Grandparent is claiming that Apple aren’t a hardware company any more. Pointing out that the vast majority of their income comes from hardware is totally relevant.
Apple brings in hundreds of billions from selling hardware every year. They are definitely still a hardware company.
Apple has passed the event horizon of extracting profits now.
It’s not though. Apple are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars every year from hardware. That’s not a means to an end, that is the end itself.
A few weeks ago I was also stuck in a situation where he appeared to play dumb and refused to acknowledge the contradictions in his positions and the level of indignation that followed afterwards was unbelievable.
> this also isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion scenario.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39026820
You were being unreasonable and insulting. If you are going to continue to act like that, how about we stay out of each other’s way? Don’t drag this thread down into a flamewar as well.
Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
You are definitely correct in that Apple are a hardware company.
However (and I think this is the point of disagreement) much of their revenue growth (and presumably profits, but that's harder to assess) comes from services, and from a stock price perspective revenue/profit growth is what matters (you're only as good as your last quarter and all that).
Understanding this is key to understanding lots of Apple's business decisions recently (my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant).
I appreciate you trying to steel-man their argument, but you’ve gone far enough that it doesn’t reflect what they were actually saying. The thing I’m disagreeing with is:
> Apple's no longer a hardware company
There’s no way to spin that into anything resembling reality. If they had said what you are saying, I wouldn’t have objected.
> my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant
It doesn’t really make sense to do so. Apple aren’t an unseen third-party; the user has explicitly chosen to use their products and services. Why would ATT apply here?
Just to clarify, ATT is where Apple says that apps can’t collect data on you and share it with other companies without your permission.
When somebody buys and uses an iPhone, they are clearly making an active choice to be an Apple user. Apple can use their data.
When somebody installs a third-party app Foo, they are clearly making an active choice to be a Foo user. Foo can use their data.
But then Foo adds the Facebook SDK to their app. This is invisible to the user. They haven’t made a choice to be a Facebook user. They don’t even know it’s happening. When Facebook gets their data because they use the Foo application, it’s happening without the user’s knowledge or consent.
ATT doesn’t ban Facebook from tracking them, it just says that the user needs to be asked first. It’s putting Facebook’s access to data on the same level of consent as Apple and the apps people choose to use.
Apple using your tracking data in their own ad business doesn’t violate that norm. The data isn’t being sent to an unknown third-party. Apple says:
> The Apple advertising platform does not track you, nor does it buy or share your personal information with other companies.
— https://www.apple.com/sg/privacy/control/
Do you have reason to believe this is a lie? Because if it’s the truth, then Apple are playing by the same rules as everybody else.
And they're really not playing by the same rules as everyone else given that they own the platform that all this activity takes place on, so they get basically all iOS users data without needing any permission dialogue.
This is literally part of their ad sales pitch and ads is the fastest growing part of the services business.
So maybe they don't do all this stuff now (but they don't need to because they receive installs and conversions by the very nature of running the platform).
Like, google could make the same claim Apple make here and it would be true for Android.
When BMW is gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, is that also irrelevant because they're a car company? We shouldn't just stop discussing it.
I was saying that the difference between revenue and profit is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. You’re now trying to draw an analogy with what I said and gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, which is not what I called irrelevant.
The analogous situation is if you said BMW were no longer a car company for doing so, and I’d disagree with that as well. Apple makes tonnes of money selling hardware, BMW makes tonnes of money selling cars. Apple is still a hardware company and BMW is still a car company.
Why?