6 ms·

Ha, I'm speaking from Apple's perspective thinking through how they could double in value. I don't think the current method of bills coming from everywhere with

Ha, I'm speaking from Apple's perspective thinking through how they could double in value. I don't think the current method of bills coming from everywhere with different payment requirements is all that great. If this new "middleman" provides value and protects me, then what's the problem? I wouldn't see direct integration with my apple device as a middleman but an endpoint. Furthermore, there are loads of whitelabelled middlemen in the current process, you just see it in one big bottom line number for each bill and may appear as service charges, admin fees, billing services, compliance, etc. Apple moving into this space kinda removes middlemen, reducing the number of touches between the biller and your wallet.

roymurdock 8y ago
I don't fully understand your problem, or how Apple could provide a solution. Are you saying that the current system of having a checking/saving account, and setting up autopay/direct payments for your various bills (mortgage, utilities, gym, etc.) is cumbersome? And proposing that instead, Apple should add up all your bills and provide you with a $amount to pay each month, and you just pay that amount into your Apple checking account? The example you gave above, overpaying for a music subscription because it didn't auto cancel, wouldn't be solved by this system, Apple would just add it into the bill and if anything, reduce your visibility into what you're paying for and why. I'm not sure how they would know to "protect" you from a music streaming service you signed up for. The method that works best for me is to use an app like Personal Capital/Mint to centralize financial info and get notifications on what I'm paying for, and when. It also summarizes what buckets you are spending into, so if any look odd you can dig down and investigate further.
- JadoJodo 8y ago
  > Apple should add up all your bills and provide you with a $amount to pay each month ... This is my nightmare of where the subscription-culture is headed.
cronix 8y ago
I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely. I think it's funny how some people (and Apple themselves) always say how Apple is so privacy conscious, while at the same time they made 9 Billion Dollars from Google by using Google as the default search engine in Safari (which most people don't change). So it seems they're willing to sell some of their users privacy for profit, and a very nice one at that. If they just built their own search engine and used it as default, and it provided high quality un-manipulated results, I think even more would flock to Apple. Yes they'd take a (big) hit up front by losing out on all of that free Google money (estimated to be ~$12B in 2019), but then they could actually say with a straight face they were truly privacy advocates and won't sell their users data to Google via the Google Search Engine. Saying how privacy conscious a company is, while literally making billions of dollars by indirectly selling a lot of their customers data, really rings hollow with me. Build a search engine. It's not as hard as building Apple Maps, and will do more good in many ways. Hell, even non-Apple people might use Apple search and fall in love with the results, bringing them into the Apple fold.
- q-base 8y ago
  It may be easier than maps - which I am not sure about. But the attempt at maps will most likely have dampened their lust for a similar endeavor.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  The search engine isn’t the only issue. I mean, the App Store allows Facebook and a bonanza of other privacy violating apps. Apple to some extent launders responsibility for extremely useful services that require or use personal data by outsourcing it to others. Why not actually turn iMessage into a privacy preserving social network? For the same reason, as with search, I think the difficulty is underestimated.
  - cronix 8y ago
    To me, the difference is Apple enables Google as the default search engine by default, for everyone, while the app store is stuff the user manually opts-in for by selecting what to install.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I'm speaking from Apple's perspective But why? It greatly puzzles me how many "consumers" now think in terms of "brands" and dream up and discuss strategies on behalf of them. Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers, and customers should concentrate on not getting fleeced.
- clairity 8y ago
  as a counterpoint, you need to anticipate the actions of corporations to make rational decisions about how to interact with them. but in most cases, these musings are forms of armchair quarterbacking, not some brainwashed adoration of a brand.
- macintux 8y ago
  > Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers This mentality is a problem. Companies have many valid motivations, and certainly profit is one, but long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > This mentality is a problem. How is that a "mentality"? How is it a problem? > but long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers It being predicated by gouging is not a claim of mine, success being accompanied by gouging it is enough. Would you say fleecing customers is "rare"?
  - moolcool 8y ago
    >long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers Razor blades, Inkjet cartridges, sunglasses, broadband internet/telecom, most luxury goods, payday loans, the entire diamond industry
- austhrow743 8y ago
  Companies and customers are just people wearing different hats, not distinct groups. Most of us spend our day fleecing and then go home to be on the receiving end. If thats the terminology you want to use for the production/consumption cycle. There's nothing that says one has to be wearing their consumer hat when using hacker news. In fact given the context of both the forum and article, it makes far more sense to me that people would be commenting as fellow fleecers not the fleeced. Hacker news in general has more content relevant to fleecing rather than being fleeced. This article being a prime example. As a consumer its of zero interest to me. What do I care of iPhones growth or lack of it? Reading about Apples market position and growth options only appeals to me as a producer.

roymurdock 8y ago

I don't fully understand your problem, or how Apple could provide a solution. Are you saying that the current system of having a checking/saving account, and setting up autopay/direct payments for your various bills (mortgage, utilities, gym, etc.) is cumbersome? And proposing that instead, Apple should add up all your bills and provide you with a $amount to pay each month, and you just pay that amount into your Apple checking account? The example you gave above, overpaying for a music subscription because it didn't auto cancel, wouldn't be solved by this system, Apple would just add it into the bill and if anything, reduce your visibility into what you're paying for and why. I'm not sure how they would know to "protect" you from a music streaming service you signed up for. The method that works best for me is to use an app like Personal Capital/Mint to centralize financial info and get notifications on what I'm paying for, and when. It also summarizes what buckets you are spending into, so if any look odd you can dig down and investigate further.

JadoJodo 8y ago
> Apple should add up all your bills and provide you with a $amount to pay each month ... This is my nightmare of where the subscription-culture is headed.

cronix 8y ago

I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely. I think it's funny how some people (and Apple themselves) always say how Apple is so privacy conscious, while at the same time they made 9 Billion Dollars from Google by using Google as the default search engine in Safari (which most people don't change). So it seems they're willing to sell some of their users privacy for profit, and a very nice one at that. If they just built their own search engine and used it as default, and it provided high quality un-manipulated results, I think even more would flock to Apple. Yes they'd take a (big) hit up front by losing out on all of that free Google money (estimated to be ~$12B in 2019), but then they could actually say with a straight face they were truly privacy advocates and won't sell their users data to Google via the Google Search Engine. Saying how privacy conscious a company is, while literally making billions of dollars by indirectly selling a lot of their customers data, really rings hollow with me. Build a search engine. It's not as hard as building Apple Maps, and will do more good in many ways. Hell, even non-Apple people might use Apple search and fall in love with the results, bringing them into the Apple fold.

q-base 8y ago
It may be easier than maps - which I am not sure about. But the attempt at maps will most likely have dampened their lust for a similar endeavor.
cromwellian 8y ago
The search engine isn’t the only issue. I mean, the App Store allows Facebook and a bonanza of other privacy violating apps. Apple to some extent launders responsibility for extremely useful services that require or use personal data by outsourcing it to others. Why not actually turn iMessage into a privacy preserving social network? For the same reason, as with search, I think the difficulty is underestimated.
- cronix 8y ago
  To me, the difference is Apple enables Google as the default search engine by default, for everyone, while the app store is stuff the user manually opts-in for by selecting what to install.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> I'm speaking from Apple's perspective But why? It greatly puzzles me how many "consumers" now think in terms of "brands" and dream up and discuss strategies on behalf of them. Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers, and customers should concentrate on not getting fleeced.

clairity 8y ago
as a counterpoint, you need to anticipate the actions of corporations to make rational decisions about how to interact with them. but in most cases, these musings are forms of armchair quarterbacking, not some brainwashed adoration of a brand.
macintux 8y ago
> Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers This mentality is a problem. Companies have many valid motivations, and certainly profit is one, but long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > This mentality is a problem. How is that a "mentality"? How is it a problem? > but long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers It being predicated by gouging is not a claim of mine, success being accompanied by gouging it is enough. Would you say fleecing customers is "rare"?
- moolcool 8y ago
  >long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers Razor blades, Inkjet cartridges, sunglasses, broadband internet/telecom, most luxury goods, payday loans, the entire diamond industry
austhrow743 8y ago
Companies and customers are just people wearing different hats, not distinct groups. Most of us spend our day fleecing and then go home to be on the receiving end. If thats the terminology you want to use for the production/consumption cycle. There's nothing that says one has to be wearing their consumer hat when using hacker news. In fact given the context of both the forum and article, it makes far more sense to me that people would be commenting as fellow fleecers not the fleeced. Hacker news in general has more content relevant to fleecing rather than being fleeced. This article being a prime example. As a consumer its of zero interest to me. What do I care of iPhones growth or lack of it? Reading about Apples market position and growth options only appeals to me as a producer.