[rayiner]

> Even lawyers aren't immune to the unpredictability of working for a startup—and the appeal of generating high margins from selling software instead of human services.

Companies tend to do the opposite, though, right? Apple could increase its margins by selling iOS and the Ax processor IP. But it makes more “boatloads of money” selling hardware, even at lower margins. Instead of selling IP, Apple uses its superior IP to dominate the market for phones.

Its likely the issue isn’t margins, but scalability. Scaling a law firm is difficult to impossible due to conflict of interest rules. That’s why the largest international law firms have 4,000 lawyers while PWC has 230,000 accountants and advisors. That puts a low ceiling on how much you can scale while doing actual legal work.

[dctoedt]

> Scaling a law firm is difficult to impossible due to conflict of interest rules.

That's why I've long thought the conflict disqualification rules should apply only to individual lawyers, with suitable ethical walls. I strongly suspect that the traditional disqualification rules evolved in a bygone era where sole practitioners and one- or two-man (yes, man) law firms served as trusted advisers to clients who weren't that sophisticated about legal matters. It's not at all clear that firmwide disqualification for conflicts is still appropriate in an era of (i) giant global law firms and (ii) in-house counsel who are the client's actual trusted advisers and who use law firms strictly on a project basis as hired help.

[Adrienvdb]

Conflicts of interest rules make it harder for law firms to scale but it is possible by setting up Chinese walls (https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-100-8763?__lrTS...) ensuring lawyers from the same law firm can work in parallel. Ultimately, conflicts of interest rules apply to each lawyers individually, not to the law firm.

[rayiner]

The US has stricter conflicts rules, and typically impute conflicts to the firm, except inherently personal conflicts (spousal conflicts). Chinese walls require client consent, and some jurisdictions, like Texas, do not give effect to Chinese walls at all.

[dundermuffl1n]

Wrong. Apple sells its software for an extremely high margin already.

When you buy Apple hardware, you are locked in to use Apple software and nothing else. A hardware vendor like LG/Oppo/Xiaomi would rely on Android, a commodity software, and thus, have very little pricing power against its competitors. Even though the technical specs of these phones might be better than the iPhone, they would struggle to sell for half the price.

The software lock is further amplified by those custom chips that are used across the Apple ecosystem. You're likely to pay exorbitant prices for the software on MacBook and iPad as well.

Remember, Apple usually doesn't touch a single phone throughout the manufacturing process (Most of the components are manufactured by third-party vendors squeezed into razor-thin margins). After paying these vendors off, they get to turn around and sell the same hardware for $600-650 more on the market. That wouldn't have lasted if they had licensed iOS out, their pricing power would be severely diminished.