[ubermonkey]

Honestly, the arguments in this series of posts are not strong. I laughed out loud when I got to his complaints about Apple's headphone chips and the ease of pairing they allow -- and how it's somehow unfair that Apple, having developed this competitive advantage, is refusing to share it with other companies.

What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?

[modo_mario]

>What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?

Well in this case some of the reasons seem to be anticompetitive behaviour.

Tech geeks like to use their general purpose machines where they have a choice to pick their preferred tools and programs rather than feel like they're being pushed to get trapped in a walled garden of everything [company x] that comes to exist by said company exploiting monopsonies and leveraging it's platform control to slowly increase it's clout and push out competitors.

Yes the same can apply to Microsoft or the like in other/similar cases.

[totalZero]

The counterargument is that Apple is not at fault for its own success, and it would be anti-competitive to hamstring Apple simply because its ecosystem is profitable. The company clearly does not have market control in personal computing hardware, and competes with Samsung and others in the mobile device market, so what exactly is the reason that Apple can't try to convert its platform into a conduit for services revenue?

[harry8]

The usual dichotomy is that if you control the platform, you can't sell using it will lead to an abuse of market power.

Eg "If we're massively successful in building/buying the water distribution network in $city why hamstring us?" Is an argument that holds no water.

There's a decreasing long-run average total cost curve for systems software. Which is why microsoft dominated the desktop for so long and why there are only 2 viable phone operating systems - where the veondors and controllers of those operating systems use their massive market power to compete in how much abuse of the users they can dole out.

I realise trying to explain conflict of interest and market power abuse to fans of a company that literally tax the revenue of anyone selling software on their phones and tablets, then destroy success by competing with it unfairly abusing that platform control, is doomed. But it remains a very strong economic argument based on the technical defintion of market failure accross the spectrum of economics as I studied it late last century, from Friedman to Keynes.

As ever, anything that contains "...with a computer" prevents most adults from engaging the critical thought region of their brain. [1]

[1] I'm really happy to have people disagree with me on specifics if they can explain why this thing "..with a computer" is different and needs to be treated differently in law and policy to the same thing, contstructed with thousands of people, filing cabinets, paper and old-school dial-up telephones. Imagine how you would provide the service with the latter. What policy is appropriate? What law is appropriate? When should that law be enforced? Then apply just that to the same system with a bunch of servers and software.

If that "same system - computerless" analysis and case was made each time, we'd have much more sensible policy and policy discussion. I can dream, right?

I wrote this with a computer. :s

[modo_mario]

>The counterargument is that Apple is not at fault for its own success

No it isn't a counterargument unless you think it's success is solely the consequence of it's anticompetitive market practices...in which case yes it's definitely at fault for it's own success.

>so what exactly is the reason that Apple can't try to convert its platform into a conduit for services revenue?

They can charge high rates by virtue of having created a monopsony in what's essentially a duopoly. This is bad for the consumer. This is bad for competition. This is bad for capitalism.

It's entrenched enough and able enough to extract this way that it's value soared to more than the GDP of a host of countries including Italy, Brazil, Canada and Russia and still there's plenty licking their boot because their product is good.

If a water utility country delivers the freshest and well filtered water to your home if it does so at ridiculous rates because it pushes legislature in it's favour and stomps on the competition using it's clout then that's still a shit state of affair

The fact that there's an alternative option in a duopoly rolling with these high rates protecting both from being called out and split up doesn't matter much. Especially if they only deliver sparkling water which you happen to dislike. Looking back it's a bad analogy because these companies would do a whole host more than just water and interconnect their services.

[duhi88]

They're not the underdog anymore, they're very profitable, they make lukewarm claims for headlines that fall apart under scrutiny (the kind of scrutiny that tech geeks are all about), and in recent history have acted pretty badly towards developers.

All that said, after building a Linux machine for development and general client work, I consider Macs the best option out there. Everything from being able to copy 2FA codes from my phone and pasting on my computer, to colored tags and smart folders in Finder make my work easier. Also, Bluetooth is just a breeze under macOS.

[f1refly]

Hate to be that guy, but I copy paste clipboard contents across devices with kde connect. It's so reliable that I tried doing it when fixing my mum's computer without realizing it's not a magic built in thing that computers just do for some reason.

[wayneftw]

I can't find this for iOS, but I only searched briefly.

I did see some Reddit thread about someone creating an iOS port but saying that it lacked all the functionality of the Android app.

[nvrspyx]

That's because it's impossible to implement that functionality in iOS with its locked-down APIs. It's the same reason that Microsoft's Your Phone app is limited on iOS compared to Android. On iOS, only Apple has the privilege to implement such features and they limit the interoperability with macOS.

[f1refly]

Considering that your're not allowed to do anything interesting with the system when developing for ios, that's not surprising to me. I connect my android with my gnu/linux machine and my windows videogame box, that's all I tested.

[lern_too_spel]

On Android, I can transparently use a third party messaging service that also delivers phone calls and messages to my computers. I don't even need my phone with me to do what rendezvous does. This just isn't possible on iOS due to its restrictions on APIs available to third parties.

[yepthatsreality]

> What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?

Ask yourself the reverse too while you're at it:

> What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to like them in such a public and performative way?

[ubermonkey]

I see the former CONSTANTLY here. I never see the latter.

[yepthatsreality]

You never see people going on about how Apple products work for them and how much they love their products? You never see people defending Apple’s premium pricing because they believe Apples products just work even though it’s unlikely that every iteration is perfect off the factory line? John Gruber articles gushing about Apple products are never posted to HN?

Just because there’s healthy criticism doesn’t mean it’s some negative malevolent argument. Most criticism of Apple is activist focused. Most gushing about Apple is consumerist focused.

People are actively trying to move off closed platforms. So what?

[JMTQp8lwXL]

And, on the converse side, why is there a class of tech geek that always strongly defends Apple in the comments? No matter how strong or weak the original criticism is, the top comment basically laughs it out of the room. It is never taken seriously. Could we not equally characterize the defenses as 'public and performative' as well, and if not, why not?

In either case, I agree with you people generally have strong feelings about Apple, relative to other companies. The existence of one side brings out the other more (compared to a baseline where more people have no opinion or are neutral).

[varispeed]

It's usually people who feel sour about spending their savings on Apple product and want to justify it so hard, they'll try to shut down anyone with even a hint of criticism for that product. They just cannot feel they might be in the wrong. It's actually an effective litmus test for one's personality and you can more easily filter out your circle based on how well people take such criticism.

[colejohnson66]

Or just people who are sick of seeing it every post. It’s the same with Microsoft (I hate the constant unjustified EEE claims). It adds nothing to the discussion and only starts flame wars.

Apple fanbois are annoying, but Apple haters are equally annoying. The idea that any sane person could like Apple for reasons other than being sheep never crosses their mind.

[ubermonkey]

>It's usually people who feel sour about spending their savings on Apple product and want to justify it so hard

That's a really weird assertion.

Nerds as a tribe are typically not willing to let factually incorrect statements pass without refutation, but if we do that re: Apple, it's because we're insecure about my tech choices? I mean, seriously?

[ok_coo]

Because of their behavior. A recent example is their actions around (not) allowing cloud gaming on their platform.

xCloud and Stadia have been trying to get iOS apps setup and Apple keeps stopping the apps. Apple does not have their own cloud gaming platform. They have been hypocritical about what apps and behavior they do or don't allow on their iOS platform.

Cloud gaming is just one recent example, is this behavior not worth of antitrust?

[CharlesW]

> xCloud and Stadia have been trying to get iOS apps setup and Apple keeps stopping the apps.

Apple did indeed do that before they had guidelines that could accommodate this new streaming app distribution model. But now they do.[1]

These companies can choose other platforms if the iOS platform experience doesn't meet their needs, OR choose to support an iOS-compatible web distribution experience.[2]

[1] "Apple’s new App Store guidelines carve out loopholes for xCloud, Stadia, and other apps that Apple had blocked": https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/11/21432695/apple-new-app-st...

[2] "Microsoft is bringing xCloud to iOS via the web": https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21508706/microsoft-xcloud...

[mrandish]

Personally, I don't generally choose Apple products for my own use because I tend to prioritize customization, flexibility, cost and a wider range of choices over simplicity, ubiquity, consistency and aesthetics. However, I concede that Apple makes some outstanding hardware and is generally an innovative, well-run company and the world is better for having the company in it. There are many users and use cases for which Apple's offerings are an excellent fit (including my own mother).

Most of my personal usage concerns are around the software and content areas where the user types and use cases Apple tends to prioritize aren't a good fit for my needs. For example, the focus in iOS on content consumption and app-snacking vs flexible content authoring and application depth (speaking-broadly here, as there are certainly notable counter-examples).

From a meta-perspective, as a long-time software-centric serial entrepreneur, I feel the long-term, net impacts on the market of Apple's app and content business models is, at-best, mixed for third-party developers. It can be excellent for very large developers with established brands and/or customer bases as well as the single-digit percentage of app developers that score a mega-hit. It can also be a good deal for small part-time devs that just want to get started quickly and don't necessarily need to count on consistent long-term revenue to make a house payment or employee payroll.

The app store model introduced a different set of trade-offs for developers because Apple retains certain significant value components for themselves such as the direct customer relationship, finely-grained control of distribution, some promotion avenues, margins and available business models. They also force certain requirements on developers. I agree that some of these requirements are also net benefits for users (eg privacy, compatibility, etc). However, they are also differentiators for Apple's offerings and enablers of Apple's extraordinary business model success.

Unlike some others, I don't believe Apple is guilty of being a monopoly (as defined by regulatory agencies) and don't see Apple's strategy as even especially predatory or deceptive. Sure, it's boldly aggressive and perhaps lopsided in Apple's favor, at least as compared to the Wintel proposition before it. But it's not fundamentally immoral, unethical or illegal. Certainly, the net effects and trade-offs of the app store value proposition to developers (and users) should be well-understood by now. If it's not a good fit, developers (or customers) should evaluate alternatives and respond appropriately depending on their preferences, context, requirements and priorities.

Finally, I think the difference between my viewpoint and that of Apple's biggest fans or harshest critics is more a matter of subjective value-judgements and perspective than objective right vs wrong. For example, I'm probably influenced by personally benefiting from valuation increases based on having durable customer relationships and diverse distribution channels.

[Shivetya]

Sadly many are very anti success here when it comes to corporations. It is all okay when you are the underdog but when you become top tier suddenly everyone piles on to nitpick

you can read stories throughout the history of HN and see where a company was being heralded for what they were doing only to be criticized later on for the same or similar.

We will never have a world where every company is equally successful and rarely does one company stay at the top for very long. Apple has been at the top of the "their" game for a relatively short amount of time considering how long they have been around. Same with other companies

[wayneftw]

> What IS it about Apple...?

I guess you haven't been around for the past 20-30 years? They're part of a culture war that they helped create surrounding Mac vs PC, iOS vs Android.

Steve Jobs even created these types of wars in-house. (e.g. the new Mac team vs everybody else - see The Pirates of Silicon Valley) Business is war.

People choose sides and they must defend their choice out of pride. It's like Ford vs Chevy.

Beyond that - Apple is very much against putting general computing freedom in the hands of users especially in iOS but also definitely in macOS. Lots of people hate a tyrant and don't want to work with them and will try to convince people who don't care about that to join them. And of course there are people who disagree.

So that's basically where you get all the anti/pro Apple argumentation.

[ubermonkey]

Wow. Most of what you wrote would have to improve to be considered merely wrong.

[wayneftw]

Okay. I'm not wrong at all but I'll wait for your explanation as to why you think I'm wrong and also what the correct answer is in your opinion.

Without either of those, your comment is just noise.

Oh I see, you're the one asking the question - Pfft so, since you don't know the answer yourself I'd love to hear how you know that my answer is incorrect. I've only been around computer culture since the 70s when Apple was born... what could I possibly know?