Wrong. Steve would have charged you for everything he thought they deserved, but he'd never allow ads in Apple Maps.
["We like our own stickers better."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COAOknlfMgI)
Handing the CEO reigns over to a supply chain or financial person is almost always a bad move.
They're the critical engine to every physical business, but don't confuse an engine with a steering wheel.
(And yes, I know Apple may be a more valuable company today from Cook's tenure, but I don't think anyone would say it's as cool of one)
Cook joined apple in 1998. They were not a behemoth. His first year, their net income was 300 million for the entire year.
There's a bit of power difference between SVP for worldwide operations (read: component supply and international manufacturing) and CEO.
Apple/OS X also contributed some nice things, by way of funding, hiring main devs, and/or heavily supporting certain FOSS projects: LLVM and Clang, CUPS printer drivers, WebDAV, WebKit, libc++, and Swift.
Also designed some widely used interface standards: FireWire (started by Apple), Thunderbolt (co-designed with Intel driven by Apple) which eventually turned into USB 4, Mini DisplayPort (later incorporated to the official DisplayPort standard, and even the design re-used for Thunderbolt).
There was nothing to "maximize rents" as there were no rents for the most part of OS X's journey until later Cook. They put out good products and people bought them, getting them out of near certain bankruptcy.
The clones happened with cleanroom engineering which is legal.
And an okaish tv show where the first season is very loosely based on Compaqs clean room engineering effort. [2]
In my bubble, the world was about ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64 and Amiga, Atari ST, before PC clones became relevant.
All equally vertically integrated as Apple.
My personal computing life began much later, in the early 90s, in a very strange place filled with people whose very personal philosophies, and computer experiences, were a much better fit for x86 land. But this is something you rarely see explored in the thinkpieces that often make the rounds here.
Careful... overspecialize (overintegrate), and you breed in weakness.
The lenient contract with Microsoft and the unexpected to them ruling on reverse engineering the BIOS sealed their fate.
But no company wants to compete in a commodity, they all want to be monopolies. All the Unix vendors tried to be common enough to be a selling point but idiosyncratic enough to lock in their clients.
Apple isn’t nefarious… they are the default.
Now, if we want to support their ambitions with our wallets is another question
That's not true, well the second part is not true. it's not the default, it's a choice they made, there is no default.
They could have opted for maximum interoperability and openess.
Sk Hynix does not work with only sk hynix motherboards(I don't know if they even make motherboards), Intel cpus do not only work with Intel NICs. AMD GPUs do not only work with AMD CPUs. Nvidia GPUs do not require an imaginary Nvidia OS.
Hell windows is happy to work with whatever hardware you throw at it, but Macs nowadays have soldered ram and storage. And you can't install MacOS on any hardware you might like.
Getting files in or out of an iPhone without a Mac was a nightmare just a few years ago and I am confident it still is.
https://www.ntari.org/post/how-clean-room-reverse-engineerin...
However it was too late to regain control and PS/2 alongside MCA was largely ignored.
That is, it appears to tacitly agree with, and chide IBM for failing to defended, closed, walled-garden ecosystems.
That's certainly not what it seems they meant. It's just how one might initially read it and downvote.
I'm kind of struck my this because it reminds me of the some contrast between the two platforms during the mid-90s.
While no PC manufacturer controlled their HW stack like Apple did, making Macs more expensive than PCs by almost double, Windows was the only viable OS option as Linux distros had trouble supporting print functionality. Windows was never not hot garbage.
What Mac users got for their money in 1996 was out-of-the-box media production capacity in the form of CD quality (if not DAT on some models) audio and video (though not full-size broadcast quality yet), TTS and -- I _believe_ -- voice rec and of course a superior UX that turned mere users into babbling near-cultish apostles. PCs had superiority in 3D modeling and animation as well as gaming likely helped along by industry adoption (even Steve Jobs' Pixar went PC) but I don't remember any independent PC-based 3D animation folks like I recall independent Mac based visual designers, sound designers/musicians and video producers.
Mac users got their money's worth especially if they were creatives IMHO
Basically what Apple News is, they don’t have a web or Android client.
There are news+ articles available to Apple subscribers. This is hardly “the internet”. This is analogous to premium memberships on websites.
Nor is it required that an app developer make an app for every platform. Microsoft doesn’t make office for Linux.
Well Microsoft tried to do the exact same thing with that dreadful Microsoft Network in the early days of the web. So it's not inherit to Apple only, all large corporations would like their users locked up in their ecosystems.
Apple chose an internal connector that worked with their CPUs. They couldn't even offer the connection styles on PCs; they worked differently.
Apple built its own mouse and keyboard cabling because they wanted to allow their users to connect their mouse to their keyboard, and to start the computer from the keyboard. No common cable offered them that.
Apple was literally first to the common rigid diskette. That they came up with file systems of their own is a measure of their early investments, and their need to maintain compatibility. They couldn't move to FAT, they had already made their own stack.
From my side of the fence, PC makers were laggards trying to save pennies who couldn't be bothered to invest in better technologies. Apple's success in cornering the majority of profits in the computer sector is a measure of their continued failures.
There’s trade-offs, but in most cases the Apple call has tended to err on the side of ease of use and ease of access to the mass market at the expense of flexibility and versatility for tinkerers. It’s good for a market to have companies willing to make different sets of trade-offs to please different segments of the market rather than all herding around the preferences of a cluster of nerds.
The real problem is that the rest of the industry has “Apple envy” and just copies everything they think they can get away with instead of making their own sets of trade-offs.
For the majority of apples history their products were incredibly niche mostly used by designers because certain admittedly superior software for these professionals only shipped with MacOS.
The ipod and iphone were the first true mass market products.
And even to this day PCs and Android(outside the US) dominate the market share by user count.
PC and android are not for tinkerers and nerd, they are the default, apple positions itself as the premium.
But that's often the right route. Sometimes what the others are doing is not enough to deliver a good result. Micro-USB sucked, so they made Lightning. Flash ran slow, so they helped kill it.