7 ms·
Fair or not, but it is very good business model. Smart people realised, that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases. Solution: create
by stoperaticless 2y ago
Fair or not, but it is very good business model. Smart people realised, that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases.
Solution: create your own alternative to open market - be the market (and write rules for it)
Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance.
- malermeister 2y agoThe core raison d'etre for the EU is open markets. They'll do a lot to keep their fundamental core principle.
- izolate 2y agoThe billions in agricultural subsidies, strict regulations, and non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for non-EU companies to compete suggest otherwise to me.
- malermeister 2y agoOpen markets != unregulated markets.
- stoperaticless 2y agoEU is not about “open for all”, but “open among members”.
- Rinzler89 2y agoAnd who will win? Those "smart people"(I hate this word, being nefarious is not smart, and stop gaslighting us by humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation doing illegal things, as "people") creating their own market monopoly, or the regulatory bodies of large governments that can regulate those monopolies in their regions? History tells us that the institutions with laws, guns, judges and a monopoly on violence rules over "smart people" who just make phones. Apple's only retaliation is making life shit for EU users or pulling out of the EU market which they won't because that would leave a China style vacuum that Google or a local EU competitor will take after a period of painfull transition for the EU consumers. The EU consumers can live without iPhones. Can Apple's shareholders live without Eu's profits?
- robertlagrant 2y ago> I hate this word, let's stop being gaslighted humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation as "people" It's not gaslighting. People work for the company, and they decided. You're dehumanising them by saying they aren't human.
- Rinzler89 2y agoI never said people aren't human, I said apple aren't human they're a corporation. And people who knowingly leverage their gigantic corporation to make life worse for others in the name of shareholder profit can and should be dehumanized. There nothing humane in hurting others for greed.
- nickserv 2y agoI get what you're saying, but Apple are a group of people, so they are human. Like the local book club, or Hamas. Anyway, you don't have to look very far to see the many horrible things done to humans by other humans. The word "humane", in my view, defines how we would like to be, not how we really are.
- chgs 2y agoApple is more than the sum of its parts. Technically a person is just a bunch of cells, but those cells are interchangable, replaceable (indeed few last more than a couple of decades), and if you lose an individual cell nothing happens to the person, but the cell can’t function. we don’t say the cells make decisions, we say people do. With a corporation it’s the corporation that makes the decisions, not the individual cells.
- robertlagrant 2y agoYour way of thinking advocates for no accountability by employees. The company did it?
- nickserv 2y ago
- haileys 2y ago> Smart people realised that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases. This has been observed and written about since at least the 18th century
- aikinai 2y agoParent didn’t say when smart people figured it out. This is also why Nintendo (when they moved into video games) set up their business model as platform-holder, not just game developer. And their own games are primarily there to seed the platform.
- yobbo 2y agoRather, the goal was to lower ("subsidise") the purchase price (initial barrier) of the NES/SNES and then recoup it on licenses for cartridges. It makes each purchase of a console cheaper. It's the rational way to maximize revenue. But Apple is not subsidising phones in any way.
- aikinai 2y agoI'm not sure how you're framing that as a subsidy. It's a killer app that gets people over the threshold to purchase the platform (console). And then once the install base is established, everyone else wants to make their own games and has to pay you (a lot) for the privilege. Developing first-party games costs more money, to both Nintendo and consumers, so it's the opposite of a subsidy. But they're compelling enough, they clear the purchase threshold and establish the platform on which the rest of the business is built.
- kaba0 2y agoParent commenter meant subsidizing the actual hardware costs. The same is true of pretty much every other console, they can also sell the hardware cheaper for this reason
- 2y ago
- madeofpalk 2y ago> Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance. The problem is if Apple's obstinance leads them to loosing much more of their cash cow than if they had just given up a little.
- nickserv 2y agoYes it's called a monopoly and this is precisely what the EU is trying to avoid.
- xxs 2y agoactually the rules apply to everyone monopoly or otherwise, anti-competitive rules are not applied/enforced when there is a dominant market position only.
- nickserv 2y agoExactly, the rules are meant to prevent monopolies from forming in the first place.
- Jensson 2y agoIn some cases a monopoly is needed or wanted, like in credit card cases you don't want a million credit card types that all work in different subsections. In such cases regulations are to prevent such companies from having too much influence and bottlenecking everything else with high prices or forcing their own other products. EU already did this with credit cards.
- DarkNova6 2y agoOr you force and open standard and now you have different companies using the same system but with competing pricing. If something "has to be a monopoly", there is a good case to be made that you are talking about a core public infrastructure piece which shouldn't be under control of a singular private entity.
- Jensson 2y agoCredit cards need to have personal connections with businesses since it is about mutual trust. A business doesn't want to deal with a shady credit card and credit card providers doesn't want to deal with shady businesses. So you are talking about a technical solution to a social issue, that wont solve it.
- beeboobaa3 2y agoWhipping homeless people until they do the work you demand of them is also a very good business model. Just not exactly ethical or legal.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoWhy the homeless qualifier?
- stoperaticless 2y agoNot arguing with general point. But I strongly doubt that your business model would even approach #1 spot on S&P index. If you are looking for advice on your business model.. > Whipping homeless people On avg. homeless people are less competent part of the bell curve. Don’t limit yourself, toss the “homeless” restriction. You could reduce cost by mostly just threatening to whip, and to actually demonstrate the whipping only on Mondays, just to prove that it happens. Also, micro-management has serious downsides. It does not build trust, it eats away at initiative and motivation.
- samrus 2y agoSmart people realized that you can operate in antisocial manner and benefit at the cost of others by creating a monopoly? Do you also think drug peddlers are smart for entering an under supplied market?
- indoordin0saur 2y ago> in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases As they should. Innovators should be able to collect a profit for their hardwork. A decade later when your company gets captured by MBA grads it's not a great thing for the consumer or the economy as a whole if they just sit there and collect rent while lobbying for regulatory capture to keep any new talent from being able to do better than them.