Annual revenue of $394 billion, more than a billion a day.
Not the first company to do it, though. Exxon did it in the 2000s when oil was up to $140, and I think Walmart did it, too.
Not the first company to do it, though. Exxon did it in the 2000s when oil was up to $140, and I think Walmart did it, too.
This is simply the greatest business to have ever been created. I can't imagine anything else ever topping it. The margins AND the volume are both insane.
Of course it's the same for all physical products.
Apple makes one of the best in class of these devices, and has successfully designed one such that it's hard to switch to a competitor (rather it's easier to stay in the ecosystem).
They've convinced about a billion people on the planet that the iPhone is the best device for them, so if you split that into about 300 million re-ups into the ecosystem each year you're talking about where their revenue is.
I say this as a happy iOS user. I replaced my phone of three years about a month ago. Took a day to get it through my carrier and it immediately restored from backup with minimal data loss, despite not having access to the old device. That ease of use and confidence I won't lose data is worth the premium.
Services are one thing, but playing both the gatekeeper and competitor to a number of corporations is not a sustainable business model. Apple needs to double-down on their hardware dominance and leave the software distribution to software writers. All their other services can stay, Apple users can drown in AppleTV+ shows for all I care. The App Store is a fundamental de-facto monopoly on software distribution and (as we've seen with Spotify) service development. That quite literally cannot be the status quo going forward.
This would be true if Android didn’t exist. But it does, so apple isn’t.
What would be funny is if Google stops developing android, since it’s lot lucrative, so they can sue under antitrust to improve their ad business that apple keeps hampering.
This would be true if iOS and the App Store weren't separate entities. But they are, so it isn't.
If Google stops contributing to the AOSP, they would not be able to sue under antitrust because Android still exists.
I’m always hesitant to install software on my desktop because I never know if there’s a trojan hidden in the software. I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe. So at the moment I’m content to let Apple handle it. Note, this is coming from a pro-Apple user.
Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading. I’d like to see such a product offered as an alternative to the offerings from the big tech companies.
Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The App Store will still exist for new users and security-paranoid users, but the right to install/manage software needs to be a universal right when you buy hardware from someone. Arguing the opposite is almost insanity.
> I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe.
Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). Then you can tell if the software you're loading has been tampered before it runs, simple as that. This is what the App Store does internally (along with cert-checking) to provide your "premium" security experience. It's largely designed to be distributed.
> Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading.
That's not the point either. The iPhone is fully capable of loading alternative App Stores and even alternate OSes. Apple is the only one stopping the user from doing these things. The fact that Apple explicitly does not allow people to distribute software unless they profit off has drawn incredible antitrust scrutiny. All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. What alternative do we have?
Apple does not have to be in the business of making phones for the (extreme~!) technical + security conscious crowd.
So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that.
> Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github).
But my issue is not that something has been tampered between source and binary, but that I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem.
As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity?
> All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax.
In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
Nobody is going to be a green bubble for access to the play store. This isn't textbook forced bundling[0], but it sure feels close. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
> As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity?
You're fine to think so, but why can't I opt out?
> In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
There are whole classes of applications where the margins don't really make sense because of apple's cut. I don't know why they need to extract so much rent?
No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done.
> I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem.
Good, then don't use any app outside the App Store. Apple will do their job to keep you perfectly safe from all those nasty, moneygrubbing developers who disagree with their rightful tax. You can remain loyal, but their monopoly literally cannot persist in a just world.
> As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now [...] Is such a view considered insanity?
Not until you start telling me that I don't have a right to eat food that the FDA hasn't approved for me. If you only eat FDA-certified food, good for you. It's a service the government provides free-of-charge, and some people like it. If you try shutting down your next-door neighbor's kid for selling non-certified lemonade, their dad is going to give you a black eye. The problem is, we quite literally lack an institution large enough to give Apple a black eye. There are governments fining them millions of dollars and they shake it off like Godzilla worrying about some pests. Their attitude towards democratic leadership is appalling, and deserves to be brought to heel.
> In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
It's absolutely mind-blowing that you will say that in defense of a company that consists of "some devs [that] just want to make more money". Yeah, maybe they do want a chance at competing against the largest software company in the world. Is that a big ask? Maybe I want to install FOSS apps that Apple won't let people publish to the app store. You don't have to, but you can't argue that I shouldn't be able to. Apple doesn't have the right to decide which browser I use when I pay for their hardware. They shouldn't make you pay $99/year to temporarily install a nerfed app to your iPhone. It's one of the most oppressive rackets in modern internet history, and I'll gladly refute any arguments against that claim.
Or would you want Apple out of that loop too?
As a side question, are there stats on which are the most popular Android app stores (e.g. top 10 ranked by usage or something like that). I ask because I wonder, in practice, how many app stores are really used at any scale on Android.
None. Apple doesn't deserve authority over what other people publish on their platform, just as they don't deserve to be liable for the ways people abuse iDevices. In my opinion, they should use this as an opportunity to strengthen app sandboxing and the overall iOS security model. If their current sandboxing system is as good as they say, it should do a great job at isolating third-party apps.
> As a side question, are there stats on which are the most popular Android app stores
Not really, there's no centralized way to collect those stats. Individual projects will give download stats sometimes though.
> I ask because I wonder, in practice, how many app stores are really used at any scale on Android.
Honestly? Not that much. I use both the Play Store and F-Droid alongside one another, and they do a good job complimenting each other. F-Droid fills in the gap of Open Source apps that don't make sense to distribute on a traditional app store, while Google Play offers a nice place to get my other apps.
The goal is for the App Store to live in harmony with developers. Right now though, iOS developers have literally zero bartering power with Apple besides leaving their ecosystem or screaming at some poor call-center worker. Offering sideloading gives them (rightful) leverage against Apple, while also letting me install my cool nerd porn like QEMU and emulators.
If so why can't every other sizeable group, such as commenters on HN, demand government granted bartering power?
This doesn't seem like a sound legal basis for a law that would last longer, in the U.S., than the Supreme Court's regular calendar.
Because Apple won't give it to them in good-faith.
> If so why can't every other sizeable group, such as commenters on HN, demand government granted bartering power?
They can, they just won't necessarily get it. I think there is ample evidence to support the claim that Apple is holding back software distribution and service innovation with their actions. If found guilty of anticompetitive practice (eg. in the case of Spotify), the most fitting consequence would be breaking Apple's monopoly on app distribution. The only law we'd need is one mandating the installation of third-party software packages (APKs on Android and IPAs on iOS).
Is forcing the App Store to compete with the free market a bad thing? It shouldn't be, if the value proposition is there.
It is illegal to import unapproved drugs, so yes FDA can stop you. And no the FDA is not really “free-of-charge” since you pay them through your tax dollars. But I concede that, like most analogies, this one is flawed because we don’t get to vote for the governing body that controls Apple’s decision-making.
> No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done.
To me it sounds like you would prefer not to be an Apple customer. Apple is selling their walled-garden approach, if this is not what you want there’s always Android which allows your preferred software distribution approach. Why the necessity to force Apple to do the same?
In my case, I don’t want iOS to allow third party app stores because I don’t want another attack vector to be introduced into the system. It would be like Adobe Flash all over again. At the moment if there’s a major security issue that arises in iOS I can squarely blame Apple because they’ve taken on that responsibility. That is what I’m paying for. If the day comes when I think Apple is no longer keeping me secure or is unfairly restricting software that I want to use on their platform then I can switch over to Android.
Because both of us can coexist without forcing the other out of the room. John Deere didn't have a right to fleece farmers just because some people would pay for their premium services and others would not. They were sued for antitrust violation because of this[0], which isn't a far cry from the way Apple treats their repair partners or developers. The precedent of the law doesn't appear to align with Apple's business values, and I'm frustrated with the way they disregard the freedom of their users. They should put their money where their mouth is and empower users instead of trying to squeeze a few more dimes out of them. They are the largest company in the world, I should not be hearing "technical excuses" vis-a-vis distributing software like we have since the stone age of computing. It's not healthy, and it shouldn't take a village to argue that.
> I don’t want iOS to allow third party app stores because I don’t want another attack vector to be introduced into the system.
You don't need to use third-party software, or ideally even enable package installation by default (a-la Android). As-is though, Apple still has generic files for installing packages internally (IPA), and that "attack vector" is still there, just behind a small gate. Meanwhile, people are installing iPhone rootkits through invisible iMessage exploits... it's not a great look.
[0] https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/agriculture/john-deere-sued-...
I don’t believe that the John Deere case is an apples to apples comparison (pun intended, sorry). From my understanding the case mainly revolved around third party mechanics who previously were able to repair their tractors, but were later locked out by John Deere’s software updates thus eliminating a whole third party repair industry.
In Apple’s case I see Google apps, Microsoft apps, Facebook apps all available on the App Store. I see independent apps written by small developers. I see a multitude of competitors on the App Store.
> Meanwhile, people are installing iPhone rootkits through invisible iMessage exploits... it's not a great look.
Similarly, Android was affected by the Stagefright bug which used MMS, so I’m not sure what your example is trying to prove. Every vendor has vulnerabilities, it’s an unending arms race. If anything the fact that Android is so fragmented makes it more difficult to protect against vulnerabilities. IMO adding more app stores is just creating this same fragmentation.
Going back to side-loading for iOS, can’t you compile and deploy your own code via XCode onto your own iPhone? There’s definitely hoops you need to jump, but it is possible. You don’t even need to use XCode, you can do so in VS. Doesn’t this process provide the freedom that you asked for without the need of a third party app store?
So can't you just, like, not be an Apple customer?
Your own solution to another commenter not wanting alternative apps stores is to "just not use it". So why don't you "just not use" iOS?
People who like the Apple Way can continue to buy Apple products. People who don't can continue enjoying products from Apple's competitors. No need to force anyone out of the room.
The only way I would be okay with this is if Apple required any app you provide in an alternative store must be available in the official App Store as well.
The last thing I want is for Meta to come along and mandate you install their 3rd party app store in order to use Instagram. I don't even want this app on my phone but I use it to keep in touch with friends that just won't use anything else. It's not _necessary_ but it's nearly necessary.
I would never install an app from a Meta-controlled app store, and the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.
How do you know? First off, Google allows this on Android, and Meta hasn't made their own store on there. Second off, their revenue from Instagram is largely supplanted by an advertising business that Apple happily supports. They have no reason to remove it from the App Store. Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices. We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
Again, nobody arguing for sideloading is forcing you to install anything. If Meta leaves the App Store and stops updating the version of Instagram everyone has installed, that's their loss. If Apple feels threatened by other services eating their lunch, they can always take a lesson out of Microsoft's playbook and start adding more first-party ads to iOS.
> The changes Apple made in iOS 14.5 — asking people if they wanted to opt-out of apps tracking them across the web — is causing tumult for advertisers who rely on Facebook to sustain their businesses. Performance marketers, i.e., those who want you to buy immediately after clicking, are particularly struggling. The masses, they believe, have opted out of letting Facebook track off of Facebook, so they can’t be sure if people are buying their products after seeing their ads. Facebook expects them to spend less money as a result.
How does any of that rely on the App Store, Apple's 30% cut, or even the state of app distribution on iOS?
You're right, I don't know for sure. But I have a feeling they'd be eager to escape the 30% cut of transactions. [0] Not to mention bypassing the rules around user tracking.
> Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices.
I don't fully follow, what do you mean by this?
> We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
That I agree with. 30% is steep and feels excessive. But I'm just arguing as an end user I value the peace of mind that I can install any app from their App Store with a reasonable amount of confidence. It's not perfect and things do slip through the cracks, but it's better than nothing.
0: https://businessinsider.mx/meta-accuses-apple-undercutting-b...
Almost everybody pays 15%, not 30%.
If you make less than a million dollars a year through the App Store, you pay 15%. This covers almost everybody.
If you are earning over a million dollars a year, but you are selling subscriptions, then you pay 15% for all the subscriptions that have been in place for longer than a year.
The only people who are paying 30% are the people making a lot of money through the App Store from something other than long-term subscriptions.
Honestly, I disagree. The Apple customer experience and product ecosystem is just so far ahead of any competitors I don't want to use anything else. As far as the store is concerned specifically, I want to be able to use one store with a clear policy around payments, subscriptions and refunds - not a myriad of half-baked competitors with fragmented offerings.
Florisboard is a nice minimalist alternative to GBoard. Offers decent theming and lots of settings for haptics/layout, makes a very quick/easy replacement on new devices.
NewPipe is a minimalist frontend to YouTube that lets you download videos and use PiP/background playing without paying for Premium (or logging into YouTube, for that matter)
Bromite offers a de-Googled Chromium experience for mobile users, pretty barebones and basic.
Glider is an awesome FOSS Hacker News client that I use for checking headlines on the go. Hugely recommended if you're an Android user!
The last big one I use is KeePassDX, which is a password manager integrated with the open KeePass standard. All my passwords get locked up in a nice encrypted, portable file I sync across my devices.
Now, I also use the Play Store for stuff like Discord and Spotify, and iOS users probably would still use the App Store if Cydia became officially supported overnight. That being said, having FOSS replacements for shitty defaults saves the modern Google-based Android experience for me. If they removed sideloading, I'd probably jump ship to a more minimalist fork.
The courts would almost certainly rule against such a law, that forces both a warranty and openness, if challenged.
However, when I thought it out, I realized that if the App Store wasn’t the one and only distribution model for apps, then profit motives would push companies to use those other mechanisms—presumably competing app stores like steam, or just installation of apps ala carte.
I realized that I’m not even completely in control of which apps I need, because if there’s an app I need for a car, or I need to install something for work, I’m just not always in a position to decide NOT to install something.
So even though I like the idea of keeping my App Store and letting anyone else do what they want… isn’t there some truth to the idea that if there were ways around the App Store then it would create a wedge that effectively forced a lot of fracturing?
You could signup for the developer program. Or use something like AltServer.
I dunno. Maybe Apple could allow stores on their phones, but still take a % of any purchases, to annoy EPIC and their ilk into buggering off.
Facebook will drive something like 10-50% of people to add their store if it's the only way they can have their insta/whatsapp/fb/whateverthehellelse.
Google will probably roll out a play store as well. I don't think they're going to be as overtly evil, but they're still going to be be going around Apple's privacy protections if at all possible. (Why not? I get the feeling that FB is more on the back foot with metaverse and other flat/failing metrics, and google has more to drive people to them between Chrome, Android, and GApps.)
And others? There will probably be at least 10-100 app stores, and I would be shocked if there wasn't one that attempted to do things like a hidden RAT/Rootkit. I'm not saying that the app store review process solves a malware problem, but it is one layer in a defense in depth. It certainly has kept my extended family's devices in better shape than their computers, which I've had to clean occasionally.
This is a version of good of the many vs good of the few (Sorry, been looking at Star Trek lately). On the one hand, there are companies that would like a bigger hit of the pie, + a fringe of people who have enough knowledge and skills to manage to manually setup a secure phone with alternative/os/apps. On the other, there's Apple and a vast swath of humanity where the iPhone/iPad is probably the most secure computing device they can hope to own, and is yet still useful.
iPhone business is bigger than services by quite a large number https://www.macstories.net/news/apple-reports-expectations-b...
47% vs 21%
The results are there big as day. This is obviously isn’t true.
> The App Store alone made over 80 billion dollars in estimated revenue last year, just by existing
Apple accounts for revenue as all of the money it takes in for the App Store before distributing 70%-85% to app makers.
> for all I care. The App Store is a fundamental de-facto monopoly on software distribution
Good thing we have a real judge who has said just the opposite in the Epic vs Apple trial. The judge thought it was foolish to claim that someone had a legal “monopoly” on their own platform. That’s just like saying Sony has a monopoly on the PlayStation
Which has clunky ugly corners, but still sort of works smoothly most of the time. (Mostly.)
I'm increasingly convinced Android only exists because it allows Google to pretend it's not just an ad company, and Apple to pretend it's not a monopoly.
Apple's stranglehold on the mobile market, with its mix of hardware, software, and content services, is far more extreme than Microsoft's 90s-era stranglehold on the PC desktop.
In Asia, Africa, Middle East, South America etc, Android has a much larger share of the market, even if it is spread across large numbers of models and manufacturers.
Apple's "stranglehold" is about as strong as it's "stranglehold" on the desktop/laptop market with Macs.
These days cloud backups and the like make it pretty simple on both operating systems.
I have voice memos that have migrated since that very first one.
Since i like to search for photos on the map on the macOS Photos program, this can be problematic. So when i was looking for a specific photo the other day, i had to scroll back by date to find it and that's how i found out it was taken on an original iPhone.
Originally it was syncing through iTunes but the past years it’s been iCloud syncing.
Some people do, but definitely not “almost every adult in the developed world”.
Obviously parent meant an average, not that almost nobody goes for 1 year and almost nobody goes for 4.
And heck even if you mean to keep it for longer, they're small semi-fragile things that are uncommonly easy to lose and break.
I wonder how many years it will take before I can convince some people that I actually just prefer Apple's phones to competing phones and that I'm not actually brainwashed or forced by Apple to never leave. But that's exactly what a brainwashed person would say...
Apple does do some things really well. Android could, and I really want to see them do it, but as of right now, there are some things Android does not do well.
Addition: And I think one thing that really hurt the Android ecosystem is when Android phones went through that phase of every phone flagship phone had some sort of gimmick. Where as Apple really just buttoned down and developed a really solid phone. A lot of android phone makers were just focusing on gimmicks like styluses or niche features to set them apart from other Android instead of just really developing a good solid smart phone.
Why people buy Samsung or other manufacturer phones, and then gripe that the company is as stingy with backwards support and updates as they've always been boggles my mind. Why would anyone ever think this time would be different?
For reference, Apple just released a security update for the 5s from 2013 this past June.
The 6S (2015) ran the latest OS until ios 16 this year.
The 5s debuted Sept 2013 as the first 64-bit phone, and the first phone with a Secure Enclave, so I'm kind of hopeful they'll just keep limping it along forever for good will... I own a pair of them and adore them dearly.
On the topic of iOS, be sure to check out https://libimobiledevice.org/, which provides utilities like ifuse that will even get you access to your Photos sqlite database; including all the machine generated tags, aesthetics scores and such.
As of 2019 at least, I was able to reset my first ten iPad (2010) and redownload and use Netflix, Hulu, Crackle, Apple’s iWork suite, Spotify and play music that I had previously purchased from iTunes.
So basically there are GREAT midline phones. I'm not coding on my phone, I m reading slack and email and taking photos.
Are you sure it will keep working fine after two major updates or it will slow down terribly?
This is how I look at it as well. Because anyone can make an Android phone, Android phone makers had to either race to the bottom or come up with their special gimmick. Those that came up with a gimmick became the phone for people who care about that gimmick. But this ceded the domain of "people who don't particularly care about which phones have which gimmicks," aka most people, to Apple.
Pixel managed to break out of this by having their gimmick be "flagship by the people who wrote most of the OS, so, just generally well-implemented," but it took a while to get there.
I dunno what a Dynamic Island is, sounds like a really unpleasant place to take a vacation.
- It's waterproof, dustproof, and shock-proof out of the box. I can image an iPhone can pull this off in a third-party protective case.
- It can sideload software; I have some important apps managed by f-droid. Sorry, iPhone can't do this by design. It's not "strictly better", every such decision is a balancing act. But it's what I prefer.
Things like microSD card, 3.5mm jack, etc are nice but not the essential differentiating factors.
iPhones are engineered very well, and even stands up to abuse quite better than the run of the mill Android phones. Dust proof, water proof etc out of the box.
Man, do I wish regulators would force Apple to break their monopoly on App stores on iOS! Apple can keep their App Store exactly how it is today, but as a user I should be allowed to install “aftermarket” apps via side loading. Sure, I can fall for “insecure” unvalidated 3rd party apps pulling a scam on me, but that’s my prerogative, not Apple’s. They sold me hardware I paid for, they gave me an opportunity to spend and buy apps at their store, but that’s where it should stop. They shouldn’t be allowed to prevent competitors from selling apps to me unless they bend over to Apple. I just don’t see how this is any different from Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows and pulling dirty tricks from preventing people from installing/using 3rd party web browsers in the nineties.
It was definitely a long way getting there but android is in a pretty great place right now.
I can't imagine ever going back to iPhones. I felt extremely crippled every time I tried to do anything. I remember having no access to the filesystem, having to use proprietary software (iTunes... never again) and having to jailbreak my iPhone to install custom ringtones from my own music. When I got my first android phone and could just plug it in, drag and drop files from my computer, I felt the strongest and weirdest catharsis, akin to "I don't have to suffer anymore".
I've been dismayed with the bloat that's been creeping into Android phones (I'm currently on a Huawei P30).
I've never tried the Zenfone, but now I have to - thanks for the recommendation.
I don’t think they ever grew out of it.
Unlike any previous (Android) phone I've had, it still feels just as fast as it did when it was brand new. To date, the longest I've had any phone is around 3.5 years, and in 2 out of 3 cases it was due to hardware failure. Even if this one were to die tomorrow I'd definitely get another, although I think it's more likely that this one will last at least another couple of years, at which point it will be ~5 years.
And it was one of the best features of android.
Apple makes boring product, that makes it easy for app developers to test (recently less so).
AFAIR Android has still more de ices.
Android is more of a power user device (you can do more, you can root it, think hack as in hacker news).
From power user perspective iPhone is like Windows and Android like Linux.
For now. Remote attestation is becoming mainstream and every app will find a reason to require it. Computing freedom was the whole point of tolerating Android's imperfections. Without that, it's just a poorly kept Google walled garden. My next phone will be an iPhone.
A widely adopted platform/operating system with every improving security fundamentals versus a kernel with numerous spins each awaiting their day on the desktop: This is apt in a manner the author certainly did not intended..
Indeed. I am on my fourth iPhone, an 11 pro now three years old that I expect to keep for at least another year. More would be nice, but that probably requires a battery change. I had my two previous phones for four years each, no problem. I really don’t understand people who just have to get a new phone ever year or two (or three)!
It will never happen. Those people are just not mentally able to understand that other people have different needs, wants, values, and opinions than them.
More seriously it’s actually a meme or a trope that I noticed.
I keep two phones because of personal reasons not relevant to this discussion.
I prefer the iPhone.
I write that on my trusted 2016 SE from Apple and that the finest piece of phone I own. And one of the only I personally owned.
The durability alone is nice.
My send me a succession of phone for various raison. It’s rare that any catch my fancy.
First they are large and two :Android is subpar in my eyes. Saving grace : It is vastly more convenient to shove things in it.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-secret-project-nightin...
I understand there are flagship devices that don't have this problem, and maybe this is unfair of me, but I came to expect that devices using Android would likely be riddled with garbage from whatever OEM was relying on the OS. While I do think it's cool that Google made Android so open, it also opened a bit of a Pandora's Box.
However, in the long run, it is likely that open platforms will win. Eventually, the Android ecosystem will get to a point where such software updates stop being a challenge. Then you can just buy a generic Android phone and nearly everything will work. Probably it becomes similar to buying a Windows PC.
But you can't get security updates for a long time, except for a few models into which manufacturers or enthusiasts put efforts.
Linux kernel does not have a stable binary interface. Most phone devices (cameras, fingerprint sensors, even video controllers and radio modules have closed-source drivers. You can't expect manufacturers of these parts to update the drivers for their 3-year-old components for a newer kernel: they want to sell this year's parts instead. Reverse-engineering these drivers is tedious, and only buys you a few years on a handful of models.
Long-term support works for Apple because they have essentially one line of phones, with a narrow set of components, and an enormous power over suppliers. So they can afford to buy serious users' loyalty.
I didnt want a religious war, I just want to use my phone in peace without hearing how you feel about my vendor of telephone. I cant even mention it in passing.
I don't really have many techy friends though so, that might weigh into it a little.
There are deeper questions of privacy and eco-system lock in on all sides. But to most people is just isn't that big of an issue.
Honestly my big gripe still is - I miss Windows phone!
I wish they would make another small-form-factor phone again. I hear the 13 mini or something like that is reasonable, but it is still bigger.
My very first iPhone (first gen) was the all-time best.
But I just can't stand using the thing. So, I'm an Android user. But you'd have to be really misinformed to not be able to admit on paper, they are superior devices.
That aside, it feels certainly like Android leaves you with Goldilocks syndrome. You -can- buy phones with great battery life, great cameras, and great software/ui, but not all 3. Pixel has middling battery life. Samsung's UI/software is slow and bloated. Moto has terrible cameras.
From one Samsung phone to another and it took almost half an hour?
I'm not fun of iCloud but it is basically instant.
As someone who buys a good smartphone then hangs onto it for 5 years, can someone help me understand the need for this?
Sometimes you've discovered something you don't like about your current model.
Sometimes outside factors influence you (deals from your service provider, for example).
Many people (especially here on HN) can afford to get the new device every year, or every 2-3. So they do.
I don't really know what to say, though. People gonna people. Humans are often irrational, sub-optimal, and easily influenced. Happens to the best of us.
I’m gonna pass on this years iPhone because of the lack of a sim tray though.
https://www.apple.com/sg/iphone/compare/?modelList=iphone-11...
If you replace your phone every three years, you would be getting that upgrade now. If you replace your phone every five years, you would have to wait another two years for those features.
A few things that stand out are: a better display, a much better camera, much better battery life, much better performance, faster Internet, a tougher and more water-resistant build, and dual eSIM support. These are all concrete improvements that make my day-to-day life better. Why wouldn’t I upgrade if I can afford it?
The camera in particular stands out. Thirty years from now, you aren’t going to remember how fast your phone was or how much it cost. But you’ll still have the photos and videos it took. Your upgrade frequency today affects the quality of the photos and videos you look at for the rest of your life.
In addition to this, Apple devices hold their value very well on the second-hand market, so selling your old phone while it’s still useful offsets the cost of the new device by a significant fraction. If you keep your phone until it wears out, it’s less cost effective overall.
For an awful lot of people, upgrading every two to three years is a good deal, which is why Apple are making so much money.
In terms of speed, ever since the OnePlus One I bought back in like ~2014, I can't think of a time I have been unhappy with the raw performance of a phone by the time I go to upgrade.
Battery life is also not something I usually use as justification for a replacement, as I am fine going with a third-party place or doing it myself, depending on the complexity—the one exception was when I woke up to such a swollen battery while I was traveling in Russia that the screen fell out; it was such a mess and at such an inconvenient moment that I just bought another phone for the time being.
Rather, there is usually some sort of other nicety that is finally compelling, or circumstances force it upon me.
My example will seem silly given the fact that the solution is one to a bit of a manufactured problem in the first place. But despite the fact that Vivo, Xiaomi, etc., launched the first in-display fingerprint sensors almost five years ago, Apple still insists on Face ID. Normally, this works fairly well and doesn't bother me too much, so I keep my absurdly long and inconvenient iPhone password as I am rarely entering it when I have it on me.
However, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and everyone began masking, good lord, it made me stop wanting to use my phone at all outside. It was so ridiculously inconvenient entering 30 characters each and every time I wanted to check anything at all, especially since I have my boomer-esque 45 wpm typing speed when I am using my phone.
Apple, multiple years late, finally released their feature to unlock your phone while wearing a mask. But it requires an iPhone 12 or newer.
This is an example of a scenario where even though I'd probably have been happy with an iPhone X, XS or 11 otherwise, the newer device still becomes very compelling.
(also yes, I know they let you unlock your phone while wearing an Apple Watch, but I don't want to have to have one just to use Google for 30 seconds while outside)
Of course, the true solution there is probably not to buy yet another iPhone but rather a device that respects you, but everything is a tradeoff, and at times, I need an iOS device specifically, etc. It is what it is, but I am locked into this ecosystem for the time being ;-)
There's no need for it. However, the cost difference between the two extremes (upgrading every year vs. upgrading every 5-6 years) might be less than you think.
Last time I ran the numbers, I estimated that trading in every year for 5 years cost about $500 more than trading in once after 5 years. In other words, you pay ~$100/year to always have the newest phone.
I think that many people replace after 2-3 years because 1) that's when the warranty runs out; and 2) you don't save much vs. holding on to the phone for longer.
If I had to ferment a revolution into a democracy, Android would be much closer to the ideal I would want in that future.
I’m a mostly happy iOS user but it’s exactly the same with Android. You connect to your Google Account and everything is back exactly as it was.
I think US users don’t realise how close to each other Android and iOS actually are especially if you use a Pixel phone. I switched because of the Apple Watch which had no equivalent.
In 2500 (say) this will probably seem like a very funny statement (because some amazing developments we can barely imagine will surely come along and be monetized to an extent we can also barely imagine).
Either that or you're right which would be very bad news for humanity (think the great filter).
Then this might blow your mind even more: In 2017, at a market cap of more than $2.1 trillion, Apple's market capitalization is larger than 96% of country GDPs, a list that includes Italy, Brazil, Canada, and Russia. In fact, only seven countries in the world have a higher GDP than Apple's market cap.
If you think of the German government as a business, they generate roughly 2X the revenue of Apple, but with 5 million employees vs. Apple’s 150k.
Of course, the German government doesn’t optimize for growth and expansion like a company does (at least…not yet in this century… nervous laugh)
Just look at that Meta VR game thingy. What's it called again?
There is an incredible bubble here that doesn't reflect the world.
To me, this is a deal breaker. Hardware-wise the product is good, but I'm not just taking pictures and chatting on snapchat. I do a bit more with my phone. For my mom, however, the phone is great and does everything she expects it to do.
For example, I bought an iPad for GoodNotes and Procreate. Both are killer apps and I've really grown to love the iPad.
It seems large enterprises conveniently downplay the Reduce and Reuse tenets of the 3R reduce, reuse, recycle mantra.
All this vanity and waste at such a great cost, for what? IG, tiktok, memes? I'm guilty of it myself at times, but I try to repair and repurpose as much as possible.
I think we are better than this. The time and energy of so many brilliant minds (here on HN, present company included) is squandered.
A bit off topic, apologies. Hopefully I can direct this energy to being more focused and finding clarity.
Besides, Apple has been selling electronics more expensive than competitors for 40 years.
Apple has kept the same design for 3 years. You can’t tell whether it’s the “latest” or not. You definitely can’t tell whether it’s pro or not if you have a case.
No one is impressed by a device that over 300 million people buy a year or that you spent $46/month instead of $18/month.
An example of gov intervention: banning Huawei as it was rising as a global phone maker, international tarriff negociation (the whole stupid tarriff war happened as China was rising as high end device exporter), protecting Apple's business when challenged on anti-trust grounds (Apple's open stance to the judge was "we need extortion to make money, let us keep brinig money in"). In doubt, look back at these photos of Tim Cook cringing next to Trump because he can't just say no.
They might be right, but it's super hard to determine where good intentions stop and self interest starts.
The UK had set up a different approach where Huawei exposed their entire stack to UK security authority scrutiny.
The "Five Eyes" security alliance (US/CA/UK/AU/NZ) basically then decided that they didn't want Huawei "inside" the 5G network, partially because of oversold promises of what 5G would enable.
There is a new "cold war" between the US (and the "West") and China and a realignment of alliances since the 2nd term of Xi began and he started rolling back the opening up of China's economy.
This has accelerated after the crack down in Hong Kong and the sabre rattling about Taiwan.
(Original source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/us/politics/huawei-ban.ht...)
I find it hard to believe that the businesses selling the highest profit margin products and posting the highest profits received stimulus funds.
A likelier explanation for how big tech got big is that they delivered something of very high utility to people around the world and it has low marginal costs and high barriers to entry for competitors.
And yet, I don't say these companies are anything else than they are
There are many forms of sovereign ownership and influence in them, who cares
It's beyond the understanding of your or I, and probably anyone. The relationship between these stakeholders is too complex to accurately dissect, but their actions speak louder than press releases.
That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of bien-pensant ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.
They've got a huge market cap at an absurd P/E ratio, but they don't have anything approaching a huge market share of vehicles, quick search shows 19% of the EV market, which is only 10-20% of the overall vehicle market.
MAMAA: Microsoft. Apple. Meta. Amazon. Alphabet
It's not an accident.
Choosing to do this with a US nexus for most purposes was intentional and helped this outcome.
For an example of this combination. Baidu is a chinese search engine and advertising platform.
It is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, its board members and management are several US citizens living in the US, several are Chinese. Its primary operations are in China with several subsidiaries in other countries. The shares are repackaged as foreign depository receipts to trade on the US Nasdaq. And also trades on a Hong Kong exchange as of 2021.
You only limit yourself with this kind of nationalism.
The chosen regulatory environment does affect the potential size of the business. Its a choice for the company, and the management. A low growth French or German company chooses to stay in France or Germany.
(sorry! sorry, as someone from MN, I'm sorry Canada! don't hurt me)
An extreme similar example of this is Mckesson [0], which does $260bn of revenue a year (mostly buying pills from pharma companies and re-selling them to pharmacies) but only $11bn of gross profit, since they spend $250bn/year just buying those pills.
[0]https://www.mckesson.com/About-McKesson/Newsroom/Press-Relea...
I get it, hindsight in 20/20 etc., but those pills were prescribed by highly-trained doctors and fulfilled by highly-trained pharmacists who thought they were doing the right thing and you expect some non-M.D. to have the foresight and understanding to say 'Sure, CVS is ordering this amount from us because they have this many pharmacist-approved scripts (keep in mind, this is one of thousands of items CVS is ordering), but I think something is fishy.'
It just seems like that expectation diffuses blame from the actual villains here (the pharma companies that specifically worked to manipulate pharmacists and doctors into writing/approving those scripts).
And yeah, distributors for sure have experts and resources to hire experts. And they were repeatedly warned/directed to stop the insane volume. They knew of this. They weren't ignorant, even on purpose.
The opiate lobbyists slyly got the law changed so the DEA couldn't enforce with stop notices.
IIRC In Gibney's documentary they interviewed some of the Congresspeople who voted for it and they thought the bill did the opposite.
pharmacists also had the right to refuse and some did! but Purdue often intervened and pressured them to fill the scripts. I think that was shown either in gibney or maybe the great hulu purdue miniseries?
wapo "THE DRUG INDUSTRY’S TRIUMPH OVER THE DEA"