
The war between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple - wllchng
https://medium.com/wills-newsletter/wills-newsletter-2-don-t-be-evil-3918b91fcf82?2
======
zzalpha
I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about this article.

First, the internet itself is only in danger if net neutrality is genuinely
threatened by ISPs. Until then, the network itself is as open as it ever was.

As for the services on top, the meta-layer of products and infrastructure we
rely on--social media, content sources, smartphones and smart devices, etc--
there's a lot of reason to be concerned.

But Amazon's marketshare is tiny compared to traditional retailers. They're
growing, sure, but they're not a monopoly yet.

Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.

Google is successful in a few areas (search, email, android), but they've
proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services,
social, etc).

And Facebook also has basically one core competency.

So, there's lots of reasons to be concerned. But this article feels more than
a little hyperbolic.

And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid
employees and not slaves.

~~~
jon-wood
> Google is successful in a few areas ..., but they've proven incapable of
> pushing into other major areas (streaming services...

Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which
created an entire culture around video streaming online?

~~~
Nerdfest
The writers seem to be solid Apple fans and exaggerate their influence. With
billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be
pretty much irrelevant already.

~~~
idlewords
Apple is the most valuable company in the world.

~~~
Nerdfest
... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that? It's a
little quieter lately, but they have a huge fan-base in the media world due to
them using Apple kit for both audio and video editing for years. How many
other phone manufacturers get multiple articles in the news when a new model
is released?

~~~
danieldk
_... and you don 't think all the free marketing is a large part of that?_

Ummm, no. It is people who are willing to pay more for the extra service,
strong integration, and a business model that does not build on pushing
advertising.

I pay the premium for a MacBook every 1 1/2 year or so, because if there is a
problem, I can go to the Apple store and they'll typically have it fixed in
two hours, no questions asked. I had a two-year leave to Android, but after
the excruciating experience having to deal with Motorola twice, I'd rather pay
a bit more.

Besides that, Apple hardware and software is typically extremely well
integrated. E.g. I have a HiDPI screen, on the Mac it works without a problem.
On e.g. Linux I had to hand-patch Mutter to get proper scaling and even then a
lot of applications used the wrong scaling or UI elements are blown up and
blurry.

Finally, let's also not forget that Apple is typically a company that pushes
new technology first in an integrated fashion. E.g. a fingerprint reader that
is not a toy and works across apps, 120Hz refresh rate on the iPad Pro, force
touch.

tl;dr: people drop money on Apple because their product generally work great
and they provide excellent service.

~~~
zzalpha
So, I built a Hackintosh recently, and in researching software
recommendations, one thing stood out: even die-hard Apple fans had to admit
that PCs were catching up (or, maybe more honestly, in a lot of ways Apple is
losing momentum).

Windows 10 has come a _long_ way from its roots. Windows laptops are getting
remarkably good (the latest line of Dell and HP laptops are excellent, and
Lenovo always stands out). And the smartphone gap has been rapidly closing for
years, both the hardware and software. I think you can lay this at the feet of
Apple elevating customer expectations.

Meanwhile, Apple hardware refreshes have been lackluster at best, particularly
in the pro category. The OS doesn't feel like it has the edge it once had. And
top notch software exclusives are increasingly rare as software goes cross
platform or moves to the web.

Now, by all accounts Apple's support is still some of the best in the
business. And the overall platform integration across devices is excellent. So
a lot of the benefits you cite are still present.

But you have to wonder how long that'll last...

------
staltz
Fun experiment to try out on your computer and experience the gradual death of
the internet: block all domains and subdomains from Google and Facebook in
your `/etc/hosts` file, and see how many other websites fail to function.

I've had this enabled for 6 months and I've seen websites stopped working as
they should, e.g.:

\- I couldn't reset my password in Twitch, it required (for some reason)
access to both Facebook and Google servers. I had to temporarily disable the
`/etc/hosts` restrictions

\- National Geographic site fetches jQuery from Google and the website is
unusable

\- No more embedded Google Maps on many small websites (like local restaurants
etc)

\- Say bye to embedded YouTube videos

\- Many small websites just display in blank

\- Other websites have default ugly fonts but are still usable

So Google and Facebook's reach is not just related to direct visits to their
sites. Essentially, without them, it's a very crippled internet. The one site
that works great is Wikipedia, even its videos are self hosted.

~~~
savanaly
Analyzing how websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were
designed with the availability of those in mind is pointless. To truly see
what it would be like without Google or Facebook we'd have to test how
websites work without Google or Facebook given that they were designed
_without_ the availability of those in mind.

The saying "if things were different, things would be different" comes to
mind.

~~~
staltz
It's not about how websites depend on Google or Facebook being _available_.
It's about the leverage Google and Facebook gain over you through _data
collection_ once they are nearly omnipresent on the web, and the growing
inability of opting-out from those two tech giants without crippling your
basic web experience.

------
drewg123
What I think is potentially more interesting is the anti-consumer behaviors of
Amazon in what I call the Amazon/Google cold war over video:

\- Amazon not allowing the sale of chromecast

\- Amazon keeping its instant video app off generic android TV devices for a
long time, even though they had an app that worked with the Sony android TV.

\- Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse to get you to install
the Amazon app store on your Android phone. (and weakening your phone's
security, due to having to "allow unknown sources"

~~~
deegles
> Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse

Google requires Play Services to be installed and enabled in order to allow
Chromecast, which is why no Google apps are on Amazon Fire devices. If
anything Amazon's approach is less intrusive since it's just one extra app
(unless they also install services).

~~~
drewg123
The problem with both is that you have to allow unknown sources. It would be
nice (on Google's part) to allow multiple app store certs, so you (as the
consumer) could decide which app stores to trust & the OS could maintain some
level of security based on the users prefs. As it is now, you need to open
your phone up to potential malware to install another app store.

What I just don't get is why Amazon are trying to force people to get their
video app via their app store, rather than putting it in Google play (where it
is apparently available, but just for non-US regions). Is Google trying to
take a cut of in-app transactions, like Apple does?

------
Pigo
> Facebook's algorithmic echo chamber got Trump elected.

The article he references talks extensively about how the campaign effectively
used social media for fundraising and advertising instead of tv, not echo
chambers for brainwashing people. After all this time people still can't admit
that echo chambers are what propped up Clinton in every media outlet and poll.

------
bad_user
I wish we stop the perpetuation of dumb metaphors and analogies. It does
nobody any good.

~~~
aaron-lebo
What is the dumb metaphor/analogy and why?

~~~
MBCook
Calling Apple the genitals because they're a luxury brand?

As soon as I saw that graphic I knew what quality of article I was in for.

~~~
Singletoned
Yeah, that was pretty tenuous. And assertion that women buy Apple products to
deter "romantic rivals from poaching [their] relationship partner" seems
almost ridiculous.

I would say that iPhones and MacBooks are almost mass-market these days. Sure,
they are more expensive than the alternatives, but they are so ubiquitous that
can't really be considered status symbols anymore, can they?

~~~
wadeboggs
Go to a public university or high school and count the MacBooks you see.

~~~
falcolas
Or the number of apple earbuds and airpods. Those white buds are ubiquitous.
And where they are lacking, Apple's other property - Beats - steps in.

~~~
bad_user
I can tell you from my experience as somebody that never liked Apple products,
those Apple earbuds are popular because they are cheap and good, having an
insane quality/price ratio.

I have an Android phone right now, but I'm using Apple earbuds, even though
the volume controls don't work.

~~~
MBCook
That's nice to hear.

As someone using AirPods right now... they're AMAZING. The 'magic' pairing is
nice but it doesn't go as far as I hoped.

However as Bluetooth headphones they're so tiny it's easy to always carry
them. They're a cinch to charge. They sound great (for their size) and now I
always carry them with me. Music? Podcasts? Videos? Way more than good-enough.

Just fantastic little things. Shame they're STILL 6 weeks behind demand. They
must be REALLY hard to make if Apple hasn't sorted it out after all this time.

------
eregorn
I always wonder why the whole "facebook internet" isn't brought up more by pro
net-neutrality folks. I think there's only one article that's been written
about a particularly worrisome consequence it has as well [1].

While I think it'd take a very long time for Americans to actually be
convinced of this, the reason why this is happening (because facebook might as
well be THE internet for these users) is a lot more worrisome. Particularly
when Mark himself is running soon.

(1)[https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-
id...](https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-
using-the-internet/)

------
aisofteng
There's an effect here that this article doesn't mention and that most don't
mention.

Large scale innovation happens in one of two ways: a strong industry leader,
or via government. The latter is relatively rare because government is
necessarily usually more conservative; the former happens more easily,
especially because industry leaders often are either formed or maintained
because a private venture was able to move fast enough to develop a technology
in a way that has large societal implications.

The side effect, though, is that people who work at those private industries
that have innovated and developer something new (which may or may not have
short term deleterious effects) eventually leave and either diffuse their
knowledge or start their own ventures. When this happens, as time passes, many
other new ventures - which can often have an effect directly opposite to said
deleterious effects, or otherwise have positive effects - spring up and take
hold. And that's a net positive.

There are people who worked at (or currently work at and will leave) Google
and Facebook, advertising companies that have disproportionately much power,
but will use the knowledge they gained from those places to put into effects
efforts that they might not have known how to otherwise and that may make the
world better, long term.

Articles like the one posted here are passionate and persuasive, but they also
focus on the short term (if not solely the present); it is worthwhile to
remember these sorts of long term effects.

------
mattferderer
I honestly find it very easy to not use any of their services. They all have
quality competitors.

~~~
kawfey
The majority of humans don't find it so easy or necessary.

~~~
adventured
> The majority of humans don't find it so easy or necessary.

Minority, in fact. You're wildly exaggerating, as is the article.

Half of Facebook's monthly actives barely use the core social network service.
That leaves a billion people or so. There are 7.x billion people on the
planet. Your majority premise just collapsed.

Google has about 1/3 of global adults as users, with varying frequency. Gmail
as an example, has a small share of global email. Again, minority.

Amazon is still a trivial ecommerce presence outside of the US, as a whole and
in relation to the number of adults shopping on their service versus the total
number of people on earth.

And Apple? Their reach, like the others, is dramatically less than the
"majority of humans." Apple reaches a billion people.

~~~
bllguo
Please. Don't be a pedant, you're not advancing any meaningful points. It
should be obvious that in the context of this discussion, we are talking about
the developed Western world.

------
visarga
In case you want to shorten the title in similar situations ("The GAFA War"):

FAMGA - Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon

GAFA - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple

FANG - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google

~~~
jrs95
Personally I'd keep Microsoft included, they're killing it with services now.
Especially amongst enterprise consumers.

------
tzury
If your are a coder, I'd say: Split your money between those four giants and
get back to code [1].

[1] [https://goo.gl/TjDviU](https://goo.gl/TjDviU)

------
Nokinside
Network externalities (product's value to a consumer changes as the number of
users of the product changes) are so incredibly strong that few monopoly
powers and eventual market failure is inevitability.

If you could run multiple parallel universes starting from early 90's, you
would end with just handful of companies dominating the markets and using one
service or product to leverage to other areas in almost all of them. Just the
names of the companies would change.

0014749879

------
amelius
The ironic part is that the real "gatekeepers of the internet" are the cable
companies, but they can't take advantage of it.

~~~
falcor84
What technological innovations have the cable companies led in the past 20
years to avoid becoming commodities?

~~~
amelius
What improvements has Facebook made over Myspace? And do these justify the
billions in valuation?

------
amelius
> Your iPhone signals you’re wealthier, better-educated, and more attractive
> than an Android user.

The "status" argument is a bit silly. An iPhone costs about the same as a dog
annually, [1].

[1]
[https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5](https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5)

~~~
rootlocus
The "status" argument is the least silly thing in that statement.

~~~
amelius
Good point.

------
romanovtexas
This article is like scaremongering, partly about how Google and Facebook are
selling ads but interlaced with "SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER!", all the same.
Some posts can be so ironical.

------
tomrod
Only one mention of Microsoft. They're eating the software world, and have one
of the best data platforms.

