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.
The comment is talking about paid monthly services as YouTube Red vs Netflix. Sure Google has the worlds most popular (mostly free) video site, monetized by advertising, but it can't seem to beat Netflix at paid subscriptions. It hasn't been able to beat Facebook at social networking either. Keep in mind that YouTube was a purchase for Google, as was Instagram for Facebook. Both probably very important for them long term.
Sure, they have clients, but it's far from being a huge hit (contrary to, for example, Spotify).
The amount of people using it are extremely small, which is doubly bad when you consider it's almost-out-of-the-box on Android phones, which are so popular.
YouTube was also _significantly_ smaller when Google purchased it. Perhaps they weren't able to create a properly competing platform, but they've certainly been wildly successful in growing it.
i think they were successful in making it profitable, but whether they were good at growing it is debatable. the founders of youtube complained that they couldnt get the proper talent because google would veto all their hires and force them to take google insiders.
during that time, youtube mostly stagnated in many ways. it failed to develop online streaming and developing original content in the way netflix did even though youtube had access to larger infrastructure and investment from google. even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation, where as youtube is mostly the same thing it was when purchased. they have a lot of users/views, but i do not see any of that attributed to google.
Yea, this is nonsense. YouTube was founded in 2005 and acquired by Google in 2006. It was bought because the brand was better than "Google Video" at the time and that's pretty much it. Just about everything else about its success and state today is completely attributable to Google.
> even competitors like vine showed some success and innovation
what? Vine was shutdown precisely because it wasn't successful...
Google excels at solving hard technical problems(scaling (youtube, building Android, Great cloud tech ). That's not the kind of challenge with most web businesses.
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.
> With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already
So you think the media collectively conspired to prop up Apple, and their subpar, irrelevant products that nobody actually likes? Well, that's creative.
... 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?
... 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.
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.
Marketing is a fool me once scenario. Quality products earn repeat purchases. You don't become the world's most valuable company with one-and-done sales.
That's not strictly true. Network effects due to tied services can result in barriers to switching. For example, if you're tightly tied to iCloud, migrating to Google Drive might be seen as an enormous PITA.
IMO, this is the principle reason all of these guys are building easy-to-use, tied services offerings... because the OS is becoming increasingly irrelevant as things move to the web or apps go cross-platform.
[Warning: semi-tangential deep dive on your point about Amazon not being a monopoly]
Amazon isn't in the retail business. Amazon isn't in the cloud computing business. Amazon isn't in the logistics business. Amazon is in the business business. It is no longer The Everything Store; it is now the Everything Everything. It wants to be the platform around which all of the world's businesses depend.
This is about as ambitious a mission as a company has ever launched, in my opinion -- and Amazon may be the first company with a justifiable claim to such ambition. Its only business constraints at this point are geopolitical, really. I believe it aims even higher in the long run: it is aiming to become the macroeconomic backbone of at least the Western world.
When viewed in that context, traditional definitions of monopoly -- especially the most widely known definition of the state, which is based on market share within a specific industry -- almost feel antiquated. Jeff Bezos isn't JP Morgan; he's freaking Cohaagen from Total Recall.
It is not in his interest, in fact it is starkly antithetical to his interest, to monopolize any single industry. He wants to engineer a state wherein stronger competition within any given market makes Amazon better off, not worse off, because it is the seller to that market moreso than a competitor in that market. (Though it holds de facto monopolist power in at least the publishing business, and probably others, these positions were the stick that makes Amazon's pivot to being in the carrot business credible and effective.)
Concern about Amazon as potentially Too Big to Fail may be warranted, but not yet. I'd argue that the sudden failure of Amazon tomorrow would have a severe but ultimately noncatastrophic impact on the US economy, with competitors like Walmart and Google and Apple ready to absorb the fallout with net-minimal total economic loss.
It is not TBTF yet, though at some point it seems to be on trajectory to get there. Now the tricky part is in gauging what metric we should even be using to talk about Amazon in the next 5 years.
(To be very clear, I say all of this in admiration of Jeff Bezos, not in fear or criticism of him. His business acumen is mindblowing. Whether you think of him as Business Yoda or Business Palpatine is your choice to make. But either way, you have to admit that the force is strong with him)
I don't think this is unique to Amazon. Because that transaction costs have become so low(and becoming lower), almost everything is out-sourceable, and naturally in many fields there are advantages to scale, and network effects - common characteristics of infrastructure - a lot of business tasks are becoming infrastructure-like.
Amazon maybe saw it before others. But also, they are in a position that enables them to gradually take more parts of that emerging infrastructure, by owning the customer.
But let's say every stable, low-risk, repeatable task is outsourced outside of businesses into a few large corps. Can new businesses live in that environment? And how will competition look like ?
Amazon's role in the oligopoly is running much of cloud computing. It comes down to this:
- Google and Facebook capture all the value in online ads
- Amazon, Google and Microsoft control the cloud
- Apple and Google have a duopoly mobile OS
- Apple and Microsoft dominate desktop OSs (sorry linux bro)
- Facebook essentially controls online political advertising,
and its founder is gearing up for a run at office
Even if the pyramids were made by happy, paid, unionized workers with a good health/mummification plan (which seems a stretch), they were a terrible misuse of resources.
This is sort of a silly argument though. Mac and Chromebook don't really exist in the same space. One is ultra high-end and one is decidedly budget conscious.
I don't think it is so silly. The owners of the devices still use them for general computing as a desktop. Also, I am fairly sure the vast majority of apple's laptops sold are the "low end" versions such as the Macbook and the Air. Lets also not forget you can get some fairly pricey chrome books. The last one I bought was $2100 which out specked most of apples offerings with the exception of storage.
But beyond that if people don't want "high end" and are buying "low end" that still does not change the argument. Chromebook uses is growing and apple laptops usage is not, so maybe apple is providing a product people don't want... And that is sort of the point the parent made.
My point was that Chromebooks are eating away at the market formerly catered to by netbooks. They aren't really useful as full fledged machines to the average user. I don't believe that the people who are buying Chromebooks were ever in the market for a apple laptop.
As an aside, why did you buy a Chromebook that was that high spec?
MacBook Air (A1466) seems to be the closest competitor to Chromebook Pixel (Google), which is at the top end for Chromebooks. These both seem prohibitively expensive for the type of computing that the mass-market seems to prefer.
MacBook (A1534)... I have no idea why anyone would buy it in lieu of a cheaper, faster MacBook Air.
Other models of Chromebook, like ASUS C202 or Samsung Chromebook 3, have lower price points, that Apple has never realistically tried to compete with. What Mac would you ever be able to buy with $160 (2017 dollars)?
MacBook (A1534)... I have no idea why anyone would buy it in lieu of a cheaper, faster MacBook Air.
I am guessing that is the MacBook 12"? For many good reasons: the 12" is much more compact and lighter than the MacBook Air, it has a Retina display, it does not have big, ugly bezels, it has much faster SSD storage than the Air, and it is fanless.
My wife has a MacBook 12" and loves it. I had a MacBook 12" (moved to the Pro 2016) and I miss the form factor and the weight of the 12".
I'd say it's a bit of an optical illusion that we even think of Apple being in the same class as Microsoft for desktop OSs. Isn't it something roughly like 90/10 in Windows' favor?
Glad you pointed out the pyramid builders part. That bugged me. I believe I've read that their graves showed that the builders were intelligent engineers, not just random farmers. The graves also showed that the workers were treated very well. Thoughts are that Egyptians may have believed treating employees well resulted in better output.
I think this may have covered this topic - http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyrami...
> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves.
This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
Slavery, which is to turn people into personal property, is an abomination. Even the ancients described slavery as "unnatural". In certain situations, however, it might be preferable. You don't deliberately leave your bike out in the rain. But you would if your bike was responsible for keeping itself out of the rain.
Don't take it out of context, OP is saying that at one point in time in a particular place, slavery may have possibly been more "secure" or reliable as far as having food, water, and shelter.
This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
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.