Apple’s profit is always the priority–no matter the cost(macworld.com)
macworld.com
Apple’s profit is always the priority–no matter the cost
https://www.macworld.com/article/613085/apples-app-store-policies-prove-that-money-is-the-top-priority.html
136 comments
The impact of all of that $$$ and vertical integration on hardware and software quality is not to be ignored. Apple Silicon in particular is an astonishing development after years of Qualcomm/Intel dominance.
The only real issue I have with Apple Silicon is that since it isn't open hardware that anybody can buy, I can't run my own software on A-series chips. At least M-series chips are opening up slowly to Linux, though.
The only real issue I have with Apple Silicon is that since it isn't open hardware that anybody can buy, I can't run my own software on A-series chips. At least M-series chips are opening up slowly to Linux, though.
There's a great article about how hardware companies can't compete with Apple. Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. It's a good read. https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-...
I think many (most?) hardware companies just don't understand/appreciate software. They look at it like just another line item on the BOM: 152 screws from supplier X, various plastic parts from supplier Y, a rubber gasket from supplier Z, and, oh yea, some software. Find the bucket of software and scoop some out to flash onto the device.
They don't see software as an ecosystem, as the actual product that the user interacts with, as their brand differentiation. They see it as a costly problem that they must solve by finding the cheapest viable bag of bits they can throw on devices and not have customers return it the first day. I swear that's the quality bar for some of these companies.
That's how we get TVs that take 5 seconds to recognize a button press, and have UIs that look like they were made from clipart. Proper font kerning? Forget it, they use 16x8 bitmap fonts from the '90s. That's how we get IoT devices that are 0wned the second they connect to the Internet. That's how we get car stereos that display "����������" when you try to play a media file with non-ASCII characters in the name. Many hardware companies don't give a single shit about their software's quality--only that it's cheap and barely works and it keeps the BOM cost low.
They don't see software as an ecosystem, as the actual product that the user interacts with, as their brand differentiation. They see it as a costly problem that they must solve by finding the cheapest viable bag of bits they can throw on devices and not have customers return it the first day. I swear that's the quality bar for some of these companies.
That's how we get TVs that take 5 seconds to recognize a button press, and have UIs that look like they were made from clipart. Proper font kerning? Forget it, they use 16x8 bitmap fonts from the '90s. That's how we get IoT devices that are 0wned the second they connect to the Internet. That's how we get car stereos that display "����������" when you try to play a media file with non-ASCII characters in the name. Many hardware companies don't give a single shit about their software's quality--only that it's cheap and barely works and it keeps the BOM cost low.
This is IMO why Tesla is dominating the EV space - the combination of great software with the hardware, although the recent software update irked a lot of people and is a few steps backward.
For the longest time touch display and navigation software in cars were terrible. Low resolution, small screens, laggy interfaces, and software not connected to the vehicle in the sense where OTA updates can end up fixing and improving aspects of the car.
For the longest time touch display and navigation software in cars were terrible. Low resolution, small screens, laggy interfaces, and software not connected to the vehicle in the sense where OTA updates can end up fixing and improving aspects of the car.
It looks like the article focuses much more on how the processes Apple employs are expensive, laborious, and challenging – which make them difficult to replicate.
> Pretty much no company, big or small, can afford to do these things. Yes, Apple has done a great job building many of these products and yes, consumers have come to love many of these difficult-to-manufacture features. But you are not Apple
> Pretty much no company, big or small, can afford to do these things. Yes, Apple has done a great job building many of these products and yes, consumers have come to love many of these difficult-to-manufacture features. But you are not Apple
It started about fifteen years ago, but Apple discovered that a great use for their extra cash flow was to buy up the processes they (and their competitors) would need in the future. When a screen manufacturer needed money to do the next big thing, then Apple would chip in significant funding and own a percentage of the new joint venture. They would not only get priority and lower prices on orders, but they profited from anyone else buying the same tech. Apple now owns an exclusive license to Liquidmetal, is a significant investor in Corning (Gorilla Glass), invested heavily in a Toshiba LCD plant, paid LG (for LCD) and various SSD manufacturers massive upfront payments for priority and/or exclusivity.
Not just predicting, but driving. With the iPhone market share, Apple has been in a good seat to define what consumers expect from {generation+1} devices.
Which makes it a bit easier to acquire / pre-book the relevant manufacturing capacity, when you know you're going to make a surprise announcement of it as a major feature in the future.
After which, everyone else eventually ends up at the same upstream manufacturers, or trying to duplicate the technology...
Which makes it a bit easier to acquire / pre-book the relevant manufacturing capacity, when you know you're going to make a surprise announcement of it as a major feature in the future.
After which, everyone else eventually ends up at the same upstream manufacturers, or trying to duplicate the technology...
It needs a little more context. The article was written in 2014 and basically reference the era of iPhone 2007 - 2012, ~iPhone 4S manufacturing. The same idea or execution could happen in the future with other products or manufacturing. But most advantage listed aren't as relevant anymore. Or those technology and process becomes commodity.
Has more to do with innate economies of scale than any individual market abuse. Which isn't to say that there is some, but even if you stripped out the market abuse, Apple would still be fine.
Apple is a machine that is fueled by cross subsidizing new platforms (Apple Watch) with their already significant capital investments in the iPhone.
Apple is a machine that is fueled by cross subsidizing new platforms (Apple Watch) with their already significant capital investments in the iPhone.
> Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it.
Why can’t another company build better laptop enclosures ?
Zune vs Ipod Galaxy Tab vs Ipad Android wear vs Apple Watch
Hard to reason all those away as just better components
Why can’t another company build better laptop enclosures ?
Zune vs Ipod Galaxy Tab vs Ipad Android wear vs Apple Watch
Hard to reason all those away as just better components
Among other reasons, you have to also consider the “winner-takes-all” type of network effect here: any new platform, however great the hardware & tools might be, will today have an extremely hard time luring developers to it’s non-existent user base, while at the same time users won’t be as attracted to the platform due to the lack of apps.
This is a vicious cycle for newcomers, and at the same time a virtuous cycle for the incumbent(s), further cementing their dominant position.
This is a vicious cycle for newcomers, and at the same time a virtuous cycle for the incumbent(s), further cementing their dominant position.
[deleted]
Uneducated answer: it's a natural monopoly. There are economies of scale and any new entrant won't get monopoly profits to justify the required capital and risk.
Why couldn't anyone compete against Bell by building a second phone network?
Why couldn't anyone compete against Bell by building a second phone network?
Apple isn't anywhere close to a monopoly, though, about a quarter of smartphones. A little more in install base, and a little less in quarterly shipments. [1] Building a phone network has massive capital expenditure costs on infrastructure, building a phone does not.
[1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldw...
[1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldw...
The same article you mentioned says that 56% of US/Canada users and 70% of Japanese users have iPhones.
I'd argue that monopolies should be judged on country and not worldwide. As each country has different iMessage popularity, apps restricted by region, earning power, phone availability, etc.
I'd argue that monopolies should be judged on country and not worldwide. As each country has different iMessage popularity, apps restricted by region, earning power, phone availability, etc.
The judge in the Epic case said that Apple though not a monopoly was acting like one and might be on the way to becoming one.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/eff-appeals-apples-mon...
So sure. Not a monopoly. But also not far from a monopoly as you claim.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/eff-appeals-apples-mon...
So sure. Not a monopoly. But also not far from a monopoly as you claim.
> building a phone does not.
Companies have a limited output of the materials needed to make a computer. If Apple tells one of these companies you now have an exclusive relationship with us, or else, what is that company going to do?
Anyway, Apple has a monopoly of platform, which is measured between its own base, rather than as an absolute number compared of what % devices are iPhones.
Companies have a limited output of the materials needed to make a computer. If Apple tells one of these companies you now have an exclusive relationship with us, or else, what is that company going to do?
Anyway, Apple has a monopoly of platform, which is measured between its own base, rather than as an absolute number compared of what % devices are iPhones.
That's market shifting though.
Apple does have a monopoly on the markets running on all their devices, from apps to media, for ~900 million phones. When Apple doesn't completely own the only available market service to it's hardware (that it exclusively gives itself), it still charges a 30% fee to it's competitors for access to it's markets while actively blocking everyone else.
Apple does have a monopoly on the markets running on all their devices, from apps to media, for ~900 million phones. When Apple doesn't completely own the only available market service to it's hardware (that it exclusively gives itself), it still charges a 30% fee to it's competitors for access to it's markets while actively blocking everyone else.
You have this reversed.
The fact that nobody can attack Apple IS the proof that Apple is a monopoly.
Looking at a similar example, it took a lot for Vanderbilt to build and buy up all the railroads. Once that was done, however, the system was locked in place and nobody could dethrone him.
The fact that nobody can attack Apple IS the proof that Apple is a monopoly.
Looking at a similar example, it took a lot for Vanderbilt to build and buy up all the railroads. Once that was done, however, the system was locked in place and nobody could dethrone him.
I agree.
I think most of arguments against what Apple is doing are based on an incomplete picture of Apple's product. They are based on someone not appreciating an aspect of what Apple is doing. Maybe they don't like the price. Maybe they don't like a lack of complete control over their hardware. The rest of it is always a rant to justify that position.
There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.
I think most of arguments against what Apple is doing are based on an incomplete picture of Apple's product. They are based on someone not appreciating an aspect of what Apple is doing. Maybe they don't like the price. Maybe they don't like a lack of complete control over their hardware. The rest of it is always a rant to justify that position.
There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.
> There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success.
There is provable value in what Apple is doing, by curating a higher quality and better integrated ecosystem than Google/Android offers. Polish which is funded by profits from the App Store.
On the other hand, the App Store's success also benefits from full capture of all iOS users and network effects of releasing when it did.
> Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.
Some people think you shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in soda, even if it's tasty. (To use a 1920s metaphor)
There is provable value in what Apple is doing, by curating a higher quality and better integrated ecosystem than Google/Android offers. Polish which is funded by profits from the App Store.
On the other hand, the App Store's success also benefits from full capture of all iOS users and network effects of releasing when it did.
> Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.
Some people think you shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in soda, even if it's tasty. (To use a 1920s metaphor)
I have a sneaking suspicion that cocaine wasn't in soda purely for the flavor
I personally raise awareness to this because I think of all the possibilities for mobile technology that people don't even know they're missing out on, e.g. Xbox Cloud Streaming/Stadia, emulators, NFC beyond payments.
I think that's a good idea as long as it's balanced. A list of things you can't do is reasonable.
btw, you can do nfc beyond payments on ios and have for years; https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
btw, you can do nfc beyond payments on ios and have for years; https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
I don't see how these two things are related, and in fact disagree with both assumptions: 1. that the profit contributes in any meaningful way to the quality of the "hardware", nor that the apps on iOS are some "amazing" bar to live up to. This is all from the perspective of a user, as I haven't had anything on the AppStore in a decade:
1. I'm not sure I'd describe an ecosystem where Netflix and Amazon get sweetheart reduced revenue cuts while small devs have zero negotiating power is one I'd describe as working "cleanly" FOR USERS. Again, forget the devs here for a second, let's just think of the users. The AppStore is not just a "monopoly", it is a monopoly enabler. New platforms are traditionally one of the best places to disrupt the old big players -- and as a user, I'd love a place that let small upstarts be nimble against the likes of Amazon or Netflix. But if Apple specifically lets Amazon compete at reduced revenue cuts, this becomes impossible. No one can compete in an already difficult space like a Music app (or even a Comic Book app!) if Apple is giving the world's largest corporations better deals. Forgetting Apple's dominance in phones, they are also helping me have less choice in terms of these other services.
2. And consider this, 30% revenue split for a small app shop can mean the difference between being able to afford a new dev on your team, or a full time QA person, or full time support person, etc. Literally, if you are a 2 person team, getting that extra 30% would allow you to roughly afford one more hire at the same wage. Those are bug fixes, features, and support I'm missing out on as a user. I sure as hell don't "feel" that 30% from Apple. I already paid them $1000+ for my phone, why do I have to pay them a 30% markup on my ToDo's app? It sure as hell isn't going into writing the 3 lines of code to make even exact string matching work in AppStore search, so I'm fairly certain that money would be better spent by the devs, again, purely from a selfish user perspective.
3. Which brings us to the larger "ecosystem" and store. They suck. It's hard to find anything on the store, it's full of scams, to the point where I am terrified of my kids someday being given any access to it and the casino-like games they allow. An equally "tyrannical" Apple that was values-based and tried to stop both overt scams but also was more opinionated about the subscription-addiction junk they allow to get sold to children, would be far more defendable in my opinion. I might be like "well, philosophically I disagree with this, but you can't argue with results!". Currently, it's "well, I disagree with this philosophically, and wow is this mismanaged. Like, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that could have less pride in what you see when you scroll through the charts." I think Apple's own Phil Schiller put it best in 2012: "Is No One Reviewing These Apps?"
4. None of the "security" on iOS comes from the 30% cut, or even the AppStore review process. It's all stuff that's built into the sandbox model. If anything, there's an argument that the AppStore makes iOS more insecure since it puts the "Apple Review Seal of Approval" on a bunch of apps that just rip you off.
5. The apps themselves are pretty meh. I don't even know how anyone could hold any opinion on native vs. web anymore, unless you're big into games, at which point, sure, some native thing is going to have better graphics. All the things "native does better" these days are mainly because the browser isn't allowed to do those things, and Apple doesn't allow any competing web engine on iOS. And some things the iOS "wild west web" still does better: like having Picture-in-Picture work everywhere. To be clear: I 100% believe iOS apps used to be clearly better, and they could 100% still be clearly better, but Apple's dropped the ball on their tooling/frameworks/resources and there's just not much exciting taking place there anymore. The Apple Pencil was a big watershed moment with this: they shipped the thing with barely any developer docs so you had the few key players making some cool apps (like Adobe of course), but otherwise nothing really revolutionary was enabled on the iPad. I think the Pencil could have been a game changer, but Apple was more content with selling a couple $150 trinkets to iPad die-hards vs. really expanding their lead in the tablet space by doing something bold (like just including a Pencil with every iPad to create huge incentives to make every Apple developer make their apps "Pencil-ready" just like with all the "in device" features like 3D touch or whatever), or by even just integrating the Pencil more meaningfully in their own OS to lead by example. We didn't get the ability to have the Pencil "just work" in any text field until 6 years after its initial release.
iOS is increasingly just something I kind of have to use. Or else lose iMessage or whatever. I think the opportunity cost that more interesting is what if things were different than this. For the record, I think ironically the result would be that Apple would act more like the old Apple, and be forced to make a compelling case for being on the Store and not using a third party to process payments (and I think there's lots of interesting stuff Apple could actually do there, as opposed to... nothing). Again, I'm not arguing about whether they have the right or not to do any of this, just what the consequences would be if they stopped doing it.
1. I'm not sure I'd describe an ecosystem where Netflix and Amazon get sweetheart reduced revenue cuts while small devs have zero negotiating power is one I'd describe as working "cleanly" FOR USERS. Again, forget the devs here for a second, let's just think of the users. The AppStore is not just a "monopoly", it is a monopoly enabler. New platforms are traditionally one of the best places to disrupt the old big players -- and as a user, I'd love a place that let small upstarts be nimble against the likes of Amazon or Netflix. But if Apple specifically lets Amazon compete at reduced revenue cuts, this becomes impossible. No one can compete in an already difficult space like a Music app (or even a Comic Book app!) if Apple is giving the world's largest corporations better deals. Forgetting Apple's dominance in phones, they are also helping me have less choice in terms of these other services.
2. And consider this, 30% revenue split for a small app shop can mean the difference between being able to afford a new dev on your team, or a full time QA person, or full time support person, etc. Literally, if you are a 2 person team, getting that extra 30% would allow you to roughly afford one more hire at the same wage. Those are bug fixes, features, and support I'm missing out on as a user. I sure as hell don't "feel" that 30% from Apple. I already paid them $1000+ for my phone, why do I have to pay them a 30% markup on my ToDo's app? It sure as hell isn't going into writing the 3 lines of code to make even exact string matching work in AppStore search, so I'm fairly certain that money would be better spent by the devs, again, purely from a selfish user perspective.
3. Which brings us to the larger "ecosystem" and store. They suck. It's hard to find anything on the store, it's full of scams, to the point where I am terrified of my kids someday being given any access to it and the casino-like games they allow. An equally "tyrannical" Apple that was values-based and tried to stop both overt scams but also was more opinionated about the subscription-addiction junk they allow to get sold to children, would be far more defendable in my opinion. I might be like "well, philosophically I disagree with this, but you can't argue with results!". Currently, it's "well, I disagree with this philosophically, and wow is this mismanaged. Like, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that could have less pride in what you see when you scroll through the charts." I think Apple's own Phil Schiller put it best in 2012: "Is No One Reviewing These Apps?"
4. None of the "security" on iOS comes from the 30% cut, or even the AppStore review process. It's all stuff that's built into the sandbox model. If anything, there's an argument that the AppStore makes iOS more insecure since it puts the "Apple Review Seal of Approval" on a bunch of apps that just rip you off.
5. The apps themselves are pretty meh. I don't even know how anyone could hold any opinion on native vs. web anymore, unless you're big into games, at which point, sure, some native thing is going to have better graphics. All the things "native does better" these days are mainly because the browser isn't allowed to do those things, and Apple doesn't allow any competing web engine on iOS. And some things the iOS "wild west web" still does better: like having Picture-in-Picture work everywhere. To be clear: I 100% believe iOS apps used to be clearly better, and they could 100% still be clearly better, but Apple's dropped the ball on their tooling/frameworks/resources and there's just not much exciting taking place there anymore. The Apple Pencil was a big watershed moment with this: they shipped the thing with barely any developer docs so you had the few key players making some cool apps (like Adobe of course), but otherwise nothing really revolutionary was enabled on the iPad. I think the Pencil could have been a game changer, but Apple was more content with selling a couple $150 trinkets to iPad die-hards vs. really expanding their lead in the tablet space by doing something bold (like just including a Pencil with every iPad to create huge incentives to make every Apple developer make their apps "Pencil-ready" just like with all the "in device" features like 3D touch or whatever), or by even just integrating the Pencil more meaningfully in their own OS to lead by example. We didn't get the ability to have the Pencil "just work" in any text field until 6 years after its initial release.
iOS is increasingly just something I kind of have to use. Or else lose iMessage or whatever. I think the opportunity cost that more interesting is what if things were different than this. For the record, I think ironically the result would be that Apple would act more like the old Apple, and be forced to make a compelling case for being on the Store and not using a third party to process payments (and I think there's lots of interesting stuff Apple could actually do there, as opposed to... nothing). Again, I'm not arguing about whether they have the right or not to do any of this, just what the consequences would be if they stopped doing it.
Network effects. Even if you were the best hardware/software maker in the world it would be difficult to compete with a walled garden that has locked in many customers both technically and culturally.
It's not a zero friction environment. Switching platforms is a pain. A competitor would have to be spectacularly superior, while fighting uphill against one of the largest companies in history. The larger Apple gets, the stronger that pull- like a black hole.
Software and hardware patents on absurd things. Lethal legal bullying of any potential competition. The walls of the garden are ruthlessly defended and expanded as far as the law can stretch.
It's a good question. Google should've done it, but they have failed time and time again. Microsoft just gave up.
> When Apple introduced the iPhone, it didn’t have an App Store. From the moment the iPhone was announced, everyone speculated that it was only a matter of time until one was created, and a bit more than a year later, Apple announced it would allow developers to create iPhone apps and sell them in the App Store.
This is not exactly accurate. Everyone speculated about an SDK (like for the Mac). When it was finally announced, the locked-down “App Store” aspect of it was a surprise.
And it was generally greeted positively; after all, at the time it was pretty hard and expensive to go to market with new client-side software. Websites were way easier, and in fact that is one reason Apple initially were all-in on web apps for the iPhone.
(There were also honest concerns whether Apple had the chops to adequately secure a phone SDK so that calls would always work.)
The bad feelings about it built over time. One could say that people have started taking the existence of the iOS ecosystem for granted. But the world has changed around Apple. It no longer looks hard to go to market with software, so people no longer think Apple’s cut is fair.
And I think the article is correct that Apple has increasingly viewed it as a tax, not pass-thru expense.
This is not exactly accurate. Everyone speculated about an SDK (like for the Mac). When it was finally announced, the locked-down “App Store” aspect of it was a surprise.
And it was generally greeted positively; after all, at the time it was pretty hard and expensive to go to market with new client-side software. Websites were way easier, and in fact that is one reason Apple initially were all-in on web apps for the iPhone.
(There were also honest concerns whether Apple had the chops to adequately secure a phone SDK so that calls would always work.)
The bad feelings about it built over time. One could say that people have started taking the existence of the iOS ecosystem for granted. But the world has changed around Apple. It no longer looks hard to go to market with software, so people no longer think Apple’s cut is fair.
And I think the article is correct that Apple has increasingly viewed it as a tax, not pass-thru expense.
>The bad feelings about it built over time.
The iPhone today is so much different to the iPhone in Steve Jobs era. iPhone 4 only had a 3.5" Screen. All the decisions during early iPhone era make sense. It was a phone like an appliance with some apps, and an internet communicator. It wasn't a Gaming platform that makes more money than console, nor a content consumption devices that exceed even TV, or a security or payment system used in everyday modern society. Or in every other scenario in our society which increasingly "assumes" you have a Smartphone.
I think they are applying the same rules on iPhone in a completely different situation and scenario. Which is why all the bad feeling built over time.
The iPhone today is so much different to the iPhone in Steve Jobs era. iPhone 4 only had a 3.5" Screen. All the decisions during early iPhone era make sense. It was a phone like an appliance with some apps, and an internet communicator. It wasn't a Gaming platform that makes more money than console, nor a content consumption devices that exceed even TV, or a security or payment system used in everyday modern society. Or in every other scenario in our society which increasingly "assumes" you have a Smartphone.
I think they are applying the same rules on iPhone in a completely different situation and scenario. Which is why all the bad feeling built over time.
Apple likes to highlight all the ways their actions benefit developers, while ignoring all the ways their actions harm developers.
Well if you get to add money to your bottom line for all the great stuff you do, you should also have to subtract money for all the crappy things you do.
Off the top of my head:
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple is literally the reason for delay when trying to deliver things like critical fixes to customers. Let’s charge them!
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever their reputation is completely trashed by users because Apple refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes. In other words, Apple is perfectly happy to let users think apps are trash, even if the reason for the problem is Apple. Let’s charge them!
Apple doesn’t get to have only the good parts. I personally am sick and tired of all the ways they get to hide their awful behavior, and forcing developers to take the brunt of it.
Well if you get to add money to your bottom line for all the great stuff you do, you should also have to subtract money for all the crappy things you do.
Off the top of my head:
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple is literally the reason for delay when trying to deliver things like critical fixes to customers. Let’s charge them!
- Developers should get a “cut” whenever their reputation is completely trashed by users because Apple refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes. In other words, Apple is perfectly happy to let users think apps are trash, even if the reason for the problem is Apple. Let’s charge them!
Apple doesn’t get to have only the good parts. I personally am sick and tired of all the ways they get to hide their awful behavior, and forcing developers to take the brunt of it.
None those will ever happen unless developers/app companies for a union of some sort.
I see no way Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Uber, ... would join such a union. And if they did, would they have way too much influence on the union?
That's true. I guess if all the app developers pulled their apps out of the app store, the larger companies could just come in with their own version of all the apps.
Charging for API compatibility issues sounds like a dangerous precedent.
It exists in enterprise. You can have SLAs that an API will be supported for 5 years, for example.
And enterprise apps are notorious for being stagnant and difficult to use. Not the newfangled SaaS stuff but the legacy stuff that has the SLAs you're talking about.
Apple's decision to break apps that don't update is a user-centric decision. Just like deciding against GC and forcing automatic reference counting for more consistent UX performance is a user-centric, developer-hostile decision.
Apple's decision to break apps that don't update is a user-centric decision. Just like deciding against GC and forcing automatic reference counting for more consistent UX performance is a user-centric, developer-hostile decision.
>Apple's decision to break apps that don't update is a user-centric decision.
Is it really though? Users are then stuck with their favorite apps being broken and unusable.
We're not talking just about mandatory security updates here, some of the breaking changes are mundane.
Is it really though? Users are then stuck with their favorite apps being broken and unusable.
We're not talking just about mandatory security updates here, some of the breaking changes are mundane.
In the long run, it frees up the hardware manufacturer to make big changes that benefit the user. For example one of the reasons Apple was able to pull off the Arm transition was because they didn't have years of backward compatibility to deal with. They didn't have to deal with 32 bit apps, because those had been banned by Apple in a prior OS version. No super old legacy APIs, because they all were already removed in prior OS versions.
Just compare the cluster-fuck that Windows on Arm is to the great experience of running x86 apps on an Arm Mac.
> Users are then stuck with their favorite apps being broken and unusable.
Yes, and they get mad at developers and the developers have to fix it when they otherwise wouldn't have. That means Apple can credibly roll out new APIs and features that are _better_ and force developers to adopt them. That's incredibly positive for users in the long run. Things like HW accelerated machine learning (still not available on Windows!), ARKit (Android equivalent is garbage), GPU accelerated UI (a dumpster fire on Android that no developer uses), etc.
Think about this: if you're an AR app developer and Apple suddenly rolls out a new update that massively boosts performance IF you use the new API, are you going to use the new API and spend time porting over your existing functionality? Hell no. But if Apple forces you to, in the long run users get a way faster app, in exchange for some short run inconveniences because the app broke.
A famous example that the Android community gripes about is Google's Camera2 API. It gives much better image quality but Snapchat refuses to use it. So Android image quality in Snapchat continues to suck because Google doesn't have the cajones to outright remove old APIs and force app developers onto new ones.
Just compare the cluster-fuck that Windows on Arm is to the great experience of running x86 apps on an Arm Mac.
> Users are then stuck with their favorite apps being broken and unusable.
Yes, and they get mad at developers and the developers have to fix it when they otherwise wouldn't have. That means Apple can credibly roll out new APIs and features that are _better_ and force developers to adopt them. That's incredibly positive for users in the long run. Things like HW accelerated machine learning (still not available on Windows!), ARKit (Android equivalent is garbage), GPU accelerated UI (a dumpster fire on Android that no developer uses), etc.
Think about this: if you're an AR app developer and Apple suddenly rolls out a new update that massively boosts performance IF you use the new API, are you going to use the new API and spend time porting over your existing functionality? Hell no. But if Apple forces you to, in the long run users get a way faster app, in exchange for some short run inconveniences because the app broke.
A famous example that the Android community gripes about is Google's Camera2 API. It gives much better image quality but Snapchat refuses to use it. So Android image quality in Snapchat continues to suck because Google doesn't have the cajones to outright remove old APIs and force app developers onto new ones.
The point that I am reading isn't to say "this should happen" but to argue that such things sound about as reasonable as Apple's attempt at a moral framework for their enforced platform fees.
[deleted]
"Sure - we've discounted the 'Apple Tax' from 40% to 30% to account for all these costs we've been inflicting on you.
No actual changes to your fees - we've been thinking of our precious developers and giving you that 10% discount since the very beginning."
No actual changes to your fees - we've been thinking of our precious developers and giving you that 10% discount since the very beginning."
> - Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!
So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.
So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>> - Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!
> So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.
I thought so too at first but that brings back one idea I had that most independent software vendors will probably hate and puts more control in Apple's hands but here it is anyway:
Apple can add a way for developers to submit source code, assets, and machine readable build instructions in an Apple supplied format. Apple then builds the bits that goes on the App Store. Developers already pay USD 100 a year for the privilege of being on the App Store anyway, right?
This way, if Apple introduces new features and frameworks, they can automatically update the code as needed and push updates to the users?
> So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.
I thought so too at first but that brings back one idea I had that most independent software vendors will probably hate and puts more control in Apple's hands but here it is anyway:
Apple can add a way for developers to submit source code, assets, and machine readable build instructions in an Apple supplied format. Apple then builds the bits that goes on the App Store. Developers already pay USD 100 a year for the privilege of being on the App Store anyway, right?
This way, if Apple introduces new features and frameworks, they can automatically update the code as needed and push updates to the users?
Then Apple could steal dev IP.
[deleted]
The iPhone is only valuable because of developers. If they all coordinated together, they could get apple to change. Imagine all the apps breaking one day…
I feel that's a knee-jerk assertion.
Is no value assigned to the truly amazing custom silicon that sips power while efficiently supporting an instruction set that, in turn, supports developers external and internal?
Is no value assigned to the work that goes into evolving with the wireless network standards? Those are internal people, generally with decade+ hardcore engineering backgrounds.
Is no value assigned to the truly amazing custom silicon that sips power while efficiently supporting an instruction set that, in turn, supports developers external and internal?
Is no value assigned to the work that goes into evolving with the wireless network standards? Those are internal people, generally with decade+ hardcore engineering backgrounds.
And it's well worth noting that the iPhone came first, not the wave of developers. Apple provided the platform and potential, they put in enormous resources and effort to make the iPhone work out, to deploy a phone in a new manner (bending the telecom providers to their will). What existed for developers before the iPhone (the languishing Windows desktop, much amazing)? If the developers are the primary, why'd they have to wait for Apple to make everything possible?
It's because the developers are secondary. Apple is the primary, the key to it all.
It's because the developers are secondary. Apple is the primary, the key to it all.
Anyone that remembers history correctly will remember when the iPhone was first released Apple wanted to make ALL the apps.
Then developers started jailbreaking the phones, adding their own apps to them.
The Appstore wasn't obvious for Apple, and it was only after developer backlash that they changed their tune.
So you can say that Apple did everything but the truth is that the success of the iPhone is from the COMBINED effort of Apple, and the work of developers in the community.
Then developers started jailbreaking the phones, adding their own apps to them.
The Appstore wasn't obvious for Apple, and it was only after developer backlash that they changed their tune.
So you can say that Apple did everything but the truth is that the success of the iPhone is from the COMBINED effort of Apple, and the work of developers in the community.
“The Appstore wasn't obvious for Apple, and it was only after developer backlash that they changed their tune.“
This is not “remembering history correctly” at all.
Apple didn’t have an SDK ready, and tried to sell the shit sandwich of Web Apps as a stopgap.
This is not “remembering history correctly” at all.
Apple didn’t have an SDK ready, and tried to sell the shit sandwich of Web Apps as a stopgap.
>Apple didn’t have an SDK ready, and tried to sell the shit sandwich of Web Apps as a stopgap.
And how exactly do you know that it always was their intent to make an SDK for third party developers?
From https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
"The App Store came later and apparently as a reaction to jailbreakers and developer backlash."
And how exactly do you know that it always was their intent to make an SDK for third party developers?
From https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
"The App Store came later and apparently as a reaction to jailbreakers and developer backlash."
That’s an editorial, and they floated the eventual App Store idea in dev talks early on.
I’m not sure how people don’t understand this. If certain apps stopped working on my iPhone, I wouldn’t get an android. I would just stop using that app.
The argument is - what happens when all non apple apps stopped working on the iPhone
A straight up mental fantasy exercise with zero possibility of ever becoming reality so ultimately what good is going through the exercise?
One, you would never get the complete boycott that it would require to have an impact—-very few app publishers relying on app profits would risk a profitable app just to prove the point, especially if the publisher is a publicly traded company. You would have to rely on activist super small (single dev or two) app studios for your strikers and, no offense to those smaller studios, those apps generally are not the ones that people will miss beyond a mild irritation.
Two, for every app participating in the boycott, there would be a similar app that didn’t participate that could backfill. The non-participating apps would be well known within a day or two and would start displacing striking apps pretty much immediately.
One, you would never get the complete boycott that it would require to have an impact—-very few app publishers relying on app profits would risk a profitable app just to prove the point, especially if the publisher is a publicly traded company. You would have to rely on activist super small (single dev or two) app studios for your strikers and, no offense to those smaller studios, those apps generally are not the ones that people will miss beyond a mild irritation.
Two, for every app participating in the boycott, there would be a similar app that didn’t participate that could backfill. The non-participating apps would be well known within a day or two and would start displacing striking apps pretty much immediately.
I am not sure why you are arguing with me. I am paraphrasing the article which you seemed to have misunderstood in your original comment.
Of course, this is a hypothetical because the app developers are fragmented while Apple is a single entity. The blog argues that to be fair, Apple should donate 30% of its iPhone revenue to app developers as an iPhone without 3rd party apps is fundamentally crippled. The meta argument is that Apple taking a 30% cut of app revenue is fundamentally unfair.
Apple has set a new precedent with the 30% cut. Operating systems such as windows, macOS and unix that came before iOS never demanded a 30% cut of app revenue installed on the device.
Would you also be supportive of Microsoft and Unix vendors demanding 30% of revenue generated by applications on their operating system - starting 2022?
Of course, this is a hypothetical because the app developers are fragmented while Apple is a single entity. The blog argues that to be fair, Apple should donate 30% of its iPhone revenue to app developers as an iPhone without 3rd party apps is fundamentally crippled. The meta argument is that Apple taking a 30% cut of app revenue is fundamentally unfair.
Apple has set a new precedent with the 30% cut. Operating systems such as windows, macOS and unix that came before iOS never demanded a 30% cut of app revenue installed on the device.
Would you also be supportive of Microsoft and Unix vendors demanding 30% of revenue generated by applications on their operating system - starting 2022?
I was speaking to the pointlessness of a hypothetical boycott, not arguing directly with you.
I disagree that the device is crippled without 3rd party apps. It may not be quite as useful or perhaps fun, but it would still be a far more useful device than a Motorola Razr phone or a Blackberry.
Yes it’s a new premise. Apple provides an app market to 1.65B devices to app developers with little entrance risk to the devs much beyond the elbow grease they spent creating the app. How much more money and effort would a developer have to spend to get their app that level of exposure without the App Store? A lot, and all of it amounting to real dollars at risk with no guarantee of payoff. What’s truly at risk publishing at the App Store? Nothing but a publishers time. Even the 30% you pay to Apple only hits if you are making money. It’s a commission, they marketed and sold the app for you, handled the transaction, distribution, and dropped some cash in your bank account. 30% in my mind is pretty cheap for what you get. Any other business that relied on third parties services to handle the marketing, sales, shipping, and finance transaction of the product would not bat an eye if those costs ran to 30%.
As for Unix and Windows deciding to charge a fee? That wouldn’t bother me a bit if they were marketing, selling, and handling the transaction for my app. Do it.
I disagree that the device is crippled without 3rd party apps. It may not be quite as useful or perhaps fun, but it would still be a far more useful device than a Motorola Razr phone or a Blackberry.
Yes it’s a new premise. Apple provides an app market to 1.65B devices to app developers with little entrance risk to the devs much beyond the elbow grease they spent creating the app. How much more money and effort would a developer have to spend to get their app that level of exposure without the App Store? A lot, and all of it amounting to real dollars at risk with no guarantee of payoff. What’s truly at risk publishing at the App Store? Nothing but a publishers time. Even the 30% you pay to Apple only hits if you are making money. It’s a commission, they marketed and sold the app for you, handled the transaction, distribution, and dropped some cash in your bank account. 30% in my mind is pretty cheap for what you get. Any other business that relied on third parties services to handle the marketing, sales, shipping, and finance transaction of the product would not bat an eye if those costs ran to 30%.
As for Unix and Windows deciding to charge a fee? That wouldn’t bother me a bit if they were marketing, selling, and handling the transaction for my app. Do it.
Of course there is value. That's why iPhones are priced 1000$+
It's a symbiotic relationship. They both serve each other. Things could always be better and Apple is not a good guy but I doubt any large app or organization is either.
[deleted]
If all apps go on strike, an app that crosses the picket line gets all the revenue in their market. This is related to the economic term "cartel", and why they are unstable in practice.
in practice?
Instead of posting anecdotal evidence of mine to the contrary, I ll ask the following. If cartels are unstable in practice, then why do states need competition authorities to punish price fixing, and similar practices?
I 'd say cartel's are unstable in theory but not necessarily in practice.
Instead of posting anecdotal evidence of mine to the contrary, I ll ask the following. If cartels are unstable in practice, then why do states need competition authorities to punish price fixing, and similar practices?
I 'd say cartel's are unstable in theory but not necessarily in practice.
Yeah, I would argue that almost every market/segment in America is dominated by a cartel or monopoly.
Even things like commodities have hidden cartels and monopolies. Oil may be a commodity, but the refining facilities are most certainly cartel-owned. Agriculture is seemingly not a cartel, but ADM and Cargill dominate certain aspects of the supply chain and processing.
Instead I would argue that iterative game theory of free market economics would stabilize to a cartel or monopoly. Once one of the open competitors determines an advantage, and/or has substantial access to near-free capital (um, what's the interest rate of the last two decades?), then they can acquire their competitors.
Then they can apply barriers to entry such as regulation and lockin contracts with equipment suppliers and the like. Look at the practices of Intel to lockout AMD. Look at how Microsoft exerted power on PC makers. Once you are big, you can influence the suppliers and distributors to lockout competitors.
As long as size is an intimidator (and it almost always will be except to extreme examples of markets), it will be effective. The only time it helps is when it slows response until an upstart using an entirely different supply chain and technology (like Tesla) gains such a fundamental advantage they can't stamp it out.
Even things like commodities have hidden cartels and monopolies. Oil may be a commodity, but the refining facilities are most certainly cartel-owned. Agriculture is seemingly not a cartel, but ADM and Cargill dominate certain aspects of the supply chain and processing.
Instead I would argue that iterative game theory of free market economics would stabilize to a cartel or monopoly. Once one of the open competitors determines an advantage, and/or has substantial access to near-free capital (um, what's the interest rate of the last two decades?), then they can acquire their competitors.
Then they can apply barriers to entry such as regulation and lockin contracts with equipment suppliers and the like. Look at the practices of Intel to lockout AMD. Look at how Microsoft exerted power on PC makers. Once you are big, you can influence the suppliers and distributors to lockout competitors.
As long as size is an intimidator (and it almost always will be except to extreme examples of markets), it will be effective. The only time it helps is when it slows response until an upstart using an entirely different supply chain and technology (like Tesla) gains such a fundamental advantage they can't stamp it out.
They'll need to go through Apple's approval process first. And if they mention breaking one day in any manner, could get rejected, or worse, booted off the store.
Apple has developers by the neck.
Most of the useful apps has to connect to a server, let's say app devs stop serving requests for iOS, Apple would be pressured to come to the table because the iPhone is useless without apps.
This would take such a critical mass that it's silly to consider. Without some critical mass, the average consumer would see that the rest of their apps work fine, and probably just give the app a 1 star review "it keeps freezing".
Unions are able to organize with similar power inbalance. Collective action is not impossible, just difficult.
Nobody will a join a union just to strike ( a.k.a pull the apps) however making collective to better negotiate with someone with lot of control over your revenue (salary) is not inherently a dumb idea.
Nobody will a join a union just to strike ( a.k.a pull the apps) however making collective to better negotiate with someone with lot of control over your revenue (salary) is not inherently a dumb idea.
I would naively claim that unions have power because they are physically localized, and represent similar people (income, standard of living, laws, etc), and create a very physically localized skill vacuum when they strike, that applies immediate and significant pressure.
App Store developers are sprinkled all over the world, so not too much is consistent between them. Getting enough of these varied people to collectively pause their income, and allow their competitors to flourish, long enough for Apple to even notice/care, is probably much harder. I think it would be even harder to present the applications failure in a way that an average consumer would sympathize with or even understand.
App Store developers are sprinkled all over the world, so not too much is consistent between them. Getting enough of these varied people to collectively pause their income, and allow their competitors to flourish, long enough for Apple to even notice/care, is probably much harder. I think it would be even harder to present the applications failure in a way that an average consumer would sympathize with or even understand.
The small indie developers will not influence any Apple decision making anyway.
You only need really apps with say 10-50M downloads to join together, most of them know each other and many of them are made by rival companies who have an interest in keeping Apple in check.
Indie developers could of course be invited to join such action, but apart from PR and other aspects they won't move the needle either way with Apple.
You only need really apps with say 10-50M downloads to join together, most of them know each other and many of them are made by rival companies who have an interest in keeping Apple in check.
Indie developers could of course be invited to join such action, but apart from PR and other aspects they won't move the needle either way with Apple.
Indeed. If some random app does not work I, as a user, would call that app as crap and not Iphone.
Also majority of those serious apps are part of enterprise's digital platform who are not going to knowingly break their Apps.
These apps will be booted off the store (look at Epic), bye-bye revenue
A large number of developers work for companies. They don't need to deal with Apple as their employers/clients take care of all that. On freelance side free apps do not see much issue and paid apps devs are not in position to organize worldwide to make Apple change policy in haste.
That level of coordination among human beings has only been possible a handful of times in all of recorded history. And most cases involved wars or absolute autocrats, or both. Good luck forming any kind of an agreement between hundreds of thousands of independent companies and individuals across multiple countries. I can’t even get my wife to agree on what to order for lunch.
Tragedy of the commons, in a triple sided market, prevents this.
At the end of the day, these developers are still competing with each other, and rational actors will break from the coordination to profit off the users for themselves.
At the end of the day, these developers are still competing with each other, and rational actors will break from the coordination to profit off the users for themselves.
Not third party. You still have a pretty valuable device if you use nothing but apps provided by Apple.
Valuable, yes. Clearly it was valuable enough back in 2007 before there was an App Store. But nowadays, would it be valuable enough? I doubt it.
What? I buy iPhones because they work, are simple, are supported for a long, long time, and aren't riddled with trackers, trojans, and whatever the heck Android generally has baked in. I have very few apps on my iPhone other than the ones that come pre-installed (by Apple, not by my cell provider).
I'm sure I'm atypical, but I do wonder how much an app-developer rebellion would really affect folks. I can't imagine my wife or parents switching to Android even if all of the non-Apple apps were to disappear tomorrow.
I'm sure I'm atypical, but I do wonder how much an app-developer rebellion would really affect folks. I can't imagine my wife or parents switching to Android even if all of the non-Apple apps were to disappear tomorrow.
> I can't imagine my wife or parents switching to Android even if all of the non-Apple apps were to disappear tomorrow.
That seems surprising. Do your wife and parents not use Uber/Lyft/etc.? Do they not use any banking apps? Do they not use any social media apps? Yelp? Food delivery apps? Messaging apps aside from iMessage? Video streaming apps? And that's just from looking at one of my home screens!
Do you really believe they'd be happy with a phone that suddenly couldn't do all that anymore? I very much doubt that.
That seems surprising. Do your wife and parents not use Uber/Lyft/etc.? Do they not use any banking apps? Do they not use any social media apps? Yelp? Food delivery apps? Messaging apps aside from iMessage? Video streaming apps? And that's just from looking at one of my home screens!
Do you really believe they'd be happy with a phone that suddenly couldn't do all that anymore? I very much doubt that.
The App Store supported over half a trillion dollars in billings and sales in 2019[1]. According to Satista, that is more than the global coffee market[2].
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apples-app-store-ecos...
[2] https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/hot-drinks/coffee/world....
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apples-app-store-ecos...
[2] https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/hot-drinks/coffee/world....
The original iPhone had quite a cult following, as did the iPod. People were flocking to them without any apps. It's because the iPhone was so cool that developers wanted to make apps for it. So it's pretty reductive to say that it's "only" valuable because of developers. Best regards, mac/iOS developer
Surprising how little attention this story got: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...
AFAIK, it was not in the mainstream media. Perhaps The Information credibility is an issue?
AFAIK, it was not in the mainstream media. Perhaps The Information credibility is an issue?
The profit motive corrupts all. We need to kill capitalism in its current form for these companies to stop being terrible and evil.
There are constant articles on HN about why <insert big company> is doing <terrible monopolistic thing>, and we inevitably talk about how these companies are doing horrible things, while others then go on to say “well look at all the value they’re bringing”. As if both can’t be true at once. It’s an embarrassingly reductive back and forth.
These companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize the stock price. This inevitably leads to this behavior.
Of course, everyone on this site secretly wants to build the “next big thing” so they can get famous and incredibly wealthy. You can only become that rich under the current system, so instead of just understanding the fundamental reasons why we see this behavior again and again and again, we bicker about the finer points of governance of these corporations. It’s like arguing about what size bandaid to put over a gaping chest wound.
This site is full of smart people, but our collective greed makes us seem pretty damn stupid
There are constant articles on HN about why <insert big company> is doing <terrible monopolistic thing>, and we inevitably talk about how these companies are doing horrible things, while others then go on to say “well look at all the value they’re bringing”. As if both can’t be true at once. It’s an embarrassingly reductive back and forth.
These companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize the stock price. This inevitably leads to this behavior.
Of course, everyone on this site secretly wants to build the “next big thing” so they can get famous and incredibly wealthy. You can only become that rich under the current system, so instead of just understanding the fundamental reasons why we see this behavior again and again and again, we bicker about the finer points of governance of these corporations. It’s like arguing about what size bandaid to put over a gaping chest wound.
This site is full of smart people, but our collective greed makes us seem pretty damn stupid
It was not like Apple was a good considerate benevolent dictator before power got to their head. They have always been like this.
Apple won't have had the resources to develop something the Apple Silicon or most other products, if they aren't ruthless about their profit.
Is it worth the cost for society ? Depends on the POV, it sucks to be the handicraft producer when a big factory opens up, but more people do get product and benefit from it.
Apple won't have had the resources to develop something the Apple Silicon or most other products, if they aren't ruthless about their profit.
Is it worth the cost for society ? Depends on the POV, it sucks to be the handicraft producer when a big factory opens up, but more people do get product and benefit from it.
We can build amazing products and not be terrible to other people/companies. Companies rely on public funding and public technologies and therefore are accountable to do right by the public. We always make this false dichotomy of “good products or good companies” and it’s just not true
Yet i don't see that happening, what public funding does Apple product has really depended on ?
R&D is only part of taking a product to users. There is a lot of steps in between , marketing , support , distribution , manufacturing, packaging a new tech into viable a value proposition and so on.
Research is important , but purely research or even better tech alone is insufficient, there are plenty of examples of companies who have great R&D but failed to make useful products used by real people at scale (aka commericalize) .
R&D is only part of taking a product to users. There is a lot of steps in between , marketing , support , distribution , manufacturing, packaging a new tech into viable a value proposition and so on.
Research is important , but purely research or even better tech alone is insufficient, there are plenty of examples of companies who have great R&D but failed to make useful products used by real people at scale (aka commericalize) .
Can you suggest something less drastic than eliminate capitalism? For example, “enforce existing anti—trust regulation”. Tossing out a system that basically works in the hopes that a complete rewrite will solve all of our problems never works.
I agree that throwing out what we have is a recipe for disaster and reconstitution in the same or worse form. But I think we can build anew from within, constructively.
I like the Baha'i view that breaks it down into 3 components: the individual, community, and institutions, and then works on gradually reforming each of them, and recognizing their interactions. Here's my summary; there are undoubtedly better summaries out there too:
* Individual: Empower people to act on ethics first, and material benefit second — by emphasizing the inherent value of ethics, based on the view of humans as intellectual/spiritual as well as physical. Educate them to be good electors (see Institutions, below).
* Community: This is the one I understand least, but I think it's about the emergent behaviors of groups of people who interact informally. Like a neighborhood or interest group.
* Institutions: Reform their selection process & functioning. There are plenty of people who would make great public servants, but they are precisely the people who avoid our current electoral processes which are so poisonous and dumb. So have elections that focus on the qualities that are good for office — caring for the well-being of the whole, wisdom, appropriate skills & abilities — and prohibit all campaigning or discussion of individuals. You'd think it's impossible, but the Baha'i electoral process actually works in practice and people love it.
All of these need reform. A good place to look at current Baha'i thinking is the "Baha'i International Community" website: https://www.bic.org/ which is kind of a public policy outreach site.
I like the Baha'i view that breaks it down into 3 components: the individual, community, and institutions, and then works on gradually reforming each of them, and recognizing their interactions. Here's my summary; there are undoubtedly better summaries out there too:
* Individual: Empower people to act on ethics first, and material benefit second — by emphasizing the inherent value of ethics, based on the view of humans as intellectual/spiritual as well as physical. Educate them to be good electors (see Institutions, below).
* Community: This is the one I understand least, but I think it's about the emergent behaviors of groups of people who interact informally. Like a neighborhood or interest group.
* Institutions: Reform their selection process & functioning. There are plenty of people who would make great public servants, but they are precisely the people who avoid our current electoral processes which are so poisonous and dumb. So have elections that focus on the qualities that are good for office — caring for the well-being of the whole, wisdom, appropriate skills & abilities — and prohibit all campaigning or discussion of individuals. You'd think it's impossible, but the Baha'i electoral process actually works in practice and people love it.
All of these need reform. A good place to look at current Baha'i thinking is the "Baha'i International Community" website: https://www.bic.org/ which is kind of a public policy outreach site.
> Tossing out a system that basically works in the hopes that a complete rewrite will solve all of our problems never works
Does it "basically work" though? You are, for example, aware that profit motives have driven things like:
- the water crisis in Flint, Michigan;
- the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in the early 2000s;
- the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (and the genocide that continues to go hand in hand with it) by ranchers seeking to increase their bottom line;
- the instance by airlines to continue flying completely empty planes all over the EU "to keep takeoff and landing times";
- the refusal to pass a TRIPS waiver for the mRNA COVID vaccine that prevents much of the world from accessing the most effective vaccines in a timely manner (or at all);
- the ongoing exploitation and perpetuation of underpaid or outright slave labor in many parts of the world by countries proped up by western colonial powers intent on delivering luxury items to their citizens at relatively low costs (while still reaping massive profits off those sales);
- etc, etc, etc.
I don't disagree that we need some intermediate solution like enforcing existing anti-trust legislation, repealing anti-union restrictions that outlaw effective labor organizing techniques, actually enacting harsh and swift consequences on companies that continue to destroy the environment (and the people who live in it).
But those are only short term solutions to immediate harms being perpetuated by a system that has for well over a century brought death and destruction to the earth and its people... not to mention what capitalism's ancestors did in the never-ending, blood-thirsty western colonial expansion throughout the globe.
So yes, let's enforce anti-trust laws... but let's not do that and think that alone will solve the myriad problems that have been thrust upon the peoples of the earth by a small number of extremely rich, profit driven people. And let's definitely not claim that the system that props up and perpetuates that behavior "basically works" when for most of the people of the world it patently does not "basically work".
I don't know what the ideal system is. I have my own utopian visions but I acknowledge they'll likely never come to pass. But we _have_ to try something different than what we're doing now. The current global economic trajectory is a deathwish that most people have not consented to.
(Edited to fix list formatting)
Does it "basically work" though? You are, for example, aware that profit motives have driven things like:
- the water crisis in Flint, Michigan;
- the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in the early 2000s;
- the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (and the genocide that continues to go hand in hand with it) by ranchers seeking to increase their bottom line;
- the instance by airlines to continue flying completely empty planes all over the EU "to keep takeoff and landing times";
- the refusal to pass a TRIPS waiver for the mRNA COVID vaccine that prevents much of the world from accessing the most effective vaccines in a timely manner (or at all);
- the ongoing exploitation and perpetuation of underpaid or outright slave labor in many parts of the world by countries proped up by western colonial powers intent on delivering luxury items to their citizens at relatively low costs (while still reaping massive profits off those sales);
- etc, etc, etc.
I don't disagree that we need some intermediate solution like enforcing existing anti-trust legislation, repealing anti-union restrictions that outlaw effective labor organizing techniques, actually enacting harsh and swift consequences on companies that continue to destroy the environment (and the people who live in it).
But those are only short term solutions to immediate harms being perpetuated by a system that has for well over a century brought death and destruction to the earth and its people... not to mention what capitalism's ancestors did in the never-ending, blood-thirsty western colonial expansion throughout the globe.
So yes, let's enforce anti-trust laws... but let's not do that and think that alone will solve the myriad problems that have been thrust upon the peoples of the earth by a small number of extremely rich, profit driven people. And let's definitely not claim that the system that props up and perpetuates that behavior "basically works" when for most of the people of the world it patently does not "basically work".
I don't know what the ideal system is. I have my own utopian visions but I acknowledge they'll likely never come to pass. But we _have_ to try something different than what we're doing now. The current global economic trajectory is a deathwish that most people have not consented to.
(Edited to fix list formatting)
> the water crisis in Flint, Michigan;
This was government not putting the effort in, not capitalism.
> the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in the early 2000s;
Does the Communist invasion of Eastern Europe and Afghanistan count?
> the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (and the genocide that continues to go hand in hand with it) by ranchers seeking to increase their bottom line;
They are doing that because people want to eat steak.
> - the refusal to pass a TRIPS waiver for the mRNA COVID vaccine that prevents much of the world from accessing the most effective vaccines in a timely manner (or at all);
Your idea is that without getting paid, people will just provide public health work for free, because they .... ?
> the ongoing exploitation and perpetuation of underpaid or outright slave labor in many parts of the world by countries proped up by western colonial powers intent on delivering luxury items to their citizens at relatively low costs (while still reaping massive profits off those sales);
OK at this point it's clear that your problem is with material consumption , not capitalism.
This was government not putting the effort in, not capitalism.
> the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in the early 2000s;
Does the Communist invasion of Eastern Europe and Afghanistan count?
> the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (and the genocide that continues to go hand in hand with it) by ranchers seeking to increase their bottom line;
They are doing that because people want to eat steak.
> - the refusal to pass a TRIPS waiver for the mRNA COVID vaccine that prevents much of the world from accessing the most effective vaccines in a timely manner (or at all);
Your idea is that without getting paid, people will just provide public health work for free, because they .... ?
> the ongoing exploitation and perpetuation of underpaid or outright slave labor in many parts of the world by countries proped up by western colonial powers intent on delivering luxury items to their citizens at relatively low costs (while still reaping massive profits off those sales);
OK at this point it's clear that your problem is with material consumption , not capitalism.
> Your idea is that without getting paid, people will just provide public health work for free, because they .... ?
Because it’s the right thing to do, and people like helping each other and doing the right thing. There are other motivating factors for most people over money. Human beings are generally good and generally do the right thing.
Because it’s the right thing to do, and people like helping each other and doing the right thing. There are other motivating factors for most people over money. Human beings are generally good and generally do the right thing.
People are many things at the same time. You can't just count on one aspect and hope things go well all the time. It's like bitcoin network never put in the proof of work and relied on people's word to verify transactions. Any system that is to endure should be resilient and relying on peoples good intentions is not just good foundations. Ideal system should assume people have bad motives and intentions(worst case), then set up incentives for them to produce good outcomes. I'm also certain we mortals can't come up with such an ideal system or anything close to it, look how long it took to come up with rules and incentives to prevent digital double-spend. Best we can hope to do is iterate our way through that direction, otherwise we can't possibly wrap our heads around such a complex and dynamic system and predict its outcomes.
If we talk at that level though there are lots of other terrible things at that level of crime. The alternative to capitalism, meaning private ownership of capital, is collective or state control of capital.
If we start talking about terrible things done by collectively or state owner endeavors we find things just as terrible like the holomdor, the 5 Year Leap. I mean don't get me wrong Apple is doing some seriously terrible things with their power grabs and monopolies, but I don't know if equates to 5 million dead of famine in 5 years, and although Google is violating my privacy and sucking up everyone's data I would prefer that over being loaded on a train to a concentration camp.
My point isn't to exonerate capitalism, because Nestle is a truly despicable company and have committed crimes of close to the same magnitude, but to believe that just changing the system is going to magically make everything better is in my opinion naive, because no matter how great you try and make your system if you fill it entirely with bad people it will result in bad outcomes.
Additionally we often find that during times of large scale change in "systems" it is more often than not the most ruthless, sociopathic, despotic individuals rise to the top because they are most willing to do whatever it takes to retain power. In contrast it seems like the activist investors that amass capital and attempt to force changes in company through monetary means is much less disruptive for the vast majority of people's lives.
EDIT: For some line breaks and missing word.
If we start talking about terrible things done by collectively or state owner endeavors we find things just as terrible like the holomdor, the 5 Year Leap. I mean don't get me wrong Apple is doing some seriously terrible things with their power grabs and monopolies, but I don't know if equates to 5 million dead of famine in 5 years, and although Google is violating my privacy and sucking up everyone's data I would prefer that over being loaded on a train to a concentration camp.
My point isn't to exonerate capitalism, because Nestle is a truly despicable company and have committed crimes of close to the same magnitude, but to believe that just changing the system is going to magically make everything better is in my opinion naive, because no matter how great you try and make your system if you fill it entirely with bad people it will result in bad outcomes.
Additionally we often find that during times of large scale change in "systems" it is more often than not the most ruthless, sociopathic, despotic individuals rise to the top because they are most willing to do whatever it takes to retain power. In contrast it seems like the activist investors that amass capital and attempt to force changes in company through monetary means is much less disruptive for the vast majority of people's lives.
EDIT: For some line breaks and missing word.
I don’t disagree, but fundamentally we need to remove the concept of complete “private ownership” in order to truly transfer power from the ultra powerful to the common people. If Mark Zuckerberg can still influence billions of people on a whim, then we haven’t fixed the fundamental problem. I don’t see a way to keep our system going and also give the people back the power they deserve. If there is a way, then sure let’s do it.
Those other governments had high concentrations of power at the top. They also stifled freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Too much power concentrated in one place is what causes horrible stuff. Serfs and Kings, Bureaucrats and common people, 1%’ers and poor people, etc.
It all comes down to concentrations of power.
Those other governments had high concentrations of power at the top. They also stifled freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Too much power concentrated in one place is what causes horrible stuff. Serfs and Kings, Bureaucrats and common people, 1%’ers and poor people, etc.
It all comes down to concentrations of power.
Only entrepreneur understand this.
"Manage the top line: your strategy, your people, and your products, and the bottom line will follow." - Steve Jobs
Most managers or CEOs just dont get it. They are always looking at their bottom line.
Edit: I just notice this quote has the word strategy in it, which is strange because Silicon Valley VC BS suggest "execution eats strategy for breakfast".
"Manage the top line: your strategy, your people, and your products, and the bottom line will follow." - Steve Jobs
Most managers or CEOs just dont get it. They are always looking at their bottom line.
Edit: I just notice this quote has the word strategy in it, which is strange because Silicon Valley VC BS suggest "execution eats strategy for breakfast".
As an end user and developer I don’t care. They produce a huge market customers care about, high quality experience on the software and hardware front and mostly do the right thing.
You can always choose not to participate if these things are a problem for you. They are not a monopoly in their sector nor are they required to participate in society.
You can always choose not to participate if these things are a problem for you. They are not a monopoly in their sector nor are they required to participate in society.
> You can always choose not to participate if these things are a problem for you.
Not always. Consider what would happen in the US if Uber decided they didn't want to participate anymore. Uber fails, and Lyft wins. This holds for companies like Spotify, Yelp, any messaging platform, food delivery, video streaming...
Sure, if you're an indie developer whose revenue doesn't depend on being on mobile platforms, this might not be a problem for you. But anything where a mobile experience is important to your revenue (or even your continued existence), you must be in the App Store (and the Play Store).
Not always. Consider what would happen in the US if Uber decided they didn't want to participate anymore. Uber fails, and Lyft wins. This holds for companies like Spotify, Yelp, any messaging platform, food delivery, video streaming...
Sure, if you're an indie developer whose revenue doesn't depend on being on mobile platforms, this might not be a problem for you. But anything where a mobile experience is important to your revenue (or even your continued existence), you must be in the App Store (and the Play Store).
You say "profit is always the priority" like its a bad thing. Aren't we all maximizing our profit? Isn't that kind of the point of being in business?
Taken to certain extremes, yes it is a bad thing.
In moderation — for example if you take a wholistic view that incorporates benefit to the society at large as well, then it can be very good.
In moderation — for example if you take a wholistic view that incorporates benefit to the society at large as well, then it can be very good.
Nope.
Lots of people stay in business because they just like it AND it gives enough money for a reasonable life.
Lots of people stay in business because they just like it AND it gives enough money for a reasonable life.
What makes you think their enjoyment isn't profit?
I think the point of all this is, don't put the cart before horse. Money is a byproduct of what you do to enrich peoples lives. If you put money first, people suffer, and businesses end up suffering in the long run. If you put enriching lives first, real people want to compensate you, hell its kind of unspoken/unconscious law not to take advantage of people that create things that improve life. I can't count how many times I decided to compensate people that made software that enriched my life, not because the asked for it, but because they made something that deserves compensation.
No one is saying it isn't. But that's clearly not what is being discussed here. This is just changing the definition mid argument.
If my profit comes at the cost of your profit eventually things are going to disintegrate. If you optimize for profit aggressively you can end up making decisions that maximize short term profit but destroy the long term viability of your business (or the entire market)
For example, Zynga's leadership eventually realized they were salting the earth and ensuring that in the future their genre/model wouldn't work anymore. They did it anyway. They've owned up to this
For example, Zynga's leadership eventually realized they were salting the earth and ensuring that in the future their genre/model wouldn't work anymore. They did it anyway. They've owned up to this
>Aren't we all maximizing our profit? Isn't that kind of the point of being in business?
The full sentence is maximize profit no matter anything else, like profit first , honesty later, family later, friends later, happiness later , health later.
Not everyone gets off by increasing some numbers, sometime there is enough.
The full sentence is maximize profit no matter anything else, like profit first , honesty later, family later, friends later, happiness later , health later.
Not everyone gets off by increasing some numbers, sometime there is enough.
Not every, or even most, individuals no, I would hope not. But every for-profit company surely does. No matter whatever bullshit mission they may plaster on their walls, the moniker "for-profit" tells you what the goal is plain and simple, and any high minded ideals will ultimately become subservient to that.
One of the (growingly scant) bonus side-effects of having social media is that consumers now tie brands to their identity.
This means that the brands of traditionally maximize-profits at all cost at least have to make efforts to demonstrably align with consumer ideals, if they want to continue to profit. It's far from perfect but still a far cry better than before.
This means that the brands of traditionally maximize-profits at all cost at least have to make efforts to demonstrably align with consumer ideals, if they want to continue to profit. It's far from perfect but still a far cry better than before.
Sure, and that's the problem. While capitalism may be better than the other systems we've tried, it's still not great. I don't think profit should take precedence over many high-minded ideals, but capitalism guarantees that will be the common case.
> family later, friends later, happiness later , health later.
For these, it's the employee taking the stance of "profits at all cost".
For these, it's the employee taking the stance of "profits at all cost".
But once a company is public, then maximising profit is really the only goal. If you don't do that as a CEO, aren't you being negligent (doing something illegal).
That really is a myth that needs to die.
No it's really not. Thinking that it means "maximising short term profit is really the only goal" is a myth that needs to die, but maximising net discounted profit is really the only goal of public companies.
They're obligated to act in the interest of shareholders. That usually means profits, but could very well be other things.
this here is the real answer.
So, if a majority of Apple's shareholders feel a different way from just maximizing profits then changes could be underway.
So, if a majority of Apple's shareholders feel a different way from just maximizing profits then changes could be underway.
> But once a company is public, then maximising profit is really the only goal.
You may want to research the growing trend of measuring companies against their impact, sustainability, etc., as well as increasingly popular indices that track companies based on that.
You may want to research the growing trend of measuring companies against their impact, sustainability, etc., as well as increasingly popular indices that track companies based on that.
All of these measures are just trying to instrument on long term profitability. The idea being that sustainable companies are less likely to be abandoned in the future.
The point was made as to what Apple currently maximizes for, and explained as "no matter anything else, like profit first , honesty later". This is what we're arguing about.
Long term profitability that involves thinking ahead of time of what would become unsustainable is, logically, speaking not maximizing for profit NOW. Honesty (ethics in business) will become increasingly important for the next generations. The current generations, however, don't care that much just yet.
Long term profitability that involves thinking ahead of time of what would become unsustainable is, logically, speaking not maximizing for profit NOW. Honesty (ethics in business) will become increasingly important for the next generations. The current generations, however, don't care that much just yet.
There are many faces to profit. Amazon didn’t turn a profit for twenty years but no one would say Jeff Bezos was negligent.
It is more accurate to say that CEOs need to create value. Even then, value can be at one point (liquidate all company assets) or oriented towards the distant future (invest in nuclear fusion tech).
Is it really illegal to not maximize profit? I suppose we have capitalism to thank for that, where companies like PG&E can cut corners on maintenance and yet the C-level executives get to take home millions in bonuses.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, you know? Or perhaps I'm just naïve and everyone should be out for themselves, the community/society be damned.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, you know? Or perhaps I'm just naïve and everyone should be out for themselves, the community/society be damned.
The "illegal" thing they're referring to is fiduciary responsibility. The board and officers of a public corporation have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders. The question then becomes what horizon is "in the best interest" of the shareholders.
What happens when the best interest of the shareholders actively harm the public or the community? I used PG&E as an example but telecom companies have accepted government grants to improve their infrastructure but they end up not doing any of it. Our government doesn’t seem to care about these things either, as PG&E continues to not face any consequences and I can’t take my business elsewhere as there are no other energy companies. I rent so I don’t have the option of going off the grid either.
My parent comment got downvoted but I don’t know why - just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it’s grounds for downvoting, as I’m only trying to facilitate a discussion.
I think some regulations and enforcement is sorely lacking in these areas.
My parent comment got downvoted but I don’t know why - just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it’s grounds for downvoting, as I’m only trying to facilitate a discussion.
I think some regulations and enforcement is sorely lacking in these areas.
I think you'd have a hard time as a shareholder arguing in court that an executive should have broken the law in order to get you a higher return.
Unrelated: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Unrelated: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's almost never good business to optimise for profit. Or, perhaps more accurately to optimise for short term profit.
For example I can maximise profit by firing all the staff, but continuing to collect subscription revenue for a couple years. Lots of profit, perhaps even "more profit", but a dead business.
We spend money on all sorts of things, at the cost of immediate profit. Staff bonuses, end-of-year lunch, social donations, R&D, all come off the bottom line.
Now, you can argue that we do it to stay in business, and a business that exists infanitly creates infinite profit, in which case the goal of business is to stay in business. Or perhaps profit is best served by keeping staff forever, in which case the odd benefit increases profit.
Profit is important, without it a business will fail - but if that's the _only_ metric then its a very cold unpleasant place to work.
For example I can maximise profit by firing all the staff, but continuing to collect subscription revenue for a couple years. Lots of profit, perhaps even "more profit", but a dead business.
We spend money on all sorts of things, at the cost of immediate profit. Staff bonuses, end-of-year lunch, social donations, R&D, all come off the bottom line.
Now, you can argue that we do it to stay in business, and a business that exists infanitly creates infinite profit, in which case the goal of business is to stay in business. Or perhaps profit is best served by keeping staff forever, in which case the odd benefit increases profit.
Profit is important, without it a business will fail - but if that's the _only_ metric then its a very cold unpleasant place to work.
It's about shifting the cost of growth to other things like employee health, environment, users, etc that is the problem.
It feels like there is so much work that goes into the Apple ecosystem working so cleanly, that most take it for granted without considering what is really an 'alternative' and its costs.