The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple(medium.com)
medium.com
The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
https://medium.com/wills-newsletter/wills-newsletter-2-don-t-be-evil-3918b91fcf82?2
117 comments
> Google is successful in a few areas ..., but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services...
Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?
Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?
The comment is talking about paid monthly services as YouTube Red vs Netflix. Sure Google has the worlds most popular (mostly free) video site, monetized by advertising, but it can't seem to beat Netflix at paid subscriptions. It hasn't been able to beat Facebook at social networking either. Keep in mind that YouTube was a purchase for Google, as was Instagram for Facebook. Both probably very important for them long term.
I'm loving Google Play Music, although the branding really sucks.
Sure, they have clients, but it's far from being a huge hit (contrary to, for example, Spotify).
The amount of people using it are extremely small, which is doubly bad when you consider it's almost-out-of-the-box on Android phones, which are so popular.
The amount of people using it are extremely small, which is doubly bad when you consider it's almost-out-of-the-box on Android phones, which are so popular.
Don't you mean "Google Play Music All Access / YouTube Red bundle"?
> Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?
they purchased youtube because their own video services was terrible
they purchased youtube because their own video services was terrible
YouTube was also _significantly_ smaller when Google purchased it. Perhaps they weren't able to create a properly competing platform, but they've certainly been wildly successful in growing it.
i think they were successful in making it profitable, but whether they were good at growing it is debatable. the founders of youtube complained that they couldnt get the proper talent because google would veto all their hires and force them to take google insiders.
during that time, youtube mostly stagnated in many ways. it failed to develop online streaming and developing original content in the way netflix did even though youtube had access to larger infrastructure and investment from google. even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation, where as youtube is mostly the same thing it was when purchased. they have a lot of users/views, but i do not see any of that attributed to google.
during that time, youtube mostly stagnated in many ways. it failed to develop online streaming and developing original content in the way netflix did even though youtube had access to larger infrastructure and investment from google. even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation, where as youtube is mostly the same thing it was when purchased. they have a lot of users/views, but i do not see any of that attributed to google.
Yea, this is nonsense. YouTube was founded in 2005 and acquired by Google in 2006. It was bought because the brand was better than "Google Video" at the time and that's pretty much it. Just about everything else about its success and state today is completely attributable to Google.
> even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation
what? Vine was shutdown precisely because it wasn't successful...
> even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation
what? Vine was shutdown precisely because it wasn't successful...
Google excels at solving hard technical problems(scaling (youtube, building Android, Great cloud tech ). That's not the kind of challenge with most web businesses.
[deleted]
The writers seem to be solid Apple fans and exaggerate their influence. With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already.
> With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already
So you think the media collectively conspired to prop up Apple, and their subpar, irrelevant products that nobody actually likes? Well, that's creative.
So you think the media collectively conspired to prop up Apple, and their subpar, irrelevant products that nobody actually likes? Well, that's creative.
Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
[deleted]
... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that? It's a little quieter lately, but they have a huge fan-base in the media world due to them using Apple kit for both audio and video editing for years. How many other phone manufacturers get multiple articles in the news when a new model is released?
... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that?
Ummm, no. It is people who are willing to pay more for the extra service, strong integration, and a business model that does not build on pushing advertising.
I pay the premium for a MacBook every 1 1/2 year or so, because if there is a problem, I can go to the Apple store and they'll typically have it fixed in two hours, no questions asked. I had a two-year leave to Android, but after the excruciating experience having to deal with Motorola twice, I'd rather pay a bit more.
Besides that, Apple hardware and software is typically extremely well integrated. E.g. I have a HiDPI screen, on the Mac it works without a problem. On e.g. Linux I had to hand-patch Mutter to get proper scaling and even then a lot of applications used the wrong scaling or UI elements are blown up and blurry.
Finally, let's also not forget that Apple is typically a company that pushes new technology first in an integrated fashion. E.g. a fingerprint reader that is not a toy and works across apps, 120Hz refresh rate on the iPad Pro, force touch.
tl;dr: people drop money on Apple because their product generally work great and they provide excellent service.
Ummm, no. It is people who are willing to pay more for the extra service, strong integration, and a business model that does not build on pushing advertising.
I pay the premium for a MacBook every 1 1/2 year or so, because if there is a problem, I can go to the Apple store and they'll typically have it fixed in two hours, no questions asked. I had a two-year leave to Android, but after the excruciating experience having to deal with Motorola twice, I'd rather pay a bit more.
Besides that, Apple hardware and software is typically extremely well integrated. E.g. I have a HiDPI screen, on the Mac it works without a problem. On e.g. Linux I had to hand-patch Mutter to get proper scaling and even then a lot of applications used the wrong scaling or UI elements are blown up and blurry.
Finally, let's also not forget that Apple is typically a company that pushes new technology first in an integrated fashion. E.g. a fingerprint reader that is not a toy and works across apps, 120Hz refresh rate on the iPad Pro, force touch.
tl;dr: people drop money on Apple because their product generally work great and they provide excellent service.
So, I built a Hackintosh recently, and in researching software recommendations, one thing stood out: even die-hard Apple fans had to admit that PCs were catching up (or, maybe more honestly, in a lot of ways Apple is losing momentum).
Windows 10 has come a long way from its roots. Windows laptops are getting remarkably good (the latest line of Dell and HP laptops are excellent, and Lenovo always stands out). And the smartphone gap has been rapidly closing for years, both the hardware and software. I think you can lay this at the feet of Apple elevating customer expectations.
Meanwhile, Apple hardware refreshes have been lackluster at best, particularly in the pro category. The OS doesn't feel like it has the edge it once had. And top notch software exclusives are increasingly rare as software goes cross platform or moves to the web.
Now, by all accounts Apple's support is still some of the best in the business. And the overall platform integration across devices is excellent. So a lot of the benefits you cite are still present.
But you have to wonder how long that'll last...
Windows 10 has come a long way from its roots. Windows laptops are getting remarkably good (the latest line of Dell and HP laptops are excellent, and Lenovo always stands out). And the smartphone gap has been rapidly closing for years, both the hardware and software. I think you can lay this at the feet of Apple elevating customer expectations.
Meanwhile, Apple hardware refreshes have been lackluster at best, particularly in the pro category. The OS doesn't feel like it has the edge it once had. And top notch software exclusives are increasingly rare as software goes cross platform or moves to the web.
Now, by all accounts Apple's support is still some of the best in the business. And the overall platform integration across devices is excellent. So a lot of the benefits you cite are still present.
But you have to wonder how long that'll last...
Marketing is a fool me once scenario. Quality products earn repeat purchases. You don't become the world's most valuable company with one-and-done sales.
That's not strictly true. Network effects due to tied services can result in barriers to switching. For example, if you're tightly tied to iCloud, migrating to Google Drive might be seen as an enormous PITA.
IMO, this is the principle reason all of these guys are building easy-to-use, tied services offerings... because the OS is becoming increasingly irrelevant as things move to the web or apps go cross-platform.
IMO, this is the principle reason all of these guys are building easy-to-use, tied services offerings... because the OS is becoming increasingly irrelevant as things move to the web or apps go cross-platform.
I don't think free advertising gets you to 780B market cap. I think you're mistaking cause for effect.
Samsung and Google for one. I always see multiple articles on the newest Galaxy S whatever and the Pixel got a ton of coverage when it was released.
[Warning: semi-tangential deep dive on your point about Amazon not being a monopoly]
Amazon isn't in the retail business. Amazon isn't in the cloud computing business. Amazon isn't in the logistics business. Amazon is in the business business. It is no longer The Everything Store; it is now the Everything Everything. It wants to be the platform around which all of the world's businesses depend.
This is about as ambitious a mission as a company has ever launched, in my opinion -- and Amazon may be the first company with a justifiable claim to such ambition. Its only business constraints at this point are geopolitical, really. I believe it aims even higher in the long run: it is aiming to become the macroeconomic backbone of at least the Western world.
When viewed in that context, traditional definitions of monopoly -- especially the most widely known definition of the state, which is based on market share within a specific industry -- almost feel antiquated. Jeff Bezos isn't JP Morgan; he's freaking Cohaagen from Total Recall.
It is not in his interest, in fact it is starkly antithetical to his interest, to monopolize any single industry. He wants to engineer a state wherein stronger competition within any given market makes Amazon better off, not worse off, because it is the seller to that market moreso than a competitor in that market. (Though it holds de facto monopolist power in at least the publishing business, and probably others, these positions were the stick that makes Amazon's pivot to being in the carrot business credible and effective.)
Concern about Amazon as potentially Too Big to Fail may be warranted, but not yet. I'd argue that the sudden failure of Amazon tomorrow would have a severe but ultimately noncatastrophic impact on the US economy, with competitors like Walmart and Google and Apple ready to absorb the fallout with net-minimal total economic loss.
It is not TBTF yet, though at some point it seems to be on trajectory to get there. Now the tricky part is in gauging what metric we should even be using to talk about Amazon in the next 5 years.
(To be very clear, I say all of this in admiration of Jeff Bezos, not in fear or criticism of him. His business acumen is mindblowing. Whether you think of him as Business Yoda or Business Palpatine is your choice to make. But either way, you have to admit that the force is strong with him)
Amazon isn't in the retail business. Amazon isn't in the cloud computing business. Amazon isn't in the logistics business. Amazon is in the business business. It is no longer The Everything Store; it is now the Everything Everything. It wants to be the platform around which all of the world's businesses depend.
This is about as ambitious a mission as a company has ever launched, in my opinion -- and Amazon may be the first company with a justifiable claim to such ambition. Its only business constraints at this point are geopolitical, really. I believe it aims even higher in the long run: it is aiming to become the macroeconomic backbone of at least the Western world.
When viewed in that context, traditional definitions of monopoly -- especially the most widely known definition of the state, which is based on market share within a specific industry -- almost feel antiquated. Jeff Bezos isn't JP Morgan; he's freaking Cohaagen from Total Recall.
It is not in his interest, in fact it is starkly antithetical to his interest, to monopolize any single industry. He wants to engineer a state wherein stronger competition within any given market makes Amazon better off, not worse off, because it is the seller to that market moreso than a competitor in that market. (Though it holds de facto monopolist power in at least the publishing business, and probably others, these positions were the stick that makes Amazon's pivot to being in the carrot business credible and effective.)
Concern about Amazon as potentially Too Big to Fail may be warranted, but not yet. I'd argue that the sudden failure of Amazon tomorrow would have a severe but ultimately noncatastrophic impact on the US economy, with competitors like Walmart and Google and Apple ready to absorb the fallout with net-minimal total economic loss.
It is not TBTF yet, though at some point it seems to be on trajectory to get there. Now the tricky part is in gauging what metric we should even be using to talk about Amazon in the next 5 years.
(To be very clear, I say all of this in admiration of Jeff Bezos, not in fear or criticism of him. His business acumen is mindblowing. Whether you think of him as Business Yoda or Business Palpatine is your choice to make. But either way, you have to admit that the force is strong with him)
That kind of sounds like Berkshire Hathaway. Or an private equity fund for that matter.
A business which owns businesses.
Amazon is taking the concept to the extreme in that it starts its businesses.
A business which owns businesses.
Amazon is taking the concept to the extreme in that it starts its businesses.
Right, but Amazon doesn't want to own businesses so much as own the business infrastructure.
I don't think this is unique to Amazon. Because that transaction costs have become so low(and becoming lower), almost everything is out-sourceable, and naturally in many fields there are advantages to scale, and network effects - common characteristics of infrastructure - a lot of business tasks are becoming infrastructure-like.
Amazon maybe saw it before others. But also, they are in a position that enables them to gradually take more parts of that emerging infrastructure, by owning the customer.
But let's say every stable, low-risk, repeatable task is outsourced outside of businesses into a few large corps. Can new businesses live in that environment? And how will competition look like ?
Amazon maybe saw it before others. But also, they are in a position that enables them to gradually take more parts of that emerging infrastructure, by owning the customer.
But let's say every stable, low-risk, repeatable task is outsourced outside of businesses into a few large corps. Can new businesses live in that environment? And how will competition look like ?
in today's culture of the middlemen, Amazon seeks to be the ultimate middleman
Last year, online retail sales amounted to 8.6% of all retail sales.
Amazon's role in the oligopoly is running much of cloud computing. It comes down to this:
- Google and Facebook capture all the value in online ads
- Amazon, Google and Microsoft control the cloud
- Apple and Google have a duopoly mobile OS
- Apple and Microsoft dominate desktop OSs (sorry linux bro)
- Facebook essentially controls online political advertising, and its founder is gearing up for a run at office
Even if the pyramids were made by happy, paid, unionized workers with a good health/mummification plan (which seems a stretch), they were a terrible misuse of resources.
- Google and Facebook capture all the value in online ads
- Amazon, Google and Microsoft control the cloud
- Apple and Google have a duopoly mobile OS
- Apple and Microsoft dominate desktop OSs (sorry linux bro)
- Facebook essentially controls online political advertising, and its founder is gearing up for a run at office
Even if the pyramids were made by happy, paid, unionized workers with a good health/mummification plan (which seems a stretch), they were a terrible misuse of resources.
Actually Chromebooks have already passed the Mac in the US and growing at 38% YoY versus the Mac is flat.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outs... Chromebooks outsold Macs for the first time in the US - The Verge
Heck we have.
http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-mac... At Apple CEO Tim Cook's old high school, they are selling their ...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outs... Chromebooks outsold Macs for the first time in the US - The Verge
Heck we have.
http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-mac... At Apple CEO Tim Cook's old high school, they are selling their ...
This is sort of a silly argument though. Mac and Chromebook don't really exist in the same space. One is ultra high-end and one is decidedly budget conscious.
There is some overlap. Many people buy Macs, and use them as essentially internet browser machines.
I don't think it is so silly. The owners of the devices still use them for general computing as a desktop. Also, I am fairly sure the vast majority of apple's laptops sold are the "low end" versions such as the Macbook and the Air. Lets also not forget you can get some fairly pricey chrome books. The last one I bought was $2100 which out specked most of apples offerings with the exception of storage.
But beyond that if people don't want "high end" and are buying "low end" that still does not change the argument. Chromebook uses is growing and apple laptops usage is not, so maybe apple is providing a product people don't want... And that is sort of the point the parent made.
But beyond that if people don't want "high end" and are buying "low end" that still does not change the argument. Chromebook uses is growing and apple laptops usage is not, so maybe apple is providing a product people don't want... And that is sort of the point the parent made.
My point was that Chromebooks are eating away at the market formerly catered to by netbooks. They aren't really useful as full fledged machines to the average user. I don't believe that the people who are buying Chromebooks were ever in the market for a apple laptop.
As an aside, why did you buy a Chromebook that was that high spec?
As an aside, why did you buy a Chromebook that was that high spec?
MacBook Pro (14) is the ultra high-end model.
MacBook Air (A1466) seems to be the closest competitor to Chromebook Pixel (Google), which is at the top end for Chromebooks. These both seem prohibitively expensive for the type of computing that the mass-market seems to prefer.
MacBook (A1534)... I have no idea why anyone would buy it in lieu of a cheaper, faster MacBook Air.
Other models of Chromebook, like ASUS C202 or Samsung Chromebook 3, have lower price points, that Apple has never realistically tried to compete with. What Mac would you ever be able to buy with $160 (2017 dollars)?
MacBook Air (A1466) seems to be the closest competitor to Chromebook Pixel (Google), which is at the top end for Chromebooks. These both seem prohibitively expensive for the type of computing that the mass-market seems to prefer.
MacBook (A1534)... I have no idea why anyone would buy it in lieu of a cheaper, faster MacBook Air.
Other models of Chromebook, like ASUS C202 or Samsung Chromebook 3, have lower price points, that Apple has never realistically tried to compete with. What Mac would you ever be able to buy with $160 (2017 dollars)?
MacBook (A1534)... I have no idea why anyone would buy it in lieu of a cheaper, faster MacBook Air.
I am guessing that is the MacBook 12"? For many good reasons: the 12" is much more compact and lighter than the MacBook Air, it has a Retina display, it does not have big, ugly bezels, it has much faster SSD storage than the Air, and it is fanless.
My wife has a MacBook 12" and loves it. I had a MacBook 12" (moved to the Pro 2016) and I miss the form factor and the weight of the 12".
I am guessing that is the MacBook 12"? For many good reasons: the 12" is much more compact and lighter than the MacBook Air, it has a Retina display, it does not have big, ugly bezels, it has much faster SSD storage than the Air, and it is fanless.
My wife has a MacBook 12" and loves it. I had a MacBook 12" (moved to the Pro 2016) and I miss the form factor and the weight of the 12".
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.
Not if you're measuring profits and not just sales. They're still the dominant manufacturer by far. But maybe I'm just being pedantic.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of this. The article comes across as hyperbolic to me as well.
Not if you're measuring profits and not just sales. They're still the dominant manufacturer by far. But maybe I'm just being pedantic.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of this. The article comes across as hyperbolic to me as well.
[deleted]
Glad you pointed out the pyramid builders part. That bugged me. I believe I've read that their graves showed that the builders were intelligent engineers, not just random farmers. The graves also showed that the workers were treated very well. Thoughts are that Egyptians may have believed treating employees well resulted in better output.
I think this may have covered this topic - http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyrami...
> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves.
This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
Slavery, which is to turn people into personal property, is an abomination. Even the ancients described slavery as "unnatural". In certain situations, however, it might be preferable. You don't deliberately leave your bike out in the rain. But you would if your bike was responsible for keeping itself out of the rain.
Don't take it out of context, OP is saying that at one point in time in a particular place, slavery may have possibly been more "secure" or reliable as far as having food, water, and shelter.
This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.
And the OS for those other smartphones is made by Google, which is one of the other Big Four.
And the OS for those other smartphones is made by Google, which is one of the other Big Four.
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.
Just like they are every year in Q4 before their new phones come out.
Just like they are every year in Q4 before their new phones come out.
Apple doesn't care if its being "beaten". It always has cared if they can keep their margins.
Fun experiment to try out on your computer and experience the gradual death of the internet: block all domains and subdomains from Google and Facebook in your `/etc/hosts` file, and see how many other websites fail to function.
I've had this enabled for 6 months and I've seen websites stopped working as they should, e.g.:
- I couldn't reset my password in Twitch, it required (for some reason) access to both Facebook and Google servers. I had to temporarily disable the `/etc/hosts` restrictions
- National Geographic site fetches jQuery from Google and the website is unusable
- No more embedded Google Maps on many small websites (like local restaurants etc)
- Say bye to embedded YouTube videos
- Many small websites just display in blank
- Other websites have default ugly fonts but are still usable
So Google and Facebook's reach is not just related to direct visits to their sites. Essentially, without them, it's a very crippled internet. The one site that works great is Wikipedia, even its videos are self hosted.
I've had this enabled for 6 months and I've seen websites stopped working as they should, e.g.:
- I couldn't reset my password in Twitch, it required (for some reason) access to both Facebook and Google servers. I had to temporarily disable the `/etc/hosts` restrictions
- National Geographic site fetches jQuery from Google and the website is unusable
- No more embedded Google Maps on many small websites (like local restaurants etc)
- Say bye to embedded YouTube videos
- Many small websites just display in blank
- Other websites have default ugly fonts but are still usable
So Google and Facebook's reach is not just related to direct visits to their sites. Essentially, without them, it's a very crippled internet. The one site that works great is Wikipedia, even its videos are self hosted.
Analyzing how websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were designed with the availability of those in mind is pointless. To truly see what it would be like without Google or Facebook we'd have to test how websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were designed without the availability of those in mind.
The saying "if things were different, things would be different" comes to mind.
The saying "if things were different, things would be different" comes to mind.
It's not about how websites depend on Google or Facebook being available. It's about the leverage Google and Facebook gain over you through data collection once they are nearly omnipresent on the web, and the growing inability of opting-out from those two tech giants without crippling your basic web experience.
The point is, they were designed that way. And that's the problem.
> - National Geographic site fetches jQuery from Google and the website is unusable
Try this. It might help with a lot of the issues you're experiencing.
https://decentraleyes.org/
Try this. It might help with a lot of the issues you're experiencing.
https://decentraleyes.org/
I wonder if anyone has tried decentralized peer to peer CDN for things like JS.. code seems a perfect fit for a distributed CDN.
It would help to just cache assets based on the integrity hash. I know there is a potential security hole, but the browser can remember what the sourced URL was and verify/validate. At the very least it gives you a way to handle a downed CDN.
What I think is potentially more interesting is the anti-consumer behaviors of Amazon in what I call the Amazon/Google cold war over video:
- Amazon not allowing the sale of chromecast
- Amazon keeping its instant video app off generic android TV devices for a long time, even though they had an app that worked with the Sony android TV.
- Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse to get you to install the Amazon app store on your Android phone. (and weakening your phone's security, due to having to "allow unknown sources"
- Amazon not allowing the sale of chromecast
- Amazon keeping its instant video app off generic android TV devices for a long time, even though they had an app that worked with the Sony android TV.
- Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse to get you to install the Amazon app store on your Android phone. (and weakening your phone's security, due to having to "allow unknown sources"
> Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse
Google requires Play Services to be installed and enabled in order to allow Chromecast, which is why no Google apps are on Amazon Fire devices. If anything Amazon's approach is less intrusive since it's just one extra app (unless they also install services).
Google requires Play Services to be installed and enabled in order to allow Chromecast, which is why no Google apps are on Amazon Fire devices. If anything Amazon's approach is less intrusive since it's just one extra app (unless they also install services).
The problem with both is that you have to allow unknown sources. It would be nice (on Google's part) to allow multiple app store certs, so you (as the consumer) could decide which app stores to trust & the OS could maintain some level of security based on the users prefs. As it is now, you need to open your phone up to potential malware to install another app store.
What I just don't get is why Amazon are trying to force people to get their video app via their app store, rather than putting it in Google play (where it is apparently available, but just for non-US regions). Is Google trying to take a cut of in-app transactions, like Apple does?
What I just don't get is why Amazon are trying to force people to get their video app via their app store, rather than putting it in Google play (where it is apparently available, but just for non-US regions). Is Google trying to take a cut of in-app transactions, like Apple does?
[deleted]
They can keep playing walled garden games and piracy will just continue to be the better option.
> Facebook's algorithmic echo chamber got Trump elected.
The article he references talks extensively about how the campaign effectively used social media for fundraising and advertising instead of tv, not echo chambers for brainwashing people. After all this time people still can't admit that echo chambers are what propped up Clinton in every media outlet and poll.
The article he references talks extensively about how the campaign effectively used social media for fundraising and advertising instead of tv, not echo chambers for brainwashing people. After all this time people still can't admit that echo chambers are what propped up Clinton in every media outlet and poll.
I wish we stop the perpetuation of dumb metaphors and analogies. It does nobody any good.
What is the dumb metaphor/analogy and why?
Calling Apple the genitals because they're a luxury brand?
As soon as I saw that graphic I knew what quality of article I was in for.
As soon as I saw that graphic I knew what quality of article I was in for.
Yeah, that was pretty tenuous. And assertion that women buy Apple products to deter "romantic rivals from poaching [their] relationship partner" seems almost ridiculous.
I would say that iPhones and MacBooks are almost mass-market these days. Sure, they are more expensive than the alternatives, but they are so ubiquitous that can't really be considered status symbols anymore, can they?
I would say that iPhones and MacBooks are almost mass-market these days. Sure, they are more expensive than the alternatives, but they are so ubiquitous that can't really be considered status symbols anymore, can they?
I wonder, did you read the scientific papers linked? Apple are just the new peacocks - there is much historical evidence of sexual signalling in consumption markets, and I urge you to read the papers linked: you may well learn something from them, and either your opinion of MacBooks will change, or it may even become stronger, for the understanding therein..
I wonder as well if you read the papers too? you may learn something from them as well.
"We investigate the idea that women’s flaunting of designer products functions as a signaling system directed at same-sex rivals who pose a threat to a woman’s relationship. We hypothesize that some women use pricey possessions to signal to other women that their romantic partner is especially devoted to them. In turn, flaunting designer handbags and shoes helps women deter romantic rivals from poaching their relationship partner"
Today iPhones and MacBook are mostly mass market for the middle class, as you can see from their presence in universities. Out of all the women owning an iPhone, and there's a lot, I've yet to meet one whose iPhone was bought by their 'devoted romantic partner'. They either bought it themselves, or their parents bought it in the family plan. And usually the phone itself is paid monthly with the plan.
Showing an iPhone does not have the same signalling effect as wearing "luxurious designer handbags", designer shoes, and "expensive jewelry".
"We investigate the idea that women’s flaunting of designer products functions as a signaling system directed at same-sex rivals who pose a threat to a woman’s relationship. We hypothesize that some women use pricey possessions to signal to other women that their romantic partner is especially devoted to them. In turn, flaunting designer handbags and shoes helps women deter romantic rivals from poaching their relationship partner"
Today iPhones and MacBook are mostly mass market for the middle class, as you can see from their presence in universities. Out of all the women owning an iPhone, and there's a lot, I've yet to meet one whose iPhone was bought by their 'devoted romantic partner'. They either bought it themselves, or their parents bought it in the family plan. And usually the phone itself is paid monthly with the plan.
Showing an iPhone does not have the same signalling effect as wearing "luxurious designer handbags", designer shoes, and "expensive jewelry".
Yes, I did read the papers, with great interest.
And the point is: It doesn't seem to fit Apple any more, by your reckoning.
But it did at some stage. You don't get to mass-market acceptance without a phase where you dominate the signalling markets. Those middle-class students with MacBooks' are the norm today - but there was a phase where it wasn't so, in Apples' history. Don't overlook that transition.
And the point is: It doesn't seem to fit Apple any more, by your reckoning.
But it did at some stage. You don't get to mass-market acceptance without a phase where you dominate the signalling markets. Those middle-class students with MacBooks' are the norm today - but there was a phase where it wasn't so, in Apples' history. Don't overlook that transition.
Go to a public university or high school and count the MacBooks you see.
Or the number of apple earbuds and airpods. Those white buds are ubiquitous. And where they are lacking, Apple's other property - Beats - steps in.
I can tell you from my experience as somebody that never liked Apple products, those Apple earbuds are popular because they are cheap and good, having an insane quality/price ratio.
I have an Android phone right now, but I'm using Apple earbuds, even though the volume controls don't work.
I have an Android phone right now, but I'm using Apple earbuds, even though the volume controls don't work.
That's nice to hear.
As someone using AirPods right now... they're AMAZING. The 'magic' pairing is nice but it doesn't go as far as I hoped.
However as Bluetooth headphones they're so tiny it's easy to always carry them. They're a cinch to charge. They sound great (for their size) and now I always carry them with me. Music? Podcasts? Videos? Way more than good-enough.
Just fantastic little things. Shame they're STILL 6 weeks behind demand. They must be REALLY hard to make if Apple hasn't sorted it out after all this time.
As someone using AirPods right now... they're AMAZING. The 'magic' pairing is nice but it doesn't go as far as I hoped.
However as Bluetooth headphones they're so tiny it's easy to always carry them. They're a cinch to charge. They sound great (for their size) and now I always carry them with me. Music? Podcasts? Videos? Way more than good-enough.
Just fantastic little things. Shame they're STILL 6 weeks behind demand. They must be REALLY hard to make if Apple hasn't sorted it out after all this time.
We're strongly in personal preference territory, but Apple earbuds sound terrible. The lows are far too heavy and the mids are far too thin, though the highs at least sound OK. I would rather spend that $30 (retail from Apple) on a pair of Sennheiser, Klipsch or even Sony earbuds.
I think it could be argued, though this article didn't seem to bother arguing it as much as it does for the other "pharaohs". Wasn't there an article here a few weeks ago about the green text bubbles?
Most of this articles content, and because analogies don't usually represent meaningful understanding, they just fake it.
I always wonder why the whole "facebook internet" isn't brought up more by pro net-neutrality folks. I think there's only one article that's been written about a particularly worrisome consequence it has as well [1].
While I think it'd take a very long time for Americans to actually be convinced of this, the reason why this is happening (because facebook might as well be THE internet for these users) is a lot more worrisome. Particularly when Mark himself is running soon.
(1)https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...
While I think it'd take a very long time for Americans to actually be convinced of this, the reason why this is happening (because facebook might as well be THE internet for these users) is a lot more worrisome. Particularly when Mark himself is running soon.
(1)https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...
There's an effect here that this article doesn't mention and that most don't mention.
Large scale innovation happens in one of two ways: a strong industry leader, or via government. The latter is relatively rare because government is necessarily usually more conservative; the former happens more easily, especially because industry leaders often are either formed or maintained because a private venture was able to move fast enough to develop a technology in a way that has large societal implications.
The side effect, though, is that people who work at those private industries that have innovated and developer something new (which may or may not have short term deleterious effects) eventually leave and either diffuse their knowledge or start their own ventures. When this happens, as time passes, many other new ventures - which can often have an effect directly opposite to said deleterious effects, or otherwise have positive effects - spring up and take hold. And that's a net positive.
There are people who worked at (or currently work at and will leave) Google and Facebook, advertising companies that have disproportionately much power, but will use the knowledge they gained from those places to put into effects efforts that they might not have known how to otherwise and that may make the world better, long term.
Articles like the one posted here are passionate and persuasive, but they also focus on the short term (if not solely the present); it is worthwhile to remember these sorts of long term effects.
Large scale innovation happens in one of two ways: a strong industry leader, or via government. The latter is relatively rare because government is necessarily usually more conservative; the former happens more easily, especially because industry leaders often are either formed or maintained because a private venture was able to move fast enough to develop a technology in a way that has large societal implications.
The side effect, though, is that people who work at those private industries that have innovated and developer something new (which may or may not have short term deleterious effects) eventually leave and either diffuse their knowledge or start their own ventures. When this happens, as time passes, many other new ventures - which can often have an effect directly opposite to said deleterious effects, or otherwise have positive effects - spring up and take hold. And that's a net positive.
There are people who worked at (or currently work at and will leave) Google and Facebook, advertising companies that have disproportionately much power, but will use the knowledge they gained from those places to put into effects efforts that they might not have known how to otherwise and that may make the world better, long term.
Articles like the one posted here are passionate and persuasive, but they also focus on the short term (if not solely the present); it is worthwhile to remember these sorts of long term effects.
I honestly find it very easy to not use any of their services. They all have quality competitors.
The majority of humans don't find it so easy or necessary.
I agree. As stated in the article the best thing many of these companies do is make their product easier to use. If they actually wanted to use a different service though, do you think they would find it hard?
> The majority of humans don't find it so easy or necessary.
Minority, in fact. You're wildly exaggerating, as is the article.
Half of Facebook's monthly actives barely use the core social network service. That leaves a billion people or so. There are 7.x billion people on the planet. Your majority premise just collapsed.
Google has about 1/3 of global adults as users, with varying frequency. Gmail as an example, has a small share of global email. Again, minority.
Amazon is still a trivial ecommerce presence outside of the US, as a whole and in relation to the number of adults shopping on their service versus the total number of people on earth.
And Apple? Their reach, like the others, is dramatically less than the "majority of humans." Apple reaches a billion people.
Minority, in fact. You're wildly exaggerating, as is the article.
Half of Facebook's monthly actives barely use the core social network service. That leaves a billion people or so. There are 7.x billion people on the planet. Your majority premise just collapsed.
Google has about 1/3 of global adults as users, with varying frequency. Gmail as an example, has a small share of global email. Again, minority.
Amazon is still a trivial ecommerce presence outside of the US, as a whole and in relation to the number of adults shopping on their service versus the total number of people on earth.
And Apple? Their reach, like the others, is dramatically less than the "majority of humans." Apple reaches a billion people.
Please. Don't be a pedant, you're not advancing any meaningful points. It should be obvious that in the context of this discussion, we are talking about the developed Western world.
Please provide your recommendations. I've been prying myself off of their services but currently, I've not found a solid replacement for:
Facebook: nothing else has the network effect.
Google Drive: online documents are really convenient
Google Voice: what else has seamless integration with either android or ios.
Amazon: Buying household items like toilet paper, dishwasher detergent, etc, saves me a ton of time.
Facebook: nothing else has the network effect.
Google Drive: online documents are really convenient
Google Voice: what else has seamless integration with either android or ios.
Amazon: Buying household items like toilet paper, dishwasher detergent, etc, saves me a ton of time.
Facebook: Twitter is a decent competitor for network effects. I've moved my photo sharing to Google Photos as it trumps anything Facebook offers. For me, the biggest Facebook benefit is sharing photos with family on Facebook. Everything else on there is pretty much noise or garbage you can find on any other site. The one recent thing that Facebook does better than anyone that I get value out of are "local events".
Google Drive: Dropbox, Box, OneDrive....
Google Voice: Depends what you're using it to do. Amazon & Microsoft have apps you can use that do similar tasks. Whichever you use does require access to a lot of personal data to be useful though, no matter what company you pick.
Amazon: Target, Walmart, Jet, etc... Lots of competition here. Amazon's online experience is typically better but their is plenty of competition & they often have cheaper prices. FYI in case any Target person reads this. Your site is terrible & full of bugs.
Google Drive: Dropbox, Box, OneDrive....
Google Voice: Depends what you're using it to do. Amazon & Microsoft have apps you can use that do similar tasks. Whichever you use does require access to a lot of personal data to be useful though, no matter what company you pick.
Amazon: Target, Walmart, Jet, etc... Lots of competition here. Amazon's online experience is typically better but their is plenty of competition & they often have cheaper prices. FYI in case any Target person reads this. Your site is terrible & full of bugs.
Suggesting Facebook and Google and Amazon as serious replacements for Facebook and Google and Amazon really drives the point home.
Nicely said. I did do that for 1.5 out of the 4. While I didn't state it well, my argument was meant to be for replacing one or two of them, not all of them.
Voice is probably the hardest one to replace all 4 of them on.
For Facebook's network effects, I mentioned Twitter which is not one of the four. I did mention that my main use I've replaced with Google Photos. I did that because it's free & great. If I hated Google, I could use several paid services that offer similar benefits. Snapchat is becoming more popular with the older people I know. Instagram was great before getting bought out by Facebook so we can't count them now.
I think maybe one point that needs to be made, is if you want a "free service" you must be willing to let your data be sold. That is the big problem that many people have with a lot of the above free services.
Voice is probably the hardest one to replace all 4 of them on.
For Facebook's network effects, I mentioned Twitter which is not one of the four. I did mention that my main use I've replaced with Google Photos. I did that because it's free & great. If I hated Google, I could use several paid services that offer similar benefits. Snapchat is becoming more popular with the older people I know. Instagram was great before getting bought out by Facebook so we can't count them now.
I think maybe one point that needs to be made, is if you want a "free service" you must be willing to let your data be sold. That is the big problem that many people have with a lot of the above free services.
What is the Amazon competitor to Voice? I use Voice for texting from my computer and phone calls (not sure if there are other services it offers)
I'm overlooking the easy "It's easy for me so it's easy for everyone" because I'm interested what phone you use?
You can use an Android phone without a Google account or any Google apps.
You can even install an open-source replacement for the core Play Services Framework that many non-Google apps seem to require.
You can even install an open-source replacement for the core Play Services Framework that many non-Google apps seem to require.
He hewed it himself out of the finest hardwoods.
Everyone knows you use soft woods for phones.
But, let's face it, we're surrounded by garden walls now days.
Take phone as example: You almost only have two main options for a smart phone OS here: iOS (+ Apple) and Android (+ Google).
Take phone as example: You almost only have two main options for a smart phone OS here: iOS (+ Apple) and Android (+ Google).
Android can be used without any connection to Google at all. You have a more limited choice of software (using F-Droid, etc), but it's quite easy to do.
I'm stuck on an iPhone because someone else pays for it. I haven't ever cared to look at the background data being used but I would say on the app side I rarely use a stock Apple app.
In case you want to shorten the title in similar situations ("The GAFA War"):
FAMGA - Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon
GAFA - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple
FANG - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google
FAMGA - Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon
GAFA - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple
FANG - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google
Personally I'd keep Microsoft included, they're killing it with services now. Especially amongst enterprise consumers.
or call them the big four.
If your are a coder, I'd say: Split your money between those four giants and get back to code [1].
[1] https://goo.gl/TjDviU
[1] https://goo.gl/TjDviU
Network externalities (product's value to a consumer changes as the number of users of the product changes) are so incredibly strong that few monopoly powers and eventual market failure is inevitability.
If you could run multiple parallel universes starting from early 90's, you would end with just handful of companies dominating the markets and using one service or product to leverage to other areas in almost all of them. Just the names of the companies would change.
0014749879
If you could run multiple parallel universes starting from early 90's, you would end with just handful of companies dominating the markets and using one service or product to leverage to other areas in almost all of them. Just the names of the companies would change.
0014749879
The ironic part is that the real "gatekeepers of the internet" are the cable companies, but they can't take advantage of it.
> Your iPhone signals you’re wealthier, better-educated, and more attractive than an Android user.
The "status" argument is a bit silly. An iPhone costs about the same as a dog annually, [1].
[1] https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5
The "status" argument is a bit silly. An iPhone costs about the same as a dog annually, [1].
[1] https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5
[deleted]
This article is like scaremongering, partly about how Google and Facebook are selling ads but interlaced with "SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER!", all the same. Some posts can be so ironical.
Only one mention of Microsoft. They're eating the software world, and have one of the best data platforms.
First, the internet itself is only in danger if net neutrality is genuinely threatened by ISPs. Until then, the network itself is as open as it ever was.
As for the services on top, the meta-layer of products and infrastructure we rely on--social media, content sources, smartphones and smart devices, etc--there's a lot of reason to be concerned.
But Amazon's marketshare is tiny compared to traditional retailers. They're growing, sure, but they're not a monopoly yet.
Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.
Google is successful in a few areas (search, email, android), but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services, social, etc).
And Facebook also has basically one core competency.
So, there's lots of reasons to be concerned. But this article feels more than a little hyperbolic.
And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves.