Apple into hardware and software.

Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud.

Amazon into cloud and web store(s).

Google into ads and web software that serves ads.

It doesn't make sense to split Apple into hardware and software since the integration and simplicity that comes from it is the very thing that makes Apple unique.

Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior.

Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great hardware for any operating system.

Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries.

Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to use it to be a bunch of monopolists, so your break them up like all the others.

Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just not have any market share.

People buy apple hardware for the integrated experience. e.g. I am not gonna buy a Dell running macOS or a Mac running Windows11.

There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware.

There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.

Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? If you change Apple into that, I would be sad because now you’ve taken away a choice I had before.

>Then why don’t people buy those over apple products?

But they do lil bro/sis

Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones.

etc

tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side comes anywhere close for the same amount of time.

i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.

> rather than having to research options for 3 hours

Right. Just buy a Macbook...

Except, don't get the 12". That one was an overheating flop, should have never made it to market (nor the i9 16" Pro). Also, avoid the 2016-2019 ones with the butterfly keyboard. While you're at it, don't get the 13" Pro either, since it's a bit of a scam for the touchbar that wasn't that big of a hit. For all of these machines you'll want to upgrade them from the base memory to 16gb to make them last longer, and if you don't upgrade the storage then there's a good chance you'll only get single module speeds, which is significantly limited.

Simple!

There is a reason why https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ exists.

Ive seen plenty of people buy a current Mac just for Apple to relesase something new 2 weeks later.

Also, for phones atleast, Samsung Galaxy has been pretty consistent in quality.

it's an interesting question (whether Apple's monopolistic behavior has produced any good), but entirely orthogonal to the underlying question, whether Apple is behaving monopolistically (they are).

Apple has a monopoly on Apple products, and even though there are plenty of non-Apple products to buy, they are behaving like a monopoly?

yes, they are engaging in monopolistic behavior, which as mentioned above, does not require them to pass any particular threshold for being a monopoly

society has decided that some behaviors are in and of themselves bad, whether or not said threshold of yours is surpassed (for example monopolistic behaviors)

I just want to avoid going back to the time before Apple products were nice and relatively affordable, I hated buying a crappy Windows PC every other year and never being satisfied with it. Apple has transformed the entire industry twice in my lifetime, and I get really nervous when people say they should be forced to be just like another PC maker, and I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.

it's an interesting topic (whether Apple's monopolistic behavior has produced any good), but again, entirely orthogonal to the underlying question, whether Apple is behaving monopolistically (they are).

in the amount equal to how much you like any such benefits, other people dislike the downsides of monopolistic behavior, so we decided that it's bad even if maybe some good comes with the bad

I just disagree that Apple is behaving monopolistically. Dictionary definition of monopolistic behavior:

> having or trying to have complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share: She did not consider the fine a sufficient deterrent against monopolistic practices by big producers. The company is accused of monopolistic behavior.

Apple has completely control over Apple products and services, but not of the entire market, since there are plenty of other choices available in every market category they operate in. People who say they dislike Apple for its monopolistic behavior tend to seem to dislike Apple in general, and would rather not anyone buy their products, rather than just making the personal choice to not buy their products (because they indeed have many other choices and so can avoid buying Apple products and services).

your post does a good job of explaining how Apple's behavior is monopolistic, by that very definition, even despite not controlling the entire market: the "something" need not be the entire market

as for like vs dislike, the company isn't important enough for me to form such personal opinions about it, they're simply a company engaging in monopolistic behavior just like any other company engaging in monopolistic behavior

Again, the definition is clear. By the definition generalized in that way, any company building a proprietary system would be guilty of monopolistic behavior. If that's the case, then I guess it is a meaningless distinction anyways, and really not my worth much of my time to ponder either.

your own conclusions, whether about what other companies do or don't do (whataboutism) or anything else, are neither convincing nor here nor there, since the topic at hand is simply, is this one company in question (Apple) engaging in monopolistic behavior (they are)

the same goes for your personal opinions as to the meaning of such a conclusion -- while I'm sure you are a great person, and appreciate you respectfully commenting, such opinions are neither convincing nor relevant to the topic at hand: whether this one company in question (Apple) is engaging in monopolistic behavior (they are)

Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry". The iPhone is an example of an industry-changer - actual industries changed here. Apple Silicon hasn't really changed the PC market - ARM is still a sideshow ISA for the Windows and Linux desktop alike. The market share hasn't changed dramatically. The line between people who want PCs and who want Macs is roughly the same as it was a decade ago.

> I get really nervous when people say [...] I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.

Well, that's the problem with walled gardens. If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems. A money-ocracy is not a solution to these problems, it's a clever guise to drain your wallet and make you think that life is improving because you spend money and buy products.

> Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry".

Huh? I'm only referring to the Apple 2 (when Apple first changed the personal computing industry) and the 00s, when macs finally became fast and stable enough to be considered a decent value (one can argue it was the original iMac, but OS/X and then the first intel macbooks is when Macs really started making sense value wise). Apple silicon, a recent innovation, hasn't really changed the personal computing industry much.

> If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems

I don't think Apple is doing this. They are selling a decent product, which for some inexplicable reason other hardware/software producers can't seem to replicate. They seem to have a monopoly on "not sucking" but that's about it.

There are but they do not compare to a mac. The point of choice for me is to be able to buy an integrated experience.

> Unfortunately this is also the source of all their monopolistic behavior.

How can you be showing “monopolistic behavior” when you’re neither the only player in the game, nor the biggest?

If you want until they're the only player you're way way too late and huge damage has already been done.

That both doesn’t answer my question nor is it actually true.

In fact, splits almost always happen when it’s actually a monopoly not some vague hand-wavy goal-shifting “monopolistic behaviors”.

Splits in general rarely if ever happen at all, let alone when they should.

Our antitrust over the last few years is crazy lacking.

Wouldn't you want the burst of innovation and competition before the five to ten years of status quo monopoly if you wait to act?

Cute strawman.

That would also extend to practically every company out there unless we can somehow accurately predict the future.

Apple's phone amrket share is 20%, one point above Samsung. They're no way near a monopoly

Apple's US phone market share is 50% and definitely way higher in the high end phone market share.

monopolistic behavior doesn't require a monopoly

>Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries.

Is there any money in writing operating systems? I don't see a world where people suddenly start paying for Operating Systems

This is nothing new. IBM was required to sell software separate from their hardware...

You asked for ideas. You never specified that they should be workable or logical.

Apple licensed it's MacOS back in the mid-90s to third-party hardware manufacturers. If it was forced to by the government, I imagine it could do so again.

It wasn’t forced to by the government. The CEO at the time thought it was a good idea.

Yes, we know. Please read my comment, it doesn't claim or imply Apple was under any government pressure back then.

They use that line of argument specifically to avoid antitrust scrutiny.

That's exactly the issue, isn't it?

Why not Apple into Products and Services?

Products being - for example products being iPhone and iOS and services being iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.

I actually really like that. Would force a (semi?-)public compatibility layer that allows other competitors to enter the space. If you want to back your iPhone up to Google Drive, you do you.

App Store would also likely end up in Services, which would also open up multi-app store compatibility. It's almost too good of a solution.

Microsoft OS is too powerful, split it into Kernel and user space

That would be a competitive OS, you get a good kernel with good hardware support and you can put a decent DE on top of it like KDE.

I'd say you could split Google into at least, cloud, ads, search and workspace (including mail).

Don't those all lose a lot of money, except ads?

All except search are paid services so you wouldn't think so.

And search would probably make more money if they could sell ad space to other companies. And by selling information on popular search terms for particular links.

This just feels like completely arbitrary divisions based on what sounds good as opposed to any guiding logic around defining a monopoly and breaking it down along systemic lines. Populism, basically.

Why not split Apple into hardware and hardware? Ideally two companies that start competing from equal starting point.

* * *

Apple Hardware, Apple Licensed OSes, Apple Online Services, Apple Financial Services (apple card & apple pay & co), Apple News Services, Apple Mapping Services.

Think of everything that Apple (Meta, Google) do, think on which components would benefit from having startups replace and distrupt them and then break them up on those seams while forcing them to allow competition between their fragments (e.g. iPhone with Android OS, iOS on Microsoft phone platform, MacBook M1 with ARM Windows, iOS iPhone with Google Pay, etc. etc.).

Which of them will own apple.com?

Which of them will own Apple trademark?

Which of them will own Apple logo?

For a point of reference here have a look at how many independent companies share the “Sparkasse” or “Raiffeisen” trademarks and Logos on Europe.

We can compromise and say "none" :P

There will probably be trademark usage agreements, like with companies who split themselves like Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility (owned by Lenovo) both license the Motorola trademark from Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC unclear who owns the holding company.

Trivialities that antitrust regulations already cover. It would not be the first time a company has been broken up.

You didn't answer the question.

I don't have to: I'm not a judge specialized in antitrust law and I don't have access to Apple's books to determine what would be more appropriate.

But a judge can, and will (if asked to), because - as I said - it's hardly an unprecedented situation. Just to mention one, AT&T still exists as a brand but was once broken up.

Apple Hardware I'd split further into silicon business and device OEM. Also split out the headphone business.

WhatsApp used to charge, but really what they'd do is just charge facebook & whoever else for the data they're sharing.

Did they actually charge though? I remember hearing about that but it's been my sole method of messaging for years and I never remember setting up payments with them

yeah they did. 0,99€ was the purchase of my whatsapp back then

IIRC it was 99 cents per year, and you could just keep "skipping" the payment. I don't think they ever cut anyone off from using it for not paying. A little bit like shareware (or nagware?).

I think they charged 1 Euro when you bought the app. I doubt that covers the costs to keep it running.

I probably wouldn't break up Apple myself, but would require lifting the ban on other web browser engines and app stores on all operating systems.

For Alphabet and Meta, I would likely pursue criminal charges for conspiracy to fix prices in online ad auctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

How to split Meta: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp.

Easy! Hard part: Who gets Occulus?

Occulus can be its own company

This is our problem as techies, we throw out this stuff with very little idea of the legal framework in place around antitrust. Even smaller ideas around precedent and the legal reasoning behind those precedents. I know everyone doesn't want to go to law school, but we have to at least understand that we can't go into a court and make stuff up.

Who can reasonably be broken up? On what reasonable basis?

Well,

Perhaps Meta?

Maybe Microsoft?

Alphabet definitely.

Apple? They'll laugh us out of court.

If we want these changes, we're going to have to advocate for changes in the fundamental ideas behind antitrust itself. Technology has outstripped the current regulatory environment's ability to keep it in order. And we don't seem to want to admit that. We just keep crying that the law won't act. Well, that's because no laws are being broken. And the politicians and the tech bigs are desperate to ensure that no one figures that out. They'll keep feeding us crumbs so that we don't do the dangerous thing and ask for changes in law.