5 ms·

Should Apple exist in it's current form? If it weren't, the things that are integrated become available for others - meaning better products for all, no? What

by dmbche 3y ago

Should Apple exist in it's current form? If it weren't, the things that are integrated become available for others - meaning better products for all, no? What's the societal benefit of integrating all these advances in single companies?

vlovich123 3y ago
Not so much because then, for example, you become Qualcomm and have 50 different customers all asking for different things from your chips and you reach a local optimum where you solve everyone’s issue a little bit but don’t actually do a good job. There’s a reason that Apple’s chips are so much better in terms of performance and energy efficiency. Similarly, it’s why Apple did the W1 first and it took a very long time before any competitor figured out how to do the same thing. And you’ll see the same with VR where FB will struggle to make HW with comparable specs while Apple’s chip gives their SW a leg up. TLDR: it’s complex, but successful vertical businesses have fairly different products, efficiencies, and outcomes.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Thank you for the answer! My first thought is that the "apple Qualcomm" that would come out would have incentives to make better chips without needing to also sell phones (competing with other chip manufacturers) but I can understand that the chip industry is very costly and risky, I can see how without integration they can't compete with any current player - too expensive and risky.
- bogwog 3y ago
  Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is a monopolist, and thus doesn’t need to actually compete. The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass kicked. Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that off, but that’s only because Apple themselves are a monopolist with the market power to fight another monopolist. That’s not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn’t more monopolies. A much smaller company than Apple could have theoretically created a better processor than Qualcomm, but it just couldn’t happen due to multiple anti-competitive factors. Like how Qualcomm has a patent portfolio that gives them a monopoly on 4G modems, and can use that to force companies to purchase other components from them if they want a modem. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips-smartphones-phones-patents-monopoly-court/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips...
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed to monopolize their own products. There is no iPhone market - that’s a product within a huge market of other mobile devices that anyone can join.
    - bogwog 3y ago
      These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind of truth. And if I’m completely wrong about you, then I apologize. My patience for these internet arguments isn’t what it used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt thousands of comments on this website about that topic. Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and you’ll find the right answers.
      - ddingus 3y ago
        I think about this topic often and am also curious, but not an Apple fanboy, unless we end up talking about the 8 and 16 bit 6602, 65816 based computers. :) The way I see it, Apple has targeted a very specific kind of customer. And these people have a few things in common: Value privacy Value great hardware Willing to recognize and pay for all the ways Apple adds value: packaging, UX, etc... And there are some more, but I feel listing more won't add value here. I do like the Apple M1 computer I own. And I like the older 8 and 16 bit ones too. The reasons are very different with the older machines being open and hackable and the M1 being fast with crazy good battery life given the overall performance. However, I flat out won't own an Apple phone. Too closed down, and the UX is not well aligned with how I prefer to do things. I disagree strongly with many things Apple does and feel their products often are too restrictive. But, I do not have to use anything they make either. Some have argued that Apple has serious lock in on their products. Yep. Except for the computers, I agree! That is why I won't use any of their stuff. Yet lots of people want it that way and Apple delivers it to them and asks those people to pay right up, and those people do pay up and a whole lot of those people are happy having seen good value for their dollar. In my view, Apple gets to do that. And nobody has to like them doing that, right? How is any of it a monopoly? Serious question.
kylehotchkiss 3y ago
Substantially less opportunities for your private data to be hacked and leaked all over the web. I think Apple’s long term privacy and e2ee pushes and googles recent attempts at the same would not exist across a pile of medium sized companies. iCloud Photos leaking would continue to be a thing.

by dmbche 3y ago

vlovich123 3y ago

Not so much because then, for example, you become Qualcomm and have 50 different customers all asking for different things from your chips and you reach a local optimum where you solve everyone’s issue a little bit but don’t actually do a good job. There’s a reason that Apple’s chips are so much better in terms of performance and energy efficiency. Similarly, it’s why Apple did the W1 first and it took a very long time before any competitor figured out how to do the same thing. And you’ll see the same with VR where FB will struggle to make HW with comparable specs while Apple’s chip gives their SW a leg up. TLDR: it’s complex, but successful vertical businesses have fairly different products, efficiencies, and outcomes.

dmbche 3y ago
Thank you for the answer! My first thought is that the "apple Qualcomm" that would come out would have incentives to make better chips without needing to also sell phones (competing with other chip manufacturers) but I can understand that the chip industry is very costly and risky, I can see how without integration they can't compete with any current player - too expensive and risky.
bogwog 3y ago
Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is a monopolist, and thus doesn’t need to actually compete. The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass kicked. Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that off, but that’s only because Apple themselves are a monopolist with the market power to fight another monopolist. That’s not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn’t more monopolies. A much smaller company than Apple could have theoretically created a better processor than Qualcomm, but it just couldn’t happen due to multiple anti-competitive factors. Like how Qualcomm has a patent portfolio that gives them a monopoly on 4G modems, and can use that to force companies to purchase other components from them if they want a modem. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips-smartphones-phones-patents-monopoly-court/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips...
- jonhohle 3y ago
  I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed to monopolize their own products. There is no iPhone market - that’s a product within a huge market of other mobile devices that anyone can join.
  - bogwog 3y ago
    These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind of truth. And if I’m completely wrong about you, then I apologize. My patience for these internet arguments isn’t what it used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt thousands of comments on this website about that topic. Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and you’ll find the right answers.
    - ddingus 3y ago
      I think about this topic often and am also curious, but not an Apple fanboy, unless we end up talking about the 8 and 16 bit 6602, 65816 based computers. :) The way I see it, Apple has targeted a very specific kind of customer. And these people have a few things in common: Value privacy Value great hardware Willing to recognize and pay for all the ways Apple adds value: packaging, UX, etc... And there are some more, but I feel listing more won't add value here. I do like the Apple M1 computer I own. And I like the older 8 and 16 bit ones too. The reasons are very different with the older machines being open and hackable and the M1 being fast with crazy good battery life given the overall performance. However, I flat out won't own an Apple phone. Too closed down, and the UX is not well aligned with how I prefer to do things. I disagree strongly with many things Apple does and feel their products often are too restrictive. But, I do not have to use anything they make either. Some have argued that Apple has serious lock in on their products. Yep. Except for the computers, I agree! That is why I won't use any of their stuff. Yet lots of people want it that way and Apple delivers it to them and asks those people to pay right up, and those people do pay up and a whole lot of those people are happy having seen good value for their dollar. In my view, Apple gets to do that. And nobody has to like them doing that, right? How is any of it a monopoly? Serious question.

kylehotchkiss 3y ago

Substantially less opportunities for your private data to be hacked and leaked all over the web. I think Apple’s long term privacy and e2ee pushes and googles recent attempts at the same would not exist across a pile of medium sized companies. iCloud Photos leaking would continue to be a thing.