But what is the key to Apple’s power? Admittedly, the company makes a number of very impressive and hugely successful products. There is hardly a need to list them – from the iPhone to the Apple Watch, there is no shortage of good examples and the list just goes on.
Indeed, the majority of Apple devices, love them or hate them, tend to embody exceptionally high standards of product design. This partially explains their impressive market shares, despite the oftentimes steep price tags. However, there are some factors that contribute to Apple’s formidable position in the world of tech that are neither necessarily, nor entirely admirable.
I am referring to the (in)famous Apple Ecosystem and, in particular, the drawbacks which the Cupertino company has purposely built into it for its own ends. In this article, I will examine one of the pillars of Apple’s hegemony and how far the company will go to preserve it.
The Apple Ecosystem: Blessing or Curse
Firstly, I cannot understate just how efficient and useful the Apple ecosystem can be – any Apple user can testify to that. This is precisely why a buyer seldom ends up with an iPhone alone. Soon after, they tend to acquire a pair of AirPods, perhaps an Apple Watch and even a MacBook or an iPad. This is now commonly accepted as the norm rather than the exception. Nevertheless, it is a precedent set by Apple and Apple exclusively. Other companies have sought to emulate it, but no one has really come close, not even Samsung on the South Korean market.
As previously stated, there are some objective reasons why Apple was able to pull this off. However, I would argue that one of the main ones is the fact that the company has meticulously designed its ecosystem in such a way as to ensure users have (almost) no easy way out.
That flashy $799 Apple Watch Ultra will be useless if you choose to switch to an Android smartphone. How about the $249 AirPods Pro 2? Good luck making use of all the fancy audio features without an iPhone. In a sense, Apple reminds me of a line from the song Hotel California – “you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave”. Unless you throw away thousands of dollars worth of tech… or find a way to sell it, of course.
The Cracks in the Apple Ecosystem
You might be wondering why I have decided to bring this up now. After all, most of what I have said is by now common knowledge in the tech community. The thing is, parts of Apple’s strategy are not only shady – some of them are actually illegal, and the first cracks in the model are beginning to show.
Well, admittedly not in the US where Big Tech cannot be effectively held in check. But in other parts of the world such as the EU, Apple has come under serious fire from legislators for its borderline anti-competitive market practices. I will mention two things in particular – the Lightning port and the App Store.
The Lightning Port
The former is a particularly interesting case study. Apple was the first tech giant to identify just how detrimental power adapters are when it comes to e-waste. The response was controversial to say the least. The Cupertino company removed the charger from the box and earned billions in the process.
Do you know what could have been even more beneficial to the environment than forcing users to buy a separate power adapter? Actually working towards a common charger and, by extension, adopting a common port – something Apple has been vehemently opposed to. Coincidently, now the latter is also required by law in the European Union.
In fact, if Apple refuses to transition to USB-C with the iPhone 15 lineup, the device will be banned from the EU market altogether. Apple being Apple, however, has sought to explore the gray area in an effort to bend the rules once again.
Reportedly, the company is looking for ways to limit some of the functionality of the USB-C port if it is not connected to a proprietary Apple cable. Needless to say, this defeats the purpose of a common port in the first place. The EU Commission has since indicated that if Apple decides to implement such restrictions, the iPhone 15 will not be sold in the EU.
One might say Apple would then give up on the idea, but I think the company will get more creative. For example, it could sell different versions of the iPhone 15 in the EU and the rest of the world. That way, the Apple Ecosystem will remain intact outside of Apple’s second largest market.
The App Store
This might sound ludicrous on paper, but the Cupertino company is already considering such a move with iOS 17. The update should finally enable sideloading and support for third-party app stores in order to comply with existing EU legislation.
For reference, the proprietary App Store is one of Apple’s biggest sources of revenue and its high fees have been widely criticized by developers. However, if you want to have access to iOS users, you need to play by Apple’s rules. The alternative would mean losing billions of potential clients.
Hence, in the spirit of market economics, the EU now requires Apple to allow users to purchase and download apps from elsewhere. The caveat? According to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, only EU iPhones will support sideloading.
Conclusion: Will Apple cave in?
One of the main implications of Apple’s current approach is that users outside of the EU will be getting an inferior iPhone. Is this truly sound product design? Also, is such an aggressive tactic really necessary? These are questions I do not have the answers to.
In my view, Apple’s products are good enough as it is, and they would thrive even without the restrictive elements of the Apple Ecosystem purely because of their individual merits. Additionally, at the end of the day, the majority of users do not wish to escape the latter to begin with.
Furthermore, what Apple is doing now goes beyond locking users in a golden cage. The Cupertino company is trying to bend the law in order to throw away the key. Such a move is perplexing when it comes from a company with a 50%+ market share in the biggest consumer market in the world. It is also not consistent with the high standards Apple ostensibly stands by.
