5 ms·

Apple is unbeatable, what numbers jeez. And to think, Apple’s main competitor being practically forced into giving them money is what saved them. The governmen

Apple is unbeatable, what numbers jeez. And to think, Apple’s main competitor being practically forced into giving them money is what saved them. The government should take something from this and not allow for too much consolidation. I’m sure apple giving a few billion to a few hundred small companies could yield some results. I’m very curious what would happen to Google and Meta if Apple announced they’re going to seriously pivot into ads with a revenue target of 100B per quarter.

tootie 4y ago
They have two trump cards: vertical integration and a brand halo more popular than Jesus. Their engineering chops are first rate but they win because they do everything for quality, charge a massive premium for it and have users line up. Everyone else has to spend energy and resources making something that can compete on value because they don't have the brand. And they have to negotiate with everyone up and down their supply chain and put their products up against dozens of competitors.
alphabetting 4y ago
Google's insistence on paying the $15B a year is odd to me. I'm sure they've run a bunch of experiments and they view it as making sense financially but I'm not sure how many people would settle with Bing as default search. Their #1 search term being "Google" is pretty telling.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I thought parent was referring to Microsoft’s deal with Apple during the anti-trust era.
  - alphabetting 4y ago
    Ah, you're right. Misread that.
- graeme 4y ago
  You can also view the $15 billion as a bribe to prevent apple from trying its hand at search. Apple already has a substantial search effort behind the scenes
  - alphabetting 4y ago
    That doesn't make sense though. If they are already working on it why would Google fund that. Doesn't really make sense as a bribe. Additionally, I don't think Google is worried about a search competitor. It's all about the default search eyeballs. Microsoft has invested an insane amount to Bing and after 13 years they have 3% market share.
    - mrkramer 4y ago
      I always wondered why Facebook didn't make their own search engine considering how massive their userbase is and how much technical know-how and experience they have. But then pretty soon I realized it's all about distribution; Google controls Web distribution through Google Chrome, that's what makes them powerful. They can always promote their search engine through Google Chrome which has huge market share among Internet Browsers.
    - graeme 4y ago
      Sure it does. Apple isn't short of funding. If they think a search engine would be profitable they have the capital. Whats the $15 billion does is this: 1. Controls the default. Lots of people never change it, so Google gets more customers, worth more than $15 billion 2. Starves potential competitors of revenue such as Bing 3. Reduces Apple's incentive to go full tilt into search engine development. They now have to give up $15 billion Apple's new ads business changes the calculus though and they may have more incentive to deploy a search engine in the near future
  - mrkramer 4y ago
    $15 billion makes no sense to me as well; why would you give that huge amount of money to some other company no matter how big and important they are if you believe that you search engine is the best in the world. That makes me conclude that Google has doubts in their own search engine and they are indeed afraid of Bing or some other search engine replacing them pretty soon and pretty quickly in the future.
summerlight 4y ago
Apple tried to pivot into ads business several times, but they were simply not able to build a good infrastructure and organization for serving ads at the planetary scale. Apple is indeed one of the best engineering companies in the globe, but it can't be superior on everything; it's still struggling on building competitive online services even with the massive advantage of 30% app store tax + complete platform control.
alwillis 4y ago
Apple’s main competitor being practically forced into giving them money is what saved them. That’s a myth. Microsoft bought $150 million in non-voting stock. First, it didn’t save them, even then, $150 million wasn’t much money to Apple. Having Microsoft committed to supporting Office on the Mac for the next 5 years was a trade for Internet Explorer being the default browser for the Mac during those 5 years. That’s when the best version of IE ran on the Mac. Of course after the 5-year period expired, Apple launched Safari 1.0. Second, Microsoft made a huge profit when sold the stock. What “saved” Apple was the success of the iMac in 1998 and then iPod.
- habibur 4y ago
  when MS bought those Apple shares, Apple was on the verge of getting bankrupt, and MS Gates saved it. Why he did it is a separate story. $150m was a big money in the 90s. More so for apple in that situation.
  - peppermint_gum 4y ago
    >$150m was a big money in the 90s. More so for apple in that situation. It was ~2% of Apple's 1997 revenue[1]. [1] - https://money.cnn.com/1997/10/15/companies/apple/ https://money.cnn.com/1997/10/15/companies/apple/
    - habibur 4y ago
      revenue
mrkramer 4y ago
>I’m very curious what would happen to Google and Meta if Apple announced they’re going to seriously pivot into ads with a revenue target of 100B per quarter. Real capitalism would start happening or in another words vigorous market competition.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  > words vigorous market competition as a famous person once said about companies "the last thing anyone wants is competition"! * * https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-...
  - mrkramer 4y ago
    I meant vigorous market competition from the economical point of view not from the entrepreneur's point of view. But yeah the ultimate goal of every "for-profit" company is monopoly but the goal of every economist is vigorous market competition which improves quality of products and drives prices down.
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      oh definitely, i don't disagree with that at all, sorry if it was confusing was just pointing out that what we want (competition) and what they want (monopoly) is kind of at odds..
jmeister 4y ago
>The government should take something from this and not allow for too much consolidation. What's wrong with consolidation on its own? This is the corporate version of "every billionaire is a policy failure". It is, on its own, a purely aesthetic preference. I'm sure people from ex-Soviet countries wouldn't find it jarring at all.

tootie 4y ago

They have two trump cards: vertical integration and a brand halo more popular than Jesus. Their engineering chops are first rate but they win because they do everything for quality, charge a massive premium for it and have users line up. Everyone else has to spend energy and resources making something that can compete on value because they don't have the brand. And they have to negotiate with everyone up and down their supply chain and put their products up against dozens of competitors.

alphabetting 4y ago

Google's insistence on paying the $15B a year is odd to me. I'm sure they've run a bunch of experiments and they view it as making sense financially but I'm not sure how many people would settle with Bing as default search. Their #1 search term being "Google" is pretty telling.

atdrummond 4y ago
I thought parent was referring to Microsoft’s deal with Apple during the anti-trust era.
- alphabetting 4y ago
  Ah, you're right. Misread that.
graeme 4y ago
You can also view the $15 billion as a bribe to prevent apple from trying its hand at search. Apple already has a substantial search effort behind the scenes
- alphabetting 4y ago
  That doesn't make sense though. If they are already working on it why would Google fund that. Doesn't really make sense as a bribe. Additionally, I don't think Google is worried about a search competitor. It's all about the default search eyeballs. Microsoft has invested an insane amount to Bing and after 13 years they have 3% market share.
  - mrkramer 4y ago
    I always wondered why Facebook didn't make their own search engine considering how massive their userbase is and how much technical know-how and experience they have. But then pretty soon I realized it's all about distribution; Google controls Web distribution through Google Chrome, that's what makes them powerful. They can always promote their search engine through Google Chrome which has huge market share among Internet Browsers.
  - graeme 4y ago
    Sure it does. Apple isn't short of funding. If they think a search engine would be profitable they have the capital. Whats the $15 billion does is this: 1. Controls the default. Lots of people never change it, so Google gets more customers, worth more than $15 billion 2. Starves potential competitors of revenue such as Bing 3. Reduces Apple's incentive to go full tilt into search engine development. They now have to give up $15 billion Apple's new ads business changes the calculus though and they may have more incentive to deploy a search engine in the near future
- mrkramer 4y ago
  $15 billion makes no sense to me as well; why would you give that huge amount of money to some other company no matter how big and important they are if you believe that you search engine is the best in the world. That makes me conclude that Google has doubts in their own search engine and they are indeed afraid of Bing or some other search engine replacing them pretty soon and pretty quickly in the future.

summerlight 4y ago

Apple tried to pivot into ads business several times, but they were simply not able to build a good infrastructure and organization for serving ads at the planetary scale. Apple is indeed one of the best engineering companies in the globe, but it can't be superior on everything; it's still struggling on building competitive online services even with the massive advantage of 30% app store tax + complete platform control.

alwillis 4y ago

Apple’s main competitor being practically forced into giving them money is what saved them. That’s a myth. Microsoft bought $150 million in non-voting stock. First, it didn’t save them, even then, $150 million wasn’t much money to Apple. Having Microsoft committed to supporting Office on the Mac for the next 5 years was a trade for Internet Explorer being the default browser for the Mac during those 5 years. That’s when the best version of IE ran on the Mac. Of course after the 5-year period expired, Apple launched Safari 1.0. Second, Microsoft made a huge profit when sold the stock. What “saved” Apple was the success of the iMac in 1998 and then iPod.

habibur 4y ago
when MS bought those Apple shares, Apple was on the verge of getting bankrupt, and MS Gates saved it. Why he did it is a separate story. $150m was a big money in the 90s. More so for apple in that situation.
- peppermint_gum 4y ago
  >$150m was a big money in the 90s. More so for apple in that situation. It was ~2% of Apple's 1997 revenue[1]. [1] - https://money.cnn.com/1997/10/15/companies/apple/ https://money.cnn.com/1997/10/15/companies/apple/
  - habibur 4y ago
    revenue

mrkramer 4y ago

>I’m very curious what would happen to Google and Meta if Apple announced they’re going to seriously pivot into ads with a revenue target of 100B per quarter. Real capitalism would start happening or in another words vigorous market competition.

andrekandre 4y ago
> words vigorous market competition as a famous person once said about companies "the last thing anyone wants is competition"! * * https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-...
- mrkramer 4y ago
  I meant vigorous market competition from the economical point of view not from the entrepreneur's point of view. But yeah the ultimate goal of every "for-profit" company is monopoly but the goal of every economist is vigorous market competition which improves quality of products and drives prices down.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    oh definitely, i don't disagree with that at all, sorry if it was confusing was just pointing out that what we want (competition) and what they want (monopoly) is kind of at odds..

jmeister 4y ago

>The government should take something from this and not allow for too much consolidation. What's wrong with consolidation on its own? This is the corporate version of "every billionaire is a policy failure". It is, on its own, a purely aesthetic preference. I'm sure people from ex-Soviet countries wouldn't find it jarring at all.