3 ms·
Right - the problem is car companies ceeding that 30% to Apple, when they could be rent-seeking instead.
by madeofpalk 3y ago
Right - the problem is car companies ceeding that 30% to Apple, when they could be rent-seeking instead.
- tapoxi 3y agoIsn't it rent seeking in both cases?
- sircastor 3y agoI worked for a car company in Infotainment for several years, and while I wasn't privy to any conversations like this, I can say that they (my company at least) are desperately brainstorming ways to come up with anything to make money. This is why we've seen all those crazy ideas like BMW trying to make seat warmers a subscription. They're trying to find some way to maintain a better cash inflow than selling a product.
- tpurves 3y agoI also spent time working with car makers while at Visa. There was a LOT of wishful thinking by carmakers that they could magic-up their own digital app stores (and pay for gas, for parking for drive-thru) all through their own proprietary infotainment platforms. There were these hopelessly unscaleable expectations that brands (McDonalds, Chevron etc.) would want to build and maintain custom apps just for, say, this model year's new 3-series BMW, and then do the same for every other car maker and model type. It was very much like the shortlived mindset of carriers trying to control downloadable mobile apps, prior to the iphone/appstore.
- tpurves 3y agoRent-seeking by apple and rent-seeking by car makers are both legitimate concerns! I guess the sentiment for the rest of us punters and hoopleheads is, if we have to be rent-sook by one of them, at least CarPlay is likely to have a less-unpleasant user experience?
- matthewdgreen 3y agoIf there are ten rent-seeking car manufacturers, you can conceivably buy your next car from a different company. If there are 1-2 phone OS makers (both coincidentally charging identical fees and duplicating the same business model) you’ve got many fewer options.