6 ms·

Security is a goal, but the purpose is control. For example, this is different than in Microsoft, where the purpose is security, and more control is sometimes

Security is a goal, but the purpose is control. For example, this is different than in Microsoft, where the purpose is security, and more control is sometimes a goal, but mostly comes along for the ride because it's needed (at least traditionally, we'll see how much that continues to change for Microsoft). This is obvious in all Apple's decisions. Metal/OpenGL, UI changes, custom CPUs, etc. Apple long ago latched onto control as their path to success, and it's worked quite well for them. It's only natural for them to reach for more control wherever they can. Sometimes that doesn't really affect users or developers much, other times it does.

zepto 6y ago
I agree with much of this except for the arbitrary conclusion ‘the purpose is control’. The strategy is control, most definitely. The goal is to deliver desirable end user features, security being an essential one of these. I worked in consumer electronics software development during the early 2000s, when Microsoft was still considered the dominant force. There were many parts of the software stack where no individual entity had control and standards and features were beholden to consortia and standards bodies which were essentially political bodies, all about capturing leverage over one part of the platform or another. The result was that the user was simply not in the picture, and obvious ways to improve the user experience just couldn’t be executed because every decision about how to do so was a political battle. Apple’s strategy of vertical integration allowed them to avoid all of this and simply deliver proprietary features that users wanted. The problem in this case was not Apple delivering proprietary features. It was Apple’s competitors failure to cooperate to deliver what consumers wanted. Android is where it is because it became simply a repeat of that early 2000’s failure, and of course Google was forced to abandon “Open always wins” in favor of progressively trying to take back control. If we want a more open alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, we need to be honest about why they has been successful, and how the alternatives underperformed. I think Apple’s continued success is contingent on there being no low end disruption (which is definitely not a given), and would be competitors continuing to fail to create a healthy alternative ecosystem of their own. My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done. Apple has been on this upward trajectory for nearly 20 years, and for most of that time they were not dominant. The problem is that the comparing ecosystems haven’t figured out how to work together to make an alternative yet. If Apple is failing to allow people to play the games they want, and gaming is an increasingly relevant cultural activity, this is an opportunity for growth outside of Apple’s control. Just as the music industry and the cellphone industry fell to Apple giving customers what they wanted and what was possible, Apple can fall to a competitor to does understand the value of games. The arguments about not being able to get people to switch are moot. It’s always true that there are switching costs to overcome. Competing with Apple would take patience, good management, and a lot of capital being deployed. There is no shortage of capital looking for a place to invest - there is only a shortage of management talent and imagination. If we don’t hobble Apple artificially, someone will figure this out, and the whole industry will be better off for it. Remember Apple’s renaissance began with Steve Jobs saying “We have been thinking that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We need to stop thinking that way.”
- kbenson 6y ago
  > My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done. Apple absolutely has done things to prevent alternatives to their platforms. Not only can you not make hardware that iOS and MacOS run on (and in rare cases where people have, Apple has sued them[1]). Can you run something other than iOS on an iPhone? Less and less possible, as they lock the phone hardware (and bootloader) down more and more. Can you run an alternative app store? Nope, totally not allowed. You seem to think that if enough capital was gathered, you could do so, but you can't. It's completely locked out by Apple, and any way you have to circumvent it is either blocked by EULA, contract, or digital and physical controls. Without legal intervention, this isn't happening no matter how much capital you have, because Apple has specifically closed off all other avenues. So, is it possible to gather enough capital to compete? I'm not sure sure. You'd have to take a page from Apple's playbook and close everything down to control it, and that's far more expensive now than it was a decade ago, and somehow get enough developers and apps and users in a marketplace that doesn't have anything in it to start. And you have to close everything down to outsiders because otherwise Apple will just support whatever your standards are while not allowing you to interoperate with theirs (look at the history iMessage and XMPP, and why Google eventually had to copy Apple's tactic of a closed IM system). I think it's important to note that this is, at it's essence, anti-competitive behavior. Apple leverages their control over their system to provide benefit to their users, but they do this in a way that denies competition at all but the highest level, even when working at the lowest level. Again, iMessage is a good example of this. You have to buy into the entire Apple platform, from hardware to OS to App Store and control to be able to send messages across that system, and only to other iPhone/MacOS users, because Apple refuses to develop or provide an API to utilize the system from any non Apple device, while at the same time automatically making SMS messages use the system for iPhone to iPhone communication, forcing their users to use it. Is it better than SMS? Yes. Does Apple give it extra capabilities that other systems can't compete with? Also yes. How is this different than Internet Explorer on Windows back in the day? The bottom line is that Apple's behavior is anti-competitive (in the true sense of the word, whether or not it meets with the antitrust definition in all cases). They use their control of different levels of the platform to stifle competition on other levels. No piece of their platform can be exchanged for another, so there's absolutely no competition at individual levels, only on the platform as a whole. I want to be clear here, currently it's not Apple vs Android, it's Apple vs everyone and everything else. There's plenty of Android hardware I can take and load AOSP, or LineageOS, or even a Linux based OS. I can take any of those OS's and run them on lots of different hardware (the limiting factor is what people have bothered to port, not what has been restricted). Calling for enough capital to support another walled garden that can compete on the platform level with Apple in the same manner is not only not useful, it's actively harmful to competition overall as they are only able to compete at the platform level. I want to make one last note. Have you considered that the reason Apple provides a great product and service isn't because they've leveraged their profit from anti-competitive behaviors to their own benefit, to make it even harder to compete with them? What if instead of a couple hundred billion in cash reserves held at Apple, it was partially spread around to various competing companies in the different segments the platform covers over the last decade? A valid third contender maybe? I don't know, but I have a hard time believing that Apple's been the most efficient steward of all that capital, nor that preventing competition leads to a better situation in the end. 1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac-clone-maker-psystar.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac...

zepto 6y ago

I agree with much of this except for the arbitrary conclusion ‘the purpose is control’. The strategy is control, most definitely. The goal is to deliver desirable end user features, security being an essential one of these. I worked in consumer electronics software development during the early 2000s, when Microsoft was still considered the dominant force. There were many parts of the software stack where no individual entity had control and standards and features were beholden to consortia and standards bodies which were essentially political bodies, all about capturing leverage over one part of the platform or another. The result was that the user was simply not in the picture, and obvious ways to improve the user experience just couldn’t be executed because every decision about how to do so was a political battle. Apple’s strategy of vertical integration allowed them to avoid all of this and simply deliver proprietary features that users wanted. The problem in this case was not Apple delivering proprietary features. It was Apple’s competitors failure to cooperate to deliver what consumers wanted. Android is where it is because it became simply a repeat of that early 2000’s failure, and of course Google was forced to abandon “Open always wins” in favor of progressively trying to take back control. If we want a more open alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, we need to be honest about why they has been successful, and how the alternatives underperformed. I think Apple’s continued success is contingent on there being no low end disruption (which is definitely not a given), and would be competitors continuing to fail to create a healthy alternative ecosystem of their own. My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done. Apple has been on this upward trajectory for nearly 20 years, and for most of that time they were not dominant. The problem is that the comparing ecosystems haven’t figured out how to work together to make an alternative yet. If Apple is failing to allow people to play the games they want, and gaming is an increasingly relevant cultural activity, this is an opportunity for growth outside of Apple’s control. Just as the music industry and the cellphone industry fell to Apple giving customers what they wanted and what was possible, Apple can fall to a competitor to does understand the value of games. The arguments about not being able to get people to switch are moot. It’s always true that there are switching costs to overcome. Competing with Apple would take patience, good management, and a lot of capital being deployed. There is no shortage of capital looking for a place to invest - there is only a shortage of management talent and imagination. If we don’t hobble Apple artificially, someone will figure this out, and the whole industry will be better off for it. Remember Apple’s renaissance began with Steve Jobs saying “We have been thinking that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We need to stop thinking that way.”

kbenson 6y ago
> My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done. Apple absolutely has done things to prevent alternatives to their platforms. Not only can you not make hardware that iOS and MacOS run on (and in rare cases where people have, Apple has sued them[1]). Can you run something other than iOS on an iPhone? Less and less possible, as they lock the phone hardware (and bootloader) down more and more. Can you run an alternative app store? Nope, totally not allowed. You seem to think that if enough capital was gathered, you could do so, but you can't. It's completely locked out by Apple, and any way you have to circumvent it is either blocked by EULA, contract, or digital and physical controls. Without legal intervention, this isn't happening no matter how much capital you have, because Apple has specifically closed off all other avenues. So, is it possible to gather enough capital to compete? I'm not sure sure. You'd have to take a page from Apple's playbook and close everything down to control it, and that's far more expensive now than it was a decade ago, and somehow get enough developers and apps and users in a marketplace that doesn't have anything in it to start. And you have to close everything down to outsiders because otherwise Apple will just support whatever your standards are while not allowing you to interoperate with theirs (look at the history iMessage and XMPP, and why Google eventually had to copy Apple's tactic of a closed IM system). I think it's important to note that this is, at it's essence, anti-competitive behavior. Apple leverages their control over their system to provide benefit to their users, but they do this in a way that denies competition at all but the highest level, even when working at the lowest level. Again, iMessage is a good example of this. You have to buy into the entire Apple platform, from hardware to OS to App Store and control to be able to send messages across that system, and only to other iPhone/MacOS users, because Apple refuses to develop or provide an API to utilize the system from any non Apple device, while at the same time automatically making SMS messages use the system for iPhone to iPhone communication, forcing their users to use it. Is it better than SMS? Yes. Does Apple give it extra capabilities that other systems can't compete with? Also yes. How is this different than Internet Explorer on Windows back in the day? The bottom line is that Apple's behavior is anti-competitive (in the true sense of the word, whether or not it meets with the antitrust definition in all cases). They use their control of different levels of the platform to stifle competition on other levels. No piece of their platform can be exchanged for another, so there's absolutely no competition at individual levels, only on the platform as a whole. I want to be clear here, currently it's not Apple vs Android, it's Apple vs everyone and everything else. There's plenty of Android hardware I can take and load AOSP, or LineageOS, or even a Linux based OS. I can take any of those OS's and run them on lots of different hardware (the limiting factor is what people have bothered to port, not what has been restricted). Calling for enough capital to support another walled garden that can compete on the platform level with Apple in the same manner is not only not useful, it's actively harmful to competition overall as they are only able to compete at the platform level. I want to make one last note. Have you considered that the reason Apple provides a great product and service isn't because they've leveraged their profit from anti-competitive behaviors to their own benefit, to make it even harder to compete with them? What if instead of a couple hundred billion in cash reserves held at Apple, it was partially spread around to various competing companies in the different segments the platform covers over the last decade? A valid third contender maybe? I don't know, but I have a hard time believing that Apple's been the most efficient steward of all that capital, nor that preventing competition leads to a better situation in the end. 1: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac-clone-maker-psystar.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534792/apple-sues-mac...