
Apple’s Insurmountable Platform Advantage - Doubleguitars
http://stevecheney.com/on-apples-incredible-platform-advantage/
======
nulldereference
Not so much a comment about this particular article but its funny how
companies are realizing the advantages of being fully vertical again, and we
the consumers get to witness the the pros and cons of this trend.

It goes back to the days where DEC, NCR, IBM etc... came with entire
portfolios of competing implementations, none of which interoperated with each
other. IBM for example also had the "Insurmountable Platform Advantage", it
had the full stack ... literally, from sillion, chip design, operating-systems
all the way up to software-services, but the industry lost out due to big
blue's big-iron prices and the pc clone-wars began.

I don't see what the pc clone-wars are in this case, android doesn't seem to
make much of dent in apple's profits here.

~~~
gaius
True story: DEC was so vertically integrated that it owned a turkey farm,
because that was the most cost-effective way to give every employee a turkey
for Thanksgiving.

~~~
Scaevolus
Do you have a source for that? It seems far more humorous than probable.

------
Mikeb85
This is a ridiculous article. When you talk about a platform's 'advantage',
you're talking about features that enable it to dominate its sector.

Apple does no such thing. They make lots of money, but they don't dictate the
direction tech is going. They make nice devices for the present, but they
offer no additional utility over an Android device.

The fact that Google doesn't make as much money selling phones is a moot point
because they're more of a service provider than a hardware manufacturer. They
want you to be using Google services, and Android/Nexus products merely enable
that.

As for the utility of an iPhone vs. Android, my Android phone (via Google
services) keeps track of traffic for my various commutes (work and school),
makes appointments for me based on the content of e-mails (reads schedules,
meeting times), and does all sorts of other predictive magic. And has been
doing this for awhile now. Apparently Apple just started adding these features
to iOS 9 (as well as split-screen multitasking, their new Notes app, public
transportation on Maps, )? Dunno, based on the feature sheet of iOS 9, seems
like Apple is 2-3 years behind Google/Samsung.

~~~
ap3
The article is not about features, but about profits. But to your point about
features: Follow the money. How else would Apple be making so much money if
not by giving customers the features they want. That is exactly how they make
money: features.

In Apple's case the hardware is a feature. Performance is a feature. Build
quality is a feature - all of those things come from manufacturing. By
controlling the whole process they can ensure quality from both the software
and hardware sides.

You are correct that unlike Apple, Google is not a hardware manufacturer, they
sell ads - but they are still trying to make money. It's just that they make
most of their revenue from ads, and Android is a way for them to ensure they
can capture the ads in the mobile space without being shut out by the iPhone.

But, how long will HTC, Huaweii, Nokia, Motorola be around making smartphones
for the Android platform if they are not making any money ? Who will make
Android phones without turning a profit ?

As for your quote:

> They make lots of money, but they don't dictate the direction tech is going.

I will offer this example: \- touchscreen phones ( find a smartphone that is
not like the iphone)

~~~
Mikeb85
Google makes money. Samsung makes money. Xiaomi makes money. I'm sure others
do too, even if it's less than Apple.

The fact some companies don't make money is meaningless. Is it Microsoft's
fault if an OEM goes out of business?

And the innovation thing goes both ways. Yes Apple popularized a form factor,
but remember there still was BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Maemo, etc..., before
iOS.

And every new feature on iOS 9's launch page is more or less taken from
Android, some features being several years old.

Thinking about technology that developers use, very little comes from Apple.
They contribute, but no one is launching their startup on OSX servers. No one
is coding the next search engine in Objective C or Swift. Apple products are a
shiny computer that hosts apps.

The point of the article is that Apple has an unassailable position. That's
what a lot of people thought about Volkswagen a year ago. What they thought of
Microsoft a decade ago. Also what we think of Google today... The point is,
Apple does nothing so special that they can't be beaten.

------
mortenjorck
This is a fascinating perspective, but I can't help but wonder if it cuts both
ways: In the same way that current auto makers may underestimate their
dependence on commodity chips in EVs and autonomous cars, the author may be
underestimating Apple's potential dependence on commodity mechanical systems.

Of course, there's no reason Apple couldn't suddenly pick up one of Delphi's
smaller competitors next week.

~~~
stevedc3
Author of the piece here. Thanks for the perspective. Note it's interesting
that Tesla was able to start out (with a fraction of Apple's resources) by
building their first car on the Lotus platform. The mechanical stuff is
interestingly not expensive compared to technology R&D at all. Which makes
sense when you think about modern manufacturing and materials.

~~~
jasode
_> Tesla was able to start out [...] by building their first car on the Lotus
platform._

Well, Tesla Roadster used the Lotus body (shape) but not the engine and
drivetrain.

~~~
Mikeb85
Lotus didn't make the engine for the Elise. The 'platform' is the
chassis/suspension.

------
petra
To a certain extent , the story of "important and unique manufacturing
processes" is a story every luxury brand tells his customers ,and it's an
important marketing tool.

As for most iPhone users, who mostly use the iPhone for social media and
casual games, i'm not sure it's hardware differentiation is that critical.
Maybe it was before, but it's not today(since android has matured). It's
certainly not in the top 5 biggest competitive advantages the iPhone has,while
more mundane things have much more importance like: control of iMessage,
strong status symbol, people being used to the platform ,etc

------
blub
Overoptimistic.

There is no insurmontable platform advantage. Microsoft's Windows and Google's
Android are in their best shape yet and one can switch platforms without major
inconveniences. Maybe there's the exception of very specialized software
applications not available on all platforms, but for most apps, they cost 0.99
because that's what they're worth. Hardwarewise Apple is best in class, but
Lumias are fine and I'm guessing there's Android manufacturers that don't
suck.

My point is that yes, you probably won't get such a good overall package from
anyone else except Apple, but that package does cost a ton of money, and you
can get something more than decent for a third of that price. Can't really
imagine what an Apple car would do that other cars couldn't, except maybe
driving itself, but then I don't see why Apple would beat Google & the others
to the punch.

------
listic
Why would custom chips be particularly useful for tomorrow's cars? Commodity
chips seem to be good, so far.

Looks like the author stretches the usefullness of Apple' vertical integration
too far.

~~~
pohl
I can imagine one asking the same question with regard to the value of custom
chips in phones, just prior to the appearance of the M7 through M9.

~~~
petra
It's all part of the apple bullshit marketing:

"Chipworks found that the M7 most likely is a NXP LPC1800 based
microcontroller called LPC18A1. It uses an ARM Cortex-M3 core with a
customised packaging and naming scheme indicating that it is for an Apple
customized part"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_motion_coprocessors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_motion_coprocessors)

~~~
pohl
That may be true, but for the purposes of the above question, the name of the
thing doesn't really matter so much, does it?

------
dmishe
>radio interface (RF) chips that traditionally were off limits to all but the
most advanced chip makers like Qualcomm. These chips rival CPUs in complexity.

This is interesting, I want to know more about why are they so complex?

~~~
stevedc3
Analog circuitry is the most complex in chip design. It's part art part
science. At the end of the day radio waves are traveling through the air and a
lot of things can go wrong.

------
DiabloD3
Hardware doesn't sell the platform, however. The software ecosystem does. Due
to the direction OSX is taking, my MBPr I have now will be the last one I own,
I will be replacing it with something that runs Windows, most likely a Surface
product.

I use Windows 10 on my desktop. OSX cannot be realistically installed on non-
Apple hardware, and I built the equivalent of a $4000-6000 Mac Pro for less
than half the cost; OSX also has very poor multi-monitor support, which I
need, which is a bit ironic given Classic MacOS did it pretty well.

I'm considering ditching my Nexus 5 for a Lumia 950 for proper cross-device
ecosystem usage (since there is no "Google Desktop" no matter how much Google
tries to push ChromeOS), and if I buy a Lumia 950, I'm probably going to buy a
Band 2 to go with it (which Google and Apple both want to just magically go
away, along with Cortana on Android). I do not rely on Google Drive or Google
Docs, I use Google Photos just as backup storage for photos, and I use Google
Music merely as a front end of my collection and do not buy music through it
and rarely use the radio.

Also, I'm seriously considering dropping Evernote for OneNote for my personal
notes (I already use it via Office365 for Business, and it is such a superior
product), I already use Excel heavily for tasks that don't warrant full scale
programming attached to a database, I find Outlook to be a superior email
client, and I use OneDrive to sync Office and OneNote files across all of my
devices (including OSX and Android). All of these are natively supported on
Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile.

So, explain to me, what does Apple offer me? Or Google for that matter? I
don't care what the hardware in the phone is as long as it works, I don't care
what the OS does as long as it works: I use a computer to _do things_ , not to
sit around and looking at how shiny the UI chrome looks like.

The most ironic thing in my entire life? I spent a good 15-20 years just
bashing Microsoft for sucking (legitimately so, I might add), but somehow,
with their new CEO, Satya Nadella, they have managed to double down on their
core strengths and make products people want.

The biggest problem with Microsoft was the massive lack of core integration of
the OS and the hardware, there was no synergy. Major hardware manufacturers
would invent standards that OSes (Windows or not) had trouble dealing with,
and any time Microsoft tried to force a standard onto manufacturers, unless
they could get Intel to bite, the standard would either fail, or be badly
implemented in every possible way.

Windows now has their own core devices that are _designed_ for Windows, by
Microsoft, from the ground up. Windows for phones are now a first tier product
that _is_ Windows, something more than merely being the iOS to Windows' OSX.
And, unlike OSX, I am still free to run Windows on any computer I choose to
buy or build (including my MBPr, if I choose to) _while_ still being able to
choose tightly integrated product lines like Surface _without_ either being
second class citizens.

Microsoft, internally, seems to treat Surface and Lumia like their Pixel and
Nexus. Product lines that are top tier and show other manufacturers how to
build products worthy of Windows.

Does Apple try to build an ecosystem other people get to belong to, even
though they want to? No. Does Google do that? No, for the opposite reasons,
you CAN use their APIs, but no one wants to.

Microsoft just wants my money, and makes it as easy as possible for me to give
it to them. Apple wants my money, but wants ALL of my money and won't let me
realistically integrate it into my existing pile of devices. Google wants my
money (I think? Do they? Sometimes I question this), but doesn't have a
complete ecosystem that makes sense.

And Linux? I ran that as my primary desktop OS for 15 years. Linux on the
desktop is a dead dream to me, Gnome 3, and PA, and SystemD, and CFS/cgroups,
and all this other weird shit that no one ever wanted just sort of killed it;
and I hoped that at least Wayland would come in and finally unfuck the
underlying windowing and rendering system (ie, making all the work poured into
Mesa/Gallium/DRI3000/etc worth it) just... didn't happen. I still adore Linux
on the server, but, yeah, no, it doesn't belong on my desktop anymore.

~~~
LeoNatan25
Just wait until you try a high PPI screen on Windows. You say Linux is a dead
dream for you, well high PPI screen on Windows is a dead dream to me. I don't
use Metro/Modern UI software, and it seems most software has been stuck at
Windows 7 API level for obvious reasons. The result? Ugly ugly ugly. And it
will not change any time soon due to 99.9% of Windows (be it XP, 7, 8 or 10)
running on cheap hardware with even cheaper TN panels. Even on Microsoft's new
hardware, the jarring difference is horrendously apparent even after a quick
use. And at this point, if you limit yourself to only the software that is
properly PPI aware, you will be much more productive on OS X.

