3 ms·

> The key part is "abstracting all of the hardware in your life". > When I switch between them pretty much nothing changes - I have access to the same core app

> The key part is "abstracting all of the hardware in your life". > When I switch between them pretty much nothing changes - I have access to the same core apps: Office, Obsidian, 1Password, web browser. > There needs to be an "OS" that manages all of that, and right now the frontrunner here is Microsoft. In your example MS is the app, not the OS. The 'abstractions' that let apps run everywhere that matter nowadays are Unix (MacOS/Linux/Android/iOS), the JVM and the browser. And if we want to talk about an actual OS that runs everywhere, it's only Linux that's running truly everywhere: on servers, consumer devices and IoT devices. Or on the level above that, the browser. You guys lost out on mobile years ago, now it's just Office, Azure and XBox; admittedly some big businesses there, but far from the layer of abstraction that "everything" runs on...

scarface74 4y ago
If winning in mobile as an OS provider looks like Android where Google doesn’t make that much: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generated-31-billion-revenue-google-oracle https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate... And ends up paying its major competitor $18 billion+ a year, I’m not sure it was a bad thing that Microsoft loss and instead makes money by selling apps that run across all platforms. Yes I realize tte citation is old. But Android was already just as dominant as it is now by 2016. I doubt the fundamentals have changed. And no phone maker is making any real money except for Apple and Samsung and Samsung only makes money because it builds its own components.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  I didn't say Android or Linux make as much money for companies as MS does off, say, Office, only that it is the OS that runs the most devices and websites we interact with. Winning looks like a race to the bottom because the abstraction layer matters less to consumers than apps.
- user_named 4y ago
  Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi make plenty of money.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Xiamo: https://ycharts.com/companies/XIACF/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/XIACF/profit_margin Apple: https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin I couldn’t find numbers for the other two
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > And ends up paying its major competitor $18 billion+ a year How much more would they be paying if Android didn't exist? How tempting would it be for Apple - as an intermediary - to make its own search service that would immediately hit Google's top line? How much revenue would Google lose in that scenario? Sometimes it pays to take the smaller loss to avoid larger losses.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I can’t find it now. But someone actually did make a web interface for Apple’s search engine powered by “AppleBot”. It’s used in different parts of iOS. It’s horrible. If you have ever tried to find anything in the App Store, you know that the last thing that the world wants is an Apple powered search engine. Most people would just go to Google anyway.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Apple maps was horrible...at first (and still is in parts of the world). A full-throttled attempt at Apple search would likely go the same way: not great in the long tail, but acceptable or even good for a decent proportion of users.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        The only thing it took to improve maps was more data, acquiring companies and hiring experts. Directions are a hard problem. But at the end of the day it’s just programming. Search at Google’s scale requires massive infrastructure investments, the top ML/AI experts and the constant feedback loop of users. Apple has demonstrated it sucks at everything that Google is good at. It’s an institutional problem. Having its own mapping infrastructure was a core business need and really there are only two or three companies in the world that are good at it.

scarface74 4y ago

If winning in mobile as an OS provider looks like Android where Google doesn’t make that much: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generated-31-billion-revenue-google-oracle https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate... And ends up paying its major competitor $18 billion+ a year, I’m not sure it was a bad thing that Microsoft loss and instead makes money by selling apps that run across all platforms. Yes I realize tte citation is old. But Android was already just as dominant as it is now by 2016. I doubt the fundamentals have changed. And no phone maker is making any real money except for Apple and Samsung and Samsung only makes money because it builds its own components.

Mikeb85 4y ago
I didn't say Android or Linux make as much money for companies as MS does off, say, Office, only that it is the OS that runs the most devices and websites we interact with. Winning looks like a race to the bottom because the abstraction layer matters less to consumers than apps.
user_named 4y ago
Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi make plenty of money.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Xiamo: https://ycharts.com/companies/XIACF/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/XIACF/profit_margin Apple: https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin I couldn’t find numbers for the other two
sangnoir 4y ago
> And ends up paying its major competitor $18 billion+ a year How much more would they be paying if Android didn't exist? How tempting would it be for Apple - as an intermediary - to make its own search service that would immediately hit Google's top line? How much revenue would Google lose in that scenario? Sometimes it pays to take the smaller loss to avoid larger losses.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I can’t find it now. But someone actually did make a web interface for Apple’s search engine powered by “AppleBot”. It’s used in different parts of iOS. It’s horrible. If you have ever tried to find anything in the App Store, you know that the last thing that the world wants is an Apple powered search engine. Most people would just go to Google anyway.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Apple maps was horrible...at first (and still is in parts of the world). A full-throttled attempt at Apple search would likely go the same way: not great in the long tail, but acceptable or even good for a decent proportion of users.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The only thing it took to improve maps was more data, acquiring companies and hiring experts. Directions are a hard problem. But at the end of the day it’s just programming. Search at Google’s scale requires massive infrastructure investments, the top ML/AI experts and the constant feedback loop of users. Apple has demonstrated it sucks at everything that Google is good at. It’s an institutional problem. Having its own mapping infrastructure was a core business need and really there are only two or three companies in the world that are good at it.