And/or provide a baseline free tier, corresponding to how much a typical human user would at most push/clone etc. They have pre-LLM statistics on that.
its not just in tech. There are lots of products and services designed for the "cash rich time poor" because that is what the people in charge understand.
If they cannot provide it nationally, Germany seems a good place to have it, especially as they are both EU.
At the very least a country dependent cloud services from multiple other countries is less dependent on any one of them than a country predominantly dependent on one (and most of Europe is currently dependent on US cloud providers).
> Ruskin bemoaned the general spiritual impoverishment of Victorian Britain, where every purpose has been ‘infected’ with ‘the idea that everything should “pay”’.
Not sure about rodents, but furry and pointy nosed, and one of them was named Orinoco (they were all named after places or similar). They did not live in garbage, they collected and reused what humans threw away.
> What do you mean by needed? A lock-in is more profitable so is needed to maximise profits.
You can't lock-in Linux users because vast majority of them won't switch to macOS and ecosystem at large. This is simply a currently untapped market they could easily almost entirely own if they wanted to. With growing Linux popularity, extra 3-4% of the laptop market share is nothing they can ignore in front of shareholders.
I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives. Losses could be quite significant: if an existing user switches to Linux not only might you lose software and services sales, but you also risk losing future hardware sales (longer replacement cycle, and no barrier to switching to other hardware).
> I am not convinced they would "entirely own" the market - they have a small range of hardware. Even less so in the long term. That extra few percentage points would be a lot less profitable as they would only have the margin on extra hardware sales so would not add much to profits - not enough for shareholders to care about.
I am aware of that, but there's another factor here: accelerating Windows users switching to Linux on Apple hardware. Those Linux MacBooks would be killer devices that nothing in Windows world can compete against! I mean we can all agree the tech social media would go bonkers over that, wouldn't it? If a couple of YouTubers were able to bump those Linux numbers significantly and spearhead gamers questioning their choices, imagine the dent Apple would make. I am absolutely certain Apple would gain couple extra percentage points with Apple on Linux devices within first year and make Microsoft shit their pants in the process.
> It also risks existing users switching to Linux which could be a huge loss. Apple has a very loyal user base how do not try anything else and the last thing they want to do is risk encouraging them to try alternatives.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
But yeah, Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration? Sure, why not? iPhone integration? Why not? Apple TV app? Again, especially to attract those Windows users making a switch, who are much more used to paying for services and software?
Heck, they could even port AppStore over and improve Swift's cross-platform compatibility, especially considering Swift is fairly cross-platform already. I doubt many software products wold get ported, though. Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending. Also, many loyal macOS users would likely dual-boot and be happy to continue to buy and use macOS-exclusive software as needed.
This isn't unrealistic, I seriously think it's a matter of time when those numbers start making sense for Apple. Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
> Aren't you contradicting yourself here a bit? If they're very loyal, there isn't much risk of them switching, is there?
That needs clarification. They are loyal because they do not try anything else and often make assumptions that other OSes are worse than they actually are. They often assume a lot of features (e.g. shared clipboards across devices) are Apple only. They will not take the risk of buying non-Apple hardware to try another OS.
> Product Cannibalization is always a risk, though it doesn't mean they couldn't actually embrace Linux and offer ecosystem integration there. iCloud integration?
It reduces the lock-in the have with existing customers. Having that lockin over the whole stack is what keeps them in the ecosystem.
> Also, if US administration changes, both US and EU regulation bodies will be back on Big Tech asses and for Apple to open to Linux to say "hey, we're pretty open" is another win.
I have less faith in the regulators than that. The push to open has never been that strong. No-one has challenged things like limiting software installation to the app-store, and Google is confident enough that no-one will to be switching to the same with Android in a few months time.
> Besides, macOS AppStore is not a huge earner for Apple, considering the platform is open, unlike iOS, so macOS users switching to Linux don't have to imply a significant loss of income from ecosystem spending
Not yet. They have the option of gradually making "side loading" harder (for our own security, of course) and increasing that profit.
Well, agreed on all points. I guess the conclusion is time will tell, but I am sure Apple is legitimately looking into this on some level, especially since Steam is doing so well and keeps expanding Linux user-base.
Some people seem to get better battery life with Windows than with Linux.
Most users on any OSes are not ricers. Most of my customisation is functional - panels and widgets placed for practical reasons. A lot of people do not seem to customise at all, or barely.
> just as we should disallow removing citizenship.
However lots of countries do allow removing citizenship In the UK it is a political decision too. Lots of countries allow locking people out of other things (e.g. freezing bank accounts). I therefore doubt we an effectively prevent this.
I do not see the problem with physical tokens. They are simple, do not create a single point of failure (if I lose my phone I still have my cards and cash), robust to network and systems failures. What is the drawback? Having to carry a few cards?
Yes and I find this deeply wrong - what politician would you trust with this decision? Debanking is also wrong in my view.
I think we should focus on laws against things like that which lead to tyranny rather than attempting to stop progress.
Cash in particular is expensive to produce/process and no longer honours the promise printed on it, it will be phased out as the transactions with it approach 0%.
Cards are really no different than a token in a phone and don’t work for long either in the absence of a network (both will work offline but do need to be reconciled). I haven’t habitually carried a card in about a decade, I think for similar reasons to cash they will die off by general consensus.
Cards are significantly different from a token in a phone:
1. They are physically separate. They are not likely to be stolen at the same time as a phone.
2. They do not require battery.
Cash has the same advantages, but even more so as it does not rely on networks at all.
If you only have phones as a means of payment what do you do if you phone is lost, stolen or out of battery? How do you even buy a new phone!?
I think phasing out cash is very short sighted. It is robust and reliable. There is a good reason the Swedish central bank recently recommended that people keep a certain amount of cash at home (1,000 SEK, equivalent to about £80/$108/94 EUR, per adult).
Actually, there is a good point in this: What if I don't want to carry my phone somewhere? I shouldn't be obligated to do so. For example what if I want to go to a demo? Or I simply don't want to be location tracked for an afternoon. There needs to be a non-electronic alternative. I guess we could carry some QR codes with us, that can be scanned by police officers.
The drawback of physical tokens is that you can't use them online. I don't want to spend an hour waiting in queue at the city hall for something I can do online in 10 minutes.
The ideal state is having both physical and digital ID. But that will lead to a slow erosion of the willingness to carry physical ID, even if it stays available (which I believe it will for many decades. Even if national ID cards and drivers licenses were to go digital only, passports won't)
I use credit cards online all the time. I have logins for government services so I do not need to queue (I had to verify my ID using an app once for one of them). Getting a new driving license (for a change of address) was done online.
reply