5 ms·

> and you have a perfect formula for monopolizing a market without continuously improving the tech. ...but the Apple ecosystem has the best tech. M chips, AirP

> and you have a perfect formula for monopolizing a market without continuously improving the tech. ...but the Apple ecosystem has the best tech. M chips, AirPods Pro, Apple Watch, iPad, Pencil, I mean the tech is great. Apple isn't monopolizing anything. They're competing like hell and winning because their tech is best. The real question is why the Android and Microsoft ecosystems don't do better at improving their tech. Where's the Windows equivalent of an M4 MacBook Air in terms of performance and battery life?

NotPractical 2y ago
> ...but the Apple ecosystem has the best tech You aren't in any position to make that call, since you have no opportunity to try competing products due to being locked in to an anticompetitive ecosystem. European iOS users will soon be able to decide if Apple really does have the best tech or not.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  What are you talking about? I can try all the competing products compatible with Android and Windows. I'm not locked into anything Apple because they're not a monopoly. I am very much in a position to "make that call".
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    You said that Apple makes the best tech, but you wouldn't know, because you cannot pair third party accessories with your Apple devices and have them work properly, so you cannot determine if third parties are capable of making accessories better than Apple or not. Whether or not a third party is capable of making a better "ecosystem" of interconnected devices is a separate concern; I'm talking about accessories here, which is the topic at hand.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      I wouldn't know? Kind of amazing you're so confident I don't use the Android ecosystem for a whole bunch of stuff. You know a lot of people use one ecosystem for personal stuff, and another for work? Also that people do stuff like... read reviews? Compare features? Compare specs?
      - shuckles 2y ago
        Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of people are upset that Apple is deciding what's best for their customers, and customers are happy with that, instead of everyone asking their nerdy cousin or whatever. The condescension towards satisfied Apple users is really shocking.
      - jdironman 2y ago
        He is specifically talking about accessories, in this case the watches. including apple watches and 3rd party. if apple watches integrate natively, but 3rd party watches don't have the same level of integration then there is no way in the apple ecosystem to make a comparative decision on which watch you want to use as you're automatically funneled into apple watches by design. Now on android, most watches integrate pretty much the same. maybe a different on phone app, but, most APIs are pretty accessible between all devices. (I might be wrong about this)
DecentShoes 2y ago
Apple is monopolizing lots of things. You aren't allowed to make software for the iPhone without distributing exclusively thru the App Store. This whole post is about how they restrict third party watches.
- shuckles 2y ago
  Restriction is an odd term to describe: "They don't proactively build a suite of tools and APIs to facilitate third party watch development."
_emacsomancer_ 2y ago
Microsoft couldn't compete themselves out of a wet paper bag (it may be a slightly different script, but they're anti-competitivists just like Apple). Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it, and buy into the whole ecosystem. And, most crucially: contort yourself yourself enough. (="If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right.")
- quitit 2y ago
  >Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it, and buy into the whole ecosystem. And, most crucially: contort yourself yourself enough. (="If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right.") 1) Apple's lack of success in various categories over the years shows that their success isn't "magical" marketing. 2) So if we're ruling out mindless drones of hypnotised people handing over their hard earned cash hand-over-fist, then we might look to more realistic reasons why some of their products sell very well. When we do we see a much more rational picture, closely tied to the basic economics of product and price. 3) At this point one needs to concede that consumers are majority highly rational buyers, hand waving away others as sheep-like with too much money is a risible position to take. 4) In the markets Apple sell well: phones, laptops, wearables: There's plenty of products that cost more than the Apple equivalent and don't work nearly as well. 5) While you may categorise a person with a $700 phone as rich, consider that the lifestyle improvements gained over the typical 4 year ownership lifecycle works out to be ~48c a day. Depending where you are, that's the equivalent of buying one basic starbucks coffee a week. Sure there's more expensive iPhones, there's more expensive coffees too. 6) When it comes to price discussions there's also a lot of bad faith comparisons. Bad faith = where the author of the comment should, or clearly does know that the comparison they're making is excluding pertinent details, but doesn't include them intentionally to deceive, usually because they value "winning" an internet discussion rather than the value of exchanging ideas. 7) Consumers are rational: If such price comparisons held water then certain the Apple products wouldn't be doing so well. We can already see the ones that don't do well with the mass markets because they're priced to very specific audiences (MacPro, VisionPro, etc.) >"If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right." 1) I'm not sure about the merit of misquoting a dead guy, talking about a product that hasn't been sold in over a decade. I think if you're trying to convey that Apple has a certain arrogant attitude towards their customers then you should revisit the points above. 2) If you're going to quote this, then you should take the time to read what Jobs actually wrote, since the tone doesn't meet the level of arrogance in your portrayal. The email is here: https://wccftech.com/images/news/iPhone4G/jobs.jpg https://wccftech.com/images/news/iPhone4G/jobs.jpg 3) Despite the mixed views on whether the problem even existed in a meaningful way, Apple gave away free cases, no questions asked, to people who felt they experienced this problem. As a barometer to the actual problem: Not even the land of the lawsuit was able to muster a case, and they did appeal widely for injured parties.
presentation 2y ago
I just wish that they didn't feel the need to block out competitors to compete on an even playing field - I agree that their hardware is great, but if it's so great it should be able to dominate the market without hobbling competitors on iOS.
jeroenhd 2y ago
Best individual hardware components perhaps, but their software is shit enough that I don't consider their tech to be best. macOS and its weird limitations are enough for me to accept Windows 11 before I'll buy an Apple laptop.
lawn 2y ago
The hardware seems pretty good. The software has taken a nosedive though and Android has overtaken iPhone in many (most?) aspects.
mbs159 2y ago
"Best tech" in a general sense doesn't really mean anything, since it depends on use-cases

NotPractical 2y ago

> ...but the Apple ecosystem has the best tech You aren't in any position to make that call, since you have no opportunity to try competing products due to being locked in to an anticompetitive ecosystem. European iOS users will soon be able to decide if Apple really does have the best tech or not.

crazygringo 2y ago
What are you talking about? I can try all the competing products compatible with Android and Windows. I'm not locked into anything Apple because they're not a monopoly. I am very much in a position to "make that call".
- NotPractical 2y ago
  You said that Apple makes the best tech, but you wouldn't know, because you cannot pair third party accessories with your Apple devices and have them work properly, so you cannot determine if third parties are capable of making accessories better than Apple or not. Whether or not a third party is capable of making a better "ecosystem" of interconnected devices is a separate concern; I'm talking about accessories here, which is the topic at hand.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    I wouldn't know? Kind of amazing you're so confident I don't use the Android ecosystem for a whole bunch of stuff. You know a lot of people use one ecosystem for personal stuff, and another for work? Also that people do stuff like... read reviews? Compare features? Compare specs?
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of people are upset that Apple is deciding what's best for their customers, and customers are happy with that, instead of everyone asking their nerdy cousin or whatever. The condescension towards satisfied Apple users is really shocking.
    - jdironman 2y ago
      He is specifically talking about accessories, in this case the watches. including apple watches and 3rd party. if apple watches integrate natively, but 3rd party watches don't have the same level of integration then there is no way in the apple ecosystem to make a comparative decision on which watch you want to use as you're automatically funneled into apple watches by design. Now on android, most watches integrate pretty much the same. maybe a different on phone app, but, most APIs are pretty accessible between all devices. (I might be wrong about this)

DecentShoes 2y ago

Apple is monopolizing lots of things. You aren't allowed to make software for the iPhone without distributing exclusively thru the App Store. This whole post is about how they restrict third party watches.

shuckles 2y ago
Restriction is an odd term to describe: "They don't proactively build a suite of tools and APIs to facilitate third party watch development."

_emacsomancer_ 2y ago

Microsoft couldn't compete themselves out of a wet paper bag (it may be a slightly different script, but they're anti-competitivists just like Apple). Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it, and buy into the whole ecosystem. And, most crucially: contort yourself yourself enough. (="If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right.")

quitit 2y ago
>Apple technology is "great" as long as you you're rich enough to afford it, and buy into the whole ecosystem. And, most crucially: contort yourself yourself enough. (="If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right.") 1) Apple's lack of success in various categories over the years shows that their success isn't "magical" marketing. 2) So if we're ruling out mindless drones of hypnotised people handing over their hard earned cash hand-over-fist, then we might look to more realistic reasons why some of their products sell very well. When we do we see a much more rational picture, closely tied to the basic economics of product and price. 3) At this point one needs to concede that consumers are majority highly rational buyers, hand waving away others as sheep-like with too much money is a risible position to take. 4) In the markets Apple sell well: phones, laptops, wearables: There's plenty of products that cost more than the Apple equivalent and don't work nearly as well. 5) While you may categorise a person with a $700 phone as rich, consider that the lifestyle improvements gained over the typical 4 year ownership lifecycle works out to be ~48c a day. Depending where you are, that's the equivalent of buying one basic starbucks coffee a week. Sure there's more expensive iPhones, there's more expensive coffees too. 6) When it comes to price discussions there's also a lot of bad faith comparisons. Bad faith = where the author of the comment should, or clearly does know that the comparison they're making is excluding pertinent details, but doesn't include them intentionally to deceive, usually because they value "winning" an internet discussion rather than the value of exchanging ideas. 7) Consumers are rational: If such price comparisons held water then certain the Apple products wouldn't be doing so well. We can already see the ones that don't do well with the mass markets because they're priced to very specific audiences (MacPro, VisionPro, etc.) >"If it's not working for you, you're not holding it right." 1) I'm not sure about the merit of misquoting a dead guy, talking about a product that hasn't been sold in over a decade. I think if you're trying to convey that Apple has a certain arrogant attitude towards their customers then you should revisit the points above. 2) If you're going to quote this, then you should take the time to read what Jobs actually wrote, since the tone doesn't meet the level of arrogance in your portrayal. The email is here: https://wccftech.com/images/news/iPhone4G/jobs.jpg https://wccftech.com/images/news/iPhone4G/jobs.jpg 3) Despite the mixed views on whether the problem even existed in a meaningful way, Apple gave away free cases, no questions asked, to people who felt they experienced this problem. As a barometer to the actual problem: Not even the land of the lawsuit was able to muster a case, and they did appeal widely for injured parties.

presentation 2y ago

I just wish that they didn't feel the need to block out competitors to compete on an even playing field - I agree that their hardware is great, but if it's so great it should be able to dominate the market without hobbling competitors on iOS.

jeroenhd 2y ago

Best individual hardware components perhaps, but their software is shit enough that I don't consider their tech to be best. macOS and its weird limitations are enough for me to accept Windows 11 before I'll buy an Apple laptop.

lawn 2y ago

The hardware seems pretty good. The software has taken a nosedive though and Android has overtaken iPhone in many (most?) aspects.

mbs159 2y ago

"Best tech" in a general sense doesn't really mean anything, since it depends on use-cases