3 ms·

I don’t buy the lock in argument. Not because it’s false but because every thing has lock in to some extent. It’s just user preference, taste, and familiarity a

I don’t buy the lock in argument. Not because it’s false but because every thing has lock in to some extent. It’s just user preference, taste, and familiarity are stronger than losing app purchases. People used to completely repurchase their music collection every 10 years or so. Albums, 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc. They value reliably that Apple is known for and the risk of changing and not liking another platform is large. New users look at their friends and think, “everyone seems to like iPhone. Seems like a safe bet even though it’s expensive”. I’d argue it’s still not expensive given how much utility they provide. I find analogies useful. When I was young I started eating fries with ketchup. As an adult, I don’t get to say ketchup lacks competition because I don’t like other condiments. Even within the ketchup vertical, I have a brand preference. I could buy a store brand and save 50% but I don’t. I like what I like and I pay for it. Non iPhone users either don’t like iOS or just don’t want to pay the premium Apple charges, otherwise I’d argue many more people would be on iPhone.

wpietri 5y ago
Apple has lock-in to a much stronger extent. There is very little lock-in between Android phones; you can easily switch brands. And the point about iMessage and the other iWhatevers is important. Apple intentionally avoided interoperability. This goes beyond lock-in to contagion. I know people who didn't really want to get their young kids iPhones, because they weren't really old enough to be responsible for something so expensive. But they felt they had to do it anyhow because of the lack of interoperability. So they ended up buying multiple kid iPhones as the phones were lost, smashed, etc. I get that's not very expensive for the kind of people who hang out on HN, but it's real money to most.
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
What are the conditions that should be fulfilled for you to see that there's competition in the market? For me, it's the existence of a player that can squeeze the margin for others. With only seller giving people access to iMessage and app store, I don't see this condition fulfilled. Even if there is a well made phone that offers better utility for half the price, most users would just wait for iPhone to catch up rather than switch. I don't want to draw very bad comparisons: but this is very similar to the AWS lock-in with egress, except instead of data, you have iMessage and apps you've already bought..
- conductr 5y ago
  > For me, it's the existence of a player that can squeeze the margin for others. So you’re segmenting luxury phone market and saying Apple has no competition in that space except Samsung and others have tried for years to make luxury phones. iPhone users do not want them and it’s primarily due to preference. They don’t want to have to learn another os, they don’t like the look/feel, they don’t get a test drive option, etc. I just believe that’s their personal risk assessment that Apple benefits from but it’s not lock in because I just don’t think people really give a shit about iMessage that much. I have to believe the true perfect competitor you want them to have will have an acceptable solution as well.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Drawing this reasoning to AWS: People don't want to move away from AWS because they like AWS/don't want to train their engineers and not primarily because moving data out from AWS is going to bankrupt them? Surely former reasons are valid and those people do exist.. but anecdotally most companies that I know are the latter. Maybe most iPhone users would stick with iPhone even if there's no lock in, but we don't know that because there is a lock in.

wpietri 5y ago

Apple has lock-in to a much stronger extent. There is very little lock-in between Android phones; you can easily switch brands. And the point about iMessage and the other iWhatevers is important. Apple intentionally avoided interoperability. This goes beyond lock-in to contagion. I know people who didn't really want to get their young kids iPhones, because they weren't really old enough to be responsible for something so expensive. But they felt they had to do it anyhow because of the lack of interoperability. So they ended up buying multiple kid iPhones as the phones were lost, smashed, etc. I get that's not very expensive for the kind of people who hang out on HN, but it's real money to most.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

What are the conditions that should be fulfilled for you to see that there's competition in the market? For me, it's the existence of a player that can squeeze the margin for others. With only seller giving people access to iMessage and app store, I don't see this condition fulfilled. Even if there is a well made phone that offers better utility for half the price, most users would just wait for iPhone to catch up rather than switch. I don't want to draw very bad comparisons: but this is very similar to the AWS lock-in with egress, except instead of data, you have iMessage and apps you've already bought..

conductr 5y ago
> For me, it's the existence of a player that can squeeze the margin for others. So you’re segmenting luxury phone market and saying Apple has no competition in that space except Samsung and others have tried for years to make luxury phones. iPhone users do not want them and it’s primarily due to preference. They don’t want to have to learn another os, they don’t like the look/feel, they don’t get a test drive option, etc. I just believe that’s their personal risk assessment that Apple benefits from but it’s not lock in because I just don’t think people really give a shit about iMessage that much. I have to believe the true perfect competitor you want them to have will have an acceptable solution as well.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Drawing this reasoning to AWS: People don't want to move away from AWS because they like AWS/don't want to train their engineers and not primarily because moving data out from AWS is going to bankrupt them? Surely former reasons are valid and those people do exist.. but anecdotally most companies that I know are the latter. Maybe most iPhone users would stick with iPhone even if there's no lock in, but we don't know that because there is a lock in.