The real problem, to me, isn't that Cook sold out Jobs; he sold out his customers, by the increasing rents extracted by the App Store and the services division in general. I'm a long time Apple user, and the idea that ads have any place in my computers is appalling, but now they're in Maps, and they're in the OS as non-dismissible upsells, and I mean, Windows is right over there, all of this is unnecessary strategy taxation on what Apple does well (hardware and software).
That was always the strategy, the whole apple ecosystem was always obtuse and closed off from compatibility with the rest of the computing world just to maximize rents. If they could, they would ship an apple version of the internet only available to apple devices.
Apple of Jobs' era also realized their price premium came from a combination of 'their devices worked for most users' and 'cool' -- Cook inherited an Apple that was already a behemoth, and completely ignored (or never knew) how they became one.
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)
As a commercial OS, OS X/macOS was quite compatible: FOSS Darwin core, FreeBSD userland, POSIX compiant certified UNIX, built-in Python and Java support.
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.
That is how Compaq managed to avoid the copyright lawsuit, afterwards there were enough options, besides the failed PS/2 attempt, OS/2, or even forcing a new hardware stack.
Well, at least you got to experience the "innocent" and magical beginnings of the extremely integrated general-purpose computer, still very open to tinkering. Its overspecialized modern logical conclusion, and I'm not talking about the retro scene here, is not something I want to be associated with.
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.
This is true and I don’t know why it’s downvoted. IBM was notoriously obsessed with lock-in, they just bungled it with the IBM PC because they needed to move fast because they didn’t want it to slip away from them. So, they used off the shelf components that anyone else could buy.
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.
The default the GP is probably referencing is the early days all hardware vendors produced their own OS. Apple maintained the status quo as MS changed the status quo. The innovation MS really developed was the software license for OS's.
Nefarious and default aren't incompatible properties. If companies (especially large, public ones) were benevolent by default, a lot of laws and institutions would not be needed anymore.
It's downvoted because it reads as though IBM made a mistake the commenter thinks they should've never made, as opposed to a mistake from IBMs perspective given their business strategy at the time.
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.
It was certainly a mistake to base the original IBM PC hardware design in easily obtained electronics, and hope the BIOS copyright would be enough to hold out clones, unlike previous IBM hardware.
But it's not their mistake at all there is nothing they could do, companies went out there and reversed engineered BIOS. They couldn't possibly stop them.
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
That's not really true. He was a control freak and thought he and Apple knew better what people need. They always wanted to control the whole experience and most of the things were initially closed off because he never wanted anyone to modify the Apple experience and his products. That's why initially he didn't even want to let people install other apps on the iPhone and was against the AppStore.
If they could, they would ship an apple version of the internet only available to apple devices.
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.
Companies with ecosystems would like their users locked into their ecosystems. There are many large companies that still do business with customers even if their customers do business with their competitors.
That isn't true. The original Apple Store proposal by Bertrand Serlet is available and it is pretty clearly driven by the need to polish the user experience of installing and managing applications. Being able to charge a significant premium was just a part of the picture and originally considered to be required to pay for the associated infrastructure of reviews and such.
I am not even talking about the apple store, i am talking about printers, cables and file systems in the 90s. Since the beginning of the company everything they made did not work with stuff from other manufacturers on purpose.
Apple chose SCSI as its connector of choice in the 90s. It was a standard, it was faster and better than Serial, and PC manufacturers never bothered to offer it.
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.
I don’t think there’s inherent virtue in zagging just because everyone else zags if zigging is better.
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.
> Since the beginning of the company everything they made did not work with stuff from other manufacturers on purpose.
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.
I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual. Even the visit to the WH dinner - it is the company, Apple, via various structures committed to doing those things with various VPs and staff onboard brainstorming and supporting along the way.
So "John" may bring some nuances but let's not be under the illusion that a huge corporation like Apple would suddenly bounce off to a different track.
> I think it's important to remind ourselves that the responsibility doesn't lie with the one individual.
No, the responsibility lies with the culture of growth at all costs. Margins and revenues must continue to increase, whatever else happens.
If you want to blame someone, blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options. That's what incentivises this kind of behaviour.
As an aside, it's amusing to me that Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products.
> blame whoever decided it was a great idea to pay executives in stock/stock options
Yes, I do agree that extreme forms of capitalism are responsible for ruining practically every aspect of modern tech.
> Apple ran so hard on privacy with (apparently) the explicit intention of creating a market for their ad products
Indeed. It wasn't obvious at the time, but with hindsight we can see that the push for privacy was only in areas where Apple wanted to counter Meta/competitors or gain advantage in specific verticals. It was never "user focused".
Absolutely true. Cook is an officer of the company, and has a responsibility to the company itself; and the current incentive structure that Apple operates in dictates a drive towards rents. Change needs to be exogenous, but there is a certain amount of pushback that even a fiduciary can use, and the evidence here is, to me, damning.
What Apple is doing is really just a symptom of a malaise with the economy in general, that in the last 25 years the business model of everything that possibly can be pushed that way has changed to: Rent Seeking.
In the economics textbook sense of the word. You will own nothing and rent forever. You will not have control over your own data or devices. Having that control is a threat to someone's revenue model for getting you to pay for monthly subscriptions to things and services.
Microsoft's new user out of box experience for Windows 11 is also a fine example of this.
Imagine where we would be at right now if the Windows Phone had been a wild success and the Microsoft App Store on the Windows Phone was also a wild success. You think the fees and commissions charged and terms/conditions for app publishers would be much different?
That is not the economics textbook sense of the phrase.
The first sentence from the wikipedia article seems good to me: "R-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth."
Running an app store that takes some huge % off the top just for distributing a piece of software would meet this definition:
"Rent-seeking middlemen: These actors insert themselves into a transaction by force, law, or monopoly control. They do not make the trade easier or better. They just demand a toll or fee because they control access."
Monopoly app store enforced on devices by firmware/operating system lockout inserting yourself as the only middleman to distribute things meets the definition.
I think the iconic rent seeking is the distributors of goods and services in Japan. They don’t add value but you cannot buy directly from the mfg. Same could be said of resellers in the US when they have exclusive distribution rights to another company’s products and services.
> by the increasing rents extracted by the App Store and the services division in general
I wouldn't care about the rents if they weren't in the form of ads being shoved in everywhere. The "2 ads in the first 3 results" of the App Store is a horror show.
> For example, just recently, Apple deployed its formidable multi-billion-user global cloud infrastructure in service of… promoting the Brad Pitt Formula 1 movie. People were, understandably, a bit disconcerted to see their wallet payment app sending them promotional messages about a film, and Apple undoubtedly screwed up in polluting a functional messaging channel about transactions with a commercial message, but hey — this is a clear sign Apple knows it’s got the power to drop a note directly into millions of people’s pockets.
If the linux community could focus and organize its efforts it could actually offer an alternative that would reapply pressure that the tech industry has been working hard to lift from itself through creeping encirclement and enclosure, i.e., the Enclosure Acts. People sometimes lament things like how the Europeans stole the land of the indigenous tribes in what would become America or throughout he colonialism in Europe, but what is often overlooked is that this process of taking public lands and giving them to private people was done to the indigenous Europeans long before America was even discovered and colonialism was even engaged in, starting in the 12th century in the UK for example.
What the tech companies have been doing to the internet since about the early aughts has been no different, they've been using the same kind of enclosure strategy to limit and parcel out and divide up the internet among the ruling psychopaths.
Yeah, I have an MBP for Reasons, but it sits docked 90% of the time. I'd rather spend the engineering budget on better thermals and more ports; I always have it plugged into a fixed monitor and other peripherals.
I like that the author at least head fakes towards postage, which is how spam gets solved, for real. It's far too late for SMTP, but I don't mind folks thinking hard about it.
I looked in to it and it seemed like 10gbit was much better over fiber. Ended up deciding that 2.5gbit is plenty. The 2.5 gear is significantly cheaper and runs cool.
> I looked in to it and it seemed like 10gbit was much better over fiber.
Yes, except that most devices use Ethernet. So, at the end of the day, you still need Ethernet cables unless you want to deal with an additional switch or converter in every room.
If you want to ackshually, both fiber and copper are empty pipes that can carry any layer 2 protocol, and are not inherently Ethernet. They only become Ethernet cables when they're connected to terminals that pass that protocol through them.
Unless we're defining some networking standard, "Ethernet cable" is a perfectly acceptable term. Everyone will understand what is meant. The added specificity you're asking for doesn't improve the quality of communication.
You're still talking about a cable. The cable may be compatible with those standards, but you can put anything through it. It's just a physical connection.
>And people nerdy enough to run 10GE at home might well run fibre. So, no, the specifity is needed and useful.
No, because if you say "which do you want? Ethernet or fiber?" no one will look at you like if you asked if they want salt or beef. It's technically incorrect, but everyone will understand what is being asked.
> You're still talking about a cable. The cable may be compatible with those standards, but you can put anything through it. It's just a physical connection.
If you want to ackshually, the post I was replying to was talking about what "devices use" and cables required for that, so it's in fact about what standards these devices support.
Apart from that, again, in the context of 10GE you can by no means assume copper when talking about an Ethernet port; SFP+ slots are quite common. Your assertion that "everyone will understand" is also something I plainly know to be untrue in my bubble. It may be true in the context of slower speeds, but for ≥10GE the general performance characteristics of twisted-pair copper transceivers are so bad as to make it into the crossover point from copper cabling into DAC cables and fibre.
And, honestly, the assumption that "Ethernet = copper cabling" is harmful for 10GE. Those transceivers are hot garbage in the literal sense, they run hot enough to warrant usage limitations on switches due to cooling/overheating limits, and they tend to be quite picky about cable quality on establishing links.
>the post I was replying to was talking about what "devices use" and cables required for that
Yes, that person said "most devices use Ethernet", to which you correctly pointed out they meant to say RJ45. However, in the process of making that correction you made an unrelated error yourself in saying that fiber is Ethernet too.
>you can by no means assume copper when talking about an Ethernet port
You can, if by "Ethernet" you mean an RJ45 jack and its cable, which is a fairly common usage of the word. It doesn't matter that it's technically incorrect. The default idea of physical protocol that the word "Ethernet" invokes in most people is that of twisted pair copper cabling. If you take a random person and put in front of them a fiber optic cable carrying Ethernet and a copper cable carrying serial signals and tell them "would you mind unplugging the Ethernet cable?" they'll disconnect the copper cable.
>Your assertion that "everyone will understand" is also something I plainly know to be untrue in my bubble.
Oh, so you know several people who when presented with the dichotomy of Ethernet or fiber (because that's what the comment you replied to was about, as it put Ethernet in contrast with fiber), they'll be completely dumbfounded about what is meant, as if hearing gobbledygook?
> Oh, so you know several people who when presented with the dichotomy of Ethernet or fiber (because that's what the comment you replied to was about, as it put Ethernet in contrast with fiber), they'll be completely dumbfounded about what is meant, as if hearing gobbledygook?
Yes.
And I've used up the time I'm willing to sink into this subthread, see you around.
Indeed, that's largely why I decided 10gbit at home isn't really worth it. The current 10gbit ethernet stuff is expensive and power hungry, the enterprise stuff is hard to use on consumer gear. And the only real use case is super fast access to a nas.
I got it solely because our ISP bumped our home fiber to 10Gb and it would’ve hurt my soul for the router to be slower than that. And hey, if you’ve already got a router with 10Gb ports available and ready to go…
I disagree with that for two reasons. First, my central switch is probably capable of both copper and fiber. Second, how many wired devices do you have spread around your house? Let's say I have an above average number of devices: a router, a NAS, two access points, and three desktops. Router, NAS, and one access point can all be adjacent to the switch and avoid any conversion hassle. The desktops are using fiber so no conversion hassle there. That leaves one copper cable or converter needed for the other access point.
I guess I have rather overestimated what a normal amount of wired devices is based on my own sample size. That or the opposite is happening with you.
My house has a POE doorbell, several POE cameras, 2 TVs that each get a connection to their attached android TV boxes, Wife's office gets a pair of connections, ditto with mine, then you've got the APs for the wireless bits + a few servers in the rack with the networking equipment.
Mind you I know I am on the high side, but I use that as the reference point. I'd figure a normal house would have 4-5 wired connections to my 20ish.
In that situation I'd basically consider the doorbell and cameras as a separate install.
That mainly leaves the TVs, which I would just throw on the wireless but for wiring I'd still say you run it to your central switching spot that handles both copper and fiber.
> If you have a fixed computer or NAS, stop making excuses and install a 10G fiber card in it.
It's hard to justify when Ethernet is catching up. Most new motherboards have a 2.5G port. High-end motherboards have 10G Ethernet ports. SFP cards take space, are ugly, and need directed airflow to stay cool. They are not worth it for a 4x increase in bandwidth at best.
Having cabled my apartment with Cat 6 definitely made me prefer fiber, it would have been a breeze instead of pulling thick cables from my office to other rooms. Cat 6 also shouldn’t be bent or you risk it going out of spec, and modern fiber nowadays have bend radius comparable to (or even smaller than) Cat 6.
I see how sloppy some FTTH installs are and they all work fine, and this is for light that travels for long distances.
You'd be amazed what exists on the market these days. For example, the pre-terminated InvisiLight fiber cabling is 0.6mm in diameter and has a 2.5mm bend radius. I've personally installed this cabling while making many 90 degree (and sharper in some cases) bends without any issues. That makes it easy to hide and trivial to fit right through doorways and other tight spaces too.
> If you have a fixed computer or NAS, stop making excuses and install a 10G fiber card in it.
I mean sure, I could install a sfp+ card, but the cat5 installed in 2003 or so works fine with my 10gbase-T equipment (maybe it won't work on all my runs, but so far I'm two for two and I ran out of 10g ports on my core switch). Why would I tear up my walls to run fiber when I have cabling that works for me. (I use dac for servers near the switches)
I have seen some attractively priced 40g equipment on ebay, but honestly 1G wasn't really limiting me, I just wanted to see if 10g would work.
reply