First Ring Daily 1113: Basket of Apples

Posted on September 1, 2021 by Brad Sams in Podcasts, First Ring Daily with 13 Comments

On this episode of First Ring Daily, Apple econ theory, PowerPoint happiness, and Google can’t be left out either.

Make sure to check out SmartDeploy!

Subscribe: RSS | YouTube | iTunes | Google Play


Tagged with

Join the discussion!


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Comments (13)

13 responses to “First Ring Daily 1113: Basket of Apples”

  1. dsharp75

    Finally! Brad and Paul hit it on the head about the fees. From the arbitrary 30% to Google just copying Apple, I've been arguing this for years using nearly the same half (or 15%) theory and finally I've got industry pros backing me up! Thanks guys and continue to keep up this great work.

    • Paul Thurrott

      Thanks, but I feel like I've been harping on this for years. :)

      • toukale

        This is such a bs take on the whole thing. Only thing I got from it is some people are unhappy of how much money Apple and Google are making. Talking that Apple should drop their fees to 5%, are we going to tell companies how much they should charge for their service or product now? Microsoft just had the best quarter ever and they raised their prices, are we going to tell Microsoft they can't do that? Like Google said, they don't just process payment, they have a ton of folks working to develop those api's, resources that developers used, infrastructure that need to be maintained etc... those things are not free.

        Looking at this whole scenario boils down to a simple thing envy. People are under the impression that those platform makers should run those platform for free or at a lost. What world are we living in? If I am Apple I would create new rules that give those developers options and then charge a ton for each and everything those developers wants to use ex.. api access, bandwidth, app review then see what people say next. It seems a group of folks wants to use those platforms for free, that should not be the case. Some keep complaining without really addressing the main issue and the main issue is those companies makes too much money and they are mad as a result. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

        • nbplopes

          Well your is even more bs if not a phenomenon of stupidity in my opinion. Even though we may arrive to the same conclusion I have an entirely different stance on this. May take does not concern with how much money a company A or B makes with this approach … is with the approach itself. It goes against the core principles over which many people, companies and organization built the Internet … a tacit if not regulated agreement between business over it. Going against this, distorts the economics of the entire thing … This would require an article … but let me explain here … logically. Without any emotions involved.

          Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. Even though some people may have known has something focused on ISP. The fact is that it runs deep way beyond ISP businesses. It’s a principle that was behind the built up of the technology it self.

          People should instead ask why Net Neutrality is good thing? This principle is based on the premise that everyone should be able to access the Internet infrastructure the same way regardless of financial and technological ability. Vey much like our roads and motorways that has proven to be a good model empowering nations financial growth and well being, from citizens to organizations.

          Yet technically the Internet workings is a lot different from motorways and roads. In abstract the internet is organized as a graph, where each node is called end point. Each end point is either a client, a server, a router or a bridge (there are some more but let’s take these for simplicity sake). At its core, two are essential, a client and a server. Without one of this, the Internet would not work.

          To this case, what matter is one kind of node. A Client. A Client in Internet terms as more well known by the non technical population as an App. Not all Apps are Clients, but all Clients are Apps.

          So what did Apple come up with by tying an Internet device such as a Smartphone, case in case iPhone, with an App Store? Well in effect come up with a way to control which end points can or not be added to the Internet based on its own criteria’s … and discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

          At a small scale this would not be much of a problem. The Internet is so big that could easily absorb this, let’s say variance of behavior and still be Net Neutral. Yet the really is that the scale is not small. In the world its estimated that there exists 3.8 billion active smartphones, 48% of the planets population as estimated. This number is shared by iOS / iPhone enabled devices and Android / Google enabled devices. Devices that whose owners aren’t neither Google or Apple, but you and me, in our pockets. This devices host Apps -> Clients -> Internet Endpoints fully controlled by Apple and Google as explained before, through their App Store policies.

          So its not suprisse that both Google Play and Apple App Store have such a huge margins. They are fundamentally banking on the entire Net Neutral Internet ecosystem, controlling it “silently” and “intuitively” while resting on peoples pockets. Banking on their technology, sure, but also on the good will of many people and organizations, including government regulators. The costs of maintaining this control mechanism as deployed, App Store, compared to say the development and maintenance of iOS/Android and iPhone/Android Smartphones one comes to the conclusion that is fundamentally passive income, considering the way the Internet is organized. Search for a digital service or an app on the Internet (say Google, Bing or whatever), click a link … App Store bling $$$. Read a review of an app or digital services, click a link .. App Store $bling$. Receive an email from a friend mentioning a game … click a link -> App Store $bling$. Search for eBook or training session on the Internet, click a link App Store $bling” ….. $bling$, $bling$, $bling$

          There is not Miracle here if you understand how the Internet works and the principles over which it was built … Both effectively control the Internet end points on peoples device’s, people’s pockets.

          As far as an attack on Net Neutrality, it gets even worst. These companies policies, through their own decision decided to only $bling$ on end points with a certain purpose. Case in case ones concerned with digital assets only. But there is nothing in place to charge for any and all kinds of end points / apps … say UPS, Uber, Retain Stores, a Doctor consultation, so on and so forth. In effect, case in case Apple charges video conferencing apps/endpoints.

          Now this is not fruir of ones Success by any means.

          Can it get even worst … well it can. We are on the verge of many things smart. Cars, Houses, Jackets, Exercise Ramps … $bling$, $bling$, $bling$. Passive, Passive, Passive …

          Now you may say. Nuno, when people bought an iPhone or an Android device people agreed with the use of their devices this way. Well I argued that the vast majority did not. They don’t have the above level of knowledge to make a judgement beyond simply wanting a Smartphone that allowed them to have Internet on their pockets (and all things Internet) and like or dislike the way something generally works. There might be a few people knowing all the above and still went way beyond that, I prefer close systems, I feel scared so need to be secured … etc etc … but I believe its the job of Governments to protect society against these …

          Some common sense people.

          • pecosbob04

            Uhmm . . . do you have a tl;dr version of this?

            • nbplopes

              If I had more time I would write it shorter. But maybe its worth it. Who knows.

            • nbplopes

              Let me try nevertheless write it short. If it does not work, try the longer explanation. My stance has nothing todo with how much money App Store and Google Play devices do, but the way they approach all things Internet.

              In abstract the Internet is a graph where each node is called an end-point. Control how end-points are added to this graph you control anything on top of the Internet. I mean anything, and discriminate and charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, business nature, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

              I don’t understand why the gov and the market bothered with Net Neutrality, and all the open technologies to than accept that two companies can descriminaste freely, with no kind of regulation the end-points that go on the devices of 48% of the planet population. Meanwhile regulate heavily the intermediate end-points. An App connected to the Internet is part of the Internet infrastructure … without Clients and Servers there is no network, no network, no business.

              It is as simply as that.

  2. Michael_Miller

    Interesting to hear BS and PT talk about economic theory. I especially like PT’s statement that went something like,”Apple makes too much money.” I suspect shareholders and all stakeholders at Apple would disagree. By extension, they must make too much money too.

    • Paul Thurrott

      Thanks for reducing an actual conversation to something pointless.

      • Michael_Miller

        You’re welcome. Yes, economic, market, and shareholder value are pointless to your discussion.

        • Paul Thurrott

          Nope. Only shareholder value is meaningless to this discussion. I care about users.

          • pecosbob04

            "I care about users." To paraphrase Mitt Romney; Shareholders are users too my friend, and vice versa (to a lesser extent).

  3. john chaloner

    Isn't this a simple example of apple and google abusing their market dominance? Time for the monopoly boys to help poor customers out.