5 ms·

Discussion: if the profit is 'monopolistic' and primarily rent seeking, then why hasn't any other company been able to produce hardware at parity while producin

Discussion: if the profit is 'monopolistic' and primarily rent seeking, then why hasn't any other company been able to produce hardware at parity while producing developer tools to make apps on par with competent developers on iOS? It feels like there is so much work that goes into the Apple ecosystem working so cleanly, that most take it for granted without considering what is really an 'alternative' and its costs.

onion2k 5y ago
There's a great article about how hardware companies can't compete with Apple. Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. It's a good read. https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-like-apple-does-93bea02a3bbf https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-...
- lelandfe 5y ago
  It looks like the article focuses much more on how the processes Apple employs are expensive, laborious, and challenging – which make them difficult to replicate. > Pretty much no company, big or small, can afford to do these things. Yes, Apple has done a great job building many of these products and yes, consumers have come to love many of these difficult-to-manufacture features. But you are not Apple
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    It started about fifteen years ago, but Apple discovered that a great use for their extra cash flow was to buy up the processes they (and their competitors) would need in the future. When a screen manufacturer needed money to do the next big thing, then Apple would chip in significant funding and own a percentage of the new joint venture. They would not only get priority and lower prices on orders, but they profited from anyone else buying the same tech. Apple now owns an exclusive license to Liquidmetal, is a significant investor in Corning (Gorilla Glass), invested heavily in a Toshiba LCD plant, paid LG (for LCD) and various SSD manufacturers massive upfront payments for priority and/or exclusivity.
    - anko 5y ago
      any idea what liquidmetal is used for?
      - ksec 5y ago
        SIM ejector
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Not just predicting, but driving. With the iPhone market share, Apple has been in a good seat to define what consumers expect from {generation+1} devices. Which makes it a bit easier to acquire / pre-book the relevant manufacturing capacity, when you know you're going to make a surprise announcement of it as a major feature in the future. After which, everyone else eventually ends up at the same upstream manufacturers, or trying to duplicate the technology...
- urthor 5y ago
  Has more to do with innate economies of scale than any individual market abuse. Which isn't to say that there is some, but even if you stripped out the market abuse, Apple would still be fine. Apple is a machine that is fueled by cross subsidizing new platforms (Apple Watch) with their already significant capital investments in the iPhone.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I think many (most?) hardware companies just don't understand/appreciate software. They look at it like just another line item on the BOM: 152 screws from supplier X, various plastic parts from supplier Y, a rubber gasket from supplier Z, and, oh yea, some software. Find the bucket of software and scoop some out to flash onto the device. They don't see software as an ecosystem, as the actual product that the user interacts with, as their brand differentiation. They see it as a costly problem that they must solve by finding the cheapest viable bag of bits they can throw on devices and not have customers return it the first day. I swear that's the quality bar for some of these companies. That's how we get TVs that take 5 seconds to recognize a button press, and have UIs that look like they were made from clipart. Proper font kerning? Forget it, they use 16x8 bitmap fonts from the '90s. That's how we get IoT devices that are 0wned the second they connect to the Internet. That's how we get car stereos that display "��" when you try to play a media file with non-ASCII characters in the name. Many hardware companies don't give a single shit about their software's quality--only that it's cheap and barely works and it keeps the BOM cost low.
  - hw 5y ago
    This is IMO why Tesla is dominating the EV space - the combination of great software with the hardware, although the recent software update irked a lot of people and is a few steps backward. For the longest time touch display and navigation software in cars were terrible. Low resolution, small screens, laggy interfaces, and software not connected to the vehicle in the sense where OTA updates can end up fixing and improving aspects of the car.
- foogazi 5y ago
  > Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. Why can’t another company build better laptop enclosures ? Zune vs Ipod Galaxy Tab vs Ipad Android wear vs Apple Watch Hard to reason all those away as just better components
- ksec 5y ago
  It needs a little more context. The article was written in 2014 and basically reference the era of iPhone 2007 - 2012, ~iPhone 4S manufacturing. The same idea or execution could happen in the future with other products or manufacturing. But most advantage listed aren't as relevant anymore. Or those technology and process becomes commodity.
keleftheriou 5y ago
Among other reasons, you have to also consider the “winner-takes-all” type of network effect here: any new platform, however great the hardware & tools might be, will today have an extremely hard time luring developers to it’s non-existent user base, while at the same time users won’t be as attracted to the platform due to the lack of apps. This is a vicious cycle for newcomers, and at the same time a virtuous cycle for the incumbent(s), further cementing their dominant position.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
acover 5y ago
Uneducated answer: it's a natural monopoly. There are economies of scale and any new entrant won't get monopoly profits to justify the required capital and risk. Why couldn't anyone compete against Bell by building a second phone network?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Apple isn't anywhere close to a monopoly, though, about a quarter of smartphones. A little more in install base, and a little less in quarterly shipments. [1] Building a phone network has massive capital expenditure costs on infrastructure, building a phone does not. [1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/ https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldw...
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    > building a phone does not. Companies have a limited output of the materials needed to make a computer. If Apple tells one of these companies you now have an exclusive relationship with us, or else, what is that company going to do? Anyway, Apple has a monopoly of platform, which is measured between its own base, rather than as an absolute number compared of what % devices are iPhones.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    That's market shifting though. Apple does have a monopoly on the markets running on all their devices, from apps to media, for ~900 million phones. When Apple doesn't completely own the only available market service to it's hardware (that it exclusively gives itself), it still charges a 30% fee to it's competitors for access to it's markets while actively blocking everyone else.
  - bmarquez 5y ago
    The same article you mentioned says that 56% of US/Canada users and 70% of Japanese users have iPhones. I'd argue that monopolies should be judged on country and not worldwide. As each country has different iMessage popularity, apps restricted by region, earning power, phone availability, etc.
dont__panic 5y ago
The impact of all of that $$$ and vertical integration on hardware and software quality is not to be ignored. Apple Silicon in particular is an astonishing development after years of Qualcomm/Intel dominance. The only real issue I have with Apple Silicon is that since it isn't open hardware that anybody can buy, I can't run my own software on A-series chips. At least M-series chips are opening up slowly to Linux, though.
iqanq 5y ago
It's a good question. Google should've done it, but they have failed time and time again. Microsoft just gave up.
nathan_compton 5y ago
Network effects. Even if you were the best hardware/software maker in the world it would be difficult to compete with a walled garden that has locked in many customers both technically and culturally.
tolmasky 5y ago
I don't see how these two things are related, and in fact disagree with both assumptions: 1. that the profit contributes in any meaningful way to the quality of the "hardware", nor that the apps on iOS are some "amazing" bar to live up to. This is all from the perspective of a user, as I haven't had anything on the AppStore in a decade: 1. I'm not sure I'd describe an ecosystem where Netflix and Amazon get sweetheart reduced revenue cuts while small devs have zero negotiating power is one I'd describe as working "cleanly" FOR USERS. Again, forget the devs here for a second, let's just think of the users. The AppStore is not just a "monopoly", it is a monopoly enabler. New platforms are traditionally one of the best places to disrupt the old big players -- and as a user, I'd love a place that let small upstarts be nimble against the likes of Amazon or Netflix. But if Apple specifically lets Amazon compete at reduced revenue cuts, this becomes impossible. No one can compete in an already difficult space like a Music app (or even a Comic Book app!) if Apple is giving the world's largest corporations better deals. Forgetting Apple's dominance in phones, they are also helping me have less choice in terms of these other services. 2. And consider this, 30% revenue split for a small app shop can mean the difference between being able to afford a new dev on your team, or a full time QA person, or full time support person, etc. Literally, if you are a 2 person team, getting that extra 30% would allow you to roughly afford one more hire at the same wage. Those are bug fixes, features, and support I'm missing out on as a user. I sure as hell don't "feel" that 30% from Apple. I already paid them $1000+ for my phone, why do I have to pay them a 30% markup on my ToDo's app? It sure as hell isn't going into writing the 3 lines of code to make even exact string matching work in AppStore search, so I'm fairly certain that money would be better spent by the devs, again, purely from a selfish user perspective. 3. Which brings us to the larger "ecosystem" and store. They suck. It's hard to find anything on the store, it's full of scams, to the point where I am terrified of my kids someday being given any access to it and the casino-like games they allow. An equally "tyrannical" Apple that was values-based and tried to stop both overt scams but also was more opinionated about the subscription-addiction junk they allow to get sold to children, would be far more defendable in my opinion. I might be like "well, philosophically I disagree with this, but you can't argue with results!". Currently, it's "well, I disagree with this philosophically, and wow is this mismanaged. Like, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that could have less pride in what you see when you scroll through the charts." I think Apple's own Phil Schiller put it best in 2012: "Is No One Reviewing These Apps?" 4. None of the "security" on iOS comes from the 30% cut, or even the AppStore review process. It's all stuff that's built into the sandbox model. If anything, there's an argument that the AppStore makes iOS more insecure since it puts the "Apple Review Seal of Approval" on a bunch of apps that just rip you off. 5. The apps themselves are pretty meh. I don't even know how anyone could hold any opinion on native vs. web anymore, unless you're big into games, at which point, sure, some native thing is going to have better graphics. All the things "native does better" these days are mainly because the browser isn't allowed to do those things, and Apple doesn't allow any competing web engine on iOS. And some things the iOS "wild west web" still does better: like having Picture-in-Picture work everywhere. To be clear: I 100% believe iOS apps used to be clearly better, and they could 100% still be clearly better, but Apple's dropped the ball on their tooling/frameworks/resources and there's just not much exciting taking place there anymore. The Apple Pencil was a big watershed moment with this: they shipped the thing with barely any developer docs so you had the few key players making some cool apps (like Adobe of course), but otherwise nothing really revolutionary was enabled on the iPad. I think the Pencil could have been a game changer, but Apple was more content with selling a couple $150 trinkets to iPad die-hards vs. really expanding their lead in the tablet space by doing something bold (like just including a Pencil with every iPad to create huge incentives to make every Apple developer make their apps "Pencil-ready" just like with all the "in device" features like 3D touch or whatever), or by even just integrating the Pencil more meaningfully in their own OS to lead by example. We didn't get the ability to have the Pencil "just work" in any text field until 6 years after its initial release. iOS is increasingly just something I kind of have to use. Or else lose iMessage or whatever. I think the opportunity cost that more interesting is what if things were different than this. For the record, I think ironically the result would be that Apple would act more like the old Apple, and be forced to make a compelling case for being on the Store and not using a third party to process payments (and I think there's lots of interesting stuff Apple could actually do there, as opposed to... nothing). Again, I'm not arguing about whether they have the right or not to do any of this, just what the consequences would be if they stopped doing it.
anko 5y ago
I agree. I think most of arguments against what Apple is doing are based on an incomplete picture of Apple's product. They are based on someone not appreciating an aspect of what Apple is doing. Maybe they don't like the price. Maybe they don't like a lack of complete control over their hardware. The rest of it is always a rant to justify that position. There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. There is provable value in what Apple is doing, by curating a higher quality and better integrated ecosystem than Google/Android offers. Polish which is funded by profits from the App Store. On the other hand, the App Store's success also benefits from full capture of all iOS users and network effects of releasing when it did. > Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too. Some people think you shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in soda, even if it's tasty. (To use a 1920s metaphor)
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I have a sneaking suspicion that cocaine wasn't in soda purely for the flavor
- cglong 5y ago
  I personally raise awareness to this because I think of all the possibilities for mobile technology that people don't even know they're missing out on, e.g. Xbox Cloud Streaming/Stadia, emulators, NFC beyond payments.
  - anko 5y ago
    I think that's a good idea as long as it's balanced. A list of things you can't do is reasonable. btw, you can do nfc beyond payments on ios and have for years; https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/user-interaction/near-field-communication/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It's not a zero friction environment. Switching platforms is a pain. A competitor would have to be spectacularly superior, while fighting uphill against one of the largest companies in history. The larger Apple gets, the stronger that pull- like a black hole.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Software and hardware patents on absurd things. Lethal legal bullying of any potential competition. The walls of the garden are ruthlessly defended and expanded as far as the law can stretch.
bsder 5y ago
You have this reversed. The fact that nobody can attack Apple IS the proof that Apple is a monopoly. Looking at a similar example, it took a lot for Vanderbilt to build and buy up all the railroads. Once that was done, however, the system was locked in place and nobody could dethrone him.

onion2k 5y ago

There's a great article about how hardware companies can't compete with Apple. Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. It's a good read. https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-like-apple-does-93bea02a3bbf https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-...

lelandfe 5y ago
It looks like the article focuses much more on how the processes Apple employs are expensive, laborious, and challenging – which make them difficult to replicate. > Pretty much no company, big or small, can afford to do these things. Yes, Apple has done a great job building many of these products and yes, consumers have come to love many of these difficult-to-manufacture features. But you are not Apple
- stevehawk 5y ago
  It started about fifteen years ago, but Apple discovered that a great use for their extra cash flow was to buy up the processes they (and their competitors) would need in the future. When a screen manufacturer needed money to do the next big thing, then Apple would chip in significant funding and own a percentage of the new joint venture. They would not only get priority and lower prices on orders, but they profited from anyone else buying the same tech. Apple now owns an exclusive license to Liquidmetal, is a significant investor in Corning (Gorilla Glass), invested heavily in a Toshiba LCD plant, paid LG (for LCD) and various SSD manufacturers massive upfront payments for priority and/or exclusivity.
  - anko 5y ago
    any idea what liquidmetal is used for?
    - ksec 5y ago
      SIM ejector
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Not just predicting, but driving. With the iPhone market share, Apple has been in a good seat to define what consumers expect from {generation+1} devices. Which makes it a bit easier to acquire / pre-book the relevant manufacturing capacity, when you know you're going to make a surprise announcement of it as a major feature in the future. After which, everyone else eventually ends up at the same upstream manufacturers, or trying to duplicate the technology...
urthor 5y ago
Has more to do with innate economies of scale than any individual market abuse. Which isn't to say that there is some, but even if you stripped out the market abuse, Apple would still be fine. Apple is a machine that is fueled by cross subsidizing new platforms (Apple Watch) with their already significant capital investments in the iPhone.
ryandrake 5y ago
I think many (most?) hardware companies just don't understand/appreciate software. They look at it like just another line item on the BOM: 152 screws from supplier X, various plastic parts from supplier Y, a rubber gasket from supplier Z, and, oh yea, some software. Find the bucket of software and scoop some out to flash onto the device. They don't see software as an ecosystem, as the actual product that the user interacts with, as their brand differentiation. They see it as a costly problem that they must solve by finding the cheapest viable bag of bits they can throw on devices and not have customers return it the first day. I swear that's the quality bar for some of these companies. That's how we get TVs that take 5 seconds to recognize a button press, and have UIs that look like they were made from clipart. Proper font kerning? Forget it, they use 16x8 bitmap fonts from the '90s. That's how we get IoT devices that are 0wned the second they connect to the Internet. That's how we get car stereos that display "��" when you try to play a media file with non-ASCII characters in the name. Many hardware companies don't give a single shit about their software's quality--only that it's cheap and barely works and it keeps the BOM cost low.
- hw 5y ago
  This is IMO why Tesla is dominating the EV space - the combination of great software with the hardware, although the recent software update irked a lot of people and is a few steps backward. For the longest time touch display and navigation software in cars were terrible. Low resolution, small screens, laggy interfaces, and software not connected to the vehicle in the sense where OTA updates can end up fixing and improving aspects of the car.
foogazi 5y ago
> Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. Why can’t another company build better laptop enclosures ? Zune vs Ipod Galaxy Tab vs Ipad Android wear vs Apple Watch Hard to reason all those away as just better components
ksec 5y ago
It needs a little more context. The article was written in 2014 and basically reference the era of iPhone 2007 - 2012, ~iPhone 4S manufacturing. The same idea or execution could happen in the future with other products or manufacturing. But most advantage listed aren't as relevant anymore. Or those technology and process becomes commodity.

keleftheriou 5y ago

Among other reasons, you have to also consider the “winner-takes-all” type of network effect here: any new platform, however great the hardware & tools might be, will today have an extremely hard time luring developers to it’s non-existent user base, while at the same time users won’t be as attracted to the platform due to the lack of apps. This is a vicious cycle for newcomers, and at the same time a virtuous cycle for the incumbent(s), further cementing their dominant position.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

acover 5y ago

Uneducated answer: it's a natural monopoly. There are economies of scale and any new entrant won't get monopoly profits to justify the required capital and risk. Why couldn't anyone compete against Bell by building a second phone network?

arcticbull 5y ago
Apple isn't anywhere close to a monopoly, though, about a quarter of smartphones. A little more in install base, and a little less in quarterly shipments. [1] Building a phone network has massive capital expenditure costs on infrastructure, building a phone does not. [1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/ https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldw...
- aaomidi 5y ago
  > building a phone does not. Companies have a limited output of the materials needed to make a computer. If Apple tells one of these companies you now have an exclusive relationship with us, or else, what is that company going to do? Anyway, Apple has a monopoly of platform, which is measured between its own base, rather than as an absolute number compared of what % devices are iPhones.
- bduerst 5y ago
  That's market shifting though. Apple does have a monopoly on the markets running on all their devices, from apps to media, for ~900 million phones. When Apple doesn't completely own the only available market service to it's hardware (that it exclusively gives itself), it still charges a 30% fee to it's competitors for access to it's markets while actively blocking everyone else.
- bmarquez 5y ago
  The same article you mentioned says that 56% of US/Canada users and 70% of Japanese users have iPhones. I'd argue that monopolies should be judged on country and not worldwide. As each country has different iMessage popularity, apps restricted by region, earning power, phone availability, etc.

dont__panic 5y ago

The impact of all of that $$$ and vertical integration on hardware and software quality is not to be ignored. Apple Silicon in particular is an astonishing development after years of Qualcomm/Intel dominance. The only real issue I have with Apple Silicon is that since it isn't open hardware that anybody can buy, I can't run my own software on A-series chips. At least M-series chips are opening up slowly to Linux, though.

iqanq 5y ago

It's a good question. Google should've done it, but they have failed time and time again. Microsoft just gave up.

nathan_compton 5y ago

Network effects. Even if you were the best hardware/software maker in the world it would be difficult to compete with a walled garden that has locked in many customers both technically and culturally.

tolmasky 5y ago

I don't see how these two things are related, and in fact disagree with both assumptions: 1. that the profit contributes in any meaningful way to the quality of the "hardware", nor that the apps on iOS are some "amazing" bar to live up to. This is all from the perspective of a user, as I haven't had anything on the AppStore in a decade: 1. I'm not sure I'd describe an ecosystem where Netflix and Amazon get sweetheart reduced revenue cuts while small devs have zero negotiating power is one I'd describe as working "cleanly" FOR USERS. Again, forget the devs here for a second, let's just think of the users. The AppStore is not just a "monopoly", it is a monopoly enabler. New platforms are traditionally one of the best places to disrupt the old big players -- and as a user, I'd love a place that let small upstarts be nimble against the likes of Amazon or Netflix. But if Apple specifically lets Amazon compete at reduced revenue cuts, this becomes impossible. No one can compete in an already difficult space like a Music app (or even a Comic Book app!) if Apple is giving the world's largest corporations better deals. Forgetting Apple's dominance in phones, they are also helping me have less choice in terms of these other services. 2. And consider this, 30% revenue split for a small app shop can mean the difference between being able to afford a new dev on your team, or a full time QA person, or full time support person, etc. Literally, if you are a 2 person team, getting that extra 30% would allow you to roughly afford one more hire at the same wage. Those are bug fixes, features, and support I'm missing out on as a user. I sure as hell don't "feel" that 30% from Apple. I already paid them $1000+ for my phone, why do I have to pay them a 30% markup on my ToDo's app? It sure as hell isn't going into writing the 3 lines of code to make even exact string matching work in AppStore search, so I'm fairly certain that money would be better spent by the devs, again, purely from a selfish user perspective. 3. Which brings us to the larger "ecosystem" and store. They suck. It's hard to find anything on the store, it's full of scams, to the point where I am terrified of my kids someday being given any access to it and the casino-like games they allow. An equally "tyrannical" Apple that was values-based and tried to stop both overt scams but also was more opinionated about the subscription-addiction junk they allow to get sold to children, would be far more defendable in my opinion. I might be like "well, philosophically I disagree with this, but you can't argue with results!". Currently, it's "well, I disagree with this philosophically, and wow is this mismanaged. Like, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that could have less pride in what you see when you scroll through the charts." I think Apple's own Phil Schiller put it best in 2012: "Is No One Reviewing These Apps?" 4. None of the "security" on iOS comes from the 30% cut, or even the AppStore review process. It's all stuff that's built into the sandbox model. If anything, there's an argument that the AppStore makes iOS more insecure since it puts the "Apple Review Seal of Approval" on a bunch of apps that just rip you off. 5. The apps themselves are pretty meh. I don't even know how anyone could hold any opinion on native vs. web anymore, unless you're big into games, at which point, sure, some native thing is going to have better graphics. All the things "native does better" these days are mainly because the browser isn't allowed to do those things, and Apple doesn't allow any competing web engine on iOS. And some things the iOS "wild west web" still does better: like having Picture-in-Picture work everywhere. To be clear: I 100% believe iOS apps used to be clearly better, and they could 100% still be clearly better, but Apple's dropped the ball on their tooling/frameworks/resources and there's just not much exciting taking place there anymore. The Apple Pencil was a big watershed moment with this: they shipped the thing with barely any developer docs so you had the few key players making some cool apps (like Adobe of course), but otherwise nothing really revolutionary was enabled on the iPad. I think the Pencil could have been a game changer, but Apple was more content with selling a couple $150 trinkets to iPad die-hards vs. really expanding their lead in the tablet space by doing something bold (like just including a Pencil with every iPad to create huge incentives to make every Apple developer make their apps "Pencil-ready" just like with all the "in device" features like 3D touch or whatever), or by even just integrating the Pencil more meaningfully in their own OS to lead by example. We didn't get the ability to have the Pencil "just work" in any text field until 6 years after its initial release. iOS is increasingly just something I kind of have to use. Or else lose iMessage or whatever. I think the opportunity cost that more interesting is what if things were different than this. For the record, I think ironically the result would be that Apple would act more like the old Apple, and be forced to make a compelling case for being on the Store and not using a third party to process payments (and I think there's lots of interesting stuff Apple could actually do there, as opposed to... nothing). Again, I'm not arguing about whether they have the right or not to do any of this, just what the consequences would be if they stopped doing it.

anko 5y ago

I agree. I think most of arguments against what Apple is doing are based on an incomplete picture of Apple's product. They are based on someone not appreciating an aspect of what Apple is doing. Maybe they don't like the price. Maybe they don't like a lack of complete control over their hardware. The rest of it is always a rant to justify that position. There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

ethbr0 5y ago
> There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. There is provable value in what Apple is doing, by curating a higher quality and better integrated ecosystem than Google/Android offers. Polish which is funded by profits from the App Store. On the other hand, the App Store's success also benefits from full capture of all iOS users and network effects of releasing when it did. > Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too. Some people think you shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in soda, even if it's tasty. (To use a 1920s metaphor)
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I have a sneaking suspicion that cocaine wasn't in soda purely for the flavor
cglong 5y ago
I personally raise awareness to this because I think of all the possibilities for mobile technology that people don't even know they're missing out on, e.g. Xbox Cloud Streaming/Stadia, emulators, NFC beyond payments.
- anko 5y ago
  I think that's a good idea as long as it's balanced. A list of things you can't do is reasonable. btw, you can do nfc beyond payments on ios and have for years; https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/user-interaction/near-field-communication/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

It's not a zero friction environment. Switching platforms is a pain. A competitor would have to be spectacularly superior, while fighting uphill against one of the largest companies in history. The larger Apple gets, the stronger that pull- like a black hole.

robbedpeter 5y ago

Software and hardware patents on absurd things. Lethal legal bullying of any potential competition. The walls of the garden are ruthlessly defended and expanded as far as the law can stretch.

bsder 5y ago

You have this reversed. The fact that nobody can attack Apple IS the proof that Apple is a monopoly. Looking at a similar example, it took a lot for Vanderbilt to build and buy up all the railroads. Once that was done, however, the system was locked in place and nobody could dethrone him.