marticode

> How Microsoft and Google, and Meta allowed Apple to slowly build over independent control of their entire ecosystem, from supply chain to software is baffling.

Google didn't. They built Android and Chrome and ChromeOS to counter that issue and frankly it's been widely successful.

Microsoft tried (but failed) with Windows Phone.

Sure, but good luck with that endeavor. Samsung and Intel are struggling to keep up with TSMC despite decades of expertise in the field and very deep pockets, so starting from scratch even with infinite money isn't gonna be a picnic. And won't solve Apple problem in the short term.

A break up is only the most extreme application of anti-trust enforcement. Before that you block acquisitions, put constraints, review contracts, etc.

Apple can afford everything but regulators can stop it from happening, especially if it's a strategic target.

...or Toyota could just use Android Automotive, which exists today as a full OS for cars.

Pretty sure Apple was already (very handsomely) paid for their effort on designing, marketing and selling the hardware. When the customer bought it.

They have a free community edition for individuals.

I remember MMS being both expensive but also often broken as each user had to set up a bunch of APN in his phone. And the image quality was crap.

I'm amazed it's still a thing in some port of the world.

Agreed. Also the context matters: the taxi lobby is extremely powerful in France and had successfully blocked the market from any competition, extracting an outrageous rent on the back of a licensing system that was terribly designed. They'd block roads and cities at the first sign of change in their market.

Unblocking that situation required some discretion otherwise it would have never happened.

USB-C is highly extensible (some would say way too much), I doubt we will need to make a connector that is physically incompatible anytime soon (although I'm sure the standard will be upgraded for more speed/uses)

Windows 11 has some features of FancyZones built in (just hover the mouse over the maximize icon of any window and it'll let you pick a layout and location)

I would argue that Google Photos, Google Apps, Google Cloud, Google TV, Google Pay, Google Chrome, ChromeOS, Maps, Chromecast, Drive, Keep, etc. are all original products that matter and often dominate their field. Android is an acquisition but Google made it the success that it is today.

Conversely how many original Meta products are successes? Messenger is the only one that I can think of.

A business is valued as roughly profits times growth. The issue here is Meta used to have both growth and profit and now it mostly has profits. It doesn't mean the business is doomed obviously, but it means it should trade at a much lower valuation. A correction in PE means a huge drop in stock price despite profits still being there.

Google is growing its top line over 20% YoY and has a PE of 20. What PE would you give another business that sell ads but has a stagnating top line? Probably much less than 20.

Not only liquidity but valuation for tech companies are typically better in the US for some reason.

Likewise. I'm still stuck using WhatsApp because it's the de-facto messaging standard over here, but I moved as many people as I could to Signal.

I'll second that. I have found it to have the best quality of all video calling alternatives and handle low bandwidth situations the best too. The interface is weird but focusing on just one thing and doing it well feels like a good choice.

> What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.

Both are needed in different ways. Stuffing yourself with avocado and nuts might be "healthy" but is also gonna be a calorie bomb that will lead to weight gains.

Calorie counting is simple (albeit somewhat tedious) and makes sense and naturally leads people to healthy food.

Except that other markets absolutely do not show this level of iPhone market share.

So either American teens are very discerning of UIs, or they just try to fit in within a network of existing iPhone users.

Energy companies aren't worth much of anything, so even if you value Tesla as an energy company that still doesn't justify its valuation.

Tesla is basically in all the high capital with low margin businesses (cars, electricity, solar, batteries).

I would disagree with your analogy: you buy a stock because it gives you a claim to the profits of the underlying company. Even if it became impossible to find a buyer for the stock you own, so long as they pay dividend, you still have something of value. And the company has tangible assets (factories, offices) and intangible (patents, the skills of its employees, brand) that allow it to produce things of general value.

Same applies to houses (they provide shelter) or gold (industrial applications or jewelry). Speculative value is only one part of their value.

Bitcoin by comparison has no value beyond speculative. You can't build anything with a Bitcoin, and it won't ever give you a revenue stream, or shelter, or make pretty jewelry. It's just a bunch of numbers recorded on some computers. If nobody think those numbers have values then they are as good as some old JPEG ad in your browser cache.

This is completely unsubstantiated. In 2020, Tesla had about 1/4 of the EV market and 1/6 if you count plug-in hybrids. This is big but not overwhelming considering they were the first to market with a serious product.

I have not seen any recent market share for 2021 but given onslaught of new products from every legacy car maker, I see no reason to believe they are falling behind. If anything, they are catching up.

https://insideevs.com/news/486325/world-top-ev-automotive-gr...

..and you can tell by the fit and finish too!

https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-pro-detailer-point-out-all-the-...

Wow this is such a bad faith attempt at exonerating Facebook that I don't know where to even start.

No the issue isn't language, the issue is Facebook way of pushing outrage-inducing content and isolating people in bubbles of ever more radicalized content. Spend some time on https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ and come back tell us how the problem is "language" and not social medias.

This is not quite similar because there are VR headsets from several manufacturers that don't come with a mandatory social network login attached. (in fact FB is the only one that does)

Even with Android vs iOS, they aren't quite the same because Android clearly gives you more control and freedom as a consumer. If you care about any of this at least don't buy the worse offender.

If the disruption is the mass distribution of antivax and antiscience propaganda that kills 1000s of people, the manipulation of opinions by hostile foreign state actors, the flaming of genocide and the utter division of nations into completely antagonistic sides, then I'm sorry but maybe the elites have a point.

This isn't part of the NPT - this is a tacit agreement that nuclear nations don't sell nuclear (or nuclear powered) weapons to non nuclear nations. This is why North Korea never managed to buy nuclear stuff from its Chinese ally. So far.

Brazil has multiple civilian nuclear reactors in operations. Australia has no significant nuclear expertise. France would probably have preferred selling nuclear submarines because it would have saved on retrofitting cost.

> I don't see anything in NPT that forbids the US and UK from supplying nuclear propulsion to Australia.

And yet it's a tacit agreement among nuclear nations to not sell military nuclear equipment to non-nuclear nations (ie who don't have at least a civilian program).

Which is why North Korea for ex has never been able to buy nuclear equipment from China or Russia. So far, because now that the US has decided breaking the rule for a short term financial gain was worth it, other's will decide that they might as well help their own allies too with a few reactors.

Australia is not a nuclear nation and as such, is normally not supposed to be able to buy nuclear devices of any sort. Which is why they initially bought French submarines that are nuclear but asked them to be retrofitted for standard propulsion.

What the US and the UK did here is a breach of a worldwide agreement by nuclear powers to not supply non nuclear ones in order to restrict nuclear proliferation. Which is one reason the French are pissed - the US took away their contract by breaking a rules the French had stuck to.

It's a huge market in term of sales but not profits. It's a terrible market to operate in - capital intensive, cyclical, cut-throat competition with low margins. It will suck billions to produce (maybe) a tiny fraction of the profits they make on phones.