months, but only if you're lucky. You also might get spyware, adware, and shitware that crashes and makes your CPU's heat up your living room 24/7/365. You never know.
Androids are either for people who don't care, or for people who really really know what they're doing and can wipe/clean the OS - same people who bother with Linux at home because they like to tinker. I'm a tinkerer, so I get it, and it's why I have Androids - I'd just never depend on one.
Otherwise - I have no idea why anyone would bother. I'll take that new IPhone for $1000 now, thanks.
Not all Android vendors are the same (like not all Wintel laptops were the same).
I'm on my 5th Android, and I've had awful, mediocre and very good experiences.
I currently own a Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 and it's a fantastic device and will continue buying Xiaomi in the future.
I also have a company-issued Samsung Galaxy S8 for work and it's also pretty good (though I don't use it nearly as much as the Xiaomi). I was burned by the Samsung Galaxy Ace though (very crappy).
If you have enough money and like the best out of the box experience and don't like tweaking, iPhones are probably your best bet.
I'm on my 5th Android, and I've had awful, mediocre and very good experiences.
I currently own a Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 and it's a fantastic device and will continue buying Xiaomi in the future.
I also have a company-issued Samsung Galaxy S8 for work and it's also pretty good (though I don't use it nearly as much as the Xiaomi). I was burned by the Samsung Galaxy Ace though (very crappy).
If you have enough money and like the best out of the box experience and don't like tweaking, iPhones are probably your best bet.
I agree with you. Apple, while being an enormous company, will likely be unseated if (or perhaps when) the iPhone ceases being as popular as it is. Google, Facebook, Amazon (maybe to a lesser extent, maybe not) seem to have become more like vines clinging to the fabric of society. They have their fingers in everything and know everything about us.
I have thought about the same thing: if a company like Samsung came out with an even more beautiful phone and did not install crapware and didn’t allow phone companies to load crapware - and halved the cost of a similar iPhone, that could really scoop out Apple’s profits.
But, loading crapware will go on, and nice phones will always be expensive so I think Apple is in great shape long term.
But, loading crapware will go on, and nice phones will always be expensive so I think Apple is in great shape long term.
I think the problem is that doing what you said is insanely difficult. Look at the Essential phone for a recent example.
Also if Android wasn't a security and privacy nightmare.
Not to mention, I don't think Samsung dislikes the margins. Apple's phones being more expensive helps push Samsung's device costs up too, so they can make more margin. I doubt they want Apple to fully leave, they are potentially making more money just by getting to sell their phones at a higher cost when they can potentially make them even cheaper than Apple makes the iPhone.
Maybe congress could pass a bill to allow small companies/individuals to use the NSA data store. Sort of like how SBA grants work.
It’s not Facebook, Google, and the others that worry me; they mostly just want to sell you ads and make your products more convenient. It’s the national military of the place in which those companies (and troves of data) reside, which is known to suspend due process and human rights (including without limitation torturing people, summary executions without trial (google “al awlaki”), and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial) whenever they feel like it, for whatever reason they wish (including simply embarassing them in the media). It’s abso-fucking-lutely terrifying.
I don’t fear Google one bit. I fear the out-of-control US military which has access, at will, to all of Google’s data, with or without a court order, should they ever desire it strongly enough.
I don’t fear Google one bit. I fear the out-of-control US military which has access, at will, to all of Google’s data, with or without a court order, should they ever desire it strongly enough.
> Megacompany sounds intimidating, but I perceive Apple to be quite tame. They mostly just make hardware.
They cause enough damage to the industry by being crazy bent on lock-in. They are even worse than MS in this. And with more money, that damage will be only worse.
They cause enough damage to the industry by being crazy bent on lock-in. They are even worse than MS in this. And with more money, that damage will be only worse.
Okay...but presumably people can just opt out of their products. They make an amazing amount of margin on the devices. A lot people know that and are more than happy to buy their products :-)
> Okay...but presumably people can just opt out of their products.
The damage will be simply passed to other users in the form of lock-in tax that developers will need to compensate. It's all interdependent.
The damage will be simply passed to other users in the form of lock-in tax that developers will need to compensate. It's all interdependent.
The app ecosystem and unwillingness of users to relearn how to use their phone regularly are strong lock ins. Ask Microsoft!
But Apple is making enough user hostiles moves (raising prices, suppressing features, nagging for paid services, etc) that I beliebe in the long term their margin and market share will erode.
But Apple is making enough user hostiles moves (raising prices, suppressing features, nagging for paid services, etc) that I beliebe in the long term their margin and market share will erode.
Maybe so. I am in the frame of mind now though that perhaps data doesn't mean much anymore. Literally everywhere I've worked, every application I've worked on people are fine just giving it. Sure there is value in it but I think the book is still being wrote on how much.
Only with a super efficient or interesting architecture for example in AI.
But by then I guess they just sell it to Google or Facebook.
So nope. No way that they go away...
But by then I guess they just sell it to Google or Facebook.
So nope. No way that they go away...
You could make an iPhone clone, sure, but Apple is a fashion brand as well as a technology company
Apple has also user data..as for Facebook and Google..you just don't know it
Of course Apple has data, we know that, but there are at least two key differences:
1) Apple tries a lot harder to not collect data at all, and when they have to, they try to aggressively anonymise it.
2) Apple doesn't leverage your data as a product. The furthest you could go would be to say that they leverage your data to make more of their products seem attractive to you.
1) Apple tries a lot harder to not collect data at all, and when they have to, they try to aggressively anonymise it.
2) Apple doesn't leverage your data as a product. The furthest you could go would be to say that they leverage your data to make more of their products seem attractive to you.
But Apple also has our minds. They are inside us, they changed our behaviour and minds towards their products. It's not to just make a hardware to compete with them, it's an entire ecosystem.
Apple still control its eco-system very tightly.
Let's not forget that they also made questionable decisions with the Apple store.
They were also had one scandal about location tracking and sharing if I remember correctly (which may have prompted their strong stand on customer privacy nowadays).
EDIT: Yes, in 2011: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html
EDIT: Yes, in 2011: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html
Yes, apple has made some questionable decisions. But Facebook has made downright unethical decisions. I am not trying to "what-about-it" their mistakes, however for the amount of effort they put in to ensure user privacy and security and also for the sheer delight of using their products, I am glad they are a 1T company and I hope they continue to be so. Imagine FB controlling the smartphone, how much privacy would someone have then ?
See I believe Apple makes down right unethical decisions as well, like when they sue refreshers and repair shops...
When they threaten to sue Youtubers who are educating people on how to repair their devices
When they lobby aka payoff governments to prevent right to repair laws
When they refuse to release tools and information that allow owners access to their hardware
When they refuse to acknowledge hardware design flaws or stand behind their products...
I could go on but the point is the idea that Facebook makes unethical decisions but Apple does not depends on what one considered ethical. Walled gardens to me are unethical so i do not buy products in walled gardens.
Like wise I do not accept having my data sold as a commodity so I never joined facebook. They likely have a shadow profile on me, which I do find unethical, but most people are complaining about them selling data they themselves gave to facebook in exchange for a free service, I do not find that to be unethical. People that created an account with Facebook, for free, should have suspected this.
When they threaten to sue Youtubers who are educating people on how to repair their devices
When they lobby aka payoff governments to prevent right to repair laws
When they refuse to release tools and information that allow owners access to their hardware
When they refuse to acknowledge hardware design flaws or stand behind their products...
I could go on but the point is the idea that Facebook makes unethical decisions but Apple does not depends on what one considered ethical. Walled gardens to me are unethical so i do not buy products in walled gardens.
Like wise I do not accept having my data sold as a commodity so I never joined facebook. They likely have a shadow profile on me, which I do find unethical, but most people are complaining about them selling data they themselves gave to facebook in exchange for a free service, I do not find that to be unethical. People that created an account with Facebook, for free, should have suspected this.
In semi-rare cases, majorities organise against minorities. If that happens and the majority gets access to the data stored in something like Facebook's databases, it will be catastrophic. We can't say what minority it will be either. Rich people? Gypsies? Foreigners? Farmers? Poor people? They've all been persecuted groups at some point or another in some country.
This isn't comparable to something like not being able to repair my phone, requiring me to buy a new phone.
This isn't comparable to something like not being able to repair my phone, requiring me to buy a new phone.
ohh please, that is hyperbolic to the extreme.
The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, enough that their life would be threatened (as you imply) simply because someone gained access to their facebook profile.
Me not having access to information on my device impacts me today, in reality. Your statement is a far fetched unrealistic projection of a dystopian world that I have no reason to entertain outside of fictional novel
The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, enough that their life would be threatened (as you imply) simply because someone gained access to their facebook profile.
Me not having access to information on my device impacts me today, in reality. Your statement is a far fetched unrealistic projection of a dystopian world that I have no reason to entertain outside of fictional novel
The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information,
People don’t have to specifically share the information with Facebook. You can infer a lot about people based on thier friends graph, thier likes, and FB tracks you across the web. You can tell which income percentile people most likely fall in just by the movies they said they liked (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey...).
People don’t have to specifically share the information with Facebook. You can infer a lot about people based on thier friends graph, thier likes, and FB tracks you across the web. You can tell which income percentile people most likely fall in just by the movies they said they liked (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey...).
i applaude you to sticking to your principles and voting with your dollar, however i do not share your sentiment about walled gardens.
and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it.
im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.
and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it.
im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.
My position in somewhere in the middle, some of the Right to repair laws go a little too far for me, however what I do 100% oppose is Apple being able to use copyright, trademark, and import laws to block people from disseminating repair information and parts that were re manufactured, repaired, or even reverse engineered.
I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs
Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones.
It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best.
On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court.
So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.
I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs
Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones.
It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best.
On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court.
So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.
Sure, Apple isn't spotless.
But their main business model, as far as I can tell, is making money by selling premium hardware.
Facebook et al. make money by collecting and selling other people's data.
But their main business model, as far as I can tell, is making money by selling premium hardware.
Facebook et al. make money by collecting and selling other people's data.
Facebook can't even fix it because it's inherent in their business model.
Facebook et al. make money by harvesting your data and using it so other people can try to sell you stuff.
Apple makes money by holding your data hostage to convince you to buy expensive hardware.
That said, Apple's business model doesn't require them to violate your privacy -- to derive value, they only need to hold the data you give them, not really do anything with it. Facebook's and Google's business model is only possible with a complete disregard for your privacy rights.
Apple makes money by holding your data hostage to convince you to buy expensive hardware.
That said, Apple's business model doesn't require them to violate your privacy -- to derive value, they only need to hold the data you give them, not really do anything with it. Facebook's and Google's business model is only possible with a complete disregard for your privacy rights.
> That said, Apple's business model doesn't require them to violate your privacy -- to derive value, they only need to hold the data you give them, not really do anything with it. Facebook's and Google's business model is only possible with a complete disregard for your privacy rights.
That's a good point! Although Google is commendably venturing out into all kinds of other areas.
Facebook, however, doesn't seem to be doing much other than just hawking data.
That's a good point! Although Google is commendably venturing out into all kinds of other areas.
Facebook, however, doesn't seem to be doing much other than just hawking data.
What data of mine is Apple holding hostage? As far as I can remember, I’ve only ever brought Apple hardware because I like it so much.
There’s no need to be defensive or naive about Apple’s data gathering. It’s clearly stated in all of their terms that they gather usage data. Personally, I’d trust them more than Facebook, Google and most other companies. But to assume they’re gathering and storing no data is mistaken. It’s not your fault either, there’s a population-wide innocence about what data companies gather on us that will eventually be overcome as more people get exposed to the negative repercussions of what happens when data like that gets breached, hopefully leading to future laws clamping down on data usage and retention timeframes.
Data that Apple have on you includes but is not limited to:
- what time, location and what internet connection you use to do any of the following on an apple device: — open an app, and what app you opened — take a photo — look at your photo gallery — watch a video — basically do almost anything - also your iCloud files are all viewable by their engineers
Most of their staff only have access to anonymized versions of all of that data that engineers in particular use to find bugs and optimize UI’s, but thousands of their staff can view your raw data.
That’s not to say you should be worried. But you should be aware.
Data that Apple have on you includes but is not limited to:
- what time, location and what internet connection you use to do any of the following on an apple device: — open an app, and what app you opened — take a photo — look at your photo gallery — watch a video — basically do almost anything - also your iCloud files are all viewable by their engineers
Most of their staff only have access to anonymized versions of all of that data that engineers in particular use to find bugs and optimize UI’s, but thousands of their staff can view your raw data.
That’s not to say you should be worried. But you should be aware.
Engineers having access to raw data may be true but it goes against their stated privacy rules
You could maybe make an argument that something like iMessage is a platform lock-in.
That seems like a pretty weak example. I use about half a dozen instant messaging apps (iMessage probably the least), and I believe that’s pretty common.
I recently tried to copy a bunch of photo albums FROM iPhone TO PC. Apple makes that difficult, because iTunes only supports synching data in the opposite direction. Also, it would happily offer to delete your photos from phone and replacing it with folder content from PC. Now imagine that you spill coffee on your laptop and the only copy of your data is on iPhone - Apple makes it difficult for you to access your own data.
You plug in your phone to your PC and it shows up as a drive and you copy the photos. You don't need iTunes at all.
Oh, I tried that, but you know what? Out of almost a 1000 photos I have on my iPhone only 97 showed up, ready to be copied - the ones that I took with the iPhone camera. Those uploaded with iTunes were inaccessible.
That’s when I decided to never buy an iDevice again.
That’s when I decided to never buy an iDevice again.
That's (probably) because you had your phone set to optimize storage and store them on the cloud. You can fix this by going to the Settings app, going to Photos, and selecting "Download and Keep Originals" instead of "Optimize iPhone Storage."
This isn't lock-in, this is helping you by allowing you to take more photos.
This isn't lock-in, this is helping you by allowing you to take more photos.
This simply isn’t true, you can use iCloud, the windows photos app, or even just windows explorer to move photos from your iPhone to your PC.
To put it another, simpler, way:
Apple can’t influence any country’s elections. Facebook can, and has. Even the most “powerful” country’s.
Apple can’t influence any country’s elections. Facebook can, and has. Even the most “powerful” country’s.
Difference is that with Google and Facebook, these 'questionable decisions' are the core and essence of their business. With Apple, it is at worst someone's attempt to cut a few corners, and at best, just someone's negligence.
I am very glad and happy Apple made to this mark not any other company.
Apple makes premium product and sell it. Other companies treat you as a product and sell you and your privacy.
Apple makes premium product and sell it. Other companies treat you as a product and sell you and your privacy.
So long HN karma...
Proprietary hardware, constantly pissing off developers and customers... Great company /s
I dont know why Apple gets a pass for being so anti-competitive.
I remember the annoyance of buying music on itunes and being forced to burn it to CD just to play on my mp3 player.
Today, its a multi thousand dollar event to publish an app on Apple's store, vs the insignificant cost of publishing on Android and Web.
(If anyone has an idea how to reduce the cost of compiling my React Native app and publishing on Apple, I'm all ears, but I'm constantly being told to spend 2k+.)
Proprietary hardware, constantly pissing off developers and customers... Great company /s
I dont know why Apple gets a pass for being so anti-competitive.
I remember the annoyance of buying music on itunes and being forced to burn it to CD just to play on my mp3 player.
Today, its a multi thousand dollar event to publish an app on Apple's store, vs the insignificant cost of publishing on Android and Web.
(If anyone has an idea how to reduce the cost of compiling my React Native app and publishing on Apple, I'm all ears, but I'm constantly being told to spend 2k+.)
> Today, its a multi thousand dollar event to publish an app on Apple's store, vs the insignificant cost of publishing on Android and Web.
Mac Minis are definitely much less than that. Yes, you need a Mac to build apps for their hardware. No, it's not many thousands of dollars.
Mac Minis are definitely much less than that. Yes, you need a Mac to build apps for their hardware. No, it's not many thousands of dollars.
+1 I agree with you. I want to reward Apple for making beautiful products and making a fairly good effort to respect and look after customers’ privacy.
I also like Google’s products like Play Movies, Play Music + advertisement free YouTube, Google Assistant, and GCP. I feel like I am ‘leaking’ too much of my private data with Google Assistant but it is such a good product that not using it is a little painful.
I also like Google’s products like Play Movies, Play Music + advertisement free YouTube, Google Assistant, and GCP. I feel like I am ‘leaking’ too much of my private data with Google Assistant but it is such a good product that not using it is a little painful.
Eventually Facebook, Google, and Amazon will get there..maybe in a few years or so.
That is, until a bubble bursts.
Maybe 1T dollar companies exist, but given the massive infrastructure of auto companies and their valuation being less than 100B, I'm skeptical that Trillion dollar companies are a real thing.
Maybe 1T dollar companies exist, but given the massive infrastructure of auto companies and their valuation being less than 100B, I'm skeptical that Trillion dollar companies are a real thing.
Roughly a quarter of the valuation is cash, so it's at least that much.
Or is it possible to reflect inflation and the devaluation of money?
You're right, the $1T valuation is neither surprising, considering inflation, nor record breaking as a share of the S&P 500:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/apple-s-1...
And I think that's why the NYT article quickly moves on from its clickbait headline (they had to put that number up there!) to far more interesting comparisons.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/apple-s-1...
And I think that's why the NYT article quickly moves on from its clickbait headline (they had to put that number up there!) to far more interesting comparisons.
Inflation is always a factor, however Apple's performance is legitimately extraordinary in size for any age.
In 1980 GM was considered a monster with $2.8 billion in profit, number two on the Fortune 500 list that year (behind Exxon Mobil).
Apple's profit today rolled back to 1980 would be about $16.x billion. Roughly six times that of GM then, and roughly four times that of Exxon, the high mark.
Using the BLS inflation adjustment calculator, GM's profit in 1980 is about $9 billion today.
That'll get you ranked roughly #25-30 on the Fortune 500 today.
#25 in 1980 was Union Carbide at about $550m in profit, or ~$1.75b in today's dollar. That's good for about #200 today.
The corporate profit boom isn't primarily an inflation based phenomenon, it's the epic expansion of the global economy and the way the large S&P 500 type firms have benefited in an outsized manner.
In 1980 GM was considered a monster with $2.8 billion in profit, number two on the Fortune 500 list that year (behind Exxon Mobil).
Apple's profit today rolled back to 1980 would be about $16.x billion. Roughly six times that of GM then, and roughly four times that of Exxon, the high mark.
Using the BLS inflation adjustment calculator, GM's profit in 1980 is about $9 billion today.
That'll get you ranked roughly #25-30 on the Fortune 500 today.
#25 in 1980 was Union Carbide at about $550m in profit, or ~$1.75b in today's dollar. That's good for about #200 today.
The corporate profit boom isn't primarily an inflation based phenomenon, it's the epic expansion of the global economy and the way the large S&P 500 type firms have benefited in an outsized manner.
Should this comparison also account for the growth of the US population and economy? Inflation-adjusted GDP has tripled since 1980 and one would need to adjust the size of the S&P accordingly to make a fair comparison.
Worth noting that the large S&P 500 firms change over time. It has not really been "big corporations getting bigger / having a profit boom", I think.
This is why I dont consider Bitcoin a risky investment anymore.
I can see the inflation around me. Historically and currently countries have an economic crisis where the government has hyperinflation.
Id rather have gold than government money.
I can see the inflation around me. Historically and currently countries have an economic crisis where the government has hyperinflation.
Id rather have gold than government money.
Or any other reason why Apple might delay dividend payments. Other companies could have hit a trillion sooner if they hoarded cash like a dragon or only did buybacks.
Apple has been paying dividends since 2012.
http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm
http://investor.apple.com/dividends.cfm
Are we slowly reaching the cyberpunk dystopia?
China skipped straight ahead to post-cyberpunk dystopia
I mean they just called it a Mega-Corp. Reaching or have reached?
NOW HIRING ALL NETRUNNERS!
NOW HIRING ALL NETRUNNERS!
So can we call each other chummers now?
"Teracompany?" "Mega" is the SQUARE ROOT of the size of the biggies.
Megacorporations weren't "corporations with sizes measured in megabucks" when the term was coined either. A million dollars when Neuromancer published would still be only two and a half million today - not particularly large.
There are some positive aspects to rising global inequality. Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. They are not competing for the same goods and services as we are. It only really hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree - building monuments to themselves or otherwise burning resources.
What it does potentially enable, however, is grand projects that can push humanity forward as a whole. Elon Musk with SpaceX is maybe one example. But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point which would involve also building a Lunar base. Once these advancements are available to the super-rich, it will not be long until they are available to the rest of us - according to history, anyway.
I do not have the research, but from anecdotal observations, wealth created by building legitimate businesses tends to be spent more carefully and responsibly than wealth acquired through political connections, natural resources, granted monopolies etc.
What it does potentially enable, however, is grand projects that can push humanity forward as a whole. Elon Musk with SpaceX is maybe one example. But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point which would involve also building a Lunar base. Once these advancements are available to the super-rich, it will not be long until they are available to the rest of us - according to history, anyway.
I do not have the research, but from anecdotal observations, wealth created by building legitimate businesses tends to be spent more carefully and responsibly than wealth acquired through political connections, natural resources, granted monopolies etc.
I have to disagree here, rising wealth inequality can be better measured through the impact that things such as private equity have on our economy. It contributes to the rising cost of real estate, and it holds unnecessary leverage over the ability to raise the needed funds to implement critical investment projects since risk adjusted profitability matters more than how it will benefit society or even the individuals that will consume said products.
The rich aren't a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to investment in areas that help the public good either, the money that is handed out by NASA, NSF, NIH, DOJ, ect is just as effective at enabling research as money from private benefactors. The reason we it looks like the private sector has provided such huge benefits here is the amount of money they are spending has risen considerably while public funding has fallen considerably.
Now, I'm not saying there is something wrong with multi billionares existing, but to suggest that they are in anyway a positive force beyond what can be provided by the public sector (where at least then there's accountability), shouldn't be a reason to let the rich run around and do whatever they want gobbling up even more of the resources within our economy.
The rich aren't a necessary piece of the puzzle when it comes to investment in areas that help the public good either, the money that is handed out by NASA, NSF, NIH, DOJ, ect is just as effective at enabling research as money from private benefactors. The reason we it looks like the private sector has provided such huge benefits here is the amount of money they are spending has risen considerably while public funding has fallen considerably.
Now, I'm not saying there is something wrong with multi billionares existing, but to suggest that they are in anyway a positive force beyond what can be provided by the public sector (where at least then there's accountability), shouldn't be a reason to let the rich run around and do whatever they want gobbling up even more of the resources within our economy.
Global inequality has been going down, not up.
References:
- https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequ...
- https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-la...
References:
- https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequ...
- https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality#the-la...
As nice as that sounds, at what point do we consider it immoral for for-profit megaprojects to come before little things, like ensuring people don't go hungry, have adequate healthcare, or have enough savings that they can weather minor problems?
We have commercial megaprojects like SpaceX, but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects, and b) can't afford to keep the baseline level of support for its citizens high enough for them to not spend more time worrying about how to allocate their meager resources than they can doing things which actually advance society.
Is that a fair tradeoff?
We have commercial megaprojects like SpaceX, but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects, and b) can't afford to keep the baseline level of support for its citizens high enough for them to not spend more time worrying about how to allocate their meager resources than they can doing things which actually advance society.
Is that a fair tradeoff?
A what point do we consider it immoral for the government to consume 40% of GDP, given the catastrophically poor efficiency with which that money is spent?
Take a look at the homelessness, trash- and isht-strewn streets of San Francisco. Then observe that SF is one of the richest cities in the world, with a ten billion dollar budget for a population of less than one million - more than ten thousand dollars per person. How can we accept this tragicomic failure?
Take a look at the homelessness, trash- and isht-strewn streets of San Francisco. Then observe that SF is one of the richest cities in the world, with a ten billion dollar budget for a population of less than one million - more than ten thousand dollars per person. How can we accept this tragicomic failure?
I think plenty of people would consider that. Granted, naming the city that generates most of that wealth from the very people that work for the companies in question probably isn't the best example. The tech billionaires are the most important constituents of SF.
Governments are, at least in theory, accountable to the masses if an issue is collectively pushed for. I'd rather rely on that accountability than the altruism of the elite.
Governments are, at least in theory, accountable to the masses if an issue is collectively pushed for. I'd rather rely on that accountability than the altruism of the elite.
Since when is "Government efficiency" supposed to be such an important goal in itself? Let me guess - "It should be run like a corporation!" No, it really, really shouldn't.
There is corporate corruption that periodically gets regulated and a few corrupt people are thrown in jail as an example.
Then there is government corruption which is unbounded by regulation. Occasionaly you get Leland Yee who ventured out of government corruption and into out right mafia crime but for the most part politians stay in their lanes and reap the bennies of corruption.
Then there is government corruption which is unbounded by regulation. Occasionaly you get Leland Yee who ventured out of government corruption and into out right mafia crime but for the most part politians stay in their lanes and reap the bennies of corruption.
Going by OP's argument, that is just another megaproject. See e.g. Bill Gates' attempts to eradicate polio or to reduce poverty.
>but the cost of this is the society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space projects
How so? SpaceX spends money in the US, meaning they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability to run more expensive not-for-profit space projects. The problem is that the government decides to spend only 0.5% of its funds on NASA.
The same argument goes for all your other points. SpaceX spending money means they employ people (both directly, and indirectly by buying stuff), which should always improve the overall situation for society (even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing). It also means they generate lots of taxes, which improves the government's ability to do all the other stuff you list.
Megaproject like SpaceX seem like a good thing for society no matter how you look at it (unless you assume Elon Musk should donate all his money to a better cause, but that seems unreasonable in a capitalistic system).
Megacooperations like Apple might be another matter. Apple takes money in the US, uses it for production in China, and keeps the profits stashed in tax havens. You could argue that this activity is harmful.
How so? SpaceX spends money in the US, meaning they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability to run more expensive not-for-profit space projects. The problem is that the government decides to spend only 0.5% of its funds on NASA.
The same argument goes for all your other points. SpaceX spending money means they employ people (both directly, and indirectly by buying stuff), which should always improve the overall situation for society (even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing). It also means they generate lots of taxes, which improves the government's ability to do all the other stuff you list.
Megaproject like SpaceX seem like a good thing for society no matter how you look at it (unless you assume Elon Musk should donate all his money to a better cause, but that seems unreasonable in a capitalistic system).
Megacooperations like Apple might be another matter. Apple takes money in the US, uses it for production in China, and keeps the profits stashed in tax havens. You could argue that this activity is harmful.
>they generate taxes which directly increase the government's ability
SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money, and megacorporations in general tend not to pay anywhere near as much tax as they "should", so in this sense is likely to be a net negative in terms of short term government finances.
There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport, healthcare, et cetera - I'm not sure we have enough information to suggest for sure that space travel is likely to be one of these, but I don't think it's an obvious "win" to privatize either, especially not to the point we can suggest that giving taxpayer dollars to for-profit spacex instead of not-for-profit nasa is the best thing to do.
>even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing
This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Even a hypothetical hypercapitalist dystopia can still point to a choice between "work for peanuts or die" as saying it's better to have the job than not.
Regardless, it can also be true for a company to be a net negative for society overall while still being beneficial for a small number of direct employees. That merges into the ethical concerns of automation basically immediately, for example.
SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money, and megacorporations in general tend not to pay anywhere near as much tax as they "should", so in this sense is likely to be a net negative in terms of short term government finances.
There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport, healthcare, et cetera - I'm not sure we have enough information to suggest for sure that space travel is likely to be one of these, but I don't think it's an obvious "win" to privatize either, especially not to the point we can suggest that giving taxpayer dollars to for-profit spacex instead of not-for-profit nasa is the best thing to do.
>even if the jobs were bad, the fact that people choose to take the jobs means that having the job is better than the job not existing
This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_. Even a hypothetical hypercapitalist dystopia can still point to a choice between "work for peanuts or die" as saying it's better to have the job than not.
Regardless, it can also be true for a company to be a net negative for society overall while still being beneficial for a small number of direct employees. That merges into the ethical concerns of automation basically immediately, for example.
>SpaceX _received_ a lot of tax money
Yes, but most of that money was either for doing resupply missions to the ISS for developing the capability of tranporting humans to the ISS. The resupply missions to the ISS are cheaper than what NASA can do themselves, and SpaceX transporting crew is likely to save money compared to Russia doing it (because Russia raised the prices as competition disappeared). So in a very real sense the government is gaining money here by spending less on something they need anyways.
>There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport
It's rare to have a public transport system set up to even allow for fair and open competition. Most started as state monopolies and transitioned to private monopolies (which are hardly capitalism). The areas of transportation where the capitalist model actually happens seem to do great (for example airlines, with the possible exception of the united states where mergers and consolidation seem to limit competition).
>This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_.
Just to be clear, I am against monopolies and for government-ensured workers rights. But in a hypothetical scenario where workers rights vanish, workers still continue to be a limited resource. If I offer a job, but everybody willing and able to work already has a better one I won't find a candidate. I have to make the job desirable enough to outcompete everyone else looking for employees (for example by raising pay or improving working conditions). The more jobs offered on the market, the higher that competition.
With higher unemployment of course the bargaining power of the individual emplyee sinks, and with that the working conditions and pay. But high unemployment also means higher social unrest, which means the state is incentiviced to provide sufficient benefits/insurance/whatver to keep the unemployed happy, simultanously giving the employees another way out of entirly undesirable jobs.
The true danger is if companies try to find creative ways to make their job "attractive" without actually benefitting the person employed, or if they manage to prevent employees from switch to a better job. That's where exploitation begins.
Yes, but most of that money was either for doing resupply missions to the ISS for developing the capability of tranporting humans to the ISS. The resupply missions to the ISS are cheaper than what NASA can do themselves, and SpaceX transporting crew is likely to save money compared to Russia doing it (because Russia raised the prices as competition disappeared). So in a very real sense the government is gaining money here by spending less on something they need anyways.
>There's also a lot of industries in which the capitalist model produces something much less efficient than alternatives. Public transport
It's rare to have a public transport system set up to even allow for fair and open competition. Most started as state monopolies and transitioned to private monopolies (which are hardly capitalism). The areas of transportation where the capitalist model actually happens seem to do great (for example airlines, with the possible exception of the united states where mergers and consolidation seem to limit competition).
>This is, I think, a very dangerous argument. If the existence of megacorporations was taken to its logical conclusion, with a handful of monopolies, where workers rights were removed and all the power went into the hands of the companies, _this would still be true_.
Just to be clear, I am against monopolies and for government-ensured workers rights. But in a hypothetical scenario where workers rights vanish, workers still continue to be a limited resource. If I offer a job, but everybody willing and able to work already has a better one I won't find a candidate. I have to make the job desirable enough to outcompete everyone else looking for employees (for example by raising pay or improving working conditions). The more jobs offered on the market, the higher that competition.
With higher unemployment of course the bargaining power of the individual emplyee sinks, and with that the working conditions and pay. But high unemployment also means higher social unrest, which means the state is incentiviced to provide sufficient benefits/insurance/whatver to keep the unemployed happy, simultanously giving the employees another way out of entirly undesirable jobs.
The true danger is if companies try to find creative ways to make their job "attractive" without actually benefitting the person employed, or if they manage to prevent employees from switch to a better job. That's where exploitation begins.
> Massive wealth, concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer.
Yes it does.
>But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point
Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.
Yes it does.
>But I would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point
Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.
> Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the banana trees and the same number of mouths that want to eat bananas. The price of a banana is set by supply and demand, so unless Bill chose to buy up an unusually large number of bananas for himself, the real cost of a banana is unaffected by Bill having a lot more money than you.
If money is held but not invested, effectively it doesn't exist. If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank.
If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected.
This isn't my field, but I would guess that concentrating on the disparity in purchasing power of the middle 90% would be far more instructive.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't actually matter how much money Bill Gates has sitting in the bank; there's still the same number of bananas on the banana trees and the same number of mouths that want to eat bananas. The price of a banana is set by supply and demand, so unless Bill chose to buy up an unusually large number of bananas for himself, the real cost of a banana is unaffected by Bill having a lot more money than you.
If money is held but not invested, effectively it doesn't exist. If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank.
If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected.
This isn't my field, but I would guess that concentrating on the disparity in purchasing power of the middle 90% would be far more instructive.
Think houses rather than bananas. Or treasuries. That money isn't sitting idle, it's raking in interest payments which ultimately come from the public.
> If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected.
This is essentially the claim that central bank debt doesn't matter, which is .. controversial.
> If the money and assets of the country's top 1,000 wealthiest people were all handed back to the central bank tomorrow, as long as existing investments were maintained the broader economy would be largely unaffected.
This is essentially the claim that central bank debt doesn't matter, which is .. controversial.
I wouldn't for a moment say central bank debt doesn't matter. What I would say that there's not a massive economic difference between money created as central bank debt and money invested by the uber-wealthy.
Remember, Apple's excess money isn't in a mattress; they will have invested it in various boring and sensible things like corporate securities. This investment has a comparable impact to central bank activity.
Remember, Apple's excess money isn't in a mattress; they will have invested it in various boring and sensible things like corporate securities. This investment has a comparable impact to central bank activity.
Sorry, should have written "government debt" rather than "central bank".
The thing is that investments aren't just a "stock" they're a "flow"; they don't just sit there they cause a real transfer of income in the form of dividends, bond coupons, and "rent" generally.
The thing is that investments aren't just a "stock" they're a "flow"; they don't just sit there they cause a real transfer of income in the form of dividends, bond coupons, and "rent" generally.
It does create some problems, in particular when wealth buys politicians and laws to feather its own nest.
There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.
There is also some evidence that more equal societies tend to be healthier, even for the wealthiest.
I agree there; economic disparity is bad insofar as it can be spent in ways that could manipulate the overall system. However that is really the fault of an imperfect political system with broken incentives, not a fault of wealthy people being wealthy.
(It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)
(It always amazes me how politicians manage to forget that they represent their constituents, not corporations or their lobbyists. It has gotten to the point where pointing this out is somehow seen as socialist or anti-business. But it's plain fact. Politicians are there to literally represent people.)
> If money is held and invested, its owner is merely acting as a small independent wing of the central bank.
While I can agree with the basic premise that the rich being richer doesn't necessarily make the poor poorer, I think the issue boils down to where that money is invested and whether that is to the detriment of other people. While money itself is essentially amoral, it can be used in ways that certainly aren't.
While I can agree with the basic premise that the rich being richer doesn't necessarily make the poor poorer, I think the issue boils down to where that money is invested and whether that is to the detriment of other people. While money itself is essentially amoral, it can be used in ways that certainly aren't.
> Yes it does.
I think this Quora post presents the argument I had in mind very well: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-individuals-or-families-such-as...
> Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.
I find it very counterintuitive that the very wealthy do not invest the majority of their wealth in healthcare research and longevity. Given that they have wealth, surely if they were selfish, there is nothing more important than making sure you can live long enough and are healthy enough to enjoy that wealth?
I think this Quora post presents the argument I had in mind very well: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-individuals-or-families-such-as...
> Your view of what the very wealthy have an interest in is naive.
I find it very counterintuitive that the very wealthy do not invest the majority of their wealth in healthcare research and longevity. Given that they have wealth, surely if they were selfish, there is nothing more important than making sure you can live long enough and are healthy enough to enjoy that wealth?
So what exactly are Apple doing to advance humanity? Their charitable giving, especially in the Jobs era, was nonexistent.
I don't know, but you have to look at what the major shareholders - who are the beneficiaries of Apple's profits - are doing. My guess is that they are consuming significantly less than what they earn. That in itself makes their behaviour altruistic - they add N$ of value to society (represented by their profits), while they personally consume only M$, where my guess would be M << N. The rest of their wealth is probably investments - that is, them using their skill to allocate and manage resources for the benefit of others.
But I would not mind the very wealthy going on massive consumption sprees where the consumption is in the form of very high risk grand projects - like longevity research or space exploration.
But I would not mind the very wealthy going on massive consumption sprees where the consumption is in the form of very high risk grand projects - like longevity research or space exploration.
> It only really hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree
Political donations.
Apple seem to be pretty restrained on this front, but other industries can just buy entire carveouts for themselves. The insurance industry holding back healthcare; the tax preparation industry holding back tax reform.
Political donations.
Apple seem to be pretty restrained on this front, but other industries can just buy entire carveouts for themselves. The insurance industry holding back healthcare; the tax preparation industry holding back tax reform.
The reason Apple is so big is that they were clever enough not to create an anti-competitive monopoly. Ironically the way they did this was by creating a walled garden that doesn't actually allow for any competition.
They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes.
Another deciding factor is that Apple increasingly focuses on a specific segment of the market, becoming a lifestyle brand more than a tech company. This has allowed them to create a perception of ubiquity without actually having to control the majority of the market (internationally, anyway) yet still making loads of money because the segment they focus on is so willing to part with money (not just for $1000 iPhones but also $70 cables and $20 apps).
Google and Microsoft needed anti-competitive contracts to gain a majority share of devices (Android smartphones for Google, the IBM-compatible PC desktop for Microsoft) because those devices were running other companies' hardware. Similar strategies are still being used to wall-in the web (with Google's AMP and Facebook's Instant Articles).
Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet).
Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury: you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing.
Microsoft's answer is similar to part of Apple's strategy: focus on a specific market segment. Their segment of choice is enterprise users, but also developers (a segment which conveniently Apple has lately been neglecting).
Google's answer is to lock you in by hoarding all your data and providing value based on being able to harvest all that data.
Facebook seems to be copying Google's approach, except they don't even distract themselves with smartphones or laptops and go straight for all your friends and family by owning your communication (both indirect via your Facebook feed and direct via WhatsApp).
That said, I believe "privacy violations as a business model" is a consequence of the US startup scene's heavily anti-privacy legal context. It will be interesting to see how these companies adapt as privacy regulations like the GDPR show their teeth and international laws begin to follow. Data ownership and privacy as rights aren't exactly compatible with how these companies need to operate in order to function.
They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes.
Another deciding factor is that Apple increasingly focuses on a specific segment of the market, becoming a lifestyle brand more than a tech company. This has allowed them to create a perception of ubiquity without actually having to control the majority of the market (internationally, anyway) yet still making loads of money because the segment they focus on is so willing to part with money (not just for $1000 iPhones but also $70 cables and $20 apps).
Google and Microsoft needed anti-competitive contracts to gain a majority share of devices (Android smartphones for Google, the IBM-compatible PC desktop for Microsoft) because those devices were running other companies' hardware. Similar strategies are still being used to wall-in the web (with Google's AMP and Facebook's Instant Articles).
Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet).
Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury: you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing.
Microsoft's answer is similar to part of Apple's strategy: focus on a specific market segment. Their segment of choice is enterprise users, but also developers (a segment which conveniently Apple has lately been neglecting).
Google's answer is to lock you in by hoarding all your data and providing value based on being able to harvest all that data.
Facebook seems to be copying Google's approach, except they don't even distract themselves with smartphones or laptops and go straight for all your friends and family by owning your communication (both indirect via your Facebook feed and direct via WhatsApp).
That said, I believe "privacy violations as a business model" is a consequence of the US startup scene's heavily anti-privacy legal context. It will be interesting to see how these companies adapt as privacy regulations like the GDPR show their teeth and international laws begin to follow. Data ownership and privacy as rights aren't exactly compatible with how these companies need to operate in order to function.
Ironically the way they did this was by creating a walled garden that doesn't actually allow for any competition.
There is plenty of competition. If you don't want what Apple sells at the price it sells it at, you buy an Android or Windows device - like most of the world does.
They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes.
There is an existence proof that proves that's not true. Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing - just not as successfully.
Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet).
How does iMessage preclude you from texting Android users? On the other hand, thier are dozens of cross platform messaging apps.
iTunes is available for Windows. Even without that being the case, iTunes purchased music has been DRM free for a decade and you can transfer most of your purchased digital movies over to Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu using Movies Anywhere.
Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury: you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing.
Seeing that Apple sells at least 10-15 times more iPhones than Macs, most iPhone users are obviously Windows users. Apple sees this, they released iTunes for Windows over 15 years ago and they have iCloud extensions for Chrome, IE, and Firefox for windows to sync bookmarks.
There is plenty of competition. If you don't want what Apple sells at the price it sells it at, you buy an Android or Windows device - like most of the world does.
They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes.
There is an existence proof that proves that's not true. Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing - just not as successfully.
Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet).
How does iMessage preclude you from texting Android users? On the other hand, thier are dozens of cross platform messaging apps.
iTunes is available for Windows. Even without that being the case, iTunes purchased music has been DRM free for a decade and you can transfer most of your purchased digital movies over to Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu using Movies Anywhere.
Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury: you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing.
Seeing that Apple sells at least 10-15 times more iPhones than Macs, most iPhone users are obviously Windows users. Apple sees this, they released iTunes for Windows over 15 years ago and they have iCloud extensions for Chrome, IE, and Firefox for windows to sync bookmarks.
> There is plenty of competition. If you don't want what Apple sells at the price it sells it at, you buy an Android or Windows device - like most of the world does.
Google just got hit with a massive fine in the EU for how they forced companies making Google Certified Android devices to only make Google Certified devices.
They got punished for being more open than Apple, but not open enough.
There is this weird legal area where if your ecosystem is completely closed, and you are completely vertically integrated, you can do whatever you want, but as soon as you open up a little bit, you have to open up a lot or get in legal trouble.
Google just got hit with a massive fine in the EU for how they forced companies making Google Certified Android devices to only make Google Certified devices.
They got punished for being more open than Apple, but not open enough.
There is this weird legal area where if your ecosystem is completely closed, and you are completely vertically integrated, you can do whatever you want, but as soon as you open up a little bit, you have to open up a lot or get in legal trouble.
Google forcing other manufacturers not to make other products is nowhere on the scale of “open”. That would be like Apple telling Foxconn, ARM, TSMC, TomTon etc that they can’t do business with any other company
Apple's walled garden is no different to those you see around Xbox and PlayStation, but nobody seems to object to them so vigorously.
It's worth remembering that what Apple does with Mac and iPhone is the norm in most other consumer products and in most other industries. It is not normal to have physical products built by one company that has at its core a platform fully controlled by another company. In fact I'm struggling to think of an example outside of computer operating systems.
It's worth remembering that what Apple does with Mac and iPhone is the norm in most other consumer products and in most other industries. It is not normal to have physical products built by one company that has at its core a platform fully controlled by another company. In fact I'm struggling to think of an example outside of computer operating systems.
>>>Apple's walled garden is no different to those you see around Xbox and PlayStation, but nobody seems to object to them so vigorously.
then you are not paying attention. This has been a issue for gamers for a VERY VERY VERY long time. Cross platform play, Games that are portable between systems, etc have a compliant since the original Xbox and before
Further lock down of the Xbox One caused a massive uproar that MS had to pull back from
>It's worth remembering that what Apple does with Mac and iPhone is the norm in most other consumer products and in most other industries. It is not normal to have physical products built by one company that has at its core a platform fully controlled by another company.
No it is not the norm. Infact there are consumer protection laws that prevent alot of that from happening for products that are not completely self contained.
However it is more common in electronics simply because that is the nature of electronics, you do not really have a concern on if your chair is compatible with your floor.
then you are not paying attention. This has been a issue for gamers for a VERY VERY VERY long time. Cross platform play, Games that are portable between systems, etc have a compliant since the original Xbox and before
Further lock down of the Xbox One caused a massive uproar that MS had to pull back from
>It's worth remembering that what Apple does with Mac and iPhone is the norm in most other consumer products and in most other industries. It is not normal to have physical products built by one company that has at its core a platform fully controlled by another company.
No it is not the norm. Infact there are consumer protection laws that prevent alot of that from happening for products that are not completely self contained.
However it is more common in electronics simply because that is the nature of electronics, you do not really have a concern on if your chair is compatible with your floor.
> then you are not paying attention.
The things you cite as examples about the gaming walled gardens aren't really relevant; they are valid complaints, yes, but really they're just frustration that a product doesn't do exactly what they want it to. It's not Sony's job to be compatible with Microsoft.
What is not "the norm" is the sort of relationship between Samsung and Google, or between Dell and Microsoft. Where one is making products that are dependent on the health of the other's ecosystem. Apple just makes products without so many weird interdependencies.
The things you cite as examples about the gaming walled gardens aren't really relevant; they are valid complaints, yes, but really they're just frustration that a product doesn't do exactly what they want it to. It's not Sony's job to be compatible with Microsoft.
What is not "the norm" is the sort of relationship between Samsung and Google, or between Dell and Microsoft. Where one is making products that are dependent on the health of the other's ecosystem. Apple just makes products without so many weird interdependencies.
[deleted]
Rise or peak?
That's a good question. The number of iOS devices sold is stagnating. Mac numbers (in units sold) are falling precipitously (-14%).
Revenue has grown because they were able to raise prices and because they sold more services. I think the room for price increases is limited.
So it's all down to services now. I think there is room for growth given their high income customer base, but it will change their business model in ways that will spark many debates on here.
Revenue has grown because they were able to raise prices and because they sold more services. I think the room for price increases is limited.
So it's all down to services now. I think there is room for growth given their high income customer base, but it will change their business model in ways that will spark many debates on here.
Apple has stumbled a great deal in the Indian market. If it gets its Indian strategy right, it's looking at billions more in revenue.
They'll need phones with two SIM cards. Every Indian IT person I've met in India always look at me with disdain, but also :), when I tell them I can only have one SIM in my phone.
Apple seems to be moving towards virtual SIMs so that may be coming soon.
one for friends and one for jobs ?
Most use one sim as their primary sim while the other sim is the one which has the cheapest data plan.
Number portability came to India late so having two sims gave you best of both the worlds and now people are just used to having two sims.
Number portability came to India late so having two sims gave you best of both the worlds and now people are just used to having two sims.
I always wondered where that two-sim feature request comes from. I really only need one.
Absolutely not. I don't know what it looks like from outside, but India is quite poor, where at max One plus succeeded.
They absolutely are. Sales have actually declined, as has their share of the premium smartphone market
https://qz.com/india/1328590/apple-struggles-in-india-as-iph...
https://qz.com/india/1328590/apple-struggles-in-india-as-iph...
[deleted]
...and also the effects of monetary inflation
Not a new phenomenon. Let's just keep things in perspective, starting with the Dutch East India Trading company.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-all-...
"I don’t measure the world by human simplifications like round numbers" -Woz
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-all-...
"I don’t measure the world by human simplifications like round numbers" -Woz
Gigacompany
Teracompany, because trillion
If we take the Russell 3000's market cap (~30T) which contains ~98% of all US stock market cap we find that the average corporation(where corporation is defined as a major entity and not a small business) is worth .01 trillion or 10 billion. That would make Apple a Hectocorp.
It's Facebook, Google and all the others sitting on mounds of personal and extremely detailed data (including geopositioning) that scare me.
Edit, to expand on the above:
If you could copy Apple's tech, you could (theoretically) make an iPhone-clone.
Copying Facebook's or Google's technology won't get you much because to be truly effective, it needs a lot of data. Which is why you can find some of their prime technology on GitHub, I guess (eg: TensorFlow).
And they are so far ahead of the pack with regards to collected data, I don't see how they could ever be caught up with.