9 ms·

Apple into hardware and software. Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud. Amazon into cloud and web store(s). Google into ads and web software that s

Apple into hardware and software. Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud. Amazon into cloud and web store(s). Google into ads and web software that serves ads.

quonn 4y ago
It doesn't make sense to split Apple into hardware and software since the integration and simplicity that comes from it is the very thing that makes Apple unique.
- nindalf 4y ago
  You asked for ideas. You never specified that they should be workable or logical.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    Apple licensed it's MacOS back in the mid-90s to third-party hardware manufacturers. If it was forced to by the government, I imagine it could do so again.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      It wasn’t forced to by the government. The CEO at the time thought it was a good idea.
      - listenallyall 4y ago
        Yes, we know. Please read my comment, it doesn't claim or imply Apple was under any government pressure back then.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior. Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great hardware for any operating system. Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries. Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to use it to be a bunch of monopolists, so your break them up like all the others.
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just not have any market share. People buy apple hardware for the integrated experience. e.g. I am not gonna buy a Dell running macOS or a Mac running Windows11.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware. There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.
      - crop_rotation 4y ago
        There are but they do not compare to a mac. The point of choice for me is to be able to buy an integrated experience.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? If you change Apple into that, I would be sad because now you’ve taken away a choice I had before.
        rejectfinite 4y ago
        >Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? But they do lil bro/sis Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones. etc
        kkarakk 4y ago
        tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side comes anywhere close for the same amount of time. i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.
- pulse7 4y ago
  This is nothing new. IBM was required to sell software separate from their hardware...
- maxwell 4y ago
  They use that line of argument specifically to avoid antitrust scrutiny.
- wraptile 4y ago
  That's exactly the issue, isn't it?
vdfs 4y ago
Microsoft OS is too powerful, split it into Kernel and user space
- simion314 4y ago
  That would be a competitive OS, you get a good kernel with good hardware support and you can put a decent DE on top of it like KDE.
paulcole 4y ago
Why not Apple into Products and Services? Products being - for example products being iPhone and iOS and services being iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.
- jackson1442 4y ago
  I actually really like that. Would force a (semi?-)public compatibility layer that allows other competitors to enter the space. If you want to back your iPhone up to Google Drive, you do you. App Store would also likely end up in Services, which would also open up multi-app store compatibility. It's almost too good of a solution.
contravariant 4y ago
I'd say you could split Google into at least, cloud, ads, search and workspace (including mail).
- maxwell 4y ago
  Don't those all lose a lot of money, except ads?
  - contravariant 4y ago
    All except search are paid services so you wouldn't think so. And search would probably make more money if they could sell ad space to other companies. And by selling information on popular search terms for particular links.
drstewart 4y ago
This just feels like completely arbitrary divisions based on what sounds good as opposed to any guiding logic around defining a monopoly and breaking it down along systemic lines. Populism, basically.
mongol 4y ago
Why not split Apple into hardware and hardware? Ideally two companies that start competing from equal starting point.

Apple into hardware and software. Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud. Amazon into cloud and web store(s). Google into ads and web software that serves ads.

quonn 4y ago

It doesn't make sense to split Apple into hardware and software since the integration and simplicity that comes from it is the very thing that makes Apple unique.

nindalf 4y ago
You asked for ideas. You never specified that they should be workable or logical.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Apple licensed it's MacOS back in the mid-90s to third-party hardware manufacturers. If it was forced to by the government, I imagine it could do so again.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    It wasn’t forced to by the government. The CEO at the time thought it was a good idea.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      Yes, we know. Please read my comment, it doesn't claim or imply Apple was under any government pressure back then.
bioemerl 4y ago
Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior. Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great hardware for any operating system. Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries. Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to use it to be a bunch of monopolists, so your break them up like all the others.
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just not have any market share. People buy apple hardware for the integrated experience. e.g. I am not gonna buy a Dell running macOS or a Mac running Windows11.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware. There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.
    - crop_rotation 4y ago
      There are but they do not compare to a mac. The point of choice for me is to be able to buy an integrated experience.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? If you change Apple into that, I would be sad because now you’ve taken away a choice I had before.
      - rejectfinite 4y ago
        >Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? But they do lil bro/sis Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones. etc
        kkarakk 4y ago
        tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side comes anywhere close for the same amount of time. i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.
pulse7 4y ago
This is nothing new. IBM was required to sell software separate from their hardware...
maxwell 4y ago
They use that line of argument specifically to avoid antitrust scrutiny.
wraptile 4y ago
That's exactly the issue, isn't it?

vdfs 4y ago

Microsoft OS is too powerful, split it into Kernel and user space

simion314 4y ago
That would be a competitive OS, you get a good kernel with good hardware support and you can put a decent DE on top of it like KDE.

paulcole 4y ago

Why not Apple into Products and Services? Products being - for example products being iPhone and iOS and services being iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.

jackson1442 4y ago
I actually really like that. Would force a (semi?-)public compatibility layer that allows other competitors to enter the space. If you want to back your iPhone up to Google Drive, you do you. App Store would also likely end up in Services, which would also open up multi-app store compatibility. It's almost too good of a solution.

contravariant 4y ago

I'd say you could split Google into at least, cloud, ads, search and workspace (including mail).

maxwell 4y ago
Don't those all lose a lot of money, except ads?
- contravariant 4y ago
  All except search are paid services so you wouldn't think so. And search would probably make more money if they could sell ad space to other companies. And by selling information on popular search terms for particular links.

drstewart 4y ago

This just feels like completely arbitrary divisions based on what sounds good as opposed to any guiding logic around defining a monopoly and breaking it down along systemic lines. Populism, basically.

mongol 4y ago

Why not split Apple into hardware and hardware? Ideally two companies that start competing from equal starting point.