4 ms·

This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Maybe this isn’

by MBCook 2y ago

This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Maybe this isn’t the ideal strategy in their case?

klelatti 2y ago
I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?
- MBCook 2y ago
  You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - klelatti 2y ago
    You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.
  - klelatti 2y ago
    > keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      We're talking about high level executives who crushed whatever opposition they had to get to the top of the pyramid. They're of course good at collaboration as well, but they don't look to me like the type to enjoy someone watching over their shoulder and whispering advices to their ears.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    In Apple’s case the leadership learned a ton of important lessons from being the scrappy underdog that was always fighting to succeed. And they shouldn’t forget those. But those same ideas and strategies may not work as well when you’re the biggest company in the world (or close). So I think either they’re in the tension you describe at the end of your comment, or they’ve taught the new generation the old ways so they’re not trying to change things enough.
microtherion 2y ago
Since Steve Jobs died, Apple's valuation has gone up 10x and revenue about 4x. It stands to reason that a larger company would attract more antitrust scrutiny, but it's hard to blame the executives for that.
- MBCook 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s what’s attracting it though. They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it’s getting them in trouble. Sure 30% of smurfberries is fine. That’s their rule, who cares. And they have a rule it doesn’t apply to physical goods, which is why you can order stuff in the Amazon app. But then they decided that people giving yoga lessons over the time during the lockdowns owed them 30%. And other apps that had been in the store for 15 years suddenly seemed to require 30% when they didn’t before. Want to sell e-books? You have to give Apple 30%. Now there isn’t 30% anywhere to give. But you have to. So saith Apple. Instead of keeping their cut the same or even lowering it, they’ve been effectively increasing it by deciding their rules apply to more and more apps and services. Which looks exactly like monopoly jacking up prices. “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008. They didn’t actually need to do any of this. It’s not like they were going to collapse if they didn’t keep deciding to expand what was “theirs”. And every single time they’ve gotten in a fight with a government they keep doubling down and getting in trouble. Instead of giving an inch they dig in until they’re ordered to give up 12 miles. I like apple products. I’ve been using them forever. I do not like where the management has been going.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    The 30% starts off as a publisher/retailer's slice of the fee, for which 30% isn't a bad fee. But Apple has extended its 30% take from "this is what we take for people who buy stuff on our store" to "this is what we take for any transactions within applications buy from our store." This is (very weakly!) justifiable if you're looking at microtransactions as buying-on-an-installment-plan, but Apple is going much further and demanding 30% on what's effectively regular credit card transactions. And if people consider American credit cards' 3% fees to be borderline usurious, think how much outrage a credit card with 30% merchant fees would create. And that's basically what Apple is trying to push now, a credit card with 30% merchant fees. No wonder they're desperate to prohibit apps from telling people "you can buy it cheaper anywhere but Apple."
throw0101d 2y ago
> This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Is there an old guard at Google/Alphabet, which is also getting antitrust scrutiny? How about Amazon: * https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/... The US healthcare industry in general: * https://www.justice.gov/atr/HealthyCompetition https://www.justice.gov/atr/HealthyCompetition Perhaps there's more scrutiny in general since Biden appointed FTC folks that actually care about the topic?

by MBCook 2y ago

This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Maybe this isn’t the ideal strategy in their case?

klelatti 2y ago

I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?

MBCook 2y ago
You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- klelatti 2y ago
  You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
makeitdouble 2y ago
I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.
- klelatti 2y ago
  > keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    We're talking about high level executives who crushed whatever opposition they had to get to the top of the pyramid. They're of course good at collaboration as well, but they don't look to me like the type to enjoy someone watching over their shoulder and whispering advices to their ears.
- MBCook 2y ago
  In Apple’s case the leadership learned a ton of important lessons from being the scrappy underdog that was always fighting to succeed. And they shouldn’t forget those. But those same ideas and strategies may not work as well when you’re the biggest company in the world (or close). So I think either they’re in the tension you describe at the end of your comment, or they’ve taught the new generation the old ways so they’re not trying to change things enough.

microtherion 2y ago

Since Steve Jobs died, Apple's valuation has gone up 10x and revenue about 4x. It stands to reason that a larger company would attract more antitrust scrutiny, but it's hard to blame the executives for that.

MBCook 2y ago
I don’t think that’s what’s attracting it though. They’ve been going around demanding 30% of everyone’s revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it’s getting them in trouble. Sure 30% of smurfberries is fine. That’s their rule, who cares. And they have a rule it doesn’t apply to physical goods, which is why you can order stuff in the Amazon app. But then they decided that people giving yoga lessons over the time during the lockdowns owed them 30%. And other apps that had been in the store for 15 years suddenly seemed to require 30% when they didn’t before. Want to sell e-books? You have to give Apple 30%. Now there isn’t 30% anywhere to give. But you have to. So saith Apple. Instead of keeping their cut the same or even lowering it, they’ve been effectively increasing it by deciding their rules apply to more and more apps and services. Which looks exactly like monopoly jacking up prices. “Just don’t have an iPhone app” isn’t really viable at this point for a lot of businesses. It’s not 2008. They didn’t actually need to do any of this. It’s not like they were going to collapse if they didn’t keep deciding to expand what was “theirs”. And every single time they’ve gotten in a fight with a government they keep doubling down and getting in trouble. Instead of giving an inch they dig in until they’re ordered to give up 12 miles. I like apple products. I’ve been using them forever. I do not like where the management has been going.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The 30% starts off as a publisher/retailer's slice of the fee, for which 30% isn't a bad fee. But Apple has extended its 30% take from "this is what we take for people who buy stuff on our store" to "this is what we take for any transactions within applications buy from our store." This is (very weakly!) justifiable if you're looking at microtransactions as buying-on-an-installment-plan, but Apple is going much further and demanding 30% on what's effectively regular credit card transactions. And if people consider American credit cards' 3% fees to be borderline usurious, think how much outrage a credit card with 30% merchant fees would create. And that's basically what Apple is trying to push now, a credit card with 30% merchant fees. No wonder they're desperate to prohibit apps from telling people "you can buy it cheaper anywhere but Apple."

throw0101d 2y ago

> This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the years have gone on. Is there an old guard at Google/Alphabet, which is also getting antitrust scrutiny? How about Amazon: * https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/... The US healthcare industry in general: * https://www.justice.gov/atr/HealthyCompetition https://www.justice.gov/atr/HealthyCompetition Perhaps there's more scrutiny in general since Biden appointed FTC folks that actually care about the topic?