7 ms·

The thing that’s missed is that vertical Integratron is far more efficient for core products than relying on third parties. Apple won out over Microsoft in con

by zepto 6y ago

The thing that’s missed is that vertical Integratron is far more efficient for core products than relying on third parties. Apple won out over Microsoft in consumer electronics because they were able to make decisions up and down the stack as a unit whereas Microsoft had to deal with layers of device makers and consortia. All the talk of breakups and “big is bad” ignores the fact that vertical works better. I don’t think it has to be this way. I think it’s entirely possible that a network of companies can outperform a monolith with the right kind of coordination. This would be a new, evolutionary strategy, and would be good for everyone. It won’t however, emerge if we roll the clock back to the late 90’s by force.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
It's efficient, sure, but Windows still effective counts as an open platform compared to Mac, because so many different vendors are welcome and involved. Closed vertical integration is worse for consumers. And that consumer standard is also often based on price: Windows platforms are almost always cheaper than the Apple equivalent. So that efficiency doesn't benefit consumers.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  I don't think either of those is necessarily a slam dunk. A lot of consumers really appreciate the non-openness of platforms like iOS when it comes to security, privacy, parental controls, and so on. I know your argument is specifically about the Mac, but on the "openness" spectrum, MacOS sits somewhere between Windows and iOS, so iOS is a helpful reference point for where the Mac could end up. And as for cost— I don't think that's necessarily strictly worse either. I have a Dell XPS now, and it's.... fine. But relative to my old MBP, the screen is worse, the build quality is worse, the trackpad is worse, the keyboard is worse, the power management is way, way worse. So although there might be slightly more compute here in terms of the raw numbers, a lot of corners had to be cut to make this machine work out, and all things considered, I'm not sure that the market is in a better place when even "premium" non-Apple computers don't have the profit headroom to invest in the little stuff.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I'm an iOS convert, so you don't have to sell me on the benefits of a closed platform. But I was referring to more than just software. When servicing an Apple laptop with a broken keyboard last month, I had to find an Apple-brand USB keyboard in order to get it into the recovery menu, because I needed an Apple command key. (Linux works fine with the Windows key for similar types of shortcuts.) The idea that I needed an Apple keyboard to do something trivial on an Apple machine was... hilarious to me.
    - zepto 6y ago
      There is nothing closed or proprietary about Apple usb keyboards. There are 3rd party options with a command key - you just don’t happen to own one.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Sure, there are Apple-certified accessories out there, but you literally have to buy stuff explicitly catered to their hardware for their software to work right. Whereas anyone else can use "literally any keyboard out there", you need an Apple keyboard to work with an Apple device.
        zepto 6y ago
        That just isn’t true. You don’t need an Apple certified keyboard. You just need one with the command key mapped correctly. As for ‘explicitly catered’ - the command key was on Apple keyboards before Microsoft added the Windows key, and before Linux even existed. It seems a bit weird to complain about monopolies while at the same time saying every product should work the same way.
amelius 6y ago
I like Microsoft's approach more though. It makes the market more modular, since other companies have access to the same resources. You can say "Apple's machines are easier to work with because better integration". But I'd say that's only a small convenience which doesn't stack up against the huge downsides of this non-modular approach as seen from the societal/economy perspective. My mom and dad can work with a Windows laptop just fine.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > My mom and dad can work with a Windows laptop just fine. Mine can’t. All I know is I spend many fewer hours, near zero, doing tech support for my parents on macOS/iOS than when they used Windows.
  - adambatkin 6y ago
    Mine too. But it has nothing to do with the hardware or software (I'd argue that for many things the Apple ecosystem makes things harder due to its inflexibility) and everything to do with the fact that whenever they have a problem they can walk to an Apple Store (or call Apple Care) and they are able to help without having to work around my time constraints (job, family, etc...) I suppose that's a type of integration too (the fact that Apple has retail stores and a Genius Bar that for "normal" people works well to solve "normal" problems) but it has nothing to do with pure technological innovation.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > (I'd argue that for many things the Apple ecosystem makes things harder due to its inflexibility) Yes - many things are harder, but on balance the Apple ecosystem delivers better end user results. But your point is important - there is huge opportunity for something better. Apple isn’t standing in the way of that. The belief that Microsoft or Linux as they stand are somehow better is. (I think Linux is fundamental to what comes next, but only if we people stop pretending it is currently better for end users and stop trying to make it more like an Apple product)
    - 6y ago
mrkurt 6y ago
Vertical doesn't unequivocally work better, there's a high external cost. None of Apple's "stack" is available to other companies because they have no incentive to sell components. The reverse happens, they buy up independent companies (like the touch id folks) and prevent anyone else from using a given piece of tech. Same problem with Amazon and shipping. Regular schmoes are limited to USPS/Fedex/UPS for shipping in the US. Amazon opting out of the "market" for shipping limits the quality of the shipping services I have access to. We need to role back to something closer to the 1970s, really. The 90s were ok in tech company terms (at least when the DoJ slowed Microsoft's monopoly) but that was already a full decade into the big-ification of companies. There's no real alternative but force. You can't evolve from big monopolies into smaller companies, the smaller companies can't even exist in most cases.
- spideymans 6y ago
  >None of Apple's "stack" is available to other companies because they have no incentive to sell components. The reverse happens, they buy up independent companies (like the touch id folks) and prevent anyone else from using a given piece of tech. As Apple's sales success allows them to invest even more in R&D, their tech stack become an even bigger moat. Competitors are going to find it increasingly difficult to create products that can compete with Apple's tech stack on a technological basis.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Competitors are going to find it increasingly difficult to create products that can compete with Apple's tech stack on a technological basis. No one is stopping anyone (outside of US economic sanctions) from getting an ARM architectural license and designing their own CPUs to compete with Apple. There are countless vendors to choose from if you don't have the experience to do yourself, there are IP cores for everything from battery management over memory to AI available on the market. The problem is that, rather than go the expensive Apple route, most seem to be content to pay top dollar to Qualcomm (or for lower classes, Mediatek) and get buggy hardware and BSPs in return, instead of pushing Qualcomm to deliver better quality. And for what it's worth, there are serious competitors to every Apple product. There have been Windows laptops with 32 and 64 GB of RAM years before Apple finally updated their line. Samsung puts up a diverse lineup of phones and tablets that definitely compete with iDevices. Sony has AirPod clones (admittedly they're bulkier, but have more selection in earbuds). There are a number of Apple TV competitors - Roku, Amazon's TV stick, Chromecast to name the most popular ones.
arrosenberg 6y ago
> All the talk of breakups and “big is bad” ignores the fact that vertical works better. That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? > It won’t however, emerge if we roll the clock back to the late 90’s by force. It might, but I can absolutely, guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we don't get a more democratic solution if we leave the current stakeholders in their current positions of immense power.
- zepto 6y ago
  > That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. It works better for making technology. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Every single one of the indicators you mentioned is better now than it was in the 90s. What you are calling for is more opportunity for all these people to build wealth. Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. Things that might: universal health care, student loan easing, increased investment in impoverished communities. Blaming things that work well and breaking them is silly. Making new things that work better is not.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    > Yes. It works better for making technology. You haven't proven that at all. You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview (which clearly ignores the entire MS antitrust saga that took place a couple years before Jobs reinvented the company). > Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. You haven't proven that. When AT&T was broken up, it unlocked a host of new technologies (answering machines, modems) that Ma Bell was blocking to protect their existing revenue model.
jayd16 6y ago
I don't follow you. Microsoft only dabbles in specific hardware. Where they do, they're fully integrated like the surface or the xbox. If you're talking about things where Microsoft just makes the software, aren't they still winning over the Mac?
- neogodless 6y ago
  Since I agree with you and don't have a new point to make, I just want to expand on yours. Consoles - Apple doesn't compete here. Microsoft is competitive. Smartphones / tables - Microsoft lost here, Apple competes against Google and various hardware makers instead. They probably win in US market share and net profits, but not global share. Computers / operating systems - Microsoft still dominates in market share over Apple. Opinions vary (strongly) between which is best, but more people buy computers with Windows than computers made by Apple. Watches, air tags, etc. - Microsoft doesn't compete here. Accessories - no clue about market share, but I do think Microsoft makes some pretty good keyboards and mice.
- zepto 6y ago
  You are looking at today - this is about the history. In 2002, Microsoft was the dominant force in consumer electronics because everyone assumed they needed ‘PC compatibility’ or even to integrate Windows CE. If you worked in the industry then, Microsoft was discussed in every meeting and was a major player in standards bodies. That started to change with the introduction of the iPod.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    But those accessories aren't fully integrated Apple products so I don't really understand the point at all.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I’m not talking about accessories. Also - Apple does in fact make most of the important accessories for their own products, and they leverage vertical integration when doing so. AirPods for example. Bluetooth - the consortium solution wasn’t good enough, not were Bluetooth chipsets. Apple didn’t need to wait for standards changes or persuade a vendor to make anything for them.
stadium 6y ago
> the fact that vertical works better It works better until it doesn't. A company with high market share and positive cash flow can invest in vertical integration. They gain economies of scale. It gets harder to adapt to the market and stay efficient and innovative at larger companies. Or they slowly kill off the competition and no longer find the need to innovate, and settle into money printing mode and monopolistic behaviors.
- zepto 6y ago
  If larger companies are not innovative they will fail. The giants of today haven’t been giant for very long. There is plenty of money around to invest in alternatives.
boxed 6y ago
> Apple won out over Microsoft in consumer electronics because they were able to make decisions up and down the stack as a unit whereas Microsoft had to deal with layers of device makers and consortia. That sounds nice but can't be true. Remember when Apple almost went out of business? It was the exact same situation then. I'll offer an alternative hypothesis: Apple won out because they executed well year over year over year. They made that vertical integration work for them by slowly making things better faster than the competition. Apple also never paid a strategy tax. They cannibalized their existing business ruthlessly. This is also unrelated to vertical integration.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Microsoft's key strategy was always market domination by monopoly, paid through the vig of per-CPU licence fees (whether DOS/Windows was installed or not, still largely the case), and extending through "productivity software" (MS Office) and later organisational glue (MS Active Directory / Exchange) and the Web (MSIE). The DoJ case had Microsoft back off that lever a bit, just as Apple executed beautifully (and with some Microsoft concessions in part devolving from the DoJ suit ... yes, a simplification, my 4th-fav pedants), and then hit it out of the park with the iPod and iPhone (subscriptions, apps, hardware sales, fashion accessories, ...). Google cracked Microsoft's revenue model with advertising (though that may be starting to give a bit), as has Faceboook. Amazon got where both Microsoft and Google wanted to be: between the buyer and the lion's share of online retail. Work, comms, adverts, shopping, fashion, and entertainment. There's hot competition for transport (automobiles, whether smart, electric, for-hire, or self-driving). There's not a whole lot of consumer spend left to grab that I can see. (Housing. Utilities. Insurance. Finance.)
  - zepto 6y ago
    Do you love Apple products? Not a trick question. I think they are the best, but I don’t feel great about them.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      No. By the late 1990s, though I thought Apple were dead. My pet name for "Rapsody" was "Requium". "Hit out of the park" is in that context --- the company had been on death's door. It is no longer.
hctaw 6y ago
Environmental pollution also "works better" for companies and yet we regulate it. I don't think this is a false dichotomy, the role of government in business regulation is to modify business practices that are contrary to the best outcomes for society. Not what is more efficient for businesses.
- zepto 6y ago
  It is a false dichtotomy. Inefficient decision making creates environmental pollution. Regulating to make companies less good at decision making under the belief that this will increase opportunity is literally making society stupider. It is the path to idiocracy. I’m not against government intervention. Let’s invest in alternatives, and let’s invest in making people’s lives less precarious.
toomuchredbull 6y ago
It's interesting because there was a post yesterday about how companies hollow themselves out by outsourcing all the pieces, (the example he used was a toaster) until the entire toaster is built by outsiders and the toaster company is just a sales and marketing unit, unable to innovate, whereas apple is the opposite it is basically the only company that is a real outlier to this trend.
bcrosby95 6y ago
Yet Apple doesn't make the boards themselves. Would them doing that be more efficient vs what they do now? How do you draw the line? Where does your theoretical "stack" start and stop? I think this is all just a big bag of hindsight bias. If the "winner" does something different then people attribute winning to that thing. Reality tends to be more complex.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Hypothetically, say Microsoft and Apple both announced that they planned to move from x86 to ARM on the same day, knowing nothing else, who would you have bet would be more successful?
- zepto 6y ago
  > Would them doing that be more efficient vs what they do now? In the end, probably yes. They did do this for a while but this wasn’t competitive with having the work done in China. Apple exerts a lot of control over how that work is done. They don’t just send out a design and get boards back - they embed engineers and management in places like Foxconn and in fact control the process. > How do you draw the line? Where does your theoretical "stack" start and stop? See above. Basically whenever something is not literally a commodity, Apple steadily builds expertise and control. Look at how they have done this with screen technology for example. Their partner companies build parts dedicated to Apple. Even if there is another corporate partner involved for geopolitical reasons, there is still vertical integration.
FridayoLeary 6y ago
vertical always works better. until it doesn't. dictatorships, autocracies and none other then the failed Soviet Republics are testament to this. the job of our lawmakers is to judge when top- down decision making stops being beneficial to society in general and our economy in particular.
- zepto 6y ago
  Apple is nothing whatsoever like a dictatorship, autocracy, or failed soviet republic. It’s a silly comparison.

by zepto 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

It's efficient, sure, but Windows still effective counts as an open platform compared to Mac, because so many different vendors are welcome and involved. Closed vertical integration is worse for consumers. And that consumer standard is also often based on price: Windows platforms are almost always cheaper than the Apple equivalent. So that efficiency doesn't benefit consumers.

mikepurvis 6y ago
I don't think either of those is necessarily a slam dunk. A lot of consumers really appreciate the non-openness of platforms like iOS when it comes to security, privacy, parental controls, and so on. I know your argument is specifically about the Mac, but on the "openness" spectrum, MacOS sits somewhere between Windows and iOS, so iOS is a helpful reference point for where the Mac could end up. And as for cost— I don't think that's necessarily strictly worse either. I have a Dell XPS now, and it's.... fine. But relative to my old MBP, the screen is worse, the build quality is worse, the trackpad is worse, the keyboard is worse, the power management is way, way worse. So although there might be slightly more compute here in terms of the raw numbers, a lot of corners had to be cut to make this machine work out, and all things considered, I'm not sure that the market is in a better place when even "premium" non-Apple computers don't have the profit headroom to invest in the little stuff.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I'm an iOS convert, so you don't have to sell me on the benefits of a closed platform. But I was referring to more than just software. When servicing an Apple laptop with a broken keyboard last month, I had to find an Apple-brand USB keyboard in order to get it into the recovery menu, because I needed an Apple command key. (Linux works fine with the Windows key for similar types of shortcuts.) The idea that I needed an Apple keyboard to do something trivial on an Apple machine was... hilarious to me.
  - zepto 6y ago
    There is nothing closed or proprietary about Apple usb keyboards. There are 3rd party options with a command key - you just don’t happen to own one.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Sure, there are Apple-certified accessories out there, but you literally have to buy stuff explicitly catered to their hardware for their software to work right. Whereas anyone else can use "literally any keyboard out there", you need an Apple keyboard to work with an Apple device.
      - zepto 6y ago
        That just isn’t true. You don’t need an Apple certified keyboard. You just need one with the command key mapped correctly. As for ‘explicitly catered’ - the command key was on Apple keyboards before Microsoft added the Windows key, and before Linux even existed. It seems a bit weird to complain about monopolies while at the same time saying every product should work the same way.

amelius 6y ago

I like Microsoft's approach more though. It makes the market more modular, since other companies have access to the same resources. You can say "Apple's machines are easier to work with because better integration". But I'd say that's only a small convenience which doesn't stack up against the huge downsides of this non-modular approach as seen from the societal/economy perspective. My mom and dad can work with a Windows laptop just fine.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> My mom and dad can work with a Windows laptop just fine. Mine can’t. All I know is I spend many fewer hours, near zero, doing tech support for my parents on macOS/iOS than when they used Windows.
- adambatkin 6y ago
  Mine too. But it has nothing to do with the hardware or software (I'd argue that for many things the Apple ecosystem makes things harder due to its inflexibility) and everything to do with the fact that whenever they have a problem they can walk to an Apple Store (or call Apple Care) and they are able to help without having to work around my time constraints (job, family, etc...) I suppose that's a type of integration too (the fact that Apple has retail stores and a Genius Bar that for "normal" people works well to solve "normal" problems) but it has nothing to do with pure technological innovation.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > (I'd argue that for many things the Apple ecosystem makes things harder due to its inflexibility) Yes - many things are harder, but on balance the Apple ecosystem delivers better end user results. But your point is important - there is huge opportunity for something better. Apple isn’t standing in the way of that. The belief that Microsoft or Linux as they stand are somehow better is. (I think Linux is fundamental to what comes next, but only if we people stop pretending it is currently better for end users and stop trying to make it more like an Apple product)
  - 6y ago

mrkurt 6y ago

Vertical doesn't unequivocally work better, there's a high external cost. None of Apple's "stack" is available to other companies because they have no incentive to sell components. The reverse happens, they buy up independent companies (like the touch id folks) and prevent anyone else from using a given piece of tech. Same problem with Amazon and shipping. Regular schmoes are limited to USPS/Fedex/UPS for shipping in the US. Amazon opting out of the "market" for shipping limits the quality of the shipping services I have access to. We need to role back to something closer to the 1970s, really. The 90s were ok in tech company terms (at least when the DoJ slowed Microsoft's monopoly) but that was already a full decade into the big-ification of companies. There's no real alternative but force. You can't evolve from big monopolies into smaller companies, the smaller companies can't even exist in most cases.

spideymans 6y ago
>None of Apple's "stack" is available to other companies because they have no incentive to sell components. The reverse happens, they buy up independent companies (like the touch id folks) and prevent anyone else from using a given piece of tech. As Apple's sales success allows them to invest even more in R&D, their tech stack become an even bigger moat. Competitors are going to find it increasingly difficult to create products that can compete with Apple's tech stack on a technological basis.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Competitors are going to find it increasingly difficult to create products that can compete with Apple's tech stack on a technological basis. No one is stopping anyone (outside of US economic sanctions) from getting an ARM architectural license and designing their own CPUs to compete with Apple. There are countless vendors to choose from if you don't have the experience to do yourself, there are IP cores for everything from battery management over memory to AI available on the market. The problem is that, rather than go the expensive Apple route, most seem to be content to pay top dollar to Qualcomm (or for lower classes, Mediatek) and get buggy hardware and BSPs in return, instead of pushing Qualcomm to deliver better quality. And for what it's worth, there are serious competitors to every Apple product. There have been Windows laptops with 32 and 64 GB of RAM years before Apple finally updated their line. Samsung puts up a diverse lineup of phones and tablets that definitely compete with iDevices. Sony has AirPod clones (admittedly they're bulkier, but have more selection in earbuds). There are a number of Apple TV competitors - Roku, Amazon's TV stick, Chromecast to name the most popular ones.

arrosenberg 6y ago

> All the talk of breakups and “big is bad” ignores the fact that vertical works better. That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? > It won’t however, emerge if we roll the clock back to the late 90’s by force. It might, but I can absolutely, guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we don't get a more democratic solution if we leave the current stakeholders in their current positions of immense power.

zepto 6y ago
> That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. It works better for making technology. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Every single one of the indicators you mentioned is better now than it was in the 90s. What you are calling for is more opportunity for all these people to build wealth. Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. Things that might: universal health care, student loan easing, increased investment in impoverished communities. Blaming things that work well and breaking them is silly. Making new things that work better is not.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > Yes. It works better for making technology. You haven't proven that at all. You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview (which clearly ignores the entire MS antitrust saga that took place a couple years before Jobs reinvented the company). > Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. You haven't proven that. When AT&T was broken up, it unlocked a host of new technologies (answering machines, modems) that Ma Bell was blocking to protect their existing revenue model.

jayd16 6y ago

I don't follow you. Microsoft only dabbles in specific hardware. Where they do, they're fully integrated like the surface or the xbox. If you're talking about things where Microsoft just makes the software, aren't they still winning over the Mac?

neogodless 6y ago
Since I agree with you and don't have a new point to make, I just want to expand on yours. Consoles - Apple doesn't compete here. Microsoft is competitive. Smartphones / tables - Microsoft lost here, Apple competes against Google and various hardware makers instead. They probably win in US market share and net profits, but not global share. Computers / operating systems - Microsoft still dominates in market share over Apple. Opinions vary (strongly) between which is best, but more people buy computers with Windows than computers made by Apple. Watches, air tags, etc. - Microsoft doesn't compete here. Accessories - no clue about market share, but I do think Microsoft makes some pretty good keyboards and mice.
zepto 6y ago
You are looking at today - this is about the history. In 2002, Microsoft was the dominant force in consumer electronics because everyone assumed they needed ‘PC compatibility’ or even to integrate Windows CE. If you worked in the industry then, Microsoft was discussed in every meeting and was a major player in standards bodies. That started to change with the introduction of the iPod.
- jayd16 6y ago
  But those accessories aren't fully integrated Apple products so I don't really understand the point at all.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I’m not talking about accessories. Also - Apple does in fact make most of the important accessories for their own products, and they leverage vertical integration when doing so. AirPods for example. Bluetooth - the consortium solution wasn’t good enough, not were Bluetooth chipsets. Apple didn’t need to wait for standards changes or persuade a vendor to make anything for them.

stadium 6y ago

> the fact that vertical works better It works better until it doesn't. A company with high market share and positive cash flow can invest in vertical integration. They gain economies of scale. It gets harder to adapt to the market and stay efficient and innovative at larger companies. Or they slowly kill off the competition and no longer find the need to innovate, and settle into money printing mode and monopolistic behaviors.

zepto 6y ago
If larger companies are not innovative they will fail. The giants of today haven’t been giant for very long. There is plenty of money around to invest in alternatives.

boxed 6y ago

> Apple won out over Microsoft in consumer electronics because they were able to make decisions up and down the stack as a unit whereas Microsoft had to deal with layers of device makers and consortia. That sounds nice but can't be true. Remember when Apple almost went out of business? It was the exact same situation then. I'll offer an alternative hypothesis: Apple won out because they executed well year over year over year. They made that vertical integration work for them by slowly making things better faster than the competition. Apple also never paid a strategy tax. They cannibalized their existing business ruthlessly. This is also unrelated to vertical integration.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Microsoft's key strategy was always market domination by monopoly, paid through the vig of per-CPU licence fees (whether DOS/Windows was installed or not, still largely the case), and extending through "productivity software" (MS Office) and later organisational glue (MS Active Directory / Exchange) and the Web (MSIE). The DoJ case had Microsoft back off that lever a bit, just as Apple executed beautifully (and with some Microsoft concessions in part devolving from the DoJ suit ... yes, a simplification, my 4th-fav pedants), and then hit it out of the park with the iPod and iPhone (subscriptions, apps, hardware sales, fashion accessories, ...). Google cracked Microsoft's revenue model with advertising (though that may be starting to give a bit), as has Faceboook. Amazon got where both Microsoft and Google wanted to be: between the buyer and the lion's share of online retail. Work, comms, adverts, shopping, fashion, and entertainment. There's hot competition for transport (automobiles, whether smart, electric, for-hire, or self-driving). There's not a whole lot of consumer spend left to grab that I can see. (Housing. Utilities. Insurance. Finance.)
- zepto 6y ago
  Do you love Apple products? Not a trick question. I think they are the best, but I don’t feel great about them.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    No. By the late 1990s, though I thought Apple were dead. My pet name for "Rapsody" was "Requium". "Hit out of the park" is in that context --- the company had been on death's door. It is no longer.

hctaw 6y ago

Environmental pollution also "works better" for companies and yet we regulate it. I don't think this is a false dichotomy, the role of government in business regulation is to modify business practices that are contrary to the best outcomes for society. Not what is more efficient for businesses.

zepto 6y ago
It is a false dichtotomy. Inefficient decision making creates environmental pollution. Regulating to make companies less good at decision making under the belief that this will increase opportunity is literally making society stupider. It is the path to idiocracy. I’m not against government intervention. Let’s invest in alternatives, and let’s invest in making people’s lives less precarious.

toomuchredbull 6y ago

It's interesting because there was a post yesterday about how companies hollow themselves out by outsourcing all the pieces, (the example he used was a toaster) until the entire toaster is built by outsiders and the toaster company is just a sales and marketing unit, unable to innovate, whereas apple is the opposite it is basically the only company that is a real outlier to this trend.

bcrosby95 6y ago

Yet Apple doesn't make the boards themselves. Would them doing that be more efficient vs what they do now? How do you draw the line? Where does your theoretical "stack" start and stop? I think this is all just a big bag of hindsight bias. If the "winner" does something different then people attribute winning to that thing. Reality tends to be more complex.

scarface74 6y ago
Hypothetically, say Microsoft and Apple both announced that they planned to move from x86 to ARM on the same day, knowing nothing else, who would you have bet would be more successful?
zepto 6y ago
> Would them doing that be more efficient vs what they do now? In the end, probably yes. They did do this for a while but this wasn’t competitive with having the work done in China. Apple exerts a lot of control over how that work is done. They don’t just send out a design and get boards back - they embed engineers and management in places like Foxconn and in fact control the process. > How do you draw the line? Where does your theoretical "stack" start and stop? See above. Basically whenever something is not literally a commodity, Apple steadily builds expertise and control. Look at how they have done this with screen technology for example. Their partner companies build parts dedicated to Apple. Even if there is another corporate partner involved for geopolitical reasons, there is still vertical integration.

FridayoLeary 6y ago

vertical always works better. until it doesn't. dictatorships, autocracies and none other then the failed Soviet Republics are testament to this. the job of our lawmakers is to judge when top- down decision making stops being beneficial to society in general and our economy in particular.

zepto 6y ago
Apple is nothing whatsoever like a dictatorship, autocracy, or failed soviet republic. It’s a silly comparison.