Comment by babypuncher

> Apple's customers are the users.

This doesn't mean, however, that Apple's incentives are aligned with the user's incentives. It's important to see that Apple's devices are also a sales channel for Apple. For example, an iPhone is essentially a vending machine for entertainment. And Apple will exert its power to use that sales channel (using the same techniques as advertising companies, like user tracking), whether the user likes it or not.

> Apple rocks the boat too much, their users might not feel so good about paying

Just today I heard a colleague say how tough it would be to move away from Apple because of their iCloud. Then you have all the apps and content (iOS and macOS) you already paid for.

The difference in business model between G, Apple (or other tech behemoths) are very superficial. Yes, to google and apple operations they are very different, but to a consumer: it's the same. Both try to become essential, all encompassing locking you in and increasing the cost of switching. All brands try to do this. But it's much easier for me to pick a new brand toothpaste after I'm done with previous one than for me to move app ecosystems, specially when those apps ecosystems are all locked down as all non-libre app ecosystems are.

You may "feel" like you're an Apple product because you think you can just buy less Apple products or not at all. That's until you consider the consequences of losing access to third-party content/products you purchase.

Making users upset is also a direct threat to Google's business model. It doesn't really matter whether you're paying them $20 directly, or whether you're generating $20 of ad revenue - either way, you're worth $20 to them.

Of course, you are quite right to point out that Google's business model does incentivize behavior that isn't what their users would want. But the same is true of Apple - their business model strongly incentivizes them to create lock-in to the platform. Whether this bothers you more or less than Google's need to mine your data is I guess a matter of personal preference.

I definitely think there's some truth to this, but there are more network connections involved here than a simple Seller->buyer relationship.

In my opinion, right now Apple is rocking the boat for 3rd party developers. Historically, that hasn't worked out that well for platforms, but we also don't have a ton of data to work with. It's conceivable that Apple becomes the "Company store" on Apple hardware, and their users only use Apple software.

But if that happens, I think they'll suffer more regulation and governmental interference (and rightfully so, imo).

> Making users upset is a direct threat to their business model

You can't really compare Google to Apple. You can switch to a different company if you don't like pixel phones and get almost the same experience. You can switch between manufacturers and use windows/Linux as well. The same isn't true about Mac os or iOS.

While you may think customers still have a choice, the reality is that they are locked in through their school, work or relationships (can't use imessage to talk to your spouse?). Apple makes it difficult to use third-party hardware and software it competes with so you will buy more and more Apple over time. People are prone to sunk cost fallacy and consistency. It's sales manual 101. I really can't recommend reading a good sales manual enough.

You are a product for any private company, they are just different kinds of evil. It is in Apple interests to limit users freedom to run another OS on their hardware, to funnel applications through App Store.

Users en masse would not switch, not from Apple, not from Microsoft. Their price is not that high in dollars, it is high in freedom. And most users do not value that.

> Apple's customers are the users.

As are a crack dealer's.