OneZero is partnering with Big Technology, a newsletter and podcast by Alex Kantrowitz, to bring readers exclusive access to interviews with notable figures in and around the tech industry.
OneZero 与 Alex Kantrowitz的时事通讯和播客 Big Technology 合作 ，使读者可以独家访问科技行业内外的知名人物。
This week, Kantrowitz sits down with M.G. Siegler, a partner at the investment firm GV. (Siegler is also an investor in Medium.) This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
本周，Kantrowitz与投资公司GV的合伙人MG Siegler坐下来。 (Siegler也是Medium的投资者。)本访谈经过了编辑，以确保篇幅和清晰度。
To subscribe to the podcast and hear the interview for yourself, you can check it out on iTunes, Spotify, and Overcast.
要订阅播客并亲自收听采访， 您可以在 iTunes ， Spotify 和 Overcast 上签出 。
For years, Apple had a clear identity: It was the world’s best devices maker. Today, the company is trying to balance that identity with a new emphasis on software and services.
F或几年，苹果公顷d一个明确的身份：它是世界上最好的设备制造商。 今天，该公司正在尝试通过对软件和服务的新强调来平衡这种身份。
This new approach has helped Apple surge to a $2 trillion valuation — investors now value it as a software versus hardware company — and caused considerable drama over recent weeks.
这种新方法帮助苹果公司的市值达到了2万亿美元(投资者现在将其视为软件公司而不是硬件公司)，并在最近几周引起了轩然大波。
The company is currently fighting hard with Fortnite-maker Epic Games to keep the 30% cut of revenue it gets from purchases inside its App Store. Fees from customers and developers are now core to Apple’s business, so it can’t let up easy — even if it risks losing some of its brand luster.
该公司目前正在与Fortnite的制造商Epic Games进行艰苦的战斗，以保持其从App Store购买所获得的收入减少30％。 现在，来自客户和开发商的费用已成为苹果业务的核心，因此，即使它冒失去一些品牌光泽的风险，也不能轻易松懈。
To discuss this shift and what it means for Apple’s future, I sat down with my favorite Apple writer, GV Partner M.G. Siegler, who once covered the company for TechCrunch and continues to write about it here on Medium while still working his day job.
为了讨论这种转变及其对苹果未来的意义，我与我最喜欢的苹果作家，GV合作伙伴MG Siegler坐了下来，他曾经为TechCrunch报道过该公司，并继续在Medium上写这篇文章 ，同时仍在工作。
Alex Kantrowitz: One of the things that I wonder about with Apple is their identity. Companies operate in two different phases. One is they invent. Two is when they’ve built a big enough product portfolio, they start to milk their assets and get every dollar they can out of them. Apple is putting everything it has into making much money as it can from the iPhone. Does that eventually come back to bite them?
亚历克斯·肯特罗维茨：我对苹果公司不感兴趣的一件事就是他们的身份。 公司分两个不同阶段运营。 一种是他们发明的。 二是当他们建立起足够大的产品组合时，便开始挤奶自己的资产，并从中获得所有收益。 苹果正在尽其所能，从iPhone赚钱。 最终会回来咬他们吗？
M.G. Siegler: I think the reality is we’re recognizing now that nothing is going to be as big as the iPhone was as a product category. That’s what’s driven Apple to become a $2 trillion company, the biggest company of all time. They basically created a market that was unlike anything we’ve seen before it, and it became the fully ubiquitous computing device.
MG齐格勒：我认为现实是，我们现在已经意识到，没有什么比iPhone作为产品类别更重要了。 这就是促使苹果成为市值2万亿美元的公司的有史以来最大的公司。 他们基本上创造了一个与我们之前所见不同的市场，并且该市场成为了无处不在的计算设备。
Eventually, everyone in the world is going to have some sort of smartphone with them. We’re already a good portion of the way there, between iOS and Android devices. And so in the post-Jobs Apple, it has been a bit of a challenge to try to figure out what that next device is. In a way, it feels like they’ve done a good job, and Tim Cook has done a good job, of figuring out how to keep the ball rolling forward on top of augmenting the iPhone.
最终，世界上每个人都将拥有某种智能手机。 在iOS和Android设备之间，我们已经是其中的重要组成部分。 因此，在后乔布斯(Jobs)苹果公司中，试图弄清楚下一个设备是什么是一个挑战。 从某种意义上说，感觉他们做得很好，而蒂姆·库克也做得很好，他想出了在增强iPhone的基础上如何使球向前滚动的方法。
From the AirPods to the Apple Watch, these are all things that are directly tied to the iPhone or have been up to date. The next thing they’re rumored to be closing in on hardware-wise is some sort of augmented reality headset device. And that still seems like it may be tied to the iPhone.
从AirPods到Apple Watch，这些都是直接与iPhone绑定或已更新的东西。 据传，他们将在硬件方面关闭的另一件事是某种增强现实耳机设备。 而且似乎仍可能与iPhone绑定。
I want to give Apple credit, though, because I feel like people were worried that it would not be able to surpass what it had done already in the Jobs world. And certainly, from a business perspective, we’re way, way past where it was when Steve Jobs, unfortunately, passed away. I think the company was at something like a $300 billion or $400 billion market cap, which is obviously still a massive company. But now that seems quaint, right?
不过，我想赞扬Apple，因为我感到人们担心它无法超越乔布斯世界已经做到的事情。 当然，从业务角度来看，很不幸，我们已经超越了史蒂夫·乔布斯去世的那一刻。 我认为该公司的市值约为3000亿美元或4000亿美元，这显然仍是一家庞大的公司。 但是现在看来古朴了，对吗？
Tim Cook has given back more money to Apple shareholders than what the company was worth when he took it over.
蒂姆·库克(Tim Cook)向苹果股东返还的钱比他接管苹果公司时的价值还多。
Which is just incredible. Microsoft is an interesting analog here because I think people, myself included, would say from an outsider perspective, it looked like during the Steve Ballmer years after Bill Gates, that basically — Microsoft was just milking the profits off of Windows. They did really well from a profit perspective and the business seemed to do well, but at the same time, if you look at the stock and the market cap, it was very flat.
真是不可思议。 微软在这里是一个有趣的类比，因为我认为包括我在内的人们会从局外人的角度说，在比尔·盖茨(Bill Gates)之后的史蒂夫·鲍尔默(Steve Ballmer)几年中，微软基本上是在利用Windows的利润。 从利润的角度来看，他们确实做得很好，业务似乎也做得不错，但是同时，如果您查看股票和市值，则情况非常平稳。
There’s obviously macro stuff that’s involved with that, and obviously there’s macro stuff that’s involved with the run-up of Apple to $2 trillion. But still, I think that’s sort of indicative of the difference between the two. I think Cook has just been able to keep Apple humming along and figuring out exactly what they needed to do in order to keep the business growing and expanding from that iPhone base. Whereas Ballmer was a little bit much more, I think, aligned with just milking the profits. So I think Cook deserves a lot more credit.
显然，其中涉及宏观因素，而且显然与苹果公司市值达到2万亿美元有关。 但是，我仍然认为这表明了两者之间的差异。 我认为Cook能够使Apple保持精力充沛，并弄清楚他们需要做些什么，以保持业务从该iPhone基地发展壮大。 我认为鲍尔默的收入要多得多，这与挤奶的利润是一致的。 所以我认为库克值得更多的荣誉。
But there are similarities though, right? If you look at when it comes to building for the future, Microsoft only turned the corner after Ballmer left and they started investing in cloud and mobile. And I think that Apple being so totally invested in the iPhone is missing what’s going to come next.
但是有相似之处，对吗？ 如果您考虑未来的发展，微软只是在鲍尔默离开后才转危为安，他们开始投资于云计算和移动技术。 而且我认为苹果公司对iPhone进行了如此全面的投资，却错过了下一步的发展。
We’ve talked about the AR glasses. We don’t really have any sense as to whether those are going to be good. They’ve also swung and missed pretty hard at a voice assistant, where both Alexa and Google Assistant have surpassed Siri. And they’ve also swung and missed on the autonomous car. So is the company going to face this moment where they look like Microsoft did when it had the desktop operating system in a world that’s surpassed it? Or are we going to be living in Apple’s world from here on, and they have the dominant device and they’re the winner.
我们已经讨论过AR眼镜。 对于这些东西是否会变得很好，我们真的没有任何意义。 他们还摇摆不定，错过了语音助手，Alexa和Google Assistant都超过了Siri。 他们还摇摆不定，错过了自动驾驶汽车。 那么，公司是否会面对这一时刻，就像微软在超越桌面操作系统的世界上拥有桌面操作系统一样？ 还是我们将从现在开始生活在苹果的世界中，而他们拥有主导的设备，并且他们是赢家。
You’re right that they missed from a strategy perspective with voice assistants, even though they were first to market, with really a ubiquitous Siri. But then Amazon came out with Alexa and I think they just had the right strategy, whereas Apple didn’t. The strategy for these voices assistants as we’re seeing play out now is to get them as ubiquitous as possible on many devices. And that’s just not Apple’s DNA to do that, to do cheap devices that you place all over the house. So Apple looked around and thought like, well, we already have a device in everyone’s pocket. And so why do we need some cheap hockey puck thing that’s in someone’s living room or in their bedroom? Because again, they have a device with them all the time.
没错，他们从战略角度上错过了语音助手，尽管他们是第一个使用Siri进入市场的人。 但是后来亚马逊提出了Alexa，我认为他们只是有正确的策略，而苹果则没有。 正如我们现在所看到的，这些语音助手的策略是使它们在许多设备上尽可能普及。 而这并不是苹果的DNA来做到这一点，而是去做摆在家里的廉价设备。 因此，Apple环顾四周，以为，好吧，我们已经在每个人的口袋中装了一台设备。 那么，为什么我们需要在某人的客厅或他们的卧室里放一些便宜的冰球东西呢？ 同样，因为他们一直都有设备。
I just think that was a strategy mistake, and it does point to what I do worry about from Apple’s perspective. I think that they have good execution capabilities as they’ve proven time and time again. I do worry about from the high-level strategy and product perspective though, that they just keep slightly missing the bigger picture of where they should be heading. And I think it really hasn’t burned them yet because again, the iPhone is such a massive product that’s unlikely to be surpassed by anything. And so I think that they can afford to miss time and time again for at least the foreseeable future. And again, it’s not complete strikeouts, they’re wrong on certain aspects of their strategy.
我只是认为这是一个策略错误，它确实指出了我从Apple的角度担心的问题。 我认为他们具有良好的执行能力，因为它们一次又一次地被证明。 不过，我确实从高层策略和产品角度担心，他们只是略微遗漏了应该前进的方向。 而且我认为它确实还没有消灭它们，因为同样，iPhone是一款如此庞大的产品，不可能被任何东西超越。 因此，我认为他们至少可以在可预见的未来中一次又一次地错过时间。 再说一次，这不是完整的三叉戟，他们在策略的某些方面是错误的。
Obviously the most recent stuff has all been predicated around moving to a more services-based business, which makes sense because they can leverage the billion-plus devices they already have through the iPhone and the iPad and other devices that they’ve had. Then, of course, it’s just a different model in a way, akin to what Microsoft has done right under Satya Nadella, where they basically become a different type of business that’s not so predicated around Windows, that has all these different cloud services and things.
显然，最近的事情都是围绕着转向基于服务的业务发展的，这是有道理的，因为他们可以通过iPhone和iPad以及他们拥有的其他设备来利用已有的数十亿设备。 然后，当然，在某种程度上，这只是一种不同的模型，类似于Microsoft在萨蒂亚·纳德拉(Satya Nadella)的领导下所做的事情，它们基本上成为了一种不依赖Windows的不同类型的业务，具有所有这些不同的云服务和事物。
Apple’s just doing it much more on the consumer side, and you’ve seen the numbers, it looks like those are really compelling businesses. When you’re building on top of a billion-plus device base, you would hope so. But I think that Apple took a while to come to the realization that that’s what they needed to do. And I think they can ride on that for at least the next few years.
苹果公司在消费者方面做得更多，您已经看到了数字，看起来这些公司确实很引人注目。 当您建立在超过十亿个设备基础之上时，您会希望如此。 但是我认为苹果花了一段时间才意识到这就是他们需要做的。 而且我认为他们至少可以在接下来的几年中继续这样做。
I do think there is a question though, of what the next trends are, and we already mentioned the voice assistants, you mentioned the cars, I mean, will they end up kicking themselves because they missed that boat? I think the jury is still out on that.
我确实认为有一个问题，下一个趋势是什么，我们已经提到了语音助手，您提到的汽车，我的意思是，由于错过了那条船，它们最终会踢自己吗？ 我认为陪审团对此仍未作出决定。
When you said you don’t think they’re going in the direction they should be going in all the time, is this the type of stuff you’re talking about AR, autonomous driving, voice assistant, or is there something else that you think they should have been heading toward that they’re not?
当你说你不认为他们一直都在朝着应该前进的方向前进时，这是你在谈论的那种类型的东西，AR，自动驾驶，语音助手，或者你还有别的东西吗？认为他们应该一直朝着不是？
It feels like the AR stuff is directionally correct. I feel like that that’s still a greenfield opportunity that no one’s really nailed that, there’ve been a few attempts, Microsoft, HoloLens, obviously Google Glass back in the day, but it’s super nascent market still. And obviously the best work is being done on the phone because again, it’s ubiquitous device and Apple’s done a lot of the… some of the good work on it with AR kit within iOS.
感觉到AR东西在方向上是正确的。 我觉得那仍然是一个未雨绸缪的机会，没有人真正注意到，曾经有过几次尝试，例如微软，HoloLens，显然是谷歌眼镜，但是这仍然是一个新兴的市场。 显然，最好的工作是在手机上完成的，因为它再次是无处不在的设备，而苹果公司已经做了很多工作……在iOS中使用AR套件在其中进行了一些出色的工作。
And so I think that’s a smart thing for them to go after, but I do think you have to wonder, is there something that’s a totally out of left field opportunity that they’re just not thinking, and who’s to say? Of course, we don’t know what’s going on in their secret labs necessarily, but that’s what I would worry about, that they’re going to be sideswiped by something that just totally comes out of left field that they’re not quite thinking about yet, but it’ll take years to see that.
因此，我认为这对于他们而言是明智的选择，但我确实认为您必须怀疑，是否有某种完全是出于左撇子的机会而他们只是在想而已，还有谁要说？ 当然，我们不一定知道他们秘密实验室中正在发生的事情，但这就是我要担心的事情，因为他们将完全被左领域的某些想法所困扰，而他们根本没有考虑大约还需要数年时间才能看到。
I have just a sense of reporting on their culture for Always Day One, just seeing how they’re in such a refiner’s mindset where it’s all about refining the iPhone, versus the other companies out there among the tech giants, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, they’re all in this mode of invention, reinvention, where Apple might have this natural resource curse with the iPhone. They tried to develop Siri as an iPhone feature, they tried to develop the HomePod in a similar way. They tried to develop the car with the same methodology as the iPhone, leading with design…
我只是在报道他们的“ 永远的第一天” 文化时，才感觉到 它们只是在这种提炼者的思维方式中，而这一切都在于提炼iPhone，而科技巨头Facebook，Google，Amazon中的其他公司，微软，他们全都处于这种发明，重塑的模式，在这种情况下，苹果可能会对iPhone施加这种自然资源的诅咒。 他们尝试将Siri开发为iPhone功能，并尝试以类似方式开发HomePod。 他们试图以与iPhone相同的方法开发汽车，并引领设计…
Yeah. One tangible example that you brought up just in passing there, I do think that they missed an opportunity, and obviously it’s easy to say in hindsight, but I feel like they missed an opportunity in the living room with what they have with HomePod, which is obviously set up to be like a high-end music device, which is not too surprising given their history and DNA with music. And obviously they have Apple music now, and then high-end devices and expensive hardware.
是的 您在路过时提出的一个具体例子，我确实认为他们错过了机会，事后看来很容易说出来，但我觉得他们错过了HomePod在客厅里的机会，显然是将其设置为高端音乐设备，考虑到音乐的历史和DNA，这并不奇怪。 显然，他们现在拥有Apple音乐，然后是高端设备和昂贵的硬件。
At the same time, it feels like they could have really done something compelling in the living room, especially for the world in which we’re currently living, where imagine if there was some HomePod-like device that maybe hooked up to your TV or an Apple TV, that was already hooked up to your TV that had, say like a FaceTime camera in it. And it could be a great connection portal to your family and to loved ones and even to potentially, work colleagues and things like that. And I mentioned, I said the word portal and that of course brings to mind Facebook’s work and—
同时，感觉他们确实可以在客厅中做一些引人注目的事情，特别是对于我们当前生活的世界，在这里想像是否有类似HomePod的设备可能连接到电视或电视上。一台Apple TV，它已经连接到您的电视上，比如说其中的FaceTime相机。 对于您的家人，亲人，甚至是潜在的同事等，这可能是一个很好的联系门户。 我提到，我说的是门户网站一词，这当然使我想到了Facebook的工作，而且-
Facebook is doing that.
Facebook正在这样做。
Right. Exactly. I jumped on Facebook when they first came out with Portal because it seemed like, I mean, it was… it certainly seemed like it was bad timing when they launched it. They were in the midst of all their privacy turmoil, which they’re still in the midst of in many ways, but obviously they ended up being positioned well for a world they could not have envisioned with the Covid-19 reality that we’re all living in and work from home. But at the same time, you can imagine that Apple really should have been the company doing that. They’re a company that people trust with privacy much more so than many of their competitors.
对。 究竟。 当他们第一次出现Portal时，我跳了上Facebook，因为它的意思是……似乎肯定是他们启动它的时机不对劲。 他们正处于所有隐私动荡之中，但在许多方面仍处于混乱之中，但显然，他们最终在一个我们无法想象的Covid-19现实世界中处于有利地位所有人都在家中工作。 但与此同时，您可以想象苹果确实应该是这样做的公司。 他们是一家公司，人们对隐私的信任远胜于许多竞争对手。
And again, they already have a lot of the pieces in place because they have the FaceTime software that’s running on iOS devices. And so it just feels like they had an opportunity, I don’t know if it should have been the HomePod. I don’t know if it should have been Apple TV, but they just weren’t in the right place right time. And it feels like I know a lot of people right now who would love to have something like that in the living room, that’s run by Apple, that they maybe trust with their privacy again, a little bit more than some of the other companies, to connect with family while we’re all living in this world. And again, they couldn’t have predicted that world, but still that feels like a product that maybe Apple should have made.
再说一次，他们已经准备好了很多东西，因为它们拥有可在iOS设备上运行的FaceTime软件。 因此，就好像他们有机会一样，我不知道它是否应该是HomePod。 我不知道它是否应该是Apple TV，但是他们来不及在正确的时间。 感觉就像我现在认识的很多人都想在起居室里有类似的东西，这是由Apple经营的，他们也许会再次信任自己的隐私，比其他一些公司要多一点，在我们都生活在这个世界上时与家人保持联系。 再说一次，他们无法预测这个世界，但仍然感觉像苹果公司应该制造的产品。
It seems like an obvious product for them. And then you look at the Apple battle with Facebook, and it’s pretty interesting, right? Because Apple doesn’t waste any time jumping down Facebook’s throat on basically any mistake Facebook makes. Facebook really in many ways is Apple’s biggest competitor. Apple’s lock-in is messaging. People don’t want to be green bubbles. And if we use Facebook messenger and WhatsApp and Instagram, that’s going to cost Apple in the long run. Something like Portal is another good example of that. Tim Cook doesn’t take shots against anyone but Facebook. And I think there’s a reason for that beyond being angry Facebook doesn’t live his privacy ideals.
对于他们来说，这似乎是显而易见的产品。 然后看看苹果公司与Facebook的战斗，这很有趣，对吗？ 因为苹果不会浪费任何时间基本上放弃Facebook犯下的任何错误 。 Facebook在许多方面确实是苹果最大的竞争对手。 苹果公司的锁定是消息传递。 人们不想成为绿色泡沫。 而且，如果我们使用Facebook Messenger，WhatsApp和Instagram，从长远来看，这将使苹果公司付出代价。 诸如Portal之类的东西就是另一个很好的例子。 蒂姆·库克(Tim Cook)除了Facebook外，不对其他任何人开枪。 而且我认为，除了生气之外，还有一个原因是Facebook没有实现他的隐私理想。
I definitely feel like it stems from that, but there’s been battles over the years. It stems back from the days when I was still on the reporting side, Facebook was trying to figure out ways to get their games because if you remember much of their business was based around Zynga and all the games on their platform when they were still primarily website-driven.
我绝对觉得这是源于此，但是这些年来一直存在争斗。 这可以追溯到我仍在报告方面的日子，Facebook试图找出获取游戏的方法，因为如果您还记得他们的大部分业务都基于Zynga以及当时他们主要还是平台上的所有游戏的基础网站驱动。
There was a real existential threat in how they were going to translate that to mobile when they didn’t control any of the mobile operating systems. And obviously there was Facebook phone and all the other stuff that they… Facebook home, I think, and all the other stuff that they tried to do that didn’t end up panning out, but they were really trying to do end-runs around Apple by using the web browser and things like that. And Apple would probably try to stop them from doing that, it seems like. That bad blood has just continued on and on and on. And now we’re in this real locking of horns between the two, because like the privacy angle is what Apple plays up the most, and Facebook has become the poster child for the unfortunate side effects of maybe if you don’t have that as much on lockdown as you should.
当他们不控制任何移动操作系统时，如何将其转换为移动设备确实存在着生存威胁。 显然有Facebook手机和他们所有的其他东西……我想是Facebook的家，而他们尝试做的所有其他事情最终都没有成功，但他们实际上是在做一些端倪苹果通过使用网络浏览器之类的东西。 苹果似乎可能会试图阻止他们这样做。 那种鲜血不断不断。 而现在，我们正处于两者之间的真正锁定中，因为就像隐私角度是苹果发挥最大作用的方式，而Facebook已经成为不幸的副作用(如果您没有的话)的典型代表。尽可能多地进行锁定。
They’re a pretty good foil. I’ll tell one quick story — When I was sitting down with Zuckerberg to interview him for Always Day One, I was talking to him about Facebook and operating systems and how Facebook is the only tech giant without an operating system. Apple has iOS, Microsoft has Windows, Amazon has Alexa, Google has Android. And Zuckerberg just was holding up his phone and saying, it’s not how it’s supposed to work. He had an Android and just hearing the tone in his voice in terms of the way he speaks about Apple, I was like — this guy really does not like Apple at all.
他们是一个很好的陪衬。 我要讲一个简单的故事-当我和扎克伯格坐在一起采访他的“永远的第一天”时，我在和他谈论Facebook和操作系统，以及Facebook是唯一没有操作系统的科技巨头。 苹果有iOS，微软有Windows，亚马逊有Alexa，谷歌有Android。 扎克伯格只是举起手机说，这不是应该的工作方式。 他有一个Android设备，只是听到他说苹果的方式时发出的声音，我当时就好像–这个家伙真的根本不喜欢苹果。
You look at the App Store charts over the past decade, basically since the App Store launched and Facebook’s done a good job of getting the handful of them that are all the top apps, and obviously they acquired many of them, but they’ve done a good job dominating their charts for someone who doesn’t control the operating system. But at the end of the day, Apple does control that operating system, and Facebook is beholden to that. And so that’s always going to be attention, and it was always going to be attention. And I think now is really coming to a head with everything that’s going on.
您可以查看过去十年中的App Store图表，这些图表基本上是自App Store推出以来，Facebook所做的出色工作，使少数几个都是顶级应用程序，而且显然他们已经收购了其中很多，但他们已经做到了可以很好地控制不控制操作系统的人。 但归根结底，苹果确实控制了该操作系统，而Facebook对此深有体会。 因此，这将始终引起关注，并且始终将引起关注。 而且我认为现在所有发生的事情都将很快到来。
You mentioned that Apple is now moving toward more of a service model. One of the things that I’ve been thinking about with this people buy Apple because of the way it makes them feel. They love taking out an iPhone at a meeting, they love working at a café on a MacBook. There’s just something about the status of using these products that make you feel good. Also, they work well. Then you look at services, and it’s like, does anyone feel good about paying Apple $5 a month for storage? I just wonder how you think people’s relationship will change based off of that emphasis on services.
您提到Apple现在正在朝着一种服务模式的方向发展。 我一直在与这些人一起思考的事情之一就是购买Apple，因为它使他们感到自己的方式。 他们喜欢在会议上拿出iPhone，也喜欢在MacBook上的咖啡馆工作。 关于使用这些产品的状态，这会使您感觉良好。 而且，它们运作良好。 然后，您查看服务，就好像有人对向Apple每月支付5美元的存储费用感到满意吗？ 我只是想知道您如何基于对服务的重视而改变人们的关系。
Yeah, it’s a good question because it leads to the idea of, is Apple nickel-and-diming people after they’ve paid a thousand plus dollars for their devices, potentially. Are they now trying to get $5 for iCloud and $10 for Apple Music and all this stuff? I think the answer to that, and we’re going to see that soon it sounds like, is that they’re going to start to bundle things together and make it a little bit more seamless. So because I have a handful of different bills that come in from Apple when I rent a movie on iTunes, Apple Music, iCloud, so I think if they can make it a little bit more seamless that will alleviate some of that tension. At the end of the day, though, what you’re saying is basically right, that they need to be able to compete with the best services, not just ones that are tied very tightly to the hardware.
是的，这是一个很好的问题，因为它引出了一个想法，那就是苹果可能会花一千多美元为那些吃零食的苹果用户。 他们现在是否正在尝试为iCloud获得5美元，为Apple Music获得10美元以及所有这些东西？ 我认为答案是肯定的，我们很快就会发现，他们将开始将事情捆绑在一起，并使之更加无缝。 因此，因为当我在iTunes，Apple Music，iCloud上租借电影时，我从苹果公司收取了许多不同的账单，所以我认为，如果他们可以使电影更加无缝化，则可以缓解一些压力。 不过，归根结底，您所说的基本上是正确的，他们需要能够与最佳服务竞争，而不仅仅是与硬件紧密相关的服务。
If they’re not the best, people are going to, in the back of their mind at least, start to not appreciate that and maybe start to wander elsewhere. Like you noted the hardware is still by far the best it seems like, and it doesn’t seem like that’s been shifting or anyone’s worried about that changing anytime soon. And so I think the bundles will be key. But they do need, and this has been talked about in the past couple of weeks at least, the idea of a linchpin for what needs to be a part of that bundle. And you’ll know this on the Amazon side obviously with Prime because they have such an awesome experience with shipping that all the other stuff that they have a part of Prime just feels like icing on the cake. Right now with Apple, if they bundled anything together, which again, it seems like they’re going to do, what is that linchpin? What is that key part of the bundle?
如果他们不是最好的人，那么人们至少会在他们的内心深处开始不欣赏它，并可能开始在其他地方徘徊。 就像您指出的那样，硬件到目前为止仍是最好的，似乎并没有发生变化，也没有人担心很快会发生变化。 因此，我认为捆绑销售将是关键。 但是他们确实需要，并且至少在过去的几周中已经讨论过这一点，即成为该捆绑包一部分的关键。 而且您会在Amazon的Prime方面清楚地知道这一点，因为他们在运输方面拥有如此出色的经验，以至于他们拥有Prime的其他所有东西都像锦上添花。 现在与苹果公司合作，如果他们将任何东西捆绑在一起，那么似乎又要这么做了，关键是什么？ 捆绑包的关键部分是什么？
And John Gruber and others have written about this, of wondering what that would be. Right now it seems like it’s Apple Music, but honestly, this is not a great linchpin. I mean, it’s good, but there Spotify is and some people like Spotify a lot more than they like Apple Music. And so what else could it be? I come back to, I think eventually it has to be the iPhone, and if you start to pay for it on a monthly cadence and it becomes part of an “Apple One” package that they are rumored to be calling it, that makes some sense to me, but I think we’re a ways away from doing that. So they’re going to have some hard decisions though to make in terms of what they do from a marketing perspective, even just like for what is a key part of that Apple One bundle.
约翰·格鲁伯(John Gruber)和其他人已经写了这本书，想知道那会是什么。 目前看来，它就像是Apple Music，但说实话，这并不是一个很好的关键。 我的意思是，这很好，但是有Spotify，有些人喜欢Spotify的兴趣远胜于Apple Music。 那还有什么呢？ 我回过头来，我认为最终必须是iPhone，如果您开始按月计价购买它，并且它已成为谣传他们称其为“ Apple One”产品包的一部分，那将使对我来说很有意义，但是我认为我们离这样做还有一段路要走。 因此，就营销角度而言，他们将做出一些艰难的决定，即使对于Apple One捆绑包的关键部分也是如此。
苹果与史诗般的战斗 (Apple’s battle with Epic)
One of the things that you’ve been covering a little bit lately is the Apple against Epic fight. Epic is the maker of Fortnite. They tried to create a payment system that would subvert Apple’s payment systems, which they have to pay 30% tax on for every dollar they get. Apple then kicks them off the App Store. Right before we came on air, Apple is terminating Epic’s developer account. So M.G., what’s your read of this fight, and who do you think is going to win?
您最近涉及的一件事是Apple与Epic的对抗。 Epic是Fortnite的制造商。 他们试图创建一种支付系统，该支付系统将颠覆苹果的支付系统，他们必须为所获得的每一美元支付30％的税。 苹果随后将其从App Store推出。 就在我们开始直播之前，Apple正在终止Epic的开发人员帐户。 那么，MG，您对这场斗争有何了解，您认为谁会赢？
I'm hesitant to even try to predict at this point because I feel like it’s played out differently than I may have expected when it first kicked off. I think that Epic did a rather Apple-like incredible job of trolling Apple with obviously the 1984 spoof ad. And just caught them by surprise.
我甚至不愿尝试预测这一点，因为我觉得它的表现与我刚开始时所预期的不同。 我认为Epic显然是用1984年的恶搞广告来诱骗Apple，做出了相当像Apple的不可思议的工作。 只是让他们感到惊讶。
Ultimately, what it feels like that Epic and Apple are fighting, they’re basically fighting a PR and marketing warfare which is interesting because that has been Apple’s home turf historically. Apple gets great press, they obviously do great marketing and how was Epic going to go at them? And they just went straight at them in their seeming position of strength and to my eyes, they’ve done a really good job of it so far.
最终，Epic和Apple的战斗感觉到了，他们基本上是在进行PR和营销战，这很有趣，因为从历史上看，这一直是Apple的主场。 苹果公司获得了很好的媒体报道，他们显然进行了很好的营销，Epic将会如何对待他们？ 而且他们只是以他们看似的力量直冲他们，在我看来，到目前为止，他们已经做得非常出色。
I think that they’re really challenging Apple and making people choose one side or the other. It feels like that Apple is obviously taking this very, very seriously and you can see it in their actions. Not only the fact that as you noted, they just terminated Epic’s accounts. And it’s a little bit more nuanced than that because as you’ve heard over the past few days, it seems like that the judge that this ultimately went to decided that it was okay if Apple wanted to keep Fortnite the game off of the App Store, but they weren’t able to stop people from using the Unreal Engine, which powers a lot of different types of games by many different people.
我认为他们确实在挑战苹果，让人们选择另一侧。 感觉苹果显然在非常非常认真地对待这一点，您可以从他们的行动中看到这一点。 正如您所指出的那样，他们不仅终止了Epic的帐户。 而且，它的细微之处还在于，因为正如您过去几天所听到的那样，看来法官最终决定是否可以将Fortnite游戏保留在App Store之外，这是可以的。 ，但他们无法阻止人们使用虚幻引擎，虚幻引擎为许多不同的人提供了许多不同类型的游戏的动力。
But still terminating that developer certificate is a big deal because it means that now we’re past the point of no return where Epic can’t even update Fortnite, which they just rolled out a big update for. And so iOS is sort of being sandboxed. Apple’s clearly taking this seriously and not backing down, and it seems like Epic is also taking this seriously and not backing down. I would have expected one of them to back down by this point, just given the stakes that are at play, but I think Apple views this as a threat for the reason that we were talking about earlier. This is a huge part of the services narrative is the 30% cut.
但是仍然终止开发人员证书是一件大事，因为这意味着现在我们已经超越了Epic甚至无法更新Fortnite的无可挽回的地步 ，他们只是为此进行了一次大的更新。 因此，iOS有点像沙盒。 苹果显然很认真地对待这一点而不是放弃，似乎Epic也正在认真对待而不是让步。 鉴于存在的风险，我希望其中一个人能在这一点上退缩，但是由于我们前面提到的原因，我认为Apple将此视为威胁。 服务叙述中的很大一部分是削减30％。
Epic tried to use their own payment method to be able to get people to pay them directly and not have to pay any cut to Apple. And obviously Apple is not going to be okay with that, because again, these payments, no matter what the cut is, is a huge, huge part of the services narrative.
Epic尝试使用自己的付款方式来使人们直接付款，而不必向Apple支付任何费用。 显然，苹果公司对此并不满意，因为无论这些费用是多少，这些付款都是服务叙述中非常重要的一部分。
If you take a step back, the question is why does Apple get to charge these exorbitant rents to people just for the very fact that they can use the operating system that Apple has built? I’m going to read something that you actually called out in a recent blog post about the way that Steve Jobs viewed this thing. He said, “Our philosophy is simple. When Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns 30% share. When the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing.”
如果您退后一步，问题是，为什么Apple会仅仅因为人们可以使用Apple所构建的操作系统而向人们收取这些高昂的租金？ 我将阅读您在最近的博客文章中实际上提到的有关史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)看待事物的方式的内容。 他说：“我们的理念很简单。 当Apple为该应用带来新的订阅者时，Apple会获得30％的份额。 当发布者将现有或新订阅者带到应用程序时，发布者将保留100％的权益，而Apple则一无所获。”
Apple, when they first started this, already were basically laying out the fact that Apple taking 30% of everything would be unfair. Why do you think it’s tenable for Apple to take that 30%? And then why do you think they’re deviating so much from that original strategy that Jobs laid out?
苹果公司(Apple)刚开始时就已经提出了一个事实，那就是苹果公司拿走30％的一切都是不公平的。 您为什么认为Apple拿那30％固然可行？ 然后，为什么您认为他们与乔布斯提出的最初策略大相径庭？
I stumbled upon that statement because Jason Kincaid, who used to work with me at TechCrunch, had shared it. We used to go back and forth. I was a pro-Apple person, he was sort of anti-Apple person. So we had these blog posts that would go back and forth about takes on their various announcements at the time. And it was almost 10 years ago that Apple rolled out in-app subscriptions, which is at the heart of what we’re talking about now. And the quote you just read from Steve Jobs was in the press release when they announced this, and it was a big enough deal that Jobs himself gave a quote about it. And that quote is important obviously in what we’re thinking about now, Apple would say that look, it’s still the same as it was back then because you can still bring your own user base to the service and we’re not taking a cut of that, like with Netflix for example.
我偶然发现了该声明，因为曾经在TechCrunch与我一起工作的Jason Kincaid共享了它。 我们曾经来回走过。 我是亲苹果的人，他是反苹果的人。 因此，我们有这些博客文章，这些博客文章会在当时的各种公告中来回走动。 大约10年前，Apple推出了应用内订阅，这是我们现在谈论的核心。 您刚刚从史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)那里读到的报价是在他们宣布这一消息时的新闻稿中，而且乔布斯本人也对此进行了报价。 这句话对于我们现在正在考虑的事情显然很重要，Apple会说它的外观，它与当时的外观相同，因为您仍然可以将自己的用户群带到该服务中，并且我们不会削减其中，例如Netflix。
Things have changed though, quite a bit, as it used to be that you could sign up within Netflix or sorry, within the Netflix app and then yeah, Netflix would pay that 30% cut to Apple, or if you signed up on the web, they didn’t pay that 30% cut. Philosophically, Jobs thought that that was the right thing to do. What’s changed, of course, is that Netflix decided they were going to pull out of that agreement. I don’t think you can sign up currently through their iOS app, so you have to sign up on the web. The crazy thing is Netflix can’t tell you that you can sign up on the web, they can’t say anything about that per Apple’s terms of service or otherwise, the app will be blocked and they won’t be able to have it in the App Store.
不过，事情已经发生了很大的变化，因为过去曾经是您可以在Netflix中注册，或者抱歉，在Netflix应用程序中注册，然后是的，Netflix会向苹果支付这30％的费用，或者如果您在网络上注册，他们没有支付那30％的折扣。 从哲学上讲，乔布斯认为那是正确的事情。 当然，发生的变化是Netflix决定退出该协议。 我认为您目前无法通过其iOS应用注册，因此您必须在网络上注册。 疯狂的事情是Netflix无法告诉您您可以在网络上注册，他们无法按照Apple的服务条款说出任何有关此事的信息，否则该应用将被阻止并且他们将无法拥有它在App Store中。
That’s where I think this really irks me and a lot of people. I don’t think that Apple, while they might be explicitly following the letter of what Jobs said back then, I don’t think they’re following the intents of what was implied by what he was saying. If you go back and read those quotes, I think he’s basically saying, look, we’re launching this new in-app purchase service because we’re trying to make the best user experience for people to be able to transact within our apps and on our devices. And we think that we can create a better experience for those users using what at the time was the iTunes Rails to be able to pay for these subscription services, and now it’s obviously all run through the App Store. And if you feel like, if you’re a service that brings in your own users a different way and you can do that, that’s great, you get to keep all of that money. And if they choose to use our Rails to do it, then we’ll take that 30% cut.
那是我认为这真的让我和很多人感到不快的地方。 我不认为苹果公司，尽管他们可能会明确遵循乔布斯当时所说的话，但我不认为他们遵循了乔布斯所说的意图。 如果您回头阅读这些报价，我想他基本上是说，看，我们正在启动这项新的应用内购买服务，因为我们正在努力为人们提供最佳的用户体验，从而使他们能够在我们的应用和在我们的设备上。 而且我们认为我们可以为那些使用iTunes Rails的用户提供更好的体验，以便能够为这些订阅服务付费，现在，显然所有这些操作都通过App Store运行。 而且，如果您觉得自己是一项能够以不同方式吸引自己的用户的服务，并且您可以做到，那就太好了，您就可以保留所有这些钱。 如果他们选择使用我们的Rails做到这一点，那么我们将减少30％的费用。
And we can talk about the 30% cut itself in a second, but I just think that Apple has deviated from that mentality and now it’s all just like, how do we make sure that we are getting that 30% cut and they are signing up are via our mechanism. So it feels like they’re not so much competing on having the best experience or product necessarily anymore. They’re competing on obfuscation and trying to make it confusing and/or just like impossible to sign up.
我们可以在一秒钟内谈论30％的削减，但我只是认为Apple偏离了这种心态，现在一切都一样，我们如何确保我们获得30％的削减，他们正在签约通过我们的机制。 这样看来，他们在拥有最佳体验或产品方面并没有太多竞争。 他们正在对混淆进行竞争，并试图使其变得混乱和/或几乎无法注册。
Now, the argument for Apple being able to charge that 30% cut is that it’s almost like you built the store and then there’s a company that wants to come and sell products in your store, what right do they have to be able to go and do that for free? So where do you land? Is a 30% cut fair or unfair?
现在，苹果公司能够收取30％的折扣的理由是，这几乎就像您建立了商店，然后有一家公司想要进来在您的商店中销售产品，他们必须具备的权利以及免费吗？ 那你在哪里着陆呢？ 30％的削减是公平还是不公平？
I think that when it launched, it was fair enough. I think it came from a weird place. Like you can look back again at the reports at the time and you can basically deduce how they got to it. It more or less seemed like it was a combination of what Apple was charging for iTunes individual songs at the time. So they had the 99-cent songs via iTunes music store and they would take a 30% cut of each of those songs. And so I think Jobs just looked at it and said, yeah, let’s just keep it simple and do the same thing with apps. And they started with obviously doing that with paid apps and then there became in-app purchases and then there became subscriptions, and now it’s the standard thing.
我认为它发布时就足够公平了。 我认为它来自一个奇怪的地方。 就像您可以再次查看当时的报告一样，基本上可以推断出报告是如何到达的。 似乎它是苹果当时为iTunes个人歌曲收取的费用的组合。 因此，他们在iTunes音乐商店中拥有99美分的歌曲，因此每首歌曲的收入减少30％。 因此，我认为乔布斯只是看着它说，是的，让我们保持简单，并对应用程序执行相同的操作。 他们显然从付费应用开始，然后成为应用内购买，然后成为订阅，现在这已成为标准。
And now, of course, Apple is pointing like, look, this is not just us, this is an industry standard. Where I beg to differ on that is I think that Apple should be leading by example here again, like, yes, it might be the standard because they set it that way and Google, and everyone else now uses that same standard. And some of the other video game councils and whatnot now are all on the same standard. But I think Apple is in a position, certainly as a $2 trillion company and as one of the biggest companies in the world, to be able to say, we want to do things a little bit differently. Look, we recognize that 10 years ago when we set out to do this, there were businesses that we could not have imagined that would be built on top of the App Store, and that’s amazing.
当然，现在，Apple指向的是，看起来，这不仅仅是我们，这是行业标准。 我想在此有所不同的是，我认为Apple应该在这里再次以身作则，例如，是的，这可能是标准，因为他们是那样设定的，而Google和其他所有人现在都使用相同的标准。 其他一些视频游戏委员会以及现在的所有委员会都遵循相同的标准。 但我认为，苹果公司无疑是一家市值达2万亿美元的公司，也是全球最大的公司之一，可以说，我们希望做点不同的事情。 瞧，我们认识到10年前开始这样做时，有些公司是我们无法想象的，这些业务将建立在App Store的基础上，这真是令人惊讶。
And Apple deserves credit for that, certainly, but I think that they should get a lot more granular in terms of how they support those types of businesses and recognize that not every type of business necessarily should be taking a 30% cut of their revenue out of, and I know that they’ve changed it slightly over the years. They have the 30% finder’s fee that again morphs into a 15% thing in year two and whatnot. But some of that was just because of back-end deals that they cut with some of the other bigger players like Amazon, and then they felt like probably some level of hypocrisy if they didn’t offer it to everyone, but there’s still a lot of hypocrisy going on behind the scenes. Everyone knows that, that they cut certain deals and there’s whispered meetings that happen behind the scenes to make sure that all sides are working together even though it’s not in the most transparent way possible that say, like a little developer, who’s doing a single app, doesn’t have the same type of white-glove experience.
苹果当然值得赞扬，但我认为他们应该在如何支持这些类型的业务方面获得更多的了解，并认识到并非每种类型的业务都一定会减少其收入的30％ ，而且我知道他们多年来对它做了些微更改。 他们有30％的取景器费用，第二年又变成了15％的费用。 但是，其中一些原因仅仅是因为他们与诸如亚马逊之类的其他一些大型企业削减了后端交易，然后，如果他们不向所有人提供这种交易，他们可能会感到某种程度的虚伪，但是仍然有很多幕后的虚伪行为 每个人都知道，他们达成了某些协议，幕后发生了悄悄的会议，以确保各方合作，即使这不是像一个小开发人员那样以最透明的方式做一个单一的应用程序，没有相同类型的白色手套体验。
And so again, I just go back to the idea that these rules were set in place a decade ago. The world is very different than it was a decade ago, and certainly, the mobile world is very different than it was a decade ago, and the app ecosystem and everything that Apple’s helped create. Again, I’m not saying that they need to give this stuff away for free and they don’t deserve any credit and fee for doing this, they absolutely do. I just think it needs to be a lot more granular and I think it needs to be rethought from the ground up for the 2020 world, not the 2010 world.
再说一遍，我只是回到这些规则是在十年前制定的想法。 世界与十年前有很大的不同，当然，移动世界与十年前和应用程序生态系统以及苹果公司帮助创造的一切都非常不同。 再说一次，我并不是说他们需要免费提供这些东西，而且他们绝对不应该为此付出任何荣誉和费用。 我只是认为它需要更加细化，我认为需要重新思考2020年世界，而不是2010年世界。
We’re also going to come down to the point where like, how is this going to impact the actual people that buy the devices? Here’s another thing I want to read. You wrote “With seemingly each passing week, Apple is eroding that relationship with developers, thanks to moves like this one. And if that continues, at some point, it has to change the other side of the equation as well. Users may not want to walk from the products they know and love, but they will if the apps they know and love just aren’t there.”
我们还将下降到这样的程度，这将如何影响实际购买设备的人？ 这是我想读的另一件事。 您写道：“似乎每隔一周，由于这种举动，苹果公司正在侵蚀与开发人员的关系。 如果这种情况持续下去，在某个时候，它也必须改变方程式的另一面。 用户可能不想从他们知道和喜爱的产品中走出来，但是如果他们知道并喜爱的应用程序不存在，他们就会这样做。”
What sort of risks from severing a relationship with its own customers is Apple running when it makes moves like this?
采取这种举动时，苹果与自己的客户断绝关系会带来什么样的风险？
When we were first writing about and reporting about a decade ago when they launched some of these things like the in-app purchase, people were saying the same things at the time. I mentioned Jason Kincaid. He was saying like, the risk of all of this is that developers end up balking at the payment structure and then they walk and then users follow. Obviously that hasn’t really happened over the past decade, and the question is: Why is it happening now? And I feel like there’s a number of reasons, and I feel like they’re all interrelated things from the techlash in general on down. And these companies being called in front of Congress and everything, I think is all emboldening some of the other key players in the space, players like Epic and Facebook and everyone else that we’ve talked about, even though Facebook is of course on both sides here as one of the big behemoths also.
大约十年前，当我们第一次撰写和报道这些东西时，他们推出了诸如应用程序内购买之类的东西，当时人们在说同样的话。 我提到了杰森·金凯德(Jason Kincaid)。 他说的是，所有这一切的风险在于，开发人员最终对付款结构犹豫不决，然后他们走了，然后用户跟随。 显然，这十年来还没有真正发生过，问题是：为什么现在会发生这种情况？ 我觉得有很多原因，而且从整体上讲，它们都是相互关联的东西。 这些公司在国会及所有事务面前都被召唤，我想都鼓舞了该领域的其他一些关键参与者，如Epic和Facebook以及我们已经谈论过的其他所有人，尽管Facebook当然都在这两个领域双方在这里也是大庞然大物之一。
But I think it’s just emboldening some of the other players that necessarily wouldn’t have been able to speak up or didn’t feel like they could speak up in the past and now feel like they can. And I do think that there’s a risk that this can start to snowball on Apple, and we’re already seeing it now that we don’t have feature parity for Fortnite. And I don’t think that that necessarily breaks the camel’s back, but I think that if that plus another major apps say all of a sudden you can’t use Spotify on the iPhone, I think that that would be a massive deal. If you can’t use Netflix on the iPhone, that would be a massive deal. And all of those things combined would be a really big deal, and that could actually lead to some change.
但是我认为这只是鼓舞了一些其他参与者，这些参与者不一定会说出来，或者觉得自己过去不会说话，现在觉得自己可以说话。 而且我确实认为这可能会在Apple上滚雪球，而且由于我们没有Fortnite的功能奇偶校验，因此我们已经看到了这一风险 。 而且我认为这不一定会伤到骆驼，但我认为，如果再加上其他主要应用程序突然说您不能在iPhone上使用Spotify，我认为那将是一笔大买卖。 如果您无法在iPhone上使用Netflix，那将是一笔大买卖。 所有这些东西加起来将是一件非常大的事，实际上可能会导致一些改变。
And I mean, maybe a year ago, certainly five years ago would have seemed inconceivable that that could possibly happen, but things are moving in that direction more and more. And so that’s why I feel like Apple, at some point you would hope, has to recognize that. And that’s why I do believe that they will ultimately start to move a little bit on and make some of these changes. The question is, how transparent are they going to be about that and how much are they going to work with everyone? Not just some of the bigger developers behind the scenes. And to Epic’s credit, they’ve said that they don’t want to be the ones that are getting the special deals. Obviously that’s a bit self-serving and who knows—
我的意思是，大概在一年前，肯定是五年前，这似乎不可能发生，但是事情正朝着这个方向发展。 因此，这就是为什么我觉得在某些时候您希望苹果公司必须认识到这一点。 And that's why I do believe that they will ultimately start to move a little bit on and make some of these changes. The question is, how transparent are they going to be about that and how much are they going to work with everyone? Not just some of the bigger developers behind the scenes. And to Epic's credit, they've said that they don't want to be the ones that are getting the special deals. Obviously that's a bit self-serving and who knows—
It has to be everyone.
It has to be everyone.
Right. They’re saying it has to be everyone. And so that’s good.
对。 They're saying it has to be everyone. And so that's good.
I’ve been surprised that no one else has stood up and said, we’re going to do this too. All these other companies voiced support, but wouldn’t make a similar move that Epic did. I wonder what would happen if it wasn’t just Epic, but it was all the companies that voiced their discomfort with Apple’s policies, like Netflix, like Facebook, like Tinder. I mean, the list goes on.
I've been surprised that no one else has stood up and said, we're going to do this too. All these other companies voiced support, but wouldn't make a similar move that Epic did. I wonder what would happen if it wasn't just Epic, but it was all the companies that voiced their discomfort with Apple's policies, like Netflix, like Facebook, like Tinder. I mean, the list goes on.
I think there’ve been reports that they’ve been talking to these folks and they’re trying to create maybe a coalition. Obviously there’s fine lines to skirt. But I think that they would prefer that others came with them and yeah, also not just fought with words, but also fought with actions.
I think there've been reports that they've been talking to these folks and they're trying to create maybe a coalition. Obviously there's fine lines to skirt. But I think that they would prefer that others came with them and yeah, also not just fought with words, but also fought with actions.
The question really is, is Epic the first mover here, or are they the only mover? Because if they’re the only mover here, they, at some point will, unfortunately, lose the leverage that they might have even with a game as big as Fortnite. And so I think it does have to be others coming to rally behind them in order to really make change.
The question really is, is Epic the first mover here, or are they the only mover? Because if they're the only mover here, they, at some point will, unfortunately, lose the leverage that they might have even with a game as big as Fortnite . And so I think it does have to be others coming to rally behind them in order to really make change.
Let’s do a quick lightning round here toward the end of this segment. You mentioned you were pro-Apple. Are you still pro-Apple?
Let's do a quick lightning round here toward the end of this segment. You mentioned you were pro-Apple. Are you still pro-Apple?
I’m still largely pro-Apple. Some of their moves recently are boneheaded. I think that again, they need to revisit some of those policies. But I still use Apple devices even though as we noted in the get-go, obviously I work at a fund where our LP is one of the rivals of Apple, but I still use Apple devices more than any other type of device. And I love the products and I just wish that they would recognize and read the room better in terms of where they are right now in the ecosystem.
I'm still largely pro-Apple. Some of their moves recently are boneheaded. I think that again, they need to revisit some of those policies. But I still use Apple devices even though as we noted in the get-go, obviously I work at a fund where our LP is one of the rivals of Apple, but I still use Apple devices more than any other type of device. And I love the products and I just wish that they would recognize and read the room better in terms of where they are right now in the ecosystem.
Does a $2 trillion valuation makes sense?
Does a $2 trillion valuation makes sense?
I mean, they are an insanely profitable company, the likes of which we’ve never seen before, thanks to the iPhone. I remember back in the day, reporting on the race to beat Exxon is the most valuable company, right? And it seems absurd that a technology company could be an oil company, and now it seems absurd in the other way. And so I don’t know if two trillion is warranted, I mean, I’m not a public market investor that can quantify how best to value these things off of future earnings and whatnot, but I do think they are in the best position to make the most amount of profits off of the user base that they’ve been able to gather over time. And so if Amazon’s 1.6 trillion, Microsoft’s 1.6 trillion, I think seeing Apple at two trillion right now makes sense in that capacity, but overall, it’s all relative.
I mean, they are an insanely profitable company, the likes of which we've never seen before, thanks to the iPhone. I remember back in the day, reporting on the race to beat Exxon is the most valuable company, right? And it seems absurd that a technology company could be an oil company, and now it seems absurd in the other way. And so I don't know if two trillion is warranted, I mean, I'm not a public market investor that can quantify how best to value these things off of future earnings and whatnot, but I do think they are in the best position to make the most amount of profits off of the user base that they've been able to gather over time. And so if Amazon's 1.6 trillion, Microsoft's 1.6 trillion, I think seeing Apple at two trillion right now makes sense in that capacity, but overall, it's all relative.
Is Apple still the biggest company in the world five years from now?
Is Apple still the biggest company in the world five years from now?
If I had to guess, I would say that Amazon is.
If I had to guess, I would say that Amazon is.
Last question in the lightning round, who wins? Apple or Epic?
Last question in the lightning round, who wins? Apple or Epic?
It’s obviously going to be more nuanced than that, but I think that directionally I’ll say that I think that Epic ends up getting some of what they want.
It's obviously going to be more nuanced than that, but I think that directionally I'll say that I think that Epic ends up getting some of what they want.
Life as a VC (Life as a VC)
You are a prolific writer and you’re also working as a partner in a VC firm. How do you balance it?
You are a prolific writer and you're also working as a partner in a VC firm. How do you balance it?
I’ve been on the VC side of things almost 10 years now, which is sort of crazy to think about, is actually longer than I was ever a reporter. And I sort of stumbled into reporting just because I was working as a web developer and I always loved writing. And so I was just writing on the side about technology, and that caught the eye of people at VentureBeat and other places. And so they asked me to come over and see if I would be willing to do this full time. At the time I thought there’s no way you could make a living just blogging about technology.
I've been on the VC side of things almost 10 years now, which is sort of crazy to think about, is actually longer than I was ever a reporter. And I sort of stumbled into reporting just because I was working as a web developer and I always loved writing. And so I was just writing on the side about technology, and that caught the eye of people at VentureBeat and other places. And so they asked me to come over and see if I would be willing to do this full time. At the time I thought there's no way you could make a living just blogging about technology.
And then, of course, that took me to San Francisco and led me indirectly to where I am now. But the balance of it now, I was worried about it 10 years ago, but ultimately, I’ve recognized that the writing is important to what I do because it really clarifies my own thinking about things, and it also in a way it brings in interesting people who learn my perspective on things. And even if it’s not necessarily about their company or what they’re doing, I think that it helps clarify my line of thinking just like it does for myself. And so it’s a good balance that I’ve been able to strike. It’s taken a long time and it’s not easy to maintain, but I like where I’m at now.
And then, of course, that took me to San Francisco and led me indirectly to where I am now. But the balance of it now, I was worried about it 10 years ago, but ultimately, I've recognized that the writing is important to what I do because it really clarifies my own thinking about things, and it also in a way it brings in interesting people who learn my perspective on things. And even if it's not necessarily about their company or what they're doing, I think that it helps clarify my line of thinking just like it does for myself. And so it's a good balance that I've been able to strike. It's taken a long time and it's not easy to maintain, but I like where I'm at now.
It reminds me a little bit about the six pagers in Amazon where, in order to clarify their thinking on new products they want to build, they write it all down and it helps you spot gaps in the way you wouldn’t if you were just playing around with it in your brain or doing a PowerPoint. So it seems like that’s working out well for you.
It reminds me a little bit about the six pagers in Amazon where, in order to clarify their thinking on new products they want to build, they write it all down and it helps you spot gaps in the way you wouldn't if you were just playing around with it in your brain or doing a PowerPoint. So it seems like that's working out well for you.
I’ve always respected that about Amazon, for sure.
I've always respected that about Amazon, for sure.
What’s it like investing today? What are you seeing coming through the pipeline? Is the economy in the middle of the coronavirus and the tech world somewhat similar to what you were seeing before, or is it changed in a dramatic way?
What's it like investing today? What are you seeing coming through the pipeline? Is the economy in the middle of the coronavirus and the tech world somewhat similar to what you were seeing before, or is it changed in a dramatic way?
It definitely took a pause for a little bit when Covid hit, mainly because I think everyone at a VC fund, you have a lot of portfolio companies and no one knew what was going to happen. Right? And so we had to do a lot of work with the current portfolio companies to look inward and figure out how we batten down the hatches and help keep companies afloat. And in some cases, unfortunately, companies went under, obviously, there’ve been a lot of layoffs across the board for all sorts of different types of companies. But other companies have been able to use this time to figure out both what they really need to focus on more and others are using it to create new companies.
It definitely took a pause for a little bit when Covid hit, mainly because I think everyone at a VC fund, you have a lot of portfolio companies and no one knew what was going to happen. 对？ And so we had to do a lot of work with the current portfolio companies to look inward and figure out how we batten down the hatches and help keep companies afloat. And in some cases, unfortunately, companies went under, obviously, there've been a lot of layoffs across the board for all sorts of different types of companies. But other companies have been able to use this time to figure out both what they really need to focus on more and others are using it to create new companies.
And there’s obviously a lot of different spaces that are taking unique approaches to the current world that we’re in. Obviously from Zoom on down with videoconferencing, remote work from Slack on down. And so there’s all sorts of trickle-down effects that maybe were hard to see at first, but we just went through the latest Y Combinator batch of companies. There’s nearly 200 companies that launched out of there. And a lot of them are focused on a lot of the world in which we live now for remote working, for video, for all different things that are just a different environment. So it’s very different than it was a year ago in terms of just overall feel, you obviously can’t go and meet with companies in person anymore, unfortunately. And so that makes the job a little bit harder, but there’s opportunities in it too. And so I think everyone is getting their footing back to figure out what those opportunities are at this point.
And there's obviously a lot of different spaces that are taking unique approaches to the current world that we're in. Obviously from Zoom on down with videoconferencing, remote work from Slack on down. And so there's all sorts of trickle-down effects that maybe were hard to see at first, but we just went through the latest Y Combinator batch of companies. There's nearly 200 companies that launched out of there. And a lot of them are focused on a lot of the world in which we live now for remote working, for video, for all different things that are just a different environment. So it's very different than it was a year ago in terms of just overall feel, you obviously can't go and meet with companies in person anymore, unfortunately. And so that makes the job a little bit harder, but there's opportunities in it too. And so I think everyone is getting their footing back to figure out what those opportunities are at this point.
That’s a great segue for me to ask the last question I wanted to ask, which is about Slack, a company you’ve invested in. I have the perspective that Slack can be negative for some organizations, and mostly that CEOs will end up cracking down on it because they see it as something that takes away any hesitation you have in normal communication. And you end up fighting with your co-workers and saying things you wouldn’t say, and CEOs are spending a lot of their time responding to drama versus actually working on getting stuff done. Obviously there’s a positive component for workers being able to voice their opinions in ways they couldn’t before and organize, but if you think about it from a CEO perspective, sometimes it can be a bit of a mixed bag. So would you acknowledge that there are some of these issues inside Slack and how do you think it gets through them, or do you think it’s just going to be part of working from now on?
That's a great segue for me to ask the last question I wanted to ask, which is about Slack, a company you've invested in. I have the perspective that Slack can be negative for some organizations, and mostly that CEOs will end up cracking down on it because they see it as something that takes away any hesitation you have in normal communication. And you end up fighting with your co-workers and saying things you wouldn't say, and CEOs are spending a lot of their time responding to drama versus actually working on getting stuff done. Obviously there's a positive component for workers being able to voice their opinions in ways they couldn't before and organize, but if you think about it from a CEO perspective, sometimes it can be a bit of a mixed bag. So would you acknowledge that there are some of these issues inside Slack and how do you think it gets through them, or do you think it's just going to be part of working from now on?
I read your Slack lash newsletter and I would say that it’s, of course not the first Slack lash, there’ve been multiple Slack lashes. It’s such a great word that slots in so nicely with that. But yeah, I mean, my viewpoint on this, and as you note, obviously I have my own biases. I was an investor in Slack when I was still a private company. I was a board observer there and we remain investors in Slack, but I don’t have any inside information about what they’re doing these days. But I would say taking a step back, it looks like that these are challenges and opportunities for new companies that are emerging like Slack. And I think that you’re seeing in the world that we were just talking about, in the Covid world, Slack has been a very, very positive tool for many companies, because how on earth are you going to operate communications-wise if you don’t have a tool like Slack.
I read your Slack lash newsletter and I would say that it's, of course not the first Slack lash, there've been multiple Slack lashes. It's such a great word that slots in so nicely with that. But yeah, I mean, my viewpoint on this, and as you note, obviously I have my own biases. I was an investor in Slack when I was still a private company. I was a board observer there and we remain investors in Slack, but I don't have any inside information about what they're doing these days. But I would say taking a step back, it looks like that these are challenges and opportunities for new companies that are emerging like Slack. And I think that you're seeing in the world that we were just talking about, in the Covid world, Slack has been a very, very positive tool for many companies, because how on earth are you going to operate communications-wise if you don't have a tool like Slack.
But there are real side effects of people being connected all the time and being in channels and all of these new paradigms that Slack has helped create. And how you do that, to me, it boils down to, I think you need to have a culture that’s led from the top that instills the right sort of elements to make sure that employees are treating each other respectfully. And I don’t think that this is unique to Slack, I think that this is something that you’ve seen in the past over email, you’ve seen over IM and all the other tools, and Slack’s not going to be the last of them either, you’ll see things in the future, I’m sure, that have some of the same challenges. I do think it’s a unique time because again, we’re living in a world where we’re all remote and these are the tools that are being used more than ever.
But there are real side effects of people being connected all the time and being in channels and all of these new paradigms that Slack has helped create. And how you do that, to me, it boils down to, I think you need to have a culture that's led from the top that instills the right sort of elements to make sure that employees are treating each other respectfully. And I don't think that this is unique to Slack, I think that this is something that you've seen in the past over email, you've seen over IM and all the other tools, and Slack's not going to be the last of them either, you'll see things in the future, I'm sure, that have some of the same challenges. I do think it's a unique time because again, we're living in a world where we're all remote and these are the tools that are being used more than ever.
And it’s faster perhaps than it ever has been over a tool like email, which is good and has side effects to it too, which are playing out now, sort of as you’re noting. But again, I think that the companies will figure this out. I think that this is something that, again, has to be led from the top down from a culture perspective, to make sure that people are treating each other with respect, and that communications lines remain open and that dialogue remains open. And I think that people will figure that out. This is the early days of these types of new tools. And again, I have to wonder what it was like back in the day when email rolled out within organizations and were people up in arms? Were managers up in arms because no one was talking to each other as much in the office anymore, or people were taking advantage of being able to communicate at night versus just in the office environment? So I think that all of these things have different nuances to them given that they’re different technologies, but this is the latest one.
And it's faster perhaps than it ever has been over a tool like email, which is good and has side effects to it too, which are playing out now, sort of as you're noting. But again, I think that the companies will figure this out. I think that this is something that, again, has to be led from the top down from a culture perspective, to make sure that people are treating each other with respect, and that communications lines remain open and that dialogue remains open. And I think that people will figure that out. This is the early days of these types of new tools. And again, I have to wonder what it was like back in the day when email rolled out within organizations and were people up in arms? Were managers up in arms because no one was talking to each other as much in the office anymore, or people were taking advantage of being able to communicate at night versus just in the office environment? So I think that all of these things have different nuances to them given that they're different technologies, but this is the latest one.
翻译自: https://onezero.medium.com/apple-at-a-crossroads-an-interview-with-m-g-siegler-5d3fc71ac48e
309
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
