Apple’s profit is always the priority–no matter the cost

https://www.macworld.com/article/613085/apples-app-store-policies-prove-that-money-is-the-top-priority.html

by carlycue • 4 years ago

100 129 4 years ago

rhelzerman• 4 years ago

You say "profit is always the priority" like its a bad thing. Aren't we all maximizing our profit? Isn't that kind of the point of being in business?

pfortuny• 4 years ago

Nope.

Lots of people stay in business because they just like it AND it gives enough money for a reasonable life.

djbebs• 4 years ago

What makes you think their enjoyment isn't profit?

kevingadd• 4 years ago

If my profit comes at the cost of your profit eventually things are going to disintegrate. If you optimize for profit aggressively you can end up making decisions that maximize short term profit but destroy the long term viability of your business (or the entire market)

For example, Zynga's leadership eventually realized they were salting the earth and ensuring that in the future their genre/model wouldn't work anymore. They did it anyway. They've owned up to this

simion314• 4 years ago

Aren't we all maximizing our profit? Isn't that kind of the point of being in business?

The full sentence is maximize profit no matter anything else, like profit first , honesty later, family later, friends later, happiness later , health later.

Not everyone gets off by increasing some numbers, sometime there is enough.

throw14082020• 4 years ago

But once a company is public, then maximising profit is really the only goal. If you don't do that as a CEO, aren't you being negligent (doing something illegal).

chronofar• 4 years ago

Not every, or even most, individuals no, I would hope not. But every for-profit company surely does. No matter whatever bullshit mission they may plaster on their walls, the moniker "for-profit" tells you what the goal is plain and simple, and any high minded ideals will ultimately become subservient to that.

nomel3• 4 years ago

family later, friends later, happiness later , health later.

For these, it's the employee taking the stance of "profits at all cost".

bruce5112• 4 years ago

It's almost never good business to optimise for profit. Or, perhaps more accurately to optimise for short term profit.

For example I can maximise profit by firing all the staff, but continuing to collect subscription revenue for a couple years. Lots of profit, perhaps even "more profit", but a dead business.

We spend money on all sorts of things, at the cost of immediate profit. Staff bonuses, end-of-year lunch, social donations, R&D, all come off the bottom line.

Now, you can argue that we do it to stay in business, and a business that exists infanitly creates infinite profit, in which case the goal of business is to stay in business. Or perhaps profit is best served by keeping staff forever, in which case the odd benefit increases profit.

Profit is important, without it a business will fail - but if that's the _only_ metric then its a very cold unpleasant place to work.

jonshariat• 4 years ago

It's about shifting the cost of growth to other things like employee health, environment, users, etc that is the problem.

neolefty2• 4 years ago

Taken to certain extremes, yes it is a bad thing.

In moderation — for example if you take a wholistic view that incorporates benefit to the society at large as well, then it can be very good.

mensetmanusman• 4 years ago

The iPhone is only valuable because of developers. If they all coordinated together, they could get apple to change. Imagine all the apps breaking one day…

lancesells• 4 years ago

It's a symbiotic relationship. They both serve each other. Things could always be better and Apple is not a good guy but I doubt any large app or organization is either.

asperous• 4 years ago

If all apps go on strike, an app that crosses the picket line gets all the revenue in their market. This is related to the economic term "cartel", and why they are unstable in practice.

Iolaum• 4 years ago

in practice?

Instead of posting anecdotal evidence of mine to the contrary, I ll ask the following. If cartels are unstable in practice, then why do states need competition authorities to punish price fixing, and similar practices?

I 'd say cartel's are unstable in theory but not necessarily in practice.

ronyfadel2• 4 years ago

They'll need to go through Apple's approval process first. And if they mention breaking one day in any manner, could get rejected, or worse, booted off the store. Apple has developers by the neck.

fyzix• 4 years ago

Most of the useful apps has to connect to a server, let's say app devs stop serving requests for iOS, Apple would be pressured to come to the table because the iPhone is useless without apps.

geodel3• 4 years ago

A large number of developers work for companies. They don't need to deal with Apple as their employers/clients take care of all that. On freelance side free apps do not see much issue and paid apps devs are not in position to organize worldwide to make Apple change policy in haste.

jjtheblunt• 4 years ago

I feel that's a knee-jerk assertion.

Is no value assigned to the truly amazing custom silicon that sips power while efficiently supporting an instruction set that, in turn, supports developers external and internal?

Is no value assigned to the work that goes into evolving with the wireless network standards? Those are internal people, generally with decade+ hardcore engineering backgrounds.

adventured• 4 years ago

And it's well worth noting that the iPhone came first, not the wave of developers. Apple provided the platform and potential, they put in enormous resources and effort to make the iPhone work out, to deploy a phone in a new manner (bending the telecom providers to their will). What existed for developers before the iPhone (the languishing Windows desktop, much amazing)? If the developers are the primary, why'd they have to wait for Apple to make everything possible?

It's because the developers are secondary. Apple is the primary, the key to it all.

random3143• 4 years ago

Of course there is value. That's why iPhones are priced 1000$+

qzw• 4 years ago

That level of coordination among human beings has only been possible a handful of times in all of recorded history. And most cases involved wars or absolute autocrats, or both. Good luck forming any kind of an agreement between hundreds of thousands of independent companies and individuals across multiple countries. I can’t even get my wife to agree on what to order for lunch.

bduerst4• 4 years ago

Tragedy of the commons, in a triple sided market, prevents this.

At the end of the day, these developers are still competing with each other, and rational actors will break from the coordination to profit off the users for themselves.

nonameiguess• 4 years ago

Not third party. You still have a pretty valuable device if you use nothing but apps provided by Apple.

kelnos4• 4 years ago

Valuable, yes. Clearly it was valuable enough back in 2007 before there was an App Store. But nowadays, would it be valuable enough? I doubt it.

christophilus• 4 years ago

What? I buy iPhones because they work, are simple, are supported for a long, long time, and aren't riddled with trackers, trojans, and whatever the heck Android generally has baked in. I have very few apps on my iPhone other than the ones that come pre-installed (by Apple, not by my cell provider).

I'm sure I'm atypical, but I do wonder how much an app-developer rebellion would really affect folks. I can't imagine my wife or parents switching to Android even if all of the non-Apple apps were to disappear tomorrow.

kelnos4• 4 years ago

I can't imagine my wife or parents switching to Android even if all of the non-Apple apps were to disappear tomorrow.

That seems surprising. Do your wife and parents not use Uber/Lyft/etc.? Do they not use any banking apps? Do they not use any social media apps? Yelp? Food delivery apps? Messaging apps aside from iMessage? Video streaming apps? And that's just from looking at one of my home screens!

Do you really believe they'd be happy with a phone that suddenly couldn't do all that anymore? I very much doubt that.

bhelkey• 4 years ago

The App Store supported over half a trillion dollars in billings and sales in 2019[1]. According to Satista, that is more than the global coffee market[2].

[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apples-app-store-ecos...

[2] https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/hot-drinks/coffee/world....

Grustaf• 4 years ago

The original iPhone had quite a cult following, as did the iPod. People were flocking to them without any apps. It's because the iPhone was so cool that developers wanted to make apps for it. So it's pretty reductive to say that it's "only" valuable because of developers. Best regards, mac/iOS developer

anonymouse008• 4 years ago

Discussion: if the profit is 'monopolistic' and primarily rent seeking, then why hasn't any other company been able to produce hardware at parity while producing developer tools to make apps on par with competent developers on iOS?

It feels like there is so much work that goes into the Apple ecosystem working so cleanly, that most take it for granted without considering what is really an 'alternative' and its costs.

onion2k• 4 years ago

There's a great article about how hardware companies can't compete with Apple. Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it. It's a good read. https://beneinstein.medium.com/no-you-cant-manufacture-that-...

lelandfe2• 4 years ago

It looks like the article focuses much more on how the processes Apple employs are expensive, laborious, and challenging – which make them difficult to replicate.

Pretty much no company, big or small, can afford to do these things. Yes, Apple has done a great job building many of these products and yes, consumers have come to love many of these difficult-to-manufacture features. But you are not Apple

urthor2• 4 years ago

Has more to do with innate economies of scale than any individual market abuse. Which isn't to say that there is some, but even if you stripped out the market abuse, Apple would still be fine.

Apple is a machine that is fueled by cross subsidizing new platforms (Apple Watch) with their already significant capital investments in the iPhone.

ryandrake• 4 years ago

I think many (most?) hardware companies just don't understand/appreciate software. They look at it like just another line item on the BOM: 152 screws from supplier X, various plastic parts from supplier Y, a rubber gasket from supplier Z, and, oh yea, some software. Find the bucket of software and scoop some out to flash onto the device.

They don't see software as an ecosystem, as the actual product that the user interacts with, as their brand differentiation. They see it as a costly problem that they must solve by finding the cheapest viable bag of bits they can throw on devices and not have customers return it the first day. I swear that's the quality bar for some of these companies.

That's how we get TVs that take 5 seconds to recognize a button press, and have UIs that look like they were made from clipart. Proper font kerning? Forget it, they use 16x8 bitmap fonts from the '90s. That's how we get IoT devices that are 0wned the second they connect to the Internet. That's how we get car stereos that display "��" when you try to play a media file with non-ASCII characters in the name. Many hardware companies don't give a single shit about their software's quality--only that it's cheap and barely works and it keeps the BOM cost low.

foogazi• 4 years ago

Apple do things like finding a technology for making better laptop enclosures and buying the company that makes it so no one else can use it.

Why can’t another company build better laptop enclosures ?

Zune vs Ipod Galaxy Tab vs Ipad Android wear vs Apple Watch

Hard to reason all those away as just better components

ksec4• 4 years ago

It needs a little more context. The article was written in 2014 and basically reference the era of iPhone 2007 - 2012, ~iPhone 4S manufacturing. The same idea or execution could happen in the future with other products or manufacturing. But most advantage listed aren't as relevant anymore. Or those technology and process becomes commodity.

keleftheriou• 4 years ago

Among other reasons, you have to also consider the “winner-takes-all” type of network effect here: any new platform, however great the hardware & tools might be, will today have an extremely hard time luring developers to it’s non-existent user base, while at the same time users won’t be as attracted to the platform due to the lack of apps.

This is a vicious cycle for newcomers, and at the same time a virtuous cycle for the incumbent(s), further cementing their dominant position.

acover• 4 years ago

Uneducated answer: it's a natural monopoly. There are economies of scale and any new entrant won't get monopoly profits to justify the required capital and risk.

Why couldn't anyone compete against Bell by building a second phone network?

arcticbull2• 4 years ago

Apple isn't anywhere close to a monopoly, though, about a quarter of smartphones. A little more in install base, and a little less in quarterly shipments. [1] Building a phone network has massive capital expenditure costs on infrastructure, building a phone does not.

[1] https://financesonline.com/number-of-smartphone-users-worldw...

dont__panic• 4 years ago

The impact of all of that $$$ and vertical integration on hardware and software quality is not to be ignored. Apple Silicon in particular is an astonishing development after years of Qualcomm/Intel dominance.

The only real issue I have with Apple Silicon is that since it isn't open hardware that anybody can buy, I can't run my own software on A-series chips. At least M-series chips are opening up slowly to Linux, though.

iqanq• 4 years ago

It's a good question. Google should've done it, but they have failed time and time again. Microsoft just gave up.

nathan_compton• 4 years ago

Network effects. Even if you were the best hardware/software maker in the world it would be difficult to compete with a walled garden that has locked in many customers both technically and culturally.

tolmasky• 4 years ago

I don't see how these two things are related, and in fact disagree with both assumptions: 1. that the profit contributes in any meaningful way to the quality of the "hardware", nor that the apps on iOS are some "amazing" bar to live up to. This is all from the perspective of a user, as I haven't had anything on the AppStore in a decade:

1. I'm not sure I'd describe an ecosystem where Netflix and Amazon get sweetheart reduced revenue cuts while small devs have zero negotiating power is one I'd describe as working "cleanly" FOR USERS. Again, forget the devs here for a second, let's just think of the users. The AppStore is not just a "monopoly", it is a monopoly enabler. New platforms are traditionally one of the best places to disrupt the old big players -- and as a user, I'd love a place that let small upstarts be nimble against the likes of Amazon or Netflix. But if Apple specifically lets Amazon compete at reduced revenue cuts, this becomes impossible. No one can compete in an already difficult space like a Music app (or even a Comic Book app!) if Apple is giving the world's largest corporations better deals. Forgetting Apple's dominance in phones, they are also helping me have less choice in terms of these other services.

2. And consider this, 30% revenue split for a small app shop can mean the difference between being able to afford a new dev on your team, or a full time QA person, or full time support person, etc. Literally, if you are a 2 person team, getting that extra 30% would allow you to roughly afford one more hire at the same wage. Those are bug fixes, features, and support I'm missing out on as a user. I sure as hell don't "feel" that 30% from Apple. I already paid them $1000+ for my phone, why do I have to pay them a 30% markup on my ToDo's app? It sure as hell isn't going into writing the 3 lines of code to make even exact string matching work in AppStore search, so I'm fairly certain that money would be better spent by the devs, again, purely from a selfish user perspective.

3. Which brings us to the larger "ecosystem" and store. They suck. It's hard to find anything on the store, it's full of scams, to the point where I am terrified of my kids someday being given any access to it and the casino-like games they allow. An equally "tyrannical" Apple that was values-based and tried to stop both overt scams but also was more opinionated about the subscription-addiction junk they allow to get sold to children, would be far more defendable in my opinion. I might be like "well, philosophically I disagree with this, but you can't argue with results!". Currently, it's "well, I disagree with this philosophically, and wow is this mismanaged. Like, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that could have less pride in what you see when you scroll through the charts." I think Apple's own Phil Schiller put it best in 2012: "Is No One Reviewing These Apps?"

4. None of the "security" on iOS comes from the 30% cut, or even the AppStore review process. It's all stuff that's built into the sandbox model. If anything, there's an argument that the AppStore makes iOS more insecure since it puts the "Apple Review Seal of Approval" on a bunch of apps that just rip you off.

5. The apps themselves are pretty meh. I don't even know how anyone could hold any opinion on native vs. web anymore, unless you're big into games, at which point, sure, some native thing is going to have better graphics. All the things "native does better" these days are mainly because the browser isn't allowed to do those things, and Apple doesn't allow any competing web engine on iOS. And some things the iOS "wild west web" still does better: like having Picture-in-Picture work everywhere. To be clear: I 100% believe iOS apps used to be clearly better, and they could 100% still be clearly better, but Apple's dropped the ball on their tooling/frameworks/resources and there's just not much exciting taking place there anymore. The Apple Pencil was a big watershed moment with this: they shipped the thing with barely any developer docs so you had the few key players making some cool apps (like Adobe of course), but otherwise nothing really revolutionary was enabled on the iPad. I think the Pencil could have been a game changer, but Apple was more content with selling a couple $150 trinkets to iPad die-hards vs. really expanding their lead in the tablet space by doing something bold (like just including a Pencil with every iPad to create huge incentives to make every Apple developer make their apps "Pencil-ready" just like with all the "in device" features like 3D touch or whatever), or by even just integrating the Pencil more meaningfully in their own OS to lead by example. We didn't get the ability to have the Pencil "just work" in any text field until 6 years after its initial release.

iOS is increasingly just something I kind of have to use. Or else lose iMessage or whatever. I think the opportunity cost that more interesting is what if things were different than this. For the record, I think ironically the result would be that Apple would act more like the old Apple, and be forced to make a compelling case for being on the Store and not using a third party to process payments (and I think there's lots of interesting stuff Apple could actually do there, as opposed to... nothing). Again, I'm not arguing about whether they have the right or not to do any of this, just what the consequences would be if they stopped doing it.

anko3• 4 years ago

I agree.

I think most of arguments against what Apple is doing are based on an incomplete picture of Apple's product. They are based on someone not appreciating an aspect of what Apple is doing. Maybe they don't like the price. Maybe they don't like a lack of complete control over their hardware. The rest of it is always a rant to justify that position.

There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success. Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

ethbr02• 4 years ago

There is provable value in what Apple is doing, or the app store would not be a success.

There is provable value in what Apple is doing, by curating a higher quality and better integrated ecosystem than Google/Android offers. Polish which is funded by profits from the App Store.

On the other hand, the App Store's success also benefits from full capture of all iOS users and network effects of releasing when it did.

Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

Some people think you shouldn't be allowed to put cocaine in soda, even if it's tasty. (To use a 1920s metaphor)

cglong• 4 years ago

I personally raise awareness to this because I think of all the possibilities for mobile technology that people don't even know they're missing out on, e.g. Xbox Cloud Streaming/Stadia, emulators, NFC beyond payments.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

It's not a zero friction environment. Switching platforms is a pain. A competitor would have to be spectacularly superior, while fighting uphill against one of the largest companies in history. The larger Apple gets, the stronger that pull- like a black hole.

robbedpeter• 4 years ago

Software and hardware patents on absurd things. Lethal legal bullying of any potential competition. The walls of the garden are ruthlessly defended and expanded as far as the law can stretch.

bsder• 4 years ago

You have this reversed.

The fact that nobody can attack Apple IS the proof that Apple is a monopoly.

Looking at a similar example, it took a lot for Vanderbilt to build and buy up all the railroads. Once that was done, however, the system was locked in place and nobody could dethrone him.

makecheck• 4 years ago

Apple likes to highlight all the ways their actions benefit developers, while ignoring all the ways their actions harm developers.

Well if you get to add money to your bottom line for all the great stuff you do, you should also have to subtract money for all the crappy things you do.

Off the top of my head:

- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!

- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple is literally the reason for delay when trying to deliver things like critical fixes to customers. Let’s charge them!

- Developers should get a “cut” whenever their reputation is completely trashed by users because Apple refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes. In other words, Apple is perfectly happy to let users think apps are trash, even if the reason for the problem is Apple. Let’s charge them!

Apple doesn’t get to have only the good parts. I personally am sick and tired of all the ways they get to hide their awful behavior, and forcing developers to take the brunt of it.

donquixote252• 4 years ago

None those will ever happen unless developers/app companies for a union of some sort.

pooper2• 4 years ago

I see no way Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Uber, ... would join such a union. And if they did, would they have way too much influence on the union?

lelandfe2• 4 years ago

Charging for API compatibility issues sounds like a dangerous precedent.

blowski• 4 years ago

It exists in enterprise. You can have SLAs that an API will be supported for 5 years, for example.

saurik• 4 years ago

The point that I am reading isn't to say "this should happen" but to argue that such things sound about as reasonable as Apple's attempt at a moral framework for their enforced platform fees.

MichaelBurge• 4 years ago

"Sure - we've discounted the 'Apple Tax' from 40% to 30% to account for all these costs we've been inflicting on you.

No actual changes to your fees - we've been thinking of our precious developers and giving you that 10% discount since the very beginning."

arcticbull2• 4 years ago

- Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!

So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.

latexr• 4 years ago

So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple?

They already do, in the form of a couple subscriptions. A fixed one of $99/year and another one which is a tax of 30% on their revenue.

pooper2• 4 years ago

> - Developers should get a “cut” whenever Apple makes arbitrary changes that completely break 3rd-party apps. If the app’s code doesn’t change but Apple does change something, their behavior is literally creating problems for developers with no cost to Apple. Let’s charge them!
So when Apple introduces new features and frameworks, should developers then pay Apple? This doesn't seem to make sense.

I thought so too at first but that brings back one idea I had that most independent software vendors will probably hate and puts more control in Apple's hands but here it is anyway:

Apple can add a way for developers to submit source code, assets, and machine readable build instructions in an Apple supplied format. Apple then builds the bits that goes on the App Store. Developers already pay USD 100 a year for the privilege of being on the App Store anyway, right?

This way, if Apple introduces new features and frameworks, they can automatically update the code as needed and push updates to the users?

mchaynes4• 4 years ago

The profit motive corrupts all. We need to kill capitalism in its current form for these companies to stop being terrible and evil.

There are constant articles on HN about why <insert big company> is doing <terrible monopolistic thing>, and we inevitably talk about how these companies are doing horrible things, while others then go on to say “well look at all the value they’re bringing”. As if both can’t be true at once. It’s an embarrassingly reductive back and forth.

These companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize the stock price. This inevitably leads to this behavior.

Of course, everyone on this site secretly wants to build the “next big thing” so they can get famous and incredibly wealthy. You can only become that rich under the current system, so instead of just understanding the fundamental reasons why we see this behavior again and again and again, we bicker about the finer points of governance of these corporations. It’s like arguing about what size bandaid to put over a gaping chest wound.

This site is full of smart people, but our collective greed makes us seem pretty damn stupid

politician• 4 years ago

Can you suggest something less drastic than eliminate capitalism? For example, “enforce existing anti—trust regulation”. Tossing out a system that basically works in the hopes that a complete rewrite will solve all of our problems never works.

kchameleon1234• 4 years ago

Tossing out a system that basically works in the hopes that a complete rewrite will solve all of our problems never works

Does it "basically work" though? You are, for example, aware that profit motives have driven things like:

- the water crisis in Flint, Michigan;

- the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies in the early 2000s;

- the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest (and the genocide that continues to go hand in hand with it) by ranchers seeking to increase their bottom line;

- the instance by airlines to continue flying completely empty planes all over the EU "to keep takeoff and landing times";

- the refusal to pass a TRIPS waiver for the mRNA COVID vaccine that prevents much of the world from accessing the most effective vaccines in a timely manner (or at all);

- the ongoing exploitation and perpetuation of underpaid or outright slave labor in many parts of the world by countries proped up by western colonial powers intent on delivering luxury items to their citizens at relatively low costs (while still reaping massive profits off those sales);

- etc, etc, etc.

I don't disagree that we need some intermediate solution like enforcing existing anti-trust legislation, repealing anti-union restrictions that outlaw effective labor organizing techniques, actually enacting harsh and swift consequences on companies that continue to destroy the environment (and the people who live in it).

But those are only short term solutions to immediate harms being perpetuated by a system that has for well over a century brought death and destruction to the earth and its people... not to mention what capitalism's ancestors did in the never-ending, blood-thirsty western colonial expansion throughout the globe.

So yes, let's enforce anti-trust laws... but let's not do that and think that alone will solve the myriad problems that have been thrust upon the peoples of the earth by a small number of extremely rich, profit driven people. And let's definitely not claim that the system that props up and perpetuates that behavior "basically works" when for most of the people of the world it patently does not "basically work".

I don't know what the ideal system is. I have my own utopian visions but I acknowledge they'll likely never come to pass. But we _have_ to try something different than what we're doing now. The current global economic trajectory is a deathwish that most people have not consented to.

(Edited to fix list formatting)

neolefty2• 4 years ago

I agree that throwing out what we have is a recipe for disaster and reconstitution in the same or worse form. But I think we can build anew from within, constructively.

I like the Baha'i view that breaks it down into 3 components: the individual, community, and institutions, and then works on gradually reforming each of them, and recognizing their interactions. Here's my summary; there are undoubtedly better summaries out there too:

* Individual: Empower people to act on ethics first, and material benefit second — by emphasizing the inherent value of ethics, based on the view of humans as intellectual/spiritual as well as physical. Educate them to be good electors (see Institutions, below).

* Community: This is the one I understand least, but I think it's about the emergent behaviors of groups of people who interact informally. Like a neighborhood or interest group.

* Institutions: Reform their selection process & functioning. There are plenty of people who would make great public servants, but they are precisely the people who avoid our current electoral processes which are so poisonous and dumb. So have elections that focus on the qualities that are good for office — caring for the well-being of the whole, wisdom, appropriate skills & abilities — and prohibit all campaigning or discussion of individuals. You'd think it's impossible, but the Baha'i electoral process actually works in practice and people love it.

All of these need reform. A good place to look at current Baha'i thinking is the "Baha'i International Community" website: https://www.bic.org/ which is kind of a public policy outreach site.

manquer4• 4 years ago

It was not like Apple was a good considerate benevolent dictator before power got to their head. They have always been like this.

Apple won't have had the resources to develop something the Apple Silicon or most other products, if they aren't ruthless about their profit.

Is it worth the cost for society ? Depends on the POV, it sucks to be the handicraft producer when a big factory opens up, but more people do get product and benefit from it.

mchaynes4• 4 years ago

We can build amazing products and not be terrible to other people/companies. Companies rely on public funding and public technologies and therefore are accountable to do right by the public. We always make this false dichotomy of “good products or good companies” and it’s just not true

buscoquadnary• 4 years ago

If we talk at that level though there are lots of other terrible things at that level of crime. The alternative to capitalism, meaning private ownership of capital, is collective or state control of capital.

If we start talking about terrible things done by collectively or state owner endeavors we find things just as terrible like the holomdor, the 5 Year Leap. I mean don't get me wrong Apple is doing some seriously terrible things with their power grabs and monopolies, but I don't know if equates to 5 million dead of famine in 5 years, and although Google is violating my privacy and sucking up everyone's data I would prefer that over being loaded on a train to a concentration camp.

My point isn't to exonerate capitalism, because Nestle is a truly despicable company and have committed crimes of close to the same magnitude, but to believe that just changing the system is going to magically make everything better is in my opinion naive, because no matter how great you try and make your system if you fill it entirely with bad people it will result in bad outcomes.

Additionally we often find that during times of large scale change in "systems" it is more often than not the most ruthless, sociopathic, despotic individuals rise to the top because they are most willing to do whatever it takes to retain power. In contrast it seems like the activist investors that amass capital and attempt to force changes in company through monetary means is much less disruptive for the vast majority of people's lives.

EDIT: For some line breaks and missing word.

mchaynes4• 4 years ago

I don’t disagree, but fundamentally we need to remove the concept of complete “private ownership” in order to truly transfer power from the ultra powerful to the common people. If Mark Zuckerberg can still influence billions of people on a whim, then we haven’t fixed the fundamental problem. I don’t see a way to keep our system going and also give the people back the power they deserve. If there is a way, then sure let’s do it.

Those other governments had high concentrations of power at the top. They also stifled freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Too much power concentrated in one place is what causes horrible stuff. Serfs and Kings, Bureaucrats and common people, 1%’ers and poor people, etc.

It all comes down to concentrations of power.

systemvoltage• 4 years ago

Surprising how little attention this story got: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...

AFAIK, it was not in the mainstream media. Perhaps The Information credibility is an issue?

hughrr• 4 years ago

As an end user and developer I don’t care. They produce a huge market customers care about, high quality experience on the software and hardware front and mostly do the right thing.

You can always choose not to participate if these things are a problem for you. They are not a monopoly in their sector nor are they required to participate in society.

kelnos4• 4 years ago

You can always choose not to participate if these things are a problem for you.

Not always. Consider what would happen in the US if Uber decided they didn't want to participate anymore. Uber fails, and Lyft wins. This holds for companies like Spotify, Yelp, any messaging platform, food delivery, video streaming...

Sure, if you're an indie developer whose revenue doesn't depend on being on mobile platforms, this might not be a problem for you. But anything where a mobile experience is important to your revenue (or even your continued existence), you must be in the App Store (and the Play Store).

snowwrestler• 4 years ago

When Apple introduced the iPhone, it didn’t have an App Store. From the moment the iPhone was announced, everyone speculated that it was only a matter of time until one was created, and a bit more than a year later, Apple announced it would allow developers to create iPhone apps and sell them in the App Store.

This is not exactly accurate. Everyone speculated about an SDK (like for the Mac). When it was finally announced, the locked-down “App Store” aspect of it was a surprise.

And it was generally greeted positively; after all, at the time it was pretty hard and expensive to go to market with new client-side software. Websites were way easier, and in fact that is one reason Apple initially were all-in on web apps for the iPhone.

(There were also honest concerns whether Apple had the chops to adequately secure a phone SDK so that calls would always work.)

The bad feelings about it built over time. One could say that people have started taking the existence of the iOS ecosystem for granted. But the world has changed around Apple. It no longer looks hard to go to market with software, so people no longer think Apple’s cut is fair.

And I think the article is correct that Apple has increasingly viewed it as a tax, not pass-thru expense.

ksec4• 4 years ago

The bad feelings about it built over time.

The iPhone today is so much different to the iPhone in Steve Jobs era. iPhone 4 only had a 3.5" Screen. All the decisions during early iPhone era make sense. It was a phone like an appliance with some apps, and an internet communicator. It wasn't a Gaming platform that makes more money than console, nor a content consumption devices that exceed even TV, or a security or payment system used in everyday modern society. Or in every other scenario in our society which increasingly "assumes" you have a Smartphone.

I think they are applying the same rules on iPhone in a completely different situation and scenario. Which is why all the bad feeling built over time.

ksec4• 4 years ago

Only entrepreneur understand this.

"Manage the top line: your strategy, your people, and your products, and the bottom line will follow." - Steve Jobs

Most managers or CEOs just dont get it. They are always looking at their bottom line.

Edit: I just notice this quote has the word strategy in it, which is strange because Silicon Valley VC BS suggest "execution eats strategy for breakfast".

Apple’s profit is always the priority–no matter the cost

Related Stories