4 ms·

> If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. Wish it were so simple, but the probl

> If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. Wish it were so simple, but the problem is the ecosystem. A new business will not start out with 500K apps and developers won't develop apps till a platform has a lot of users, a chicken-and-egg problem. Users don't like buying devices with only a few apps available. Looks at WebOS, it was a good platform but died. This is not even mentioning the real costs of switching, like not having access to already purchased apps and content because they're locked down(music, movie, ebook purchases). It was a big problem with Windows in the 90s, you had to get a Windows computer to run software needed to be compatible with others.

jwallaceparker 14y ago
> Wish it were so simple The process takes time, but it is that simple. Granted, it would take an enormous effort to start a new company that competes against Apple, but one could do it. But just because it takes an enormous effort that doesn't nullify the fact that consumers would indeed turn to other products if Apple products failed to satisfy. I think a big issue to consider is that people are very satisfied with the quality of Apple's products at this point. If somehow the government decided that people could only buy Apple products, then we'd have monopoly, and then we should be angry. But they haven't. So we should relax.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Apple is in a very strong position, they have an amazing product that people will literally line up to buy. What they don't have is a lock on the market, though, and they know it. They either innovate, keep pushing themselves, or they'll end up steamrollered by someone else. Remember that in 1995 people did line up to buy Windows 95 and while future launches weren't met with as much fanfare, people would actively seek out computers with Windows on it and had no time for side-show attractions like MacOS or Linux. Amazing how that can come collapsing down just because of a few mis-steps. You have Vista, you have a near decade of focusing aggressively on the server market and leaving the consumer side to twist in the wind, neglecting their important and dominant Internet Explorer product for the better part of six years. In other words, Apple is just one Steve Ballmer away from total irrelevance. The company best situated to take down Apple doesn't exist yet, not in the form it will ultimately be. Maybe Samsung will finally go beyond emulating and will build their own platform that resonates with consumers as well as they'd have you believe in the marketing... Maybe Microsoft will hire new leadership and straighten out the train-wreck that Windows Phone 7 is... As much as Apple is doing a great job, it's frustrating when there really isn't any competition. We need a market where there are two or three very good choices. Like Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii where each have their merits. What will the world be like if that's reduced to just one?
nraynaud 14y ago
Wait, when Apple started the iPhone they had no 3rd party application, people begged them to allow that. They got to that number from zero. They are not preventing anyone to create a phone so compelling that everybody is asking for a SDK. moreover hundreds of mobile allowed 3rd party apps before the iPhone was there(I remember those cheesy java apps). They sold a very expensive phone that had less feature than the others and everybody wanted one. I don't know exactly what more proof we can get than the market is free than that. It was more expensive and had less feature than the other. The only extra stuff was Steve Jobs, sorry but the marked for that was destroyed a few month ago.
- MBCook 14y ago
  Remember, when Apple started, the market basically didn't exist. Not many people had smartphones. The programs available for, say, Windows CE, had costs of $10-$20 at the low end. Feature phones had games, but they were often $5+. On a feature phone, if you replaced it with a new model you may have lost whatever you purchased. I distinctly remember one of my Sprint feature phones having a version of Tetris (or some similar complexity of game) for $3 a month. It was the rise of Apple's mobile app store that made apps an important factor in which phone to buy. Before the iPhone app store, what percent of users in the US spent $10 a year to buy phone apps? What percent do now? Ignoring the fact I love my iPhone, I would be hesitant to go to another plstform because of all the games I'd have to either give up or re-buy.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    It's hard to remember that when Apple started the RIM BlackBerry was the undisputed Ph.D. of the smartphone market compared to the relatively high-school smart challengers of Danger and Palm. Palm had an app store first and it was amazing for its time. It's an interesting case study to deconstruct how they could botch such an amazing product so thoroughly. They even missed the tablet bandwagon completely.
jopt 14y ago
Those are just reasons Apple is more attractive to consumers than the competition is. Nobody said competing has to be easy, or even possible for everyone. Free competition is not a guarantee that anyone will be able to outperform incumbents; it only means that if you do (as defined by consumers) you won't be held back by regulations/legal monopolies.

jwallaceparker 14y ago

> Wish it were so simple The process takes time, but it is that simple. Granted, it would take an enormous effort to start a new company that competes against Apple, but one could do it. But just because it takes an enormous effort that doesn't nullify the fact that consumers would indeed turn to other products if Apple products failed to satisfy. I think a big issue to consider is that people are very satisfied with the quality of Apple's products at this point. If somehow the government decided that people could only buy Apple products, then we'd have monopoly, and then we should be angry. But they haven't. So we should relax.

astrodust 14y ago
Apple is in a very strong position, they have an amazing product that people will literally line up to buy. What they don't have is a lock on the market, though, and they know it. They either innovate, keep pushing themselves, or they'll end up steamrollered by someone else. Remember that in 1995 people did line up to buy Windows 95 and while future launches weren't met with as much fanfare, people would actively seek out computers with Windows on it and had no time for side-show attractions like MacOS or Linux. Amazing how that can come collapsing down just because of a few mis-steps. You have Vista, you have a near decade of focusing aggressively on the server market and leaving the consumer side to twist in the wind, neglecting their important and dominant Internet Explorer product for the better part of six years. In other words, Apple is just one Steve Ballmer away from total irrelevance. The company best situated to take down Apple doesn't exist yet, not in the form it will ultimately be. Maybe Samsung will finally go beyond emulating and will build their own platform that resonates with consumers as well as they'd have you believe in the marketing... Maybe Microsoft will hire new leadership and straighten out the train-wreck that Windows Phone 7 is... As much as Apple is doing a great job, it's frustrating when there really isn't any competition. We need a market where there are two or three very good choices. Like Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii where each have their merits. What will the world be like if that's reduced to just one?

nraynaud 14y ago

Wait, when Apple started the iPhone they had no 3rd party application, people begged them to allow that. They got to that number from zero. They are not preventing anyone to create a phone so compelling that everybody is asking for a SDK. moreover hundreds of mobile allowed 3rd party apps before the iPhone was there(I remember those cheesy java apps). They sold a very expensive phone that had less feature than the others and everybody wanted one. I don't know exactly what more proof we can get than the market is free than that. It was more expensive and had less feature than the other. The only extra stuff was Steve Jobs, sorry but the marked for that was destroyed a few month ago.

MBCook 14y ago
Remember, when Apple started, the market basically didn't exist. Not many people had smartphones. The programs available for, say, Windows CE, had costs of $10-$20 at the low end. Feature phones had games, but they were often $5+. On a feature phone, if you replaced it with a new model you may have lost whatever you purchased. I distinctly remember one of my Sprint feature phones having a version of Tetris (or some similar complexity of game) for $3 a month. It was the rise of Apple's mobile app store that made apps an important factor in which phone to buy. Before the iPhone app store, what percent of users in the US spent $10 a year to buy phone apps? What percent do now? Ignoring the fact I love my iPhone, I would be hesitant to go to another plstform because of all the games I'd have to either give up or re-buy.
- astrodust 14y ago
  It's hard to remember that when Apple started the RIM BlackBerry was the undisputed Ph.D. of the smartphone market compared to the relatively high-school smart challengers of Danger and Palm. Palm had an app store first and it was amazing for its time. It's an interesting case study to deconstruct how they could botch such an amazing product so thoroughly. They even missed the tablet bandwagon completely.

jopt 14y ago

Those are just reasons Apple is more attractive to consumers than the competition is. Nobody said competing has to be easy, or even possible for everyone. Free competition is not a guarantee that anyone will be able to outperform incumbents; it only means that if you do (as defined by consumers) you won't be held back by regulations/legal monopolies.