Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is Apple Computers competing with Peleton bikes or their treadmills?

Everyone is trying to be megacorp these days.




> Everyone is trying to be megacorp these days.

Been playing Rome: Total War for the past few days. It going me thinking that empire just can’t stop expanding. You conquer one province, thinking that barbarian neighbor won’t be a problem ever again. But then you realize your empire now borders some other barbarians who start harassing you. And then you need more troops to keep the new citizens from rioting. Which requires money, which means the drums of war are at it again...


For a more business-oriented perspective, Eric Weinstein's idea of Embedded Growth Obligations[1] is apt.

[1] https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations


> empire just can’t stop expanding

You’re identifying a deficiency of imperial systems. They were one of the only ways to get growth in our close to zero sum past. In a world with a growing global economy, on the other hand, warring and imperialism are self-defeating long run strategies.


No, they work just as well as they always do. It's just easier to run in to a bigger, badder imperium.


> they work just as well as they always do

Objectively, no. They don't. You can't capture the intangible capital of a country through invasion. The greater the ratio of intangible capital (skills, trust, institutions, et cetera) to tangible capital, the less effective classical empires become.

Resource-rich countries, on the other hand, are still subject to imperial dynamics.


It happened last century, when the Communists kicked the Nationalists out of mainland China.


> when the Communists kicked the Nationalists out of mainland China

That's revolution, not imperialism.


What's the difference? They invaded, took over, and kicked out the old leaders. It was a war. With territory and everything.


> In a world with a growing global economy

That’s assuming there’s no end to the growth. But the resources here on earth are limited.


> resources here on earth are limited

One, there is more in the universe than this earth. And two, the resource intensity of GDP growth is falling. (A new iPhone is more capable than its predecessors without requiring comparatively more resources. And a web comic can create millions in value with comparatively little burn.)


There are less violent forces behind expansion. Shareholders prefer to invest in companies that are growing. Employees want to work in organizations where they can be promoted.


Apple stopped being "Apple Computers" 14 years ago. They're explicitly a mobile devices company, and fitness fits perfectly into that mission I think.


Absolutely. But it doesn't look like they are any good at it, considering how the Apple Watch totally didn't eat the market of incumbents like Garmin at all (Garmin is almost drowning in money now that the Apple Watch has made it socially acceptable to spend high sums on wrist gadgets). The Apple watch excels in engineering, but the software environment is so focused on mainstream appeal that almost everybody has some niche interest that isn't served there at all. And those niches are tight: one might think for example that Garmin and Peloton are direct competitors in the field of home indoor workout bikes (Garmin via the Tacx Neo Bike) but in reality those serve very different markets with almost zero overlap. Apple misses all those niches because they are not only committed to ignoring niche features but also exert too much control on the walls of their garden that third parties won't rely on them as a platform.


> considering how the Apple Watch totally didn't eat the market of incumbents like Garmin at all

Someone forgot to tell everyone buying a smartwatch that - Apple has a 50% marketshare in the market, whereas Garmin is around 7%.

[1] https://www.t4.ai/industry/smartwatch-market-share


Not a contradiction, the market grew much faster than the market share of the Apple Watch.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness

Has CPU, memory, storage, and is user programmable.

Smells like a computer to me.

The first “computers” were people. A pedant might say the entire industry moved on from “computers”.


No, Apple Computers legally changed their company name to just Apple many years ago after they introduced the iPhone.


A legal name change means they stopped making “computers” from an engineers perspective?

Banal political filings have little bearing on what makes a computer.


No one claimed Apple stopped making computers, so you're attacking a straw man here. All that was pointed out is that there is no Apple Computer (note the capitalization) company anymore, as it was renamed to Apple Inc. in 2007.


What’s the difference between a computer and a “mobile device”?

OP made a pointless semantic separation.


I interpreted "OP" as mentioning "Apple Computer" for emphasis, as in they are a computer company, not a fitness company.

This was a flawed comment because the premise was incorrect - they stopped being "Apple Computer" a long time ago.

Yes, Apple makes computers like macs and iphones and watches. A huge part of their "watch computer" is fitness, and they have an on-demand fitness video service to accompany that.


Neat article. It occurs to me that much of the history of interactive fiction consists of exploiting players' sense of functional fixedness.


That was my point: both of these companies have expanded well beyond their initial purpose and now overlap. If you look at their origins, there is no overlap at all.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: