3 ms·

There is the "technically true" way of looking at this, and there's the non-legalistic, subjective judgement of these companies. FB, their business model and m

There is the "technically true" way of looking at this, and there's the non-legalistic, subjective judgement of these companies. FB, their business model and modus operandi is filthy. They really moved the overton window on what is morally normative in terms of advertising... and then applied those norms to everything... content, not just advertising. Apple do stuff you might disagree on. They normalised demoting applications to "apps," which exist inside a walled garden, pay rent and play by Apple's rules. This might not be a good vibe. But, the app store isn't their product. Monopoly, by and large, is not Apple's business model. Apple are big enough that they do monopolize markets, like the app store. But the app store isn't the product or business model. Selling phones is. They don't generally pursue dominant market shares, prefering to cream the high end. A business model that isn't inherently monopoly seeking at its core, isn't mostly about data, advertising or somesuch... that basically makes Apple a shining example. Everything is relative. That said, despite hoping FB lose generally, I do hope that antitrust builds up to something meaningful. I'll be hoping for a guilty.

Epskampie 6y ago
You must have missed the last five years where Apple is looking to extract increasingly more value from “services” i.e. the app store. They very very much want to retain their monopoly there.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Yes. I think I was clear enough that I'm speaking in relatives, not absolutes. Apple's size, platform positioning and the fundamental microeconomics of Apple's markets all drives towards "competition for monopoly," to use the term of art. They're not above customer lock ins, closed ecosystems. They're not above creating little tyrannical kingdoms... Apple may become a Facebook (ar amazon/google) eventually, but atm they are not.. and the opportunities have been many. Apple still, essentially, makes new products and hopes people like them enough to overpay for it. They actually exposed themselves to risk of failure if new products aren't good/popular enough. Who does that? One or two Windows Vista level failures could kill Apple. There is no guaranteed income for macs or iphones in 2022. Facebook, Google, MSFT. even amazon... the quality of their work does not pose a risk of failure in the medium term. Google's user base is protected by default. They own android, and pay for iphone defaults. Own youtube, your emails. The search data. On the customer side, they have a (recognised by courts) monopoly. Search advertising is non-optional for many, many businesses. Adwords is the only seller. For a (old) counterexample, think of rss podcasts. Apple named it, popularized it, dealt with a bullshit one-click-like patent claim on subscription audio as a whole. Meanwhile, Apple never tried to dominate, close, or "own" podcasting. Podcast today is the only free, popular medium. Currently, Spotify's is literally trying to buy up all the top podcasts just to exclude them from the open protocol. The aim, naturally, is to own podcasting.. at which point they can force all the little guys to give them content for free and on their terms. Podcasters, they think, are totally disunited, unlike recording artists. That means once spotify has market share, they can dictate terms like youtube does for video. I bet they already have a cute name for podcasters picked out. Vloggers are called "youtubers." Maybe podcasters will be "spotters." Has a nice ring to it. I'm not calling them angels. Half of it is probably being boomer and being slow to adapt to modern ways. That said, if you compare Apple core business models to the other guys...

Epskampie 6y ago

You must have missed the last five years where Apple is looking to extract increasingly more value from “services” i.e. the app store. They very very much want to retain their monopoly there.

dalbasal 6y ago
Yes. I think I was clear enough that I'm speaking in relatives, not absolutes. Apple's size, platform positioning and the fundamental microeconomics of Apple's markets all drives towards "competition for monopoly," to use the term of art. They're not above customer lock ins, closed ecosystems. They're not above creating little tyrannical kingdoms... Apple may become a Facebook (ar amazon/google) eventually, but atm they are not.. and the opportunities have been many. Apple still, essentially, makes new products and hopes people like them enough to overpay for it. They actually exposed themselves to risk of failure if new products aren't good/popular enough. Who does that? One or two Windows Vista level failures could kill Apple. There is no guaranteed income for macs or iphones in 2022. Facebook, Google, MSFT. even amazon... the quality of their work does not pose a risk of failure in the medium term. Google's user base is protected by default. They own android, and pay for iphone defaults. Own youtube, your emails. The search data. On the customer side, they have a (recognised by courts) monopoly. Search advertising is non-optional for many, many businesses. Adwords is the only seller. For a (old) counterexample, think of rss podcasts. Apple named it, popularized it, dealt with a bullshit one-click-like patent claim on subscription audio as a whole. Meanwhile, Apple never tried to dominate, close, or "own" podcasting. Podcast today is the only free, popular medium. Currently, Spotify's is literally trying to buy up all the top podcasts just to exclude them from the open protocol. The aim, naturally, is to own podcasting.. at which point they can force all the little guys to give them content for free and on their terms. Podcasters, they think, are totally disunited, unlike recording artists. That means once spotify has market share, they can dictate terms like youtube does for video. I bet they already have a cute name for podcasters picked out. Vloggers are called "youtubers." Maybe podcasters will be "spotters." Has a nice ring to it. I'm not calling them angels. Half of it is probably being boomer and being slow to adapt to modern ways. That said, if you compare Apple core business models to the other guys...