
Apple’s $1T Milestone Reflects Rise of Powerful Megacompanies - aaronbrethorst
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/apple-trillion.html
======
ckastner
Megacompany sounds intimidating, but I perceive Apple to be quite tame. They
mostly just make hardware.

It's Facebook, Google and all the others sitting on mounds of personal and
extremely detailed data (including geopositioning) that scare me.

 _Edit, to expand on the above:_

If you could copy Apple's tech, you could (theoretically) make an iPhone-
clone.

Copying Facebook's or Google's technology won't get you much because to be
truly effective, it needs a lot of data. Which is why you can find some of
their prime technology on GitHub, I guess (eg: TensorFlow).

And they are so far ahead of the pack with regards to collected data, I don't
see how they could ever be caught up with.

~~~
willtim
Apple _are_ engaged in collecting and holding data, they hold personal files,
emails, photos, calendars, location data etc. There is a financial incentive
for them to make it difficult for people to move away. Apple have also led the
trend for 1000+ dollar disposable electronics, with glued and soldered
components that cannot be easily repaired or upgraded.

~~~
scarface74
Personal files - install iCloud Drive on your computer and copy the files. You
don't even have to do that. You can log on to iCloud.com and download your
files.

Emails, Calendars - they use standard protocols. You can use any email client
to get the data off

Photos - you just plug your phone into your computer and copy the files.

Disposable electronics - seeing that Apple is releasing iOS 12 for the iPhone
5s released in 2012, how do you figure? How many Android phones from 2015 let
alone 2012 are still getting updates? Sure the phone is easy to repair - I
just take it to the Apple Store.

~~~
cptskippy
> seeing that Apple is releasing iOS 12 for the iPhone 5s released in 2012,
> how do you figure?

That's a false comparison.

A disposable device is one where the preferred method of service is
replacement rather than repair. And probably where replaced parts are
discarded or recycled rather than refurbished.

It has nothing to do with support of the hardware or software.

It's evident that the new versions of iOS are not optimized or very well
supported on older hardware. You could argue that Apple's support of OS
upgrades on older devices is primarily to avoid having to support old versions
of the OS.

~~~
wskinner
This argument is a red herring. People like new things. People like things
that work all the time without modification. Almost no one actually wants a
phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires
maintenance.

The disposable / non disposable distinction doesn’t really make sense. On a
long enough time horizon, everything is disposable. And it’s not like you
can’t replace anything on an iPhone or Mac - you can replace things like
screens, storage, memory, keyboards and so on.

~~~
takeda
> This argument is a red herring. People like new things. People like things
> that work all the time without modification. Almost no one actually wants a
> phone or computer that lasts twice as long but is bulky and requires
> maintenance.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel like throwing $1000 once a year to
have latest and greatest. I did went through several phones but that's only
because they became unusable with time as applications required more and more
resources.

We eventually got phones that are powerful enough to last for longer and even
the mid range phones are no longer crappy.

This is why the revenue of companies producing phones dropped recently. Most
people don't want to change their device that often.

~~~
wskinner
I used an iPhone 5S until iPhone 8 came out last year. I'm still using a
MacBook Air from mid 2012. Do the amortized cost math and it comes out to be
way cheaper than the internet & mobile data costs for those devices.

------
maeln
Apple still control its eco-system very tightly. Let's not forget that they
also made questionable decisions with the Apple store. They were also had one
scandal about location tracking and sharing if I remember correctly (which may
have prompted their strong stand on customer privacy nowadays).

EDIT: Yes, in 2011:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28apple.html)

~~~
ckastner
Sure, Apple isn't spotless.

But their main business model, as far as I can tell, is making money by
selling premium hardware.

Facebook et al. make money by collecting and selling other people's data.

~~~
pluma
Facebook et al. make money by harvesting your data and using it so other
people can try to sell you stuff.

Apple makes money by holding your data hostage to convince you to buy
expensive hardware.

That said, Apple's business model doesn't require them to violate your privacy
-- to derive value, they only need to hold the data you give them, not really
do anything with it. Facebook's and Google's business model is only possible
with a complete disregard for your privacy rights.

~~~
AmericanChopper
What data of mine is Apple holding hostage? As far as I can remember, I’ve
only ever brought Apple hardware because I like it so much.

~~~
mamon
I recently tried to copy a bunch of photo albums FROM iPhone TO PC. Apple
makes that difficult, because iTunes only supports synching data in the
opposite direction. Also, it would happily offer to delete your photos from
phone and replacing it with folder content from PC. Now imagine that you spill
coffee on your laptop and the only copy of your data is on iPhone - Apple
makes it difficult for you to access your own data.

~~~
scarface74
You plug in your phone to your PC and it shows up as a drive and you copy the
photos. You don't need iTunes at all.

~~~
mamon
Oh, I tried that, but you know what? Out of almost a 1000 photos I have on my
iPhone only 97 showed up, ready to be copied - the ones that I took with the
iPhone camera. Those uploaded with iTunes were inaccessible.

That’s when I decided to never buy an iDevice again.

~~~
gbear605
That's (probably) because you had your phone set to optimize storage and store
them on the cloud. You can fix this by going to the Settings app, going to
Photos, and selecting "Download and Keep Originals" instead of "Optimize
iPhone Storage."

This isn't lock-in, this is helping you by allowing you to take more photos.

------
codesternews
I am very glad and happy Apple made to this mark not any other company.

Apple makes premium product and sell it. Other companies treat you as a
product and sell you and your privacy.

~~~
mkirklions
So long HN karma...

Proprietary hardware, constantly pissing off developers and customers... Great
company /s

I dont know why Apple gets a pass for being so anti-competitive.

I remember the annoyance of buying music on itunes and being forced to burn it
to CD just to play on my mp3 player.

Today, its a multi thousand dollar event to publish an app on Apple's store,
vs the insignificant cost of publishing on Android and Web.

(If anyone has an idea how to reduce the cost of compiling my React Native app
and publishing on Apple, I'm all ears, but I'm constantly being told to spend
2k+.)

~~~
mikewhy
> Today, its a multi thousand dollar event to publish an app on Apple's store,
> vs the insignificant cost of publishing on Android and Web.

Mac Minis are definitely much less than that. Yes, you need a Mac to build
apps for their hardware. No, it's not many thousands of dollars.

------
tudorconstantin
Or is it possible to reflect inflation and the devaluation of money?

~~~
adventured
Inflation is always a factor, however Apple's performance is legitimately
extraordinary in size for any age.

In 1980 GM was considered a monster with $2.8 billion in profit, number two on
the Fortune 500 list that year (behind Exxon Mobil).

Apple's profit today rolled back to 1980 would be about $16.x billion. Roughly
six times that of GM then, and roughly four times that of Exxon, the high
mark.

Using the BLS inflation adjustment calculator, GM's profit in 1980 is about $9
billion today.

That'll get you ranked roughly #25-30 on the Fortune 500 today.

#25 in 1980 was Union Carbide at about $550m in profit, or ~$1.75b in today's
dollar. That's good for about #200 today.

The corporate profit boom isn't primarily an inflation based phenomenon, it's
the epic expansion of the global economy and the way the large S&P 500 type
firms have benefited in an outsized manner.

~~~
votepaunchy
Should this comparison also account for the growth of the US population and
economy? Inflation-adjusted GDP has tripled since 1980 and one would need to
adjust the size of the S&P accordingly to make a fair comparison.

------
polskibus
Are we slowly reaching the cyberpunk dystopia?

~~~
Nae3Au5x
China skipped straight ahead to post-cyberpunk dystopia

------
skydaddy
It's a teracompany, not a megacompamy.

~~~
clarkmoody
You skipped right over gigacompany

------
OliverJones
"Teracompany?" "Mega" is the SQUARE ROOT of the size of the biggies.

~~~
MrEldritch
Megacorporations weren't "corporations with sizes measured in megabucks" when
the term was coined either. A million dollars when Neuromancer published would
still be only two and a half million today - not particularly large.

------
a008t
There are some positive aspects to rising global inequality. Massive wealth,
concentrated in a few hands, does not really make the rest of us poorer. They
are not competing for the same goods and services as we are. It only really
hurts the rest of the population if they go on a frivolous consumption spree -
building monuments to themselves or otherwise burning resources.

What it does potentially enable, however, is grand projects that can push
humanity forward as a whole. Elon Musk with SpaceX is maybe one example. But I
would imagine the very wealthy would have a big interest in effectively
researching longevity, revolutionizing healthcare, faster travel, maybe even
building a 'comfortable' space station in a Lagrangian point which would
involve also building a Lunar base. Once these advancements are available to
the super-rich, it will not be long until they are available to the rest of us
- according to history, anyway.

I do not have the research, but from anecdotal observations, wealth created by
building legitimate businesses tends to be spent more carefully and
responsibly than wealth acquired through political connections, natural
resources, granted monopolies etc.

~~~
annabellish
As nice as that sounds, at what point do we consider it immoral for for-profit
megaprojects to come before little things, like ensuring people don't go
hungry, have adequate healthcare, or have enough savings that they can weather
minor problems?

We have commercial megaprojects like SpaceX, but the cost of this is the
society around it a) can't afford to run meaningful not-for-profit space
projects, and b) can't afford to keep the baseline level of support for its
citizens high enough for them to not spend more time worrying about how to
allocate their meager resources than they can doing things which actually
advance society.

Is that a fair tradeoff?

~~~
d_burfoot
A what point do we consider it immoral for the government to consume 40% of
GDP, given the catastrophically poor efficiency with which that money is
spent?

Take a look at the homelessness, trash- and isht-strewn streets of San
Francisco. Then observe that SF is one of the richest cities in the world,
with a ten billion dollar budget for a population of less than one million -
more than ten thousand dollars per person. How can we accept this tragicomic
failure?

~~~
PopsiclePete
Since when is "Government efficiency" supposed to be such an important goal in
itself? Let me guess - "It should be run like a corporation!" No, it really,
really shouldn't.

~~~
chrisdhoover
There is corporate corruption that periodically gets regulated and a few
corrupt people are thrown in jail as an example.

Then there is government corruption which is unbounded by regulation.
Occasionaly you get Leland Yee who ventured out of government corruption and
into out right mafia crime but for the most part politians stay in their lanes
and reap the bennies of corruption.

------
pluma
The reason Apple is so big is that they were clever enough not to create an
anti-competitive monopoly. Ironically the way they did this was by creating a
walled garden that doesn't actually allow for any competition.

They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app
stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead
Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar
lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes.

Another deciding factor is that Apple increasingly focuses on a specific
segment of the market, becoming a lifestyle brand more than a tech company.
This has allowed them to create a perception of ubiquity without actually
having to control the majority of the market (internationally, anyway) yet
still making loads of money because the segment they focus on is so willing to
part with money (not just for $1000 iPhones but also $70 cables and $20 apps).

Google and Microsoft needed anti-competitive contracts to gain a majority
share of devices (Android smartphones for Google, the IBM-compatible PC
desktop for Microsoft) because those devices were running other companies'
hardware. Similar strategies are still being used to wall-in the web (with
Google's AMP and Facebook's Instant Articles).

Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using
iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech
to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other
option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or
consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet).

Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury:
you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google
laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a
Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing.

Microsoft's answer is similar to part of Apple's strategy: focus on a specific
market segment. Their segment of choice is enterprise users, but also
developers (a segment which conveniently Apple has lately been neglecting).

Google's answer is to lock you in by hoarding all your data and providing
value based on being able to harvest all that data.

Facebook seems to be copying Google's approach, except they don't even
distract themselves with smartphones or laptops and go straight for all your
friends and family by owning your communication (both indirect via your
Facebook feed and direct via WhatsApp).

That said, I believe "privacy violations as a business model" is a consequence
of the US startup scene's heavily anti-privacy legal context. It will be
interesting to see how these companies adapt as privacy regulations like the
GDPR show their teeth and international laws begin to follow. Data ownership
and privacy as rights aren't exactly compatible with how these companies need
to operate in order to function.

~~~
scarface74
_Ironically the way they did this was by creating a walled garden that doesn
't actually allow for any competition._

There is plenty of competition. If you don't want what Apple sells at the
price it sells it at, you buy an Android or Windows device - like most of the
world does.

 _They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app
stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead
Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar
lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes._

There is an existence proof that proves that's not true. Microsoft and Google
are doing the same thing - just not as successfully.

 _Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you 're using
iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech
to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other
option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or
consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet)._

How does iMessage preclude you from texting Android users? On the other hand,
thier are dozens of cross platform messaging apps.

iTunes is available for Windows. Even without that being the case, iTunes
purchased music has been DRM free for a decade and you can transfer most of
your purchased digital movies over to Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu using
Movies Anywhere.

 _Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don 't have that luxury:
you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google
laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a
Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing._

Seeing that Apple sells at least 10-15 times more iPhones than Macs, most
iPhone users are obviously Windows users. Apple sees this, they released
iTunes for Windows over 15 years ago and they have iCloud extensions for
Chrome, IE, and Firefox for windows to sync bookmarks.

~~~
com2kid
> There is plenty of competition. If you don't want what Apple sells at the
> price it sells it at, you buy an Android or Windows device - like most of
> the world does.

Google just got hit with a massive fine in the EU for how they forced
companies making Google Certified Android devices to only make Google
Certified devices.

They got punished for being more open than Apple, but not open enough.

There is this weird legal area where if your ecosystem is completely closed,
and you are completely vertically integrated, you can do whatever you want,
but as soon as you open up a little bit, you have to open up a lot or get in
legal trouble.

~~~
scarface74
Google forcing other manufacturers not to make other products is nowhere on
the scale of “open”. That would be like Apple telling Foxconn, ARM, TSMC,
TomTon etc that they can’t do business with any other company

------
buboard
Rise or peak?

~~~
fauigerzigerk
That's a good question. The number of iOS devices sold is stagnating. Mac
numbers (in units sold) are falling precipitously (-14%).

Revenue has grown because they were able to raise prices and because they sold
more services. I think the room for price increases is limited.

So it's all down to services now. I think there is room for growth given their
high income customer base, but it will change their business model in ways
that will spark many debates on here.

------
puranjay
Apple has stumbled a great deal in the Indian market. If it gets its Indian
strategy right, it's looking at billions more in revenue.

~~~
the6threplicant
They'll need phones with two SIM cards. Every Indian IT person I've met in
India always look at me with disdain, but also :), when I tell them I can only
have one SIM in my phone.

~~~
agumonkey
one for friends and one for jobs ?

~~~
sumedh
Most use one sim as their primary sim while the other sim is the one which has
the cheapest data plan.

Number portability came to India late so having two sims gave you best of both
the worlds and now people are just used to having two sims.

~~~
auggierose
I always wondered where that two-sim feature request comes from. I really only
need one.

------
crististm
...and also the effects of monetary inflation

------
droopybuns
Not a new phenomenon. Let's just keep things in perspective, starting with the
Dutch East India Trading company.

[http://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-
all-...](http://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-all-time/)

"I don’t measure the world by human simplifications like round numbers" -Woz

------
ape4
Gigacompany

~~~
kanox
Teracompany, because trillion

~~~
dougmwne
If we take the Russell 3000's market cap (~30T) which contains ~98% of all US
stock market cap we find that the average corporation(where corporation is
defined as a major entity and not a small business) is worth .01 trillion or
10 billion. That would make Apple a Hectocorp.

