
Apple, Amazon, and Common Enemies - davidmckenna
https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-amazon-and-common-enemies/
======
three_seagrass
It's still baffling that Apple is allowed to have such strict controls over
their platform while still competing with the products they're charging rent
to to be on it (i.e. iTunes & Spotify).

I get why some make the analogy with _Grocery Stores_ and stocking their in-
house brands (e.g. Safeway with Signature, Apple with iTunes), but with Apple,
it's like the customer has already bought the grocery store and Apple is still
charging rent on their shelves.

At least it looks like they're loosening the controls a bit with deals, but
that's only for big overlapping partners like Amazon.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
This might be an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don't only pay Apple for the
smartphone's hardware. I'm also paying Apple to curate my experience.

As a developer, I understand wanting to get access to a large user base. I
understand wanting to keep costs down, especially as an indie dev. And I
definitely understand wanting to keep my margins high, to fund better
development but also retire early!

As a customer, I'd prefer _even stricter_ controls on the app store and even
more curation to keep pushing the application quality higher. If Apple needs
to charge developers to ensure the quality of applications is constantly
improving, then I'm happy they do. I'm also happy to wait for a killer app[1],
deploy it to Android first and then bring it over to iOS when the demand is
enough to negotiate with Apple.

[1] e.g. When I switched over to iOS I had to give up Swiping to type on my
keyboard, for a few years till iOS was able to catch up. I understood Apple's
rationale and waited. Now with iOS and a Swipe keyboard I am an even happier
customer.

~~~
askafriend
> I'm also paying Apple to curate my experience

100% agree. I pay the premium because of the walled garden. I _prefer_ it. I
_want_ Apple to have a tight grip over suppliers. I _want_ Apple to have a
tight grip over the experience on their platforms. I _want_ Apple to have a
tight grip over their 3rd party developers.

In fact, I say this as an engineer myself; I even develop for Apple's platform
so I'm impacted by their dev-facing decisions!

In my nearly 2 decade history with Apple as a customer, I often align with
their principles and I want them to make decisions for me. I _do not_ value an
open platform. I only value a good user experience and I value my problems
being solved in _consistent_ and elegant ways with a focus on design.

People act as if customers are somehow duped into the walled garden. NO!
That's missing the entire thesis of Apple and the driving force behind their
success.

This is my opinion and you don't have to agree with it. I almost never express
this opinion in discussions like this because why bother. But I figured it's
helpful for others to see this opinion represented.

~~~
three_seagrass
Are those mutually exclusive though?

Apple can control the user experience on the device you bought without forcing
a 30% surcharge against the competition.

~~~
askafriend
> Apple can control the user experience on the device you bought without
> forcing a 30% surcharge against the competition.

I don't disagree with you.

My response was meant to be general, not a direct response to the article. I
didn't mean to imply that Apple gets everything right. I just wanted to
express how all the things that HN thinks Apple gets wrong, are exactly the
things that I (and many others) value deeply and pay a premium for.

------
enos_feedler
>Content has extremely high fixed costs, and zero marginal costs; it follows,
then, that the fiscally responsible content producers sell that content to as
many outlets as possible

I wonder if this means Netflix may try to maximize some of it's best content
more by taking out of streaming inventory and charging to purchase/rent
individual series and movies? all within the Netflix app?

~~~
sjg007
Netflix doesn’t need or want to segment the market. Most consumers will stick
with one streaming service that is good enough. Apple needs transactions.
Netflix needs subscriptions. Amazon takes both but really only wants prime
members. Amazon is actually useful though because you can consolidate HBO,
showtime etc.. under a single login. It can work under Apple but it’s a lot
harder to switch between devices.

------
fxtentacle
TLDR: Both are afraid of Netflix making channel subscriptions superfluous.

It's an interesting read with lots of explanations.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I think this whole way of thinking about Netflix is dumb though, e.g. “
Netflix dominating means that shows are sold directly to Netflix.”

Netflix is not good at creating content. As time goes forward, Netflix is even
less good as they need to cater to mass markets, thereby losing niche markets,
and without having a brand or catalog like a Disney, or live sports, or
trusted news, etc.

Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and
will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators.

~~~
xkjkls
> Netflix is not good at creating content.

Why would you say that? These days, many of the most talked about and watched
shows are Netflix content. Like for instance, Tiger King is the most talked
about show in America right now, Netflix owned and produced.

> Netflix is not a business entity I would long. It is absolutely a fad, and
> will lose negotiating power to distributors and content creators.

This seems to be a five plus year ago view on the company. They've pivoted
mostly to making original content at this point, which in my mind is the
hardest reason to be long them. They've had to accumulate enormous debt to
produce all of this content and have exclusive ownership rights, which makes
their balance sheet look terrible.

~~~
eitally
I think a perhaps more accurate way of stating the position is that "Netflix
is not good enough at creating enough good content [to make up for 1) existing
back catalogs and 2) parallel activity from strong competition]. I don't think
anyone could definitively state that Netflix content is subpar when it's at
its best, but I also don't think anyone would suggest they'd be willing to
give up the big studios and rely exclusively on Netflix original content.

~~~
Talanes
As things start to fracture more and more, the big studios kind of find
themselves in the same position. Disney+ probably has one of the strongest
single-publisher back catalogs, and there's still a lot of talk about there
being nothing to watch after you finish the few originals and whatever old
thing you were interested in.

~~~
xkjkls
Yeah, Netflix has far more new exclusive content. And by that, I'm counting
out all of the currently released movies Disney has also on Disney+, since
many saw those in theaters.

~~~
mark-r
Disney knows better than most how much appeal there is in movies that you've
already seen.

------
modsRapple
"Apple’s dominant position in portable devices, particularly the high end."

Is this person unfamiliar with technology specs because their products are
average devices but cost excessive for what you get?

It seriously sounds like they fell for the marketing.

~~~
manuelflara
Not sure what you mean, but iPads and iPhones are high end portable devices in
a market in which Apple holds a dominant position.

~~~
thanatos_dem
Brand new account, named “modsRapple”, with only this comment. Safe to ignore.

~~~
modsRapple
Ahh because rational argument doesn't count because of a name?

Be careful Thanatos, don't rely on tradition and authority figures. That's pre
scientific method ways of thinking.

~~~
askafriend
Nothing about your argument was rational. All you made clear was that you do
not understand what Apple's customers value.

Hint: It's not a technology spec sheet. And even if it was, their specs blow
the competition out of the water. I think your focus on embedded systems is
coloring your view of consumer technology.

