The Apple $2T Economy(asymco.com)
asymco.com
The Apple $2T Economy
http://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/
149 comments
I hate to break it to you, but virtually everything at this scale is an estimate based on models and not direct data. We don't e.g. get more reliable GDP numbers because we get hard data; we get it by creating new models that recognize and/or emphasize variables which were previously being ignored.
The reason to be skeptical here is not because "it's an estimate"; it's because it's one group's model, studying a very nascent space for which there's been very little academic research.
What this estimate shows is that this is a clearly very large economy that isn't being rigorously modeled or studied right now. And we should probably devote some resources to that since what happens in this economy will meaningfully contribute to employment and national GDPs.
The reason to be skeptical here is not because "it's an estimate"; it's because it's one group's model, studying a very nascent space for which there's been very little academic research.
What this estimate shows is that this is a clearly very large economy that isn't being rigorously modeled or studied right now. And we should probably devote some resources to that since what happens in this economy will meaningfully contribute to employment and national GDPs.
>The original report reads like it was heavily influenced by Apple's marketing team.
When you read enough over Apple's marketing and PR over the years. You can easily detect them. Not saying all marketing are bad, but I would be cautious simply because of that.
When you read enough over Apple's marketing and PR over the years. You can easily detect them. Not saying all marketing are bad, but I would be cautious simply because of that.
Horace is one of the better thinkers regarding Apple’s business. He consistently ranks relatively high amongst the independent analysts at predicting Apple’s quarterly earnings, although to be honest I don’t put much stock in that.
He did a lot of analysis to determine how many active devices Apple had in the world before Apple even started reporting those figures.
He was one of the only analysts who understood Apple’s position and scale, as well as some of the internal culture that helped explain a lot of their seemingly abstruse decision making.
Recently he got really focused on “micro-mobility” (ie, Bird/Lime scooters, etc) which hasn’t really been as earthshaking as he predicted, but he’s been mostly proven right about Apple.
It’s unreal to see the scope of Tim Cook’s Apple (or the iPhone Apple if you prefer).
He did a lot of analysis to determine how many active devices Apple had in the world before Apple even started reporting those figures.
He was one of the only analysts who understood Apple’s position and scale, as well as some of the internal culture that helped explain a lot of their seemingly abstruse decision making.
Recently he got really focused on “micro-mobility” (ie, Bird/Lime scooters, etc) which hasn’t really been as earthshaking as he predicted, but he’s been mostly proven right about Apple.
It’s unreal to see the scope of Tim Cook’s Apple (or the iPhone Apple if you prefer).
> Recently he got really focused on “micro-mobility” (ie, Bird/Lime scooters, etc) which hasn’t really been as earthshaking as he predicted, but he’s been mostly proven right about Apple.
What was his prediction? Seems like that's only increasing in popularity as people realize cars are like the most absurdly wasteful, lazy, and/or excessive methods of transportation imaginable for most daily activities, but it would depend on where you are and what your real requirements are.
What was his prediction? Seems like that's only increasing in popularity as people realize cars are like the most absurdly wasteful, lazy, and/or excessive methods of transportation imaginable for most daily activities, but it would depend on where you are and what your real requirements are.
I think he is mostly correct that small, cheap, easy transportation can revolutionize urban centers in a variety of ways. I think he has been relatively bullish on the companies, and they haven’t exactly panned out, from a business perspective.
Ah, that makes sense. They did have a moment, but seem to have fizzled out.
It’s happening, but the form is being hidden behind e-bikes: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/04/10/264377...
They're usually abandoned on the streets of Atlanta.
> Recently he got really focused on “micro-mobility” (ie, Bird/Lime scooters, etc) which hasn’t really been as earthshaking as he predicted
Mostly because of antisocial behavior of all sorts: people thinking that scooters were similar to bikes so you could drive them while wasted, random youth groups throwing them off of bridges, into waterways or otherwise destroying them "for the lulz", inconsiderate dumb fucks parking their scooters right where they stepped off, or companies that plastered scooters, bikes and cars over entire cities without coordinating with any authority beforehand.
All of that led to a massive amount of public resentment and subsequent regulation that impeded usage (e.g. no-park-here zones, speed limits during the night and sobriety tests to reduce the risk for drunkards, requirements to force people to submit parking photos), and on top of that come the sometimes ridiculous "unlock fees" or absurd pricing of 20-30 ct/min or more. Public transport tickets cost less than that.
Mostly because of antisocial behavior of all sorts: people thinking that scooters were similar to bikes so you could drive them while wasted, random youth groups throwing them off of bridges, into waterways or otherwise destroying them "for the lulz", inconsiderate dumb fucks parking their scooters right where they stepped off, or companies that plastered scooters, bikes and cars over entire cities without coordinating with any authority beforehand.
All of that led to a massive amount of public resentment and subsequent regulation that impeded usage (e.g. no-park-here zones, speed limits during the night and sobriety tests to reduce the risk for drunkards, requirements to force people to submit parking photos), and on top of that come the sometimes ridiculous "unlock fees" or absurd pricing of 20-30 ct/min or more. Public transport tickets cost less than that.
Part of this is the companies themselves to blame:
Scooter and bike share companies routinely parked (and still park) bikes and scooters directly in the path of pedestrians because they know that the more visible their devices are, the more likely someone will use them.
Additionally, as you point out the pricing these companies charge started out very low but have escalated quickly. But this isn't always true - micromobility can replace ownership if done right: Companies with presumably less VC funding, such as Donkey Republic or Forest have different pricing models that are still affordable. In Donkey Republic's case, you can sometimes sign up for a $10/month subscription with minimum three months (equivalent in local currency) where you can then reserve a bike and take it home with you or park it near your house but blocked from others renting it. You pay a discounted fee to ride it, and an even smaller fee to reserve it.
Cities are also to blame:
Better than no-parking-zones are cities like Paris where they created parking spaces specifically for bikes and scooters. You rarely see problems in these cities. Some places require designated parking areas without making the space in the roads for them - those are much more problematic because the parking spaces fill and spill over onto where people would prefer to walk or drive.
But users are indeed part of the problem:
The number of times I've seen unsafe drivers of any vehicle, or two people on one scooter, or scooters or bikes going the wrong way down a bike lane... the problems are actually endless.
But the problems aren't always with scooters or e-bikes themselves. Sometimes it's an ecosystem problem, and sometimes the rental companies are too short-sighted.
And regulation isn't always bad:
As a scooter rider myself, I look forward to the day when the 2027 E.U. law requiring removable batteries might take effect in the private scooter market. It's silly that so many high end scooter brands aren't making batteries removable simply because they don't want to have to deal with shipping batteries and user-replaceable parts and the inherent design costs of a removable battery.
Scooter and bike share companies routinely parked (and still park) bikes and scooters directly in the path of pedestrians because they know that the more visible their devices are, the more likely someone will use them.
Additionally, as you point out the pricing these companies charge started out very low but have escalated quickly. But this isn't always true - micromobility can replace ownership if done right: Companies with presumably less VC funding, such as Donkey Republic or Forest have different pricing models that are still affordable. In Donkey Republic's case, you can sometimes sign up for a $10/month subscription with minimum three months (equivalent in local currency) where you can then reserve a bike and take it home with you or park it near your house but blocked from others renting it. You pay a discounted fee to ride it, and an even smaller fee to reserve it.
Cities are also to blame:
Better than no-parking-zones are cities like Paris where they created parking spaces specifically for bikes and scooters. You rarely see problems in these cities. Some places require designated parking areas without making the space in the roads for them - those are much more problematic because the parking spaces fill and spill over onto where people would prefer to walk or drive.
But users are indeed part of the problem:
The number of times I've seen unsafe drivers of any vehicle, or two people on one scooter, or scooters or bikes going the wrong way down a bike lane... the problems are actually endless.
But the problems aren't always with scooters or e-bikes themselves. Sometimes it's an ecosystem problem, and sometimes the rental companies are too short-sighted.
And regulation isn't always bad:
As a scooter rider myself, I look forward to the day when the 2027 E.U. law requiring removable batteries might take effect in the private scooter market. It's silly that so many high end scooter brands aren't making batteries removable simply because they don't want to have to deal with shipping batteries and user-replaceable parts and the inherent design costs of a removable battery.
>Better than no-parking-zones are cities like Paris where they created parking spaces specifically for bikes and scooters. You rarely see problems in these cities.
Paris just banned rental escooters. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/world/europe/paris-escoot...
Paris just banned rental escooters. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/world/europe/paris-escoot...
I’m aware. But it wasn’t because people are tripping over scooters like they do in cities without parking spaces. In many Canadian cities, accessibility groups are fighting rental scooters because of a perceived risk of tripping hazards when dedicated street parking zones can easily alleviate this risk.
We’re drifting away from the original topic, but I suspect it has less to do with antisocial behavior and more to do with saturating the intersection of people interested in riding on scooters and places where scooter riding is a plausible mode of transportation.
Horace (and the various VC firms that dumped money on e-scooter companies) probably assumed that intersection had more people in it than seems to be playing out in reality.
Horace (and the various VC firms that dumped money on e-scooter companies) probably assumed that intersection had more people in it than seems to be playing out in reality.
Anyone interested in riding a scooter “well” just bought their own.
Sure, maybe they rented for a bit to see what it was like, but once you agree it’s a good option it is not insanely expensive (or heavy) to buy your own.
Sure, maybe they rented for a bit to see what it was like, but once you agree it’s a good option it is not insanely expensive (or heavy) to buy your own.
I always wondered what would have happened to Bird/Lime if COVID hadn't hit. I love those things
Crazy to think when they started, their product was a chipboard. You had to put the video monitor on yourself.
What has gotten them huge, and sustained them throughout the years, was a series of products that really look nothing like their first. Or their second. Just a continual evolution against a vision, which I think has been pretty consistent.
Worth putting modern, small startups today in that context...you never know what they'll evolve to become beyond their first, second, even third products
What has gotten them huge, and sustained them throughout the years, was a series of products that really look nothing like their first. Or their second. Just a continual evolution against a vision, which I think has been pretty consistent.
Worth putting modern, small startups today in that context...you never know what they'll evolve to become beyond their first, second, even third products
Paypal transacted 1.3T in 2022. Paypal's market cap is 69B, apple 2960B
Given the context, you would then want to look at value extraction.
How much is each entity extracting from the suggested economy in terms of income.
PayPal operating income: $4 billion
Apple operating income: $114 billion
And of course PayPal is a skimmer, somewhat similar to Visa, so their extraction is miniscule compared to the transaction base. Apple carves out a fat profit from their ecosystem by comparison.
Maybe PayPal is beaten down here and their stock is relatively cheap as a value play. Or maybe they're about to be destroyed as the US switches to a European style, low cost insta money moving system courtesy of FedNow, and the market is pricing it accordingly. PayPal better diversify in a hurry, the transaction skimming business isn't going to be so nice in the future.
How much is each entity extracting from the suggested economy in terms of income.
PayPal operating income: $4 billion
Apple operating income: $114 billion
And of course PayPal is a skimmer, somewhat similar to Visa, so their extraction is miniscule compared to the transaction base. Apple carves out a fat profit from their ecosystem by comparison.
Maybe PayPal is beaten down here and their stock is relatively cheap as a value play. Or maybe they're about to be destroyed as the US switches to a European style, low cost insta money moving system courtesy of FedNow, and the market is pricing it accordingly. PayPal better diversify in a hurry, the transaction skimming business isn't going to be so nice in the future.
But this is a bit of a risk, isn't it? It means that there is a huge margin in anyone who could disintermediate Apple, and an incentive for other parties to encourage that. And clear evidence of some kind of monopoly rent -- how are they sustaining a ~30% margin when PayPal's is a fraction of a percent, unless they have a monopoly that should be subject to antitrust action?
They presumably justify the 30% to regulators by saying they host the store, provide the tools, etc etc.
Isn't that just admitting to exactly the sort of tying that antitrust is supposed to protect the public from? If you want to distribute your app (the thing they restrict anyone else from doing), you have to pay for their store hosting and tools etc. etc.
Meanwhile you have Epic offering to do the whole shebang for 10%, F-Droid doing it on Android for free apps for nothing, PayPal doing payment processing for a fraction of a percent over the credit card fees whereas Apple still wants 30% from in-app purchases that don't even use their hosting or tools. Makes it pretty clear that 30% is the monopolist lock-in price and not the free market price.
Meanwhile you have Epic offering to do the whole shebang for 10%, F-Droid doing it on Android for free apps for nothing, PayPal doing payment processing for a fraction of a percent over the credit card fees whereas Apple still wants 30% from in-app purchases that don't even use their hosting or tools. Makes it pretty clear that 30% is the monopolist lock-in price and not the free market price.
Doesn't the presence of competitors indicate that it's not monopolistic lock-in? If Apple didn't exist and Epic is 10%, would that be monopolistic lock-in compared to f-droid doing it free? Is the presence of anything free in any an indication that everything else is monopolistic lock-in?
Is apple going to ban direct FedNow transactions between users and developers? Do they ban cash payments currently?
Are you saying the amount of transactions processed should dictate market value?
pointing out how little it matters to apple
That is all paypal does. Apple does a couple of other things.
This is a non point?
>It’s nice to think that Apple could soon be about 2% of the world
Id say thats scary
Id say thats scary
Yes, I’m not sure nice is the word I’d use.
I’m just glad it’s Apple and not some other company…. I guess :-/
I’m just glad it’s Apple and not some other company…. I guess :-/
The fact that Apple is even allowed to charge more than 100% markup is one of those tell tales signs of "you might be living in a suboptimal society when".
No product price has anything to do with its production costs except that it's usually, but not always, higher.
Suboptimal compared to what optimal society?
The same one where advertisement for prescription-only drugs are not allowed on TV, politicians are forced to run on the merit of their party's platform and negative campaigning is illegal, where the housing market doesn't allow someone to "wait for a higher bid" when someone offers them asking price and rent bidding is illegal, and where health care is practiced in a way that actually helps people in a cheap and effective manner because that's your tax dollars at work.
You know. A good society.
You know. A good society.
A spiritual one.
Can you give an example?
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is a more optimal society? By what measures?
By Allah’s measure. Jesus Christ, it was a joke. Are you sitting there refreshing for responses?
> Are you sitting there refreshing for responses?
No, I just saw it at random. You replied 3 minutes after my response; far sooner than I replied to you.
No, I just saw it at random. You replied 3 minutes after my response; far sooner than I replied to you.
Why? Apple is a “premium” offering and doesn’t have a monopoly in any area. If there was no other options I would agree
Only if you use their definition of monopoly at minimum they form an Oligopoly in phones. (They repeatedly have claimed in court that all computing devices are the market they compete in with iPhone)
If you are an Apple user what real choice do you have? The cost of switching is massive for established users as everything Apple only supports Apple.
Sure an unaffiliated user can choose but once you are in one camp it requires a massive change to switch.
They utilize this to raise their prices holding the difficulty to switch against their users.
On a similar note they use heavy vertical integration to avoid options for users. You want their OS you need to buy their hardware.
"Doesn't have a monopoly" only makes sense in a make believe world where you have 95% market share or enough competition.
If you are an Apple user what real choice do you have? The cost of switching is massive for established users as everything Apple only supports Apple.
Sure an unaffiliated user can choose but once you are in one camp it requires a massive change to switch.
They utilize this to raise their prices holding the difficulty to switch against their users.
On a similar note they use heavy vertical integration to avoid options for users. You want their OS you need to buy their hardware.
"Doesn't have a monopoly" only makes sense in a make believe world where you have 95% market share or enough competition.
What massive costs of switching?
Unless you never touched the App Store there are real costs there and you could spend hours if not days transferring stuff. (Accounts cloud data etc.)
Unless you get a new same manufacturer device and then it takes minutes and you keep everything.
Unless you get a new same manufacturer device and then it takes minutes and you keep everything.
What “cloud data”? Most apps that are available for iOS are also available for Android and are subscription based these days.
Copying data from iCloud Drive to another cloud provider like Google Drive can be done in the Files App.
Music you bought has been DRM free since 2009.
Apple works with MoviesAnyWhere. Four or five of the major studios participate too. Meaning any movie you buy from one of the participating studios can be synced to Amazon Movies, Google Play Movies (or whatever it’s called these days), Vudu etc.
Photos can be synced to Google Photos, Dropbox, OneDrive.
Bookmarks can be synced between Chrome and Firefox and Safari if you have a Windows PC using Apple’s extension for those browsers.
Copying data from iCloud Drive to another cloud provider like Google Drive can be done in the Files App.
Music you bought has been DRM free since 2009.
Apple works with MoviesAnyWhere. Four or five of the major studios participate too. Meaning any movie you buy from one of the participating studios can be synced to Amazon Movies, Google Play Movies (or whatever it’s called these days), Vudu etc.
Photos can be synced to Google Photos, Dropbox, OneDrive.
Bookmarks can be synced between Chrome and Firefox and Safari if you have a Windows PC using Apple’s extension for those browsers.
Each of those steps is distinct and requires it's own process.
Those in the know can switch.
Those who just have a phone are looking at a hard to judge effort that might take months of "where was that?"
Don't just discount the literal day it would take a tech person to switch their primary phone as meaningless. Nor should you discount how many people don't even know it is meaningfully possible.
I am pretty sure I knew people back in the early days who wanted to switch so they just lost everything from before.
Those in the know can switch.
Those who just have a phone are looking at a hard to judge effort that might take months of "where was that?"
Don't just discount the literal day it would take a tech person to switch their primary phone as meaningless. Nor should you discount how many people don't even know it is meaningfully possible.
I am pretty sure I knew people back in the early days who wanted to switch so they just lost everything from before.
Is it really difficult to say “I have Spotify/Apple Music/Office 365, random other subscription. Let me download the same app on an Android phone”?
People have been using copy and paste to copy files from one drive to another since Windows 95. It works the same way with the Files app. You download the other storage provider’s app and they show up in the files app. Heck you can literally attach a USB drive to your iOS device and it shows up in the Files app like it would hold computer.
Syncing photos is as simple as downloading Google photos.
You can literally Google all of this stuff.
As far as it taking “a day”. It takes me about as long to set up a new Windows PC.
And it’s not worth a day of your life to jump over Apple’s “walled garden” where there is a big ass door that you have to push on a little bit?
People have been using copy and paste to copy files from one drive to another since Windows 95. It works the same way with the Files app. You download the other storage provider’s app and they show up in the files app. Heck you can literally attach a USB drive to your iOS device and it shows up in the Files app like it would hold computer.
Syncing photos is as simple as downloading Google photos.
You can literally Google all of this stuff.
As far as it taking “a day”. It takes me about as long to set up a new Windows PC.
And it’s not worth a day of your life to jump over Apple’s “walled garden” where there is a big ass door that you have to push on a little bit?
This still sounds like something incredibly simple compared to most actually difficult things.
The price is part of why they sell so well
That’s just basic capitalism
[deleted]
2% of the world’s GDP? Holy s#!%.
Break them up, way past the point of too big
Of all the big tech companies Apple is the most innocuous. There have no monopoly in any of their sectors and you can just ignore them if you wish, as I do, without any consequences.
There is at least one aspect where they may be a serious competitive problem: their enormous size enables them to buy up a huge share of the world's most advanced chip supply from TSMC. Their scale and the profit that goes with it makes that possible. They can very effectively limit competition globally through that mechanism.
You're a smaller company with a hot new phone? You need a large supply of 3nm chips from TSMC to compete? You can't get them because Apple is buying them all.
And their leverage on TSMC (with TSMC eating the cost of defective supply), which is very remarkable unto itself, may also be a serious problem.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/report-apple-is-savi...
You're a smaller company with a hot new phone? You need a large supply of 3nm chips from TSMC to compete? You can't get them because Apple is buying them all.
And their leverage on TSMC (with TSMC eating the cost of defective supply), which is very remarkable unto itself, may also be a serious problem.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/report-apple-is-savi...
These arguments feel like we are complaining that the situation isn't fair because Apple is so well run compared to the competition.
You mean smaller companies like Nvidia, Qualcomm, Microsoft and Amazon who could have just as easily bid on capacity?
If TSMC wants to sell more people capacity they can simply build more capacity.
Plenty of jobs require use of Apple products or services, if nothing else to test on them.
It's not just testing on them. If any of your customers have bought an Apple mobile device, your only feasible way to distribute apps to them is through Apple.
It's like having Comcast and Time Warner and they each want to charge 30% of revenue to any service traversing their network. Not only is it unreasonable to say that they compete with each other because if you're not satisfied with Comcast you can just sign up with Time Warner -- because one of them is in California and the other is in New York and you'd have to move -- but it's not even you who would have to move. The customer of the App Store, the one who pays the fee, is the developer. It's your customers who would have to move -- every single one of them, or Apple still has a monopoly on each one who doesn't.
Notice how this differs from an ordinary retailer. Your customer can easily go across the street to Target or Walmart, or shop in both stores on the same day. They don't have to "move" -- buy a new device for hundreds of dollars and transition all of their other apps and services to an incompatible platform.
It's like having Comcast and Time Warner and they each want to charge 30% of revenue to any service traversing their network. Not only is it unreasonable to say that they compete with each other because if you're not satisfied with Comcast you can just sign up with Time Warner -- because one of them is in California and the other is in New York and you'd have to move -- but it's not even you who would have to move. The customer of the App Store, the one who pays the fee, is the developer. It's your customers who would have to move -- every single one of them, or Apple still has a monopoly on each one who doesn't.
Notice how this differs from an ordinary retailer. Your customer can easily go across the street to Target or Walmart, or shop in both stores on the same day. They don't have to "move" -- buy a new device for hundreds of dollars and transition all of their other apps and services to an incompatible platform.
From the article:
> this data includes payments which are not captured by Apple directly. In the words of the authors, “More than 90% of this figure originated from transactions that did not happen through the App Store, meaning that these amounts accrued solely to developers and other third parties, and that Apple collected no commission on them.”
> this data includes payments which are not captured by Apple directly. In the words of the authors, “More than 90% of this figure originated from transactions that did not happen through the App Store, meaning that these amounts accrued solely to developers and other third parties, and that Apple collected no commission on them.”
Who's gonna break them up? The government itself, that enables companies to grow this big, and whose politicians are paid and dined by megacorporations?
Or did you mean you and me?
Or did you mean you and me?
> and whose politicians are paid and dined by megacorporations?
This is largely faked and comes from people intentionally misreading donations from company employees as if they were donations from companies. (Companies can do some things with PACs, but not much, and Apple doesn't have a PAC.)
What's actually happening is the FTC currently is run by someone who's trying to break up all the big tech companies, and they keep losing in court because their arguments are bad.
This is largely faked and comes from people intentionally misreading donations from company employees as if they were donations from companies. (Companies can do some things with PACs, but not much, and Apple doesn't have a PAC.)
What's actually happening is the FTC currently is run by someone who's trying to break up all the big tech companies, and they keep losing in court because their arguments are bad.
I suppose those company employees are doing it out of the kindness of their heart and patriotic duty.
The issue isn't "companies, specifically, the direct legal entity have influence on politicians"
The issue is "money, and the people wielding it, having undue influence on politicians"
The issue isn't "companies, specifically, the direct legal entity have influence on politicians"
The issue is "money, and the people wielding it, having undue influence on politicians"
Employees don't have the same interests as their employer, which is why you can use the same methodology to show every big tech company actually loves Bernie Sanders.
Reactionary and meaningless. Break it up into what?
Phones, computers, software, consumer electronics, digital services, marketplace.
They work very hard to make sure all their product lines form a cohesive experience. It’s very different than GE simply (once? Still? Someone fact check me) owning NBC. Or Blackrock just owning a ton of real estate. The latter just owns shit to own shit.
Why this is right? You just responded with a list of their product lines?
Each of those can be reasonably separated. But I do think that it is quite natural and will stop the digital dictator mindset, most importantly splitting of digital services from marketplace and both of those from hardware.
Notably they seem to view their product lines quite different, the website lists "Store Mac iPad iPhone Watch Vision AirPods TV & Home Entertainment Accessories".
Notably they seem to view their product lines quite different, the website lists "Store Mac iPad iPhone Watch Vision AirPods TV & Home Entertainment Accessories".
You're essentially just asking them to destroy the company and each of those products. I'm really not sure how you're going to go about this when all of these operate within the walled garden. I mean it 100% won't happen, but further I don't see how this would benefit the consumer in any way.
How would it destroy any of them? They could all still be used together by anyone who prefers that. Anyone who wanted to could continue to install apps only from a specific App Store even if others were available. You could still run iOS on an iPhone even if iOS also ran on Samsung devices and Android also ran on iPhones.
The only change is that you could also choose something different.
The only change is that you could also choose something different.
FTA: “More than 90% of this figure originated from transactions that did not happen through the App Store, meaning that these amounts accrued solely to developers and other third parties, and that Apple collected no commission on them.”
As a non-American I would love if Americans started doing more impulsive footgun politics like breaking up their big tech companies. That will finally give European and non-Chinese Asian competitors a chance.
So exactly how would you “break Apple up”?
Exactly how they break themselves up: iPhone, Mac, wearables, services, and so on.
I don’t think so. Apple is not a monopoly in any of those spaces, and has plenty of competition on all fronts.
One of the big things that makes Apple products so compelling is the integration and shared engineering between them.
For instance, Apple made some of the best processor cores over the course of a decade for the iPhone. Now, variants of those cores are used in everything from the Apple Watch to the Mac.
Also, when you buy an iPhone app, it will often also work on the iPad and Apple Watch with tight integration and syncing.
To break the company up on product lines would significantly worsen the products. It would make the products less competitive worldwide and likely hurt the US economy. I think this would be a nonstarter for regulators.
If regulators want to go after anticompetitive practices, they would more likely force Apple to make changes to App Store policies, which are in many cases incredibly unfair.
One of the big things that makes Apple products so compelling is the integration and shared engineering between them.
For instance, Apple made some of the best processor cores over the course of a decade for the iPhone. Now, variants of those cores are used in everything from the Apple Watch to the Mac.
Also, when you buy an iPhone app, it will often also work on the iPad and Apple Watch with tight integration and syncing.
To break the company up on product lines would significantly worsen the products. It would make the products less competitive worldwide and likely hurt the US economy. I think this would be a nonstarter for regulators.
If regulators want to go after anticompetitive practices, they would more likely force Apple to make changes to App Store policies, which are in many cases incredibly unfair.
> For instance, Apple made some of the best processor cores over the course of a decade for the iPhone. Now, variants of those cores are used in everything from the Apple Watch to the Mac.
Regulators could force Apple to sell their CPUs (if as hardware or as IP license) under fair conditions to willing buyers, or to open up macOS, iMessage, Facetime and Find My iDevice to competitors' products.
That way Apple could still enjoy the benefits of having tightly integrated hardware and software, but the rest of the world could enjoy high performance ARM systems as well, thus finally providing some actual competition to Intel and AMD.
Regulators could force Apple to sell their CPUs (if as hardware or as IP license) under fair conditions to willing buyers, or to open up macOS, iMessage, Facetime and Find My iDevice to competitors' products.
That way Apple could still enjoy the benefits of having tightly integrated hardware and software, but the rest of the world could enjoy high performance ARM systems as well, thus finally providing some actual competition to Intel and AMD.
Why should Apple be forced to sell their IP? The Mac has less than 15% market share? Should Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Amazon also be forced to sell their IP?
Intel has 80%+ of the computer market. Should they be forced to license their IP? Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?
Intel has 80%+ of the computer market. Should they be forced to license their IP? Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?
> Intel has 80%+ of the computer market. Should they be forced to license their IP?
You can walk into any computer store you want and pick up a top of the line Intel or AMD CPU, and buy parts from all kinds of vendors to assemble a computer from them. With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand. The only problem is that anything x86 is an utter pain in performance-per-watt because Intel doesn't care, AMD doesn't have the resources and the patent situation means that there can't reasonably be competitors for these two. Having actually performant Apple components available on the open market would be the kick for Intel to finally do something. Competition would be working again. (BTW, I'm an Apple user myself, but the way that Apple gouges you on storage and memory is beyond ridiculous)
> Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?
At least to open them up. Google is incredibly powerful thanks to its market share, and its decisions (or not-decisions) have serious economic impacts upon individual people and small businesses unable to afford the millions of dollars that you need to get a personal Google account representative.
You can walk into any computer store you want and pick up a top of the line Intel or AMD CPU, and buy parts from all kinds of vendors to assemble a computer from them. With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand. The only problem is that anything x86 is an utter pain in performance-per-watt because Intel doesn't care, AMD doesn't have the resources and the patent situation means that there can't reasonably be competitors for these two. Having actually performant Apple components available on the open market would be the kick for Intel to finally do something. Competition would be working again. (BTW, I'm an Apple user myself, but the way that Apple gouges you on storage and memory is beyond ridiculous)
> Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?
At least to open them up. Google is incredibly powerful thanks to its market share, and its decisions (or not-decisions) have serious economic impacts upon individual people and small businesses unable to afford the millions of dollars that you need to get a personal Google account representative.
> With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand
People being allowed to charge a price they'd like to for a product or service they provide is a good idea.
People being allowed to charge a price they'd like to for a product or service they provide is a good idea.
[deleted]
> With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand
How is this different from Intel or AMD? There might be a retailer middleman between you and Intel/AMD, but just like any other business, you are paying whatever they are willing to sell at.
How is this different from Intel or AMD? There might be a retailer middleman between you and Intel/AMD, but just like any other business, you are paying whatever they are willing to sell at.
Intel and AMD compete with each other and are essentially fungible. It's not as if you can only run Windows on Intel and Linux on AMD, they both run on both. Substantially all software that runs on one will run on the other. They're even widely compatible with the same memory DIMMs, PCIe devices, screens and other peripherals. Neither company requires you to buy an entire system from them instead of just the processor, restricts what software you can run or tries to wall up a troll bridge between third parties and the end user.
You're not in any sense locked in, because it's so easy to switch.
You're not in any sense locked in, because it's so easy to switch.
What type of “troll bridge” does Apple impose on installing software on a Mac?
The desire is to be able to freely install apps on device with an Apple CPU that fits in your pocket. You can't build your own phone with one, because they won't sell you the CPU by itself. You can't use the CPU in a Mac for that, because it's soldered to something that won't fit in your pocket. So you're left with an iPhone, with a troll bridge between the user and the app developer.
> Apple components available on the open market would be the kick for Intel to finally do something. Competition would be working again. (BTW, I'm an Apple user myself, but the way that Apple gouges you on storage and memory is beyond ridiculous)
There is plenty of competition but for making ARM chips - Qualcomm, Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung and Google all make ARM offshoots and none of them are exactly little companies. Whose fault is it that they can’t compete?
You chose to buy a MacBook unlike 80%+ of the PC buying population. Apple must have had something that you valued to make it worth the price.
There is plenty of competition but for making ARM chips - Qualcomm, Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung and Google all make ARM offshoots and none of them are exactly little companies. Whose fault is it that they can’t compete?
You chose to buy a MacBook unlike 80%+ of the PC buying population. Apple must have had something that you valued to make it worth the price.
> One of the big things that makes Apple products so compelling is the integration and shared engineering between them
That's also the biggest reason why I avoid their products. Their compatibility with non-Apple products is limited. And Apple doesn't care.
That's also the biggest reason why I avoid their products. Their compatibility with non-Apple products is limited. And Apple doesn't care.
Given all the common/shared pieces underpinning their hardware and software, that would likely be disastrous for almost everything split out. Cloud services could probably find a way to stay afloat, but the Mac would be at risk as would wearables. iPhone would quickly lose its hardware edge over Android with it no longer making financial sense to invest so much in custom chips. It’s hard to see an outcome of a split that doesn’t end up entrenching Windows and Android as monopolies.
And how exactly does that work since they all use the same processors or offshoot of the same processors and the same OS?
So who gets the operating system? The processors?
So who gets the operating system? The processors?
That would be extremely detrimental to its users.
(not an Apple shill)
(not an Apple shill)
Once they get bigger than the US government (not the country, the government) they wouldn’t be able to do anything to Apple.
And even now, Apple can just relocate, as Microsoft threatened to do.
And even now, Apple can just relocate, as Microsoft threatened to do.
Then just tax them to hell (aka tariff Apple imports if they move out of the country significantly) if that's the game these companies want to play. They need the US customer base and investment base more than the US needs Apple.
Yes and raise prices on everyone? How do you just “tax Apple” and not everyone else?
Based on share of profits for any given market, like smartphones or laptops.
You realize Apple has less than 20% of the PC market? Every company already pays taxes on profits
I said "share of profits". Though perhaps I should have said revenue. Regardless Apple has 85% of smartphone profit. And its share of services on mobile and laptops is growing.
And I fail to see the difference. If Apple has 85% of the profits in cell phones, it’s already paying 85% of the taxes in the cell phone market.
This isn't about the taxes (which they mostly dodge or pass on to consumers). It's about choice. With a chokehold on market revenue they crowd out competitors which reduces consumer choice over time.
Whose fault is it that Amazon, Facebook and Google - all trillion dollar market cap companies are not able to compete? Amazon and Facebook both tried creating their own phone.
Consumers have choice. They can buy from Apple or any number of much cheaper Android devices. They made a choice to pay Apple more. It’s consumers making a choice that led to Apple’s revenue.
Both Google and Microsoft have better services than Apple and they still can’t compete.
Google is worth a trillion dollars plus, have their own operating system and has the most visited page on the internet and still is estimated to sell as many phones in a year that Apple sells in less than a month.
It’s not Apple being anti-competitive. It’s the competitors - all large companies - being incompetent.
In the computer space, Apple was a nobody and almost bankrupt compared to Dell and HP in 1997 when Jobs came back. Why were they so incompetently run?
Why couldn’t Microsoft make a competitive ARM chip?
Consumers have choice. They can buy from Apple or any number of much cheaper Android devices. They made a choice to pay Apple more. It’s consumers making a choice that led to Apple’s revenue.
Both Google and Microsoft have better services than Apple and they still can’t compete.
Google is worth a trillion dollars plus, have their own operating system and has the most visited page on the internet and still is estimated to sell as many phones in a year that Apple sells in less than a month.
It’s not Apple being anti-competitive. It’s the competitors - all large companies - being incompetent.
In the computer space, Apple was a nobody and almost bankrupt compared to Dell and HP in 1997 when Jobs came back. Why were they so incompetently run?
Why couldn’t Microsoft make a competitive ARM chip?
Name one product market where Apple's share is more than 60%.
Market share doesn't determine anti-trust action, it's merely one factor that tends to play a role in the ability of a company to harm consumers.
I don't know why this myth about % market share and anti-trust refuses to die.
Harm to consumers is the primary consideration. Apple has that ability through locking up component supply in an aggressively exclusionary manner that restricts competition, which then harms consumers. If Apple perpetually uses their very elevated profit margins to lock up that supply, you can bet they're plainly raising the average cost of a smartphone by limiting how many other lower cost competing devices there are eg at TSMC 3nm.
I don't know why this myth about % market share and anti-trust refuses to die.
Harm to consumers is the primary consideration. Apple has that ability through locking up component supply in an aggressively exclusionary manner that restricts competition, which then harms consumers. If Apple perpetually uses their very elevated profit margins to lock up that supply, you can bet they're plainly raising the average cost of a smartphone by limiting how many other lower cost competing devices there are eg at TSMC 3nm.
Distribution of iOS apps.
Luckily, we had a real judge say that’s not a monopoly.
But by that logic Shopify has a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps, and McDonalds has a monopoly on Quarter Pounders.
But by that logic Shopify has a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps, and McDonalds has a monopoly on Quarter Pounders.
District court decisions don't set precedent and the case is still under appeal.
But I also notice that you're not providing a counterargument in any logical sense and only an appeal to authority. We're not in a courtroom, we've having a public policy discussion about what the law should be.
If you have prospective customers with iOS devices you want to distribute your app to, name a feasible distribution method that isn't Apple.
> But by that logic Shopify has a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps, and McDonalds has a monopoly on Quarter Pounders.
Anyone can make and sell a Quarter Pounder to anyone. They may need to call it something else if McDonalds has a trademark on the name, but that doesn't cause it to be a different market when the product is a substitute and the customers are the same people.
Maybe Shopify does have a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps? That presumably depends on whether you can install the apps in some other way. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on distributing Windows apps, for example, and the fact that there is a difference between that and what is going on with Apple is demonstrative.
But I also notice that you're not providing a counterargument in any logical sense and only an appeal to authority. We're not in a courtroom, we've having a public policy discussion about what the law should be.
If you have prospective customers with iOS devices you want to distribute your app to, name a feasible distribution method that isn't Apple.
> But by that logic Shopify has a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps, and McDonalds has a monopoly on Quarter Pounders.
Anyone can make and sell a Quarter Pounder to anyone. They may need to call it something else if McDonalds has a trademark on the name, but that doesn't cause it to be a different market when the product is a substitute and the customers are the same people.
Maybe Shopify does have a monopoly on distributing Shopify apps? That presumably depends on whether you can install the apps in some other way. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on distributing Windows apps, for example, and the fact that there is a difference between that and what is going on with Apple is demonstrative.
> But I also notice that you're not providing a counterargument in any logical sense
because judges are kinda the authority on the interpretation of the law. That’s how the legal system works.
> Anyone can make and sell a Quarter Pounder to anyone. They may need to call it something else if McDonalds has a trademark on the name,
Only McDonald’s can distribute a McDonald’s quarter pounder. Anyone can make a distribute a smart phone too. There are dozens of white market smart phone makers that a company can get a run of smart phones made and put their own version of AOSP or Linux on it.
> If you have prospective customers with iOS devices you want to distribute your app to, name a feasible distribution method that isn't Apple.
The web….
because judges are kinda the authority on the interpretation of the law. That’s how the legal system works.
> Anyone can make and sell a Quarter Pounder to anyone. They may need to call it something else if McDonalds has a trademark on the name,
Only McDonald’s can distribute a McDonald’s quarter pounder. Anyone can make a distribute a smart phone too. There are dozens of white market smart phone makers that a company can get a run of smart phones made and put their own version of AOSP or Linux on it.
> If you have prospective customers with iOS devices you want to distribute your app to, name a feasible distribution method that isn't Apple.
The web….
> because judges are kinda the authority on the interpretation of the law. That’s how the legal system works.
Unless you have a Supreme Court opinion, their authority is limited to one courtroom or one Circuit. And this still doesn't tell you what the law should be, which is ultimately up to the public.
> Only McDonald’s can distribute a McDonald’s quarter pounder.
You're talking about the trademark, not the product. Anybody can distribute a hamburger. It can even be indistinguishable from a McDonald's Quarter Pounder as long as you don't call it that.
The issue is not that Apple has a trademark on Apple App Store so no one else can make a store with that name. It's that there are millions of people whose only mobile device is an iPhone who can't reasonably use any other app store no matter what you name it.
> Anyone can make a distribute a smart phone too.
The question is whether anyone can make a store that distributes apps to everyone with a smart phone. If they can only distribute apps to some subset of the people with a smart phone, that strongly implies that these are separate markets.
> The web….
I want to install the Firefox browser engine, my favorite VPN, BitTorrent and the Epic Games Store on an iOS device. Can I use the web for this?
Notice that you couldn't list Google Play either. Why is that if the market is supposed to be something like "smartphone app distribution"?
Unless you have a Supreme Court opinion, their authority is limited to one courtroom or one Circuit. And this still doesn't tell you what the law should be, which is ultimately up to the public.
> Only McDonald’s can distribute a McDonald’s quarter pounder.
You're talking about the trademark, not the product. Anybody can distribute a hamburger. It can even be indistinguishable from a McDonald's Quarter Pounder as long as you don't call it that.
The issue is not that Apple has a trademark on Apple App Store so no one else can make a store with that name. It's that there are millions of people whose only mobile device is an iPhone who can't reasonably use any other app store no matter what you name it.
> Anyone can make a distribute a smart phone too.
The question is whether anyone can make a store that distributes apps to everyone with a smart phone. If they can only distribute apps to some subset of the people with a smart phone, that strongly implies that these are separate markets.
> The web….
I want to install the Firefox browser engine, my favorite VPN, BitTorrent and the Epic Games Store on an iOS device. Can I use the web for this?
Notice that you couldn't list Google Play either. Why is that if the market is supposed to be something like "smartphone app distribution"?
And the Visa system US$6.8 trillion in 2014 says wikipedia 9 yrs ago as opposed to yrs from now for Apple, and China's UnionPay still more, etc, etc. Sure these are big numbers and Apple's are not particularly crazy. And like market cap they don't have much to do with much else.
Comparing revenue to GDP is stupid.
Why?
Because it’s just bad math.
It uses the wrong denominator. You may as well compare it to the bank balance of Bill Gates. If you add up the revenue of every company it will far exceed 100% of GDP, making the comparison meaningless.
It’s been pointed out again and again. Any financial analyst should know this.
It uses the wrong denominator. You may as well compare it to the bank balance of Bill Gates. If you add up the revenue of every company it will far exceed 100% of GDP, making the comparison meaningless.
It’s been pointed out again and again. Any financial analyst should know this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
But $2T is market capitalization, not yearly sales.
This mostly means that AAPL is seen as a safe asset to park large amounts of (fiat) money.
This mostly means that AAPL is seen as a safe asset to park large amounts of (fiat) money.
The article is about an estimation of the total volume of transactions going through apps on the app store, both in the app store and outside of the app store direct to the app publisher. It's currently at 1.1 trillion, they're projecting given the growth rate it could be 2 trillion in 2 years. That is the figure being discussed.
At least read the article before commenting. It's talking about the total transactional value of the app store. Not apples market cap.
While the comment you are replying to is wrong, this comment is also incorrect.
> this data includes payments which are not captured by Apple directly. In the words of the authors, “More than 90% of this figure originated from transactions that did not happen through the App Store, meaning that these amounts accrued solely to developers and other third parties, and that Apple collected no commission on them.”
> this data includes payments which are not captured by Apple directly. In the words of the authors, “More than 90% of this figure originated from transactions that did not happen through the App Store, meaning that these amounts accrued solely to developers and other third parties, and that Apple collected no commission on them.”
Market cap has absolutely nothing to do with the article and the (fiat) take i ungrounded.
Crazy how big Apple has become. Yet I haven't bought or voluntarily used a single one of their products in the last 5 years. Interestingly though, as a developer, I was forced to use Apple laptops at 2 of the last companies I worked at. I feel it creeping into my personal space. I have some resentment against the company as a result. It's better than Windows but I'm less productive with it than on Linux. It may even have (in a small way) contributed to me losing my job in my last company due to various UX gotchas I could never get used to and lost motivation (I'm a developer so all the small things add up).
I wouldn't develop for their platform but I do like the products. I have far more concerns about Microsoft (products developed for the enterprise and government) and Google (services developed for the advertiser) than Apple.
My only concern is whether their push into services ends up corrupting the core products. If so I'll deal with that when it happens.
My only concern is whether their push into services ends up corrupting the core products. If so I'll deal with that when it happens.
[deleted]
We Europeans need to wake up. Big tech companies in the US (and soon China) are practically robbing us at this point.
The neoliberal dogma that tariffs and trade barriers are bad is economical suicide for Europe.
The neoliberal dogma that tariffs and trade barriers are bad is economical suicide for Europe.
What Europe needs is a reform of whatever it is that is stopping European startups from competing. It took Apple 40+ years to get where they are; they're _were_ European companies competing with them.
This assumes a level playing field. Yet Apple was born into a largely monolingual market, with one currency, almost no regulation (for better and worse), a mostly continuous land mass with porous borders (among the states), and grew in a young field with mostly small competitors (IBM and Microsoft being exceptions). And Apple still nearly went bankrupt.
With iPhone and Mac they control critical choke points in a crowded market, where all the choke points are now taken by large and powerful incumbents.
Europe cannot deregulate it's way into success. In fact I'd say asleep-at-the wheel regulators and anti-trust are what got us into the mess of few real choices and luxury taxes for mediocre offerings.
With iPhone and Mac they control critical choke points in a crowded market, where all the choke points are now taken by large and powerful incumbents.
Europe cannot deregulate it's way into success. In fact I'd say asleep-at-the wheel regulators and anti-trust are what got us into the mess of few real choices and luxury taxes for mediocre offerings.
With more regulation we'd simply have much worse devices. Apple was born in a country with a lot of free-flowing capital available and incentives to succeed, and they've navigated it extremely well. Of course with big ideas comes the strong chance of failure, but that's why you need to be wary about overtaxing success. If you don't let people succeed when they make something really good, nothing good will get made.
Perhaps worse devices is a reasonable tradeoff to allow home grown products to succeed.
Honestly that does not work in building quality. India, Russia and Brazil have already tried that.
They could of course ban iPhones in favour of the employees of companies that make worse products. The only people that lose out are the consumers.
Was it absence of regulation or capital or some combination?
Tariffs and trade barriers are bad; Brazil has not developed a competitor to iPhones even though it has a huge tariff on them.
It's not how successful tech economies like Korea developed either. They used industrial policy and export discipline.
Europe can't develop more tech companies because it doesn't have enough financing options and because you're passing 100000 cookie popup laws.
It's not how successful tech economies like Korea developed either. They used industrial policy and export discipline.
Europe can't develop more tech companies because it doesn't have enough financing options and because you're passing 100000 cookie popup laws.
Right, blame EU for companies doing shady stuff with our data.
It doesn't matter what the data is - your data is not very profitable and it's not why any particular company is in business. It does depend what the cost of compliance with all of that is.
What do you mean, my data is valuable
Have you ever thought that it might be because of the regulatory environment in Europe that the tech system is so enemic?
People keep saying that, but how exactly is the regulatory environment affecting tech in Europe?
It’s harder to ramp up employment and ramp down employment in the EU for one.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/why-google-and-amazon-are-st...
That’s suppose to be for “worker protection”. But the average senior enterprise CRUD developer[1], in the US makes more than many BigTech workers in the EU. I’ll take the tradeoff of more money over being laid off any day.
VC funding has also traditionally been lower because of regulations
https://www.maxio.com/blog/state-of-vc-funding-in-europe
[1] no offense intended. That’s what I was for decades and I still turn back into a an enterprise dev pumpkin if you take AWS away from me.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/why-google-and-amazon-are-st...
That’s suppose to be for “worker protection”. But the average senior enterprise CRUD developer[1], in the US makes more than many BigTech workers in the EU. I’ll take the tradeoff of more money over being laid off any day.
VC funding has also traditionally been lower because of regulations
https://www.maxio.com/blog/state-of-vc-funding-in-europe
[1] no offense intended. That’s what I was for decades and I still turn back into a an enterprise dev pumpkin if you take AWS away from me.
I don't think Ericsson, Alcatel, Siemens, Nokia, etc failed due to EU regulations, though.
And regarding those protections, they're there for a reason and in terms of hardware it truly is a race to the bottom, hardware is only made in low cost of living places because workers can be abused at will.
For software I'd argue that it was the unified market in the US (and now China) that's the real deal breaker.
Plus VC capital, but I think that's changing.
And regarding those protections, they're there for a reason and in terms of hardware it truly is a race to the bottom, hardware is only made in low cost of living places because workers can be abused at will.
For software I'd argue that it was the unified market in the US (and now China) that's the real deal breaker.
Plus VC capital, but I think that's changing.
I realize that they’re for a reason. But if I know it’s harder to lay someone off of the business climate changes, I’m going to be a lot less likely to hire a lot of people.
I would much rather get an offer for $250K a year, get laid off in two years than not be able to get a job or even get a job for $100K a year and have job security.
I would much rather get an offer for $250K a year, get laid off in two years than not be able to get a job or even get a job for $100K a year and have job security.
we need to hire a new committee to oversee the committee that currently oversees trade
[deleted]
And Apple has basically said the 150-200 billion in cash that has accumulated, parked in tax havens, selling their veblen goods, they cant find a single thing on the planet worth investing it in. So its just growing like a nice fat pointless tumor.
Think about that for 2 seconds. What does it mean?
It shows us in 2023, corporate robots can design a highly optimized runaway process of cash extraction from the chimp troupe, for no reason other than it being possible. There is no purpose to these processes.
When a corporate robot finds a scaling rule it keeps scaling. Scale always needs purpose. Otherwise we end up like Apple. And only fools think the Apple story of mindless scaling is going well or going to end well.
Think about that for 2 seconds. What does it mean?
It shows us in 2023, corporate robots can design a highly optimized runaway process of cash extraction from the chimp troupe, for no reason other than it being possible. There is no purpose to these processes.
When a corporate robot finds a scaling rule it keeps scaling. Scale always needs purpose. Otherwise we end up like Apple. And only fools think the Apple story of mindless scaling is going well or going to end well.
> Think about that for 2 seconds. What does it mean?
Apple makes stuff that people want and are willing to pay for.
Apple makes stuff that people want and are willing to pay for.
Apple and their dragons horde of cash was a prime subject in what I thought was a really excellent article, Intellectual Property and the Fissured Economy. Horded IP had created insurmountable moats around these titans. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169236 https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/05/intellectual-prop...
>they cant find a single thing on the planet worth investing it in
Be careful what you wish for, they could use the money to buy out every potential competitor just like Adobe, Microsoft, Google et all.
Be careful what you wish for, they could use the money to buy out every potential competitor just like Adobe, Microsoft, Google et all.
Apple spends $25 billion a year on R&D, and has like 10,000 employees and an operational factory in their supposed empty tax haven of Ireland.
> Users can find thousands of apps on the App Store to help them adopt healthier lifestyles. Many of these apps take advantage of Apple’s HealthKit API, which allows the use of sophisticated sensors on iPhone and Apple Watch, while ensuring that user data is safe according to Apple’s rigorous privacy and data security protocols.
The actual 1.1T number comes mostly (81%) from goods and services purchases (mostly retail) made in mobile apps on Apple devices. The methodology?
> We estimate the share of each app category’s sales that occur via mobile apps, within each geography, using information collected from marketing surveys or data on usage patterns. Finally, we apportion usage to Apple platforms based on the overall iOS share market share.
So it's an estimate; not hard data.
I don't want to discount the conclusion, because it's always difficult to understand Apple from outside the company, and the point really is just that people make a lot of purchases on Apple devices.
(Conflict of interest: I'm an Apple shareholder.)