3 ms·

> The company is the problem here The author feigns indignance at Apple's margins, as if the only possible purpose for that markup is to line the pockets of Ap

> The company is the problem here The author feigns indignance at Apple's margins, as if the only possible purpose for that markup is to line the pockets of Apple execs. But this isn't pure profit for Apple. Apple develops feature and security updates which they make available for free (at the point of use) for years to their hardware customers. The significant hardware markup is what enables this! Contrast this to companies that sell hardware at cost. You find phones and laptops crammed with programs to collect and monetize your data, and zero security or driver updates. A company that charges full price up front is at least in a position to afford to be able to do the right thing by users.

lamontcg 3y ago
Yeah, everyone points out that "if its free, you are the product" then Google and Microsoft do all kinds of shitty stuff due to their products being cheap/free, then people scream about Apple's hardware markups.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Apple does plenty of data collection too though I believe they keep most the data internal. "If it's free, you are the product" sure, but that doesn't imply that if it's not free, you are not the product.
Joeri 3y ago
You mean do the right thing by shareholders. Apple spends on the order of a 100 billion a year lining shareholder pockets through buybacks and dividends. That is three times what they spend on r&d. This company is making obscene amounts of profit only to hand most of it over to people whose contribution to apple’s success is zero, instead of spending it on improving the products or customers actually responsible for that success. If this isn’t a condemnation of what’s wrong with capitalism, I don’t know what is. Tim Cook may have no other choice, but it is despicable that he doesn’t.
- pas 3y ago
  if the market (competition) is not forcing them, why would they spend all that on R&D? the lack of (competent) competition is what's the problem, not that that there's return on capital. I don't like Apple, but I hardly can blame them, when they can make all this money by simply being the least shit generally okay-ish option.
- seec 3y ago
  Tim Cook has a choice, Apple actually started doing that right after Steve Jobs passed away. Steve categorically refused to do that kind of stuff precisely because of those problems. Tim Cook also has a vested interest in lining his own pockets, he has targets that are about revenue and profits, not user experience and customer satisfaction. So, he maximise his own benefit and this is what we get. People who pretend Apple wasn't different under Job are magnificent gaslighters and should not be taken seriously about anything really...
indianmouse 3y ago
And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads. It's a forced and planned obsolescence and nothing else. All the required cost for the product and support is already included in the product cost as it being costly compared to its competitors. All other stuff that they do around it is pure marketing and projection to make people believe and have that sense of something super duper is being offered to them which doesn't exist and is unique. While some of is acceptable, but majority of it is useless or not used or used once or twice in it's lifetime. Except for some professionals. Just swindling people of their hard earned monies...
- musicale 3y ago
  > And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads. Last I checked Apple products get about 7 years of updates. My 2016 MacBook Pro is falling off the edge of security updates about now. I'd prefer 10 years, but it's more than two. The exception may be more recent intel Macs which are likely to be obsoleted at a faster rate due to the ARM/Apple Silicon transition. Though I guess you can still run Windows. ;-p

lamontcg 3y ago

Yeah, everyone points out that "if its free, you are the product" then Google and Microsoft do all kinds of shitty stuff due to their products being cheap/free, then people scream about Apple's hardware markups.

kelipso 3y ago
Apple does plenty of data collection too though I believe they keep most the data internal. "If it's free, you are the product" sure, but that doesn't imply that if it's not free, you are not the product.

Joeri 3y ago

You mean do the right thing by shareholders. Apple spends on the order of a 100 billion a year lining shareholder pockets through buybacks and dividends. That is three times what they spend on r&d. This company is making obscene amounts of profit only to hand most of it over to people whose contribution to apple’s success is zero, instead of spending it on improving the products or customers actually responsible for that success. If this isn’t a condemnation of what’s wrong with capitalism, I don’t know what is. Tim Cook may have no other choice, but it is despicable that he doesn’t.

pas 3y ago
if the market (competition) is not forcing them, why would they spend all that on R&D? the lack of (competent) competition is what's the problem, not that that there's return on capital. I don't like Apple, but I hardly can blame them, when they can make all this money by simply being the least shit generally okay-ish option.
seec 3y ago
Tim Cook has a choice, Apple actually started doing that right after Steve Jobs passed away. Steve categorically refused to do that kind of stuff precisely because of those problems. Tim Cook also has a vested interest in lining his own pockets, he has targets that are about revenue and profits, not user experience and customer satisfaction. So, he maximise his own benefit and this is what we get. People who pretend Apple wasn't different under Job are magnificent gaslighters and should not be taken seriously about anything really...

indianmouse 3y ago

And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads. It's a forced and planned obsolescence and nothing else. All the required cost for the product and support is already included in the product cost as it being costly compared to its competitors. All other stuff that they do around it is pure marketing and projection to make people believe and have that sense of something super duper is being offered to them which doesn't exist and is unique. While some of is acceptable, but majority of it is useless or not used or used once or twice in it's lifetime. Except for some professionals. Just swindling people of their hard earned monies...

musicale 3y ago
> And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads. Last I checked Apple products get about 7 years of updates. My 2016 MacBook Pro is falling off the edge of security updates about now. I'd prefer 10 years, but it's more than two. The exception may be more recent intel Macs which are likely to be obsoleted at a faster rate due to the ARM/Apple Silicon transition. Though I guess you can still run Windows. ;-p