[kergonath]

> I have a hard time seeing how this doesn't end in anti-trust tears for both of them

In Apple’s case, I hope antitrust action comes before they stray too far and whilst their interests are still aligned with mine. I don’t want them to make any money from advertising, because then they have a conflict of interest and their pro-privacy arguments fall flat.

(Google is too far down that path for me to trust them in the future. Anti-privacy is also their core business, whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices).

[SaltyBackendGuy]

> whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices

I wonder if Apple is predicting that this wont be the case for much longer (lack of real innovation (excluding the M1) and market saturation), so they're being proactive to dominate another vertical. They will likely capitalize on their current image of being privacy kings.

[tsunamifury]

It’s been explicitly stated many times. It’s why Ive left. They are a “services” company now.

[clairity]

this is what you get when you elevate an operator (an operations/finance focused exective) in place of a product visionary. that's no knock on tim, who's done what he's been incentivized to do by the board and shareholders, and a good job at that (and rewarded disproportionately so). but steve wanted to win with a superior product, not just numerically as tim does. that's why steve, many years after his death, still garners more respect publicly than tim (though tim is respected too).

it's the same slow decline that happens over and over in these cases. apple is already focused primarily on services, which you can see in their financials. product has stagnated, while services continues to grow, and with it, more and more capital invested in chasing manufactured prestige awards like oscars and emmys.

[api]

Services usually mean recurring revenue which is valued at a higher multiple. It’s very hard to build a high value multiple product focused company.

[clairity]

it's certainly harder, but steve did it. tim is unable to, hence the shift to services for easier short-term growth, at the expense of long-term brand loyalty.

[stjohnswarts]

I haven't left yet but it's looking bad. They are nearly out of room to grab more market share, and can't continue growing that way, so one of the few ones left to expand is ad revenue or to purchase other companies, and Apple doesn't really seem big on polluting their brand "Apple" with "lesser" companies.

[LionTamer]

Why do you not think there is more room to grab market share in the laptop/desktop market?

[imwillofficial]

It wasn’t been explicitly stated anywhere by anyone who matters

[tsunamifury]

It was a core slide of the Leadership retreat several years back. Its been referenced several times. Hardware arrow goes down services arrow goes up.

[imwillofficial]

No no, I meant the Johnny I’ve leaving part.

You’re right on all the numbers stuff

[FredPret]

Read their financial reporting, they jump through hoops to show service revenue to their owners

[imwillofficial]

I meant johnny Ive leaving, not the financials. Agree on that one for sure.

[tsunamifury]

Two things have been stated publicly and privately in some circles.

1) shift from hardware to services 2) remaining hardware directions (VR) focused in separating users from the world vs augmenting

[chii]

Just because their primary revenue is from hardware, doesn't mean it isn't attractive to also add extra, uncorrelated revenue sources such as ads and data. Whether they have innovation or not is irrelevant to this.

[metadat]

It is relevant because transitioning from premium into an ad platform is a low-brow-caveman-bottom-of-the-bucket move, only the best one to make once you're out of better options.

Truly premium products respect your privacy.

It turns out truly premium goods aren't Google, Tesla, and soon won't be Apple, if Tim&co go down this path.

[chii]

"truly premium" is one of those no-true-scotsman arguments.

The problem is that apple intends to make maximum profit. The premium product can produce that, but if they smell that their customers don't care enough about privacy, they could _also_ sell ads on top of the premium tax. So until people starts dropping iphones because of it, they will proceed.

[kergonath]

If the US government (or any, really) makes that unattractive, then I am all for it, regardless of any innovation aspect. It’s like Samsung double-dipping by making its smart TVs gather data about their users. This should be illegal.

[chii]

oh yes, it should be illegal. Just like people should care about poverty in the world, or should care about the environment and climate change.

[ethbr0]

> I don’t want them to make any money from advertising, because then they have a conflict of interest and their pro-privacy arguments fall flat.

Absolutely. Advertising and professional services (read: consulting) are both inherently user-hostile channels of revenue, and dangerous enough they should be capped for a company's own strategic good.

Some paths are too seductive and dangerous to naively wander.

[soundnote]

> whereas Apple primarily makes money from selling devices

Microsoft primarily makes money selling software, too. Despite that they're really tracking happy. You'd think selling stuff incentivized less malicious conduct, but...