3 ms·

I agree in the comparison with running communication wires from a capital intensive / regulation standpoint. I also agree that Google probably has similar chops

I agree in the comparison with running communication wires from a capital intensive / regulation standpoint. I also agree that Google probably has similar chops as Apple for pulling something like this off. So the fact that Google essentially failed does speak to the point of Apple's success not being a sure thing. A couple of things I would say to this, however: 1. Wired connection to home internet wasn't really in a period of disruption when Google entered the Fiber market. Google didn't really have an angle into the market. I think this was more typical Google arrogance driving this than strategic thinking. In this case, I would actually believe the purpose was to influence other players rather than capture meaningful market share with a unique product offering. It's quite an invisible product. 2. Apple doesn't run the business looking for revenue and margins. Apple looks for opportunities to build a substantially different product that fits Apple's values (privacy, safety, security, design, ease of use, etc). Everything about the car as a product experience, including its distribution is in massive transition right now. On a small level we see this with Tesla on the dealership vs direct to consumer model. On a larger scale we see this with ownership model altogether (ride hailing apps vs. the car in your driveway). The car is about to get rebuilt with microprocessors at the core, including machine learning, literally driving the whole experience. Anyway, this is just a way of saying, we shouldn't take a financial snapshot of the car market today and try to fit Apple's model for success into it. The only reason they are getting into it is because everything about cars is going to change dramatically over the next 10 years.

ethbr0 6y ago
We'll see. I'm a huge fan of the futurist motto that actual progress, as opposed to expected progress, is driven by difference-from-current. (Maybe from Kurzweil?) E.g. (1) we don't have flying cars because they're not different enough from street cars to justify their cost, and (2) we do have incredible wireless cell phones because they're fundamentally different than landlines. "Massive transition" etc. just doesn't ring true. After transitioning, the car experience won't be fundamentally that different than the current car + ride share experience. If anything, the future of automobiles seems more likely to lead to lower ownership rates, more commoditization, compressed margins, and a worse market to win. Apple still has to answer to shareholders, and Tim Cook doesn't have Jobs-levels of trust to trade on.

ethbr0 6y ago

We'll see. I'm a huge fan of the futurist motto that actual progress, as opposed to expected progress, is driven by difference-from-current. (Maybe from Kurzweil?) E.g. (1) we don't have flying cars because they're not different enough from street cars to justify their cost, and (2) we do have incredible wireless cell phones because they're fundamentally different than landlines. "Massive transition" etc. just doesn't ring true. After transitioning, the car experience won't be fundamentally that different than the current car + ride share experience. If anything, the future of automobiles seems more likely to lead to lower ownership rates, more commoditization, compressed margins, and a worse market to win. Apple still has to answer to shareholders, and Tim Cook doesn't have Jobs-levels of trust to trade on.