5 ms·

Every time I see an article about this, I look for something to explain why Apple is lumped in with Facebook and Google - something beyond 'they make the piece

Every time I see an article about this, I look for something to explain why Apple is lumped in with Facebook and Google - something beyond 'they make the piece of glass you look at facebook or google on', and I can't really find it. This time around, the author points to an incorrect profit margin (he claims a profit margin of over 250% for an iPhone, which is nearly an order of magnitude too high), and one time that a Spotify update was rejected. Not exactly compelling...

cptskippy 9y ago
> he claims a profit margin of over 250% for an iPhone Maybe it takes into account the revenue generated from that user over the life of the phone?
- redial 9y ago
  That would not be "profit margin".
macintux 9y ago
Agreed. One of these is definitely not like the others. As has been pointed out previously, the only thing Apple has ever held a monopoly on is taste.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  They have 50% of the US market, and control 75% of the app store spend. (iOS users spend 4x as much in aggregate), ergo, they are the gatekeepers of 75% of the mobile software economy, take a 30% cut, are using their closed ecosystem leverage to inflate an inferior music streaming competitor (Apple Music) vs Spotify, etc. I mean, there's lots of current market power abuse or potential market power abuse, and had it not been for Android, who knows how much of a monopoly they'd have. That said, I don't think they need to be broken up, nor do I think Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, or Google do. The problems of wage stagnation in the advanced economies have nothing to do with tech. The "whataboutism" this time is correct, because we're quit literally talking about spending political capital to break up these companies on mostly theoretical harm, with unknown consequences, while ignoring decades of much much nastier abuses by other corporations that have actually killed lots of people. You're not going to seriously get me triggered over Amazon blowing away Walmart, at the same time, you have chemical companies dumping toxic waste into streams. On the scale of needs, I'm worried about Amazon last. There's a tendency of #firstworldproblems, of people in cushy white collar desk jobs, to hyperbolize relatively minor effects on their own life, while they consume products from companies that ship misery abroad, overseas. You lose your shit when someone removes a feature from Snapchat because it affects you directly, but continue to enjoy your Sweatshop manufactured clothing, or your durable goods made with blood minerals because you don't see who it's hurting. No good deed goes unpunished it seems. Many of the tech companies have been at the forefront of corporate responsibility compared to old industries, have reliably contributed to progressive causes, have responded to publish criticism and pressure without needs to be sued into it, and yet, all of the focus is on them. I mean, good lord, Paul Manafort worked with defense contractors, right wing think ranks, and Congress and shipped small arms to a Angola, which was in the middle of a peace talks to end a civil war, and re-ignited a fight that got 100,000 people killed. Whataboutism in this case is justified, if you're going to spend your time lobbying for something, spend it on something that's going to help save people in actual danger.
  - macintux 9y ago
    That’s an impassioned argument against something no one else in this particular thread is discussing, but ok.
    - cromwellian 9y ago
      Actually, other comments did reference "what-about-ism" Also, if you say Google has an too large an effect on your business because of tweaks to search ranking, you can't say Apple doesn't have too large an effect due to tweaks in their T&C, app review policies, or outright bans if your app. Lots of startups have been hurt by App Store bans, removals, and delays.

cptskippy 9y ago

> he claims a profit margin of over 250% for an iPhone Maybe it takes into account the revenue generated from that user over the life of the phone?

redial 9y ago
That would not be "profit margin".

macintux 9y ago

Agreed. One of these is definitely not like the others. As has been pointed out previously, the only thing Apple has ever held a monopoly on is taste.

cromwellian 9y ago
They have 50% of the US market, and control 75% of the app store spend. (iOS users spend 4x as much in aggregate), ergo, they are the gatekeepers of 75% of the mobile software economy, take a 30% cut, are using their closed ecosystem leverage to inflate an inferior music streaming competitor (Apple Music) vs Spotify, etc. I mean, there's lots of current market power abuse or potential market power abuse, and had it not been for Android, who knows how much of a monopoly they'd have. That said, I don't think they need to be broken up, nor do I think Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, or Google do. The problems of wage stagnation in the advanced economies have nothing to do with tech. The "whataboutism" this time is correct, because we're quit literally talking about spending political capital to break up these companies on mostly theoretical harm, with unknown consequences, while ignoring decades of much much nastier abuses by other corporations that have actually killed lots of people. You're not going to seriously get me triggered over Amazon blowing away Walmart, at the same time, you have chemical companies dumping toxic waste into streams. On the scale of needs, I'm worried about Amazon last. There's a tendency of #firstworldproblems, of people in cushy white collar desk jobs, to hyperbolize relatively minor effects on their own life, while they consume products from companies that ship misery abroad, overseas. You lose your shit when someone removes a feature from Snapchat because it affects you directly, but continue to enjoy your Sweatshop manufactured clothing, or your durable goods made with blood minerals because you don't see who it's hurting. No good deed goes unpunished it seems. Many of the tech companies have been at the forefront of corporate responsibility compared to old industries, have reliably contributed to progressive causes, have responded to publish criticism and pressure without needs to be sued into it, and yet, all of the focus is on them. I mean, good lord, Paul Manafort worked with defense contractors, right wing think ranks, and Congress and shipped small arms to a Angola, which was in the middle of a peace talks to end a civil war, and re-ignited a fight that got 100,000 people killed. Whataboutism in this case is justified, if you're going to spend your time lobbying for something, spend it on something that's going to help save people in actual danger.
- macintux 9y ago
  That’s an impassioned argument against something no one else in this particular thread is discussing, but ok.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    Actually, other comments did reference "what-about-ism" Also, if you say Google has an too large an effect on your business because of tweaks to search ranking, you can't say Apple doesn't have too large an effect due to tweaks in their T&C, app review policies, or outright bans if your app. Lots of startups have been hurt by App Store bans, removals, and delays.