- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- world@lemmy.world
“Bureaucrats in Brussels” are unfairly challenging Apple’s closed ecosystem and denying users the “magical, innovative experience” that makes the firm unique, Apple said.
The so-called walled garden that combines Apple’s products and software ensures a safe and high quality experience for users, it says, but EU regulators counter that it unfairly shuts out rivals.
This comment section, except it’s a multi-trillion dollar one.
Can I play devil’s advocate here?
Apple’s closed ecosystem competes with Google and others’ “open” ecosystems, but they have different financial strategies. Google and others make money from almost monopolized services and data collection, actual price of their products is kinda low. Apple makes money from what their users pay inside their ecosystem.
Apple has a visible nickel-and-dime trap, most of big tech have those traps far more subtle.
So in absolutes their game is unfair, but in relatives they are by far neither the worst offenders nor the most dangerous.
Competitive financial strategies in tech are still a problem. We have FOSS projects pretending to have a way, but increasingly corporate-controlled, we have “good” companies which all went bankrupt 20 years ago, and we have “bad” companies which were too “good” then compared to now, and we have vultures like Google and Facebook. And we have Apple which was one of the “good” ones, but lines and graphs kinda didn’t work well, and then they found a way, and then another.
It might well be that with forward pricing, not implicit costs, Apple devices would cost 2x what they cost now, and other stuff as much as Apple devices.
And if regulations force them to do that, it’s fine, except the transient process matters. Kill Google and MS before killing Apple, if shorter.
Apple gets money from both their monopoly on user data and their high prices. That’s why it’s above Microsoft and Google in market cap, even though it doesn’t have nearly as much infrastructure and reach.
It designs its own hardware, though.
I’m not saying it’s a virtuous company, just a bit better than others (which is not cheap if you’re not oligarch’s blonde daughter).
It doesn’t. It designs part of the chips that go into their phones.
Google also designs chips that go into its phones, and Microsoft has also designed chips and security co processors that have gone into PCs.
(Of course, I’d never consider a Microsoft “security co processor” secure, nor an apple or google one).
[edit] I also do not see your point of apple being better (or more virtuous) than google or microsoft for designing their own hardware, for 2 different reasons:
Currently Microsoft and Google have immense control over the software of PCs and phones. Apple wants to have full control of both the software and the hardware, and making their own hardware is a big step towards that goal. It means they’re restricting you (the user) from using the hardware you bought for your own purpose.
Making custom hardware does not make a company more or less virtuous. Manufacturing/designing capabilities are just spending money in the respective industry. As I mentioned before, both Google and Microsoft have designed their own chips, and they also have designed chips for their servers. I would also argue that we should stop humanizing companies. They don’t have human traits, they’re not virtuous, they’re just there to take your money and go.
Agree on that.