Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Silicon Valley Bank is still the SVB you know and trust. The SVB that delivers human-focused, specialized lending and financial solutions to their clients. The SVB that can help take you from startup to scale-up. The SVB that can help your runways lead to liftoff. The only difference? Silicon Valley Bank is now backed by the strength and stability of First Citizens Bank. Yes, SVB. Learn more at svb.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.
When you're running a small business, sometimes there are no words. But if you're looking to protect your small business, then there are definitely words that can help. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. And just like that, a State Farm agent can be there to help you choose the coverage that fits your needs. Whether your small business is growing or brand new, your State Farm agent is there to help. On the phone or in person. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.
True story. I play Fortnite. Yep, the video game where you run around a virtual island dressed in funny outfits, vaporizing other people in funny outfits until there's only one of you left. Don't worry. I play with other grown-ass men. I mean, maybe you should worry. Anyway, I used to play Fortnite on my iPhone, but now I can't. Which is why Apple and Epic Games, the company that makes Fortnite, ended up in a federal courthouse last spring.
The fight was over money, of course. Epic doesn't like Apple's App Store rules, which give Apple a 30% cut of any money Epic's users spend on their games. And games like Fortnite are the main way Apple makes money from the App Store. How much money? Apple has refused to break out how much money it makes on the App Store. They've said that they just don't calculate revenue that way and that they don't think about things that way. Erin Griffith covered the trial for The New York Times.
And the judge really grilled Tim Cook on that and was like, come on, you have to know. We never actually got an exact number on that. It's not very believable that the man who runs Apple, a man who knows down to the penny how much it costs to make an iPhone, doesn't know how much money his company makes from its app store. But we have educated guesses. Analysts estimate Apple likely brings in $15 to $20 billion a year from the app store. Most of that is profit.
Epic deliberately provoked this fight with an under-under on Apple's rules. It used a hotfix, that's a tweak to Fortnite's code that Epic correctly thought Apple wouldn't uncover until it was too late. It started with Epic basically allowing Fortnite users on iOS to pay...
for their virtual goods separately outside of Apple's App Store, which would save them 30% because Apple charges the 30% fee.
Epic knew what Apple would do next. Apple responded by kicking Fortnite out of the App Store. And then Epic responds immediately by suing Apple. The same day, Epic released an animated video that riffed on Apple's iconic 1984 ad. Except now Apple and Tim Cook were big brother. We shall prevail.
This was not a subtle critique. And Epic's legal argument is pretty simple, too. Epic says Apple shouldn't have an iron grip on the software iPhone users download. It says Apple should allow competing app stores onto the iPhone.
Like one made by Epic. Apple's response is also simple.
We built the iPhone. We built the App Store. And if you want to use those things, you use our rules, which, by the way, are for your own good. The reason people want to use the iPhone and the App Store is because they trust us, Apple, to do things the right way. So on the one hand, this is just a fight between two really big companies. One is worth $29 billion. The other is worth $2 trillion. But Apple's critics will tell you this is much bigger than that.
They say it's about Apple's control over the iPhone, the critical device that changed Apple and the world, and about Apple's control of the economy and innovation the iPhone enables. The iPhone, remember, is the thing we use to interact with the internet. That is the world. And if Apple holds a tight grip on the way we use the iPhone, then Apple controls the way we interact with the world. For years, Apple's been upfront about the way it runs the iPhone, its way, end of discussion. And that seemed unlikely to change until just recently.
But now, in a way we've never seen before, all of big tech is under a microscope. It's not just app developers like Epic that are fed up. Politicians and regulators say they want to rein in the power of the giant companies that shape our lives. And perhaps to Tim Cook's surprise, that means Apple is under the microscope too. In every sense, it's what we call a walled garden. And by design, the App Store has a literal monopoly on the distribution of apps on Apple devices. ♪
Today, how Apple wields its power and the people who are fighting to take back some of that power. This is Land of the Giants. I'm Peter Kafka. There were apps before the iPhone. App stores, too. But they weren't anything like what we have today. Tech analyst Benedict Evans remembers the world before the iPhone.
When if you wanted to make really basic software for mobile phones. There were all sorts of app stores on mobile phones. They were almost all run by the mobile operator. The mobile operator had very, very long and painful review processes because the phones were all different. And developing for phones wasn't just a time suck. It was an expensive time suck.
You had to pay them thousands and thousands of dollars and wait months. And then they would take like 50 or 75%. And you'd need to make like 40 different versions of your app to get it to work reliably on everything. Then, of course, the iPhone came along and blew up the mobile phone market. But it didn't have an app store at first. We talked about this on the first episode of this series. Steve Jobs wanted Apple to supply almost all of the iPhone's apps. A year later, he changed his mind. And so Apple comes along and says one global app store.
We'll review stuff to make sure it works. And then one tap payment, 30% commission. Everyone says this is fantastic. It's like it's paradise on earth. It was a paradise with some pretty strict rules. Jobs wanted to make sure all the apps in the App Store were up to his standards and did what they said they were going to do.
Some of those rules had to do with the limitations of the early iPhone itself. The only way the phone would work as a computer was if all the different software developers agreed to play nicely. They couldn't hog the phone's resources. Every developer thinks that their app should load when you start the computer and be in the background ready to help you. The result is you've got 45 apps that all try and run in the background and your computer dies. And
And so then when you've got this smartphone that's got very limited battery, very limited bandwidth, really good, strong engineering reasons to say, OK, no access to the file system. You can't run in the background. Some of the other App Store rules had to do with privacy. Apple didn't want app developers snooping on users and collecting their data. And then some of the rules had a more moralistic bent. No porn, for example. Back in 2010, reporter Ryan Tate sent Jobs an email accusing him of selling out the revolutionary values of the old Apple app.
To Tate, the iPhone's rules were a betrayal of the Apple spirit. Remember the homebrew hackers? Remember Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak giving away his plans for the first computer he ever made?
But in a different way, it was absolutely in keeping with everything that came before. Back in 1984, Jobs dreamed that the Macintosh would be a computer for the masses, easy to use, no coding knowledge required. And at a time when computer owners were used to opening up their devices and noodling around on them, the Macintosh was completely hermetic, sealed up. Apple didn't want you messing around with the guts of its computer. Now they're delivering basically the 1984 Mac.
That's what an iPhone is. That's the vision. It's just that now there's a billion people who'll buy it. Which means, whether they know it or not, they're also buying the Apple ethos. Apple makes all the decisions about how the stuff you're buying is going to work.
By the way, Google's Android, which owns the rest of the phone market, has an App Store, too, and it has rules similar to the ones Apple has. And Epic is also fighting Google in court. One crucial difference between Google and Apple, though, Google allows other companies to install their own App Stores on Android phones. They're not as good or easy to use as the one Google operates, but you can use them.
But if you're a developer who builds for Apple's App Store, there's a lot to like. All the power of a handheld computer, for starters. And Apple holds onto customers' billing information so developers don't have to deal with credit card transactions. And, of course, the really big prize, the ability to reach a huge number of users without having to make multiple apps for multiple phones and multiple carriers.
For some developers, all this still feels like a good deal or good enough. For others, not so much. We've been around since 1999 and we make Basecamp, which is a project management and internal communications tool. We also make a product called Hey, which is a brand new email service, which we launched about a year ago. Jason Freed offered his email service for $100 a year. People signed up on the web, but of course they wanted to get their email on their phones too. So Freed put out a Hey app for Android and iPhone.
So we weren't trying to sell Hay through the Hay app. It was just an app for those who essentially wanted to use the Hay service they already signed up for online on the web. And we were very careful not to do things that Apple says you basically can't do.
But Apple rejected the app. Now, Fritz's customers, who'd paid for this premium email service, couldn't read their email on their phones. I think we might have asked a few questions first, then filed a formal appeal when we didn't feel like we were getting anywhere, which was then also rejected on the same grounds. Apple's complaint basically boiled down to this. There was no way to sign up and pay for Hay through the app. So if you downloaded Hay and didn't already have a subscription, you couldn't do anything with it.
So why didn't Freed just let people sign up for Hay through the app? For starters, because Apple's 30% fee would mean Freed would keep $70 a year, not $100. But also signing up through the app meant using Apple's billing system. And Freed says that means his customers would essentially become Apple's customers.
If your customer has a problem with a billing issue, they can't talk to you about it. They have to talk to Apple about it. People's credit cards expire. They can't afford this month. They're a nonprofit. They want a discount. They're a charity. There's a million reasons why people write in around money. And we try to take care of people as best we can and service them and be as fair as we can. With Apple, you can't be that.
So even though there are customers, our answer is we are literally shit out of luck. Like, we can't help you. We literally actually can't help you. You have to contact Apple. Freed and Apple eventually reached a compromise. Hay now offers a free, limited-time email service. If you want to pay them for the real thing, you have to do it on Hay's site, not Apple's app. Freed says he can live with that, but he doesn't like it. What really started to get to me was that
Apple basically is preventing me, a small business owner, from servicing my customers the way I want to service them and the way I've serviced them for many, many years, for decades. And they're saying, no, you can't do it that way. So maybe you're fine with the email you have, and unless you're a tech person who pays close attention to Apple and its App Store rules, you've probably never heard of Hay. But one company you have heard of whose app you might use every day, you might even be listening to this podcast on it at this very minute, Spotify. It's also massively fed up with the way the App Store works.
Spotify offers two versions, a free one with ads and a $10 one without ads. When Spotify debuted on the App Store, Apple didn't take a cut of recurring subscriptions. But in 2011, that changed and Apple started taking 30%.
Horacio Gutierrez is Spotify's top lawyer. Because of the cost structure of the music industry where, you know, almost 70% of every dollar we generate, we have to pay out to the suppliers of music. That really meant that having to pay the 30% tax to Apple on every dollar that we generated just ensured that the company would never make money.
Here's some rough math: Spotify pays around 70% of its revenue to music labels, distributors, and publishers. If Apple takes another 30%, that leaves zero cents for Spotify if it charges 10 bucks a month. So for a while, Spotify just raised its price for users who subscribed to the App Store to $13 a month. Got to hang on to the extra $3. But then Apple launched Apple Music, its own streaming music service, and the price for that was $10.
So they were undercutting us on price by $3 a month. Spotify couldn't afford to compete on price with Apple Music, so Spotify simply removed the option to buy it through the app. You had to sign up for it on Spotify's site.
But Apple's rules also kept Spotify from telling Apple app users how to buy a subscription. We couldn't even mention to a user that they could go and find a premium service elsewhere to subscribe. We couldn't even talk about the existence of the premium service. Essentially, Apple imposed a gag order where we wouldn't be able to do it. And these rules only applied to competitors. None of those rules applied to Apple's own service, of course.
And so what? Even with those restrictions, Spotify has 165 million subscribers, way more than Apple Music, even though Apple Music comes pre-installed on every iPhone. Spotify is now worth $48 billion. But Gutierrez says Spotify should be doing even better.
If you add friction to the moment at which a free user is deciding whether to subscribe to a pay system, if you make it harder, if you force people to click multiple times, it is obvious that you will lose subscriptions. We could have done better were it not for Apple's actions.
But again, why should you, the person who pays $10 for Spotify or $10 for Apple Music, or doesn't pay for any service at all, care? If you're happy with the way your phone works, why does it matter who keeps 30% of your $10 subscription? If this conduct is left unchecked, they're going to amass a level of control over the mobile internet ecosystem forever.
that is really going to lead in the long run to an environment where innovation is going to suffer, where users are going to suffer. We've seen this before in the case of other monopolies, and the story is bound to repeat itself unless regulators act. I think you know where this story is going. It's going to Washington right after this break.
Support for Land of the Giants comes from Quince. The summer is not quite over yet, but shifting your wardrobe to the colder months could start now, little by little. You can update your closet without breaking the bank with Quince. They offer a variety of timeless, high-quality items. Quince has cashmere sweaters from $50, pants for every occasion, and washable silk tops, and a lot more.
And it's not just clothes. They have premium luggage options and high-quality bedding, too. Quince's luxury essentials are all priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. I've checked out Quince for myself, picking up a hand-woven Italian leather clutch for my mom. As soon as she saw it, she commented on how soft and pretty the leather was and told me it was the perfect size for everything she needs to carry out on a quick shopping trip.
Make switching seasons a breeze with Quince's high-quality closet essentials. Go to quince.com slash giants for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash giants to get free shipping and 365-day returns. quince.com slash giants
On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.
In just the first three months of this year, users are estimated to have spent $21 billion on apps from Apple's App Store. Those are billions, not millions, and that's 40% higher than last year. In April 2021, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on app stores and antitrust law. This is a huge business, and it's growing, and it's growing fast. There's nothing wrong with that, but what's wrong is if we don't have competition. ♪
Senator Amy Klobuchar opened the hearing with a shot across Apple's bow. As I've said before, just because a company creates a successful, innovative business that consumers like doesn't give it a free pass to harm competition or ignore our antitrust laws. Horacio Gutierrez was there to testify about Spotify's complaint against Apple. The dating app Match.com showed up too. It's also upset about the 30% it has to pay. And at first, Apple said it wasn't going to send anyone.
It said that because its court case with Epic was pending, it didn't want to go on record about the issue. But then Tim Cook showed up on a podcast and talked about the Epic case. And so we're going into court. We're coming to tell our story. We're going to talk about the privacy and security aspects of the store. And we're confident in our case. This trial is set for, I think, May 3rd coming up? Yeah, it's coming in a month.
So we sent a letter saying, how can you say you won't talk about this just because you're in a lawsuit with Epic Games when you, Mr. Cook, talked about this directly on Kara Schwisher's podcast only a week ago?
So Apple had one of their lawyers testify at the hearing. My name is Kyle Andeer, and I am Apple's chief compliance officer. Klobuchar and Republican Senator Mike Lee grilled Andeer. They asked about some of the app store's most confusing and seemingly arbitrary rules, like why Spotify or Match.com had to pay 30% of their revenue while ride-hailing apps like Uber or Lyft didn't.
Apple says the difference is that it only takes a cut of digital services, not real-world ones. And if that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone. The value I'm getting from Uber and Lyft is a way to get a car to go from A to D. In terms of the other examples, all of the experience is contained within the four corners of the device. You're not paying... But Uber is literally meeting a stranger for transportation.
I just I'm not grasping the differentiation point between meeting a stranger for transportation and meeting a stranger to go to dinner. I don't I don't get it. I'm just a small country lawyer from Provo, Utah, but I'm not. Oh, yeah, right. In August, Kulbuchar co-sponsored a bill called the Open App Markets Act.
That legislation would force Apple to allow developers to point users to other ways to pay, avoiding the app store's charges. She told us it would also force Apple to open up the iPhone to alternative app stores. This doesn't mean you get rid of iPhones. Of course not. What we're talking about here is a fair marketplace based on the economic principle that we're better off with more people are competing. Competition. Let tech companies duke it out for our dollars and may the best app store win. Sounds great, right?
On the other hand, look at the way Android phones work in China, where Google's own services don't exist. Every Android phone in China has at least two app stores, and probably three or four. And then, as a user, each of these app stores are all fighting to get you to download the update from this store rather than that store. Analyst Benedict Evans. And meanwhile, of course, you then have four different platforms doing push notifications.
And as a developer, you're trying to work out, well, I've now got four sets of store rules and four sets of specifications and four sets of stuff I have to deal with. It doesn't actually produce a good outcome for the user or the developers. In fact, it basically just kind of produces a wild west. Also, Apple claims its App Store has to be the gatekeeper so it can protect users by reviewing apps. And Apple's record isn't perfect, but it's been pretty good at keeping malware off of iPhones.
Maybe that's worth letting Apple collect a fee as a middleman. Maybe it's not a good idea to let any random developer do whatever they like on your device with your data, just if they can get you to press OK a couple of times. There's a small number of very kind of religious people who say it's my device. I should be able to do whatever I want with it. And so you kind of need to thread the needle here of how do you turn off the rent seeking and unlock some bit more competition without giving any random developer the ability to do whatever they want with your phone.
Klobuchar's app legislation is one of several tech regulation bills floating through Washington right now, and many of them have support from both Democrats and Republicans. But Congress has a hard time getting anything done these days, and while President Biden has appointed some tech critics to his administration, it's not clear how much more political capital he's going to spend beyond that.
On the other hand, Apple sells iPhones around the world, and it's fighting those battles around the world. In August, South Korea passed a law requiring Apple and Google to open up their app stores to other payment systems. A day later, pressured by Japanese regulators, Apple said some apps would now be able to direct users to a website outside of the app.
And the top tech watchdog in Europe already says it agrees with Spotify's complaints about Apple, that Apple is using its App Store rules to give its music service an advantage over competitors like Spotify. An investigation is still ongoing. Roger McNamee is a tech investor who put money into Facebook in its early days. Now he's a very vocal critic of Facebook and Google. If you strip out the harmful parts of Facebook, there is nothing left.
And if you strip out the harmful parts of Google, there's a lot less than there is there today. Apple, he says, is a pretty good company with a sincere commitment to privacy, which, by the way, is what Tim Cook has been saying for years, that he thinks other tech companies, but not Apple, need government oversight.
McNamee says Apple has screwed up, though. By keeping its App Store rules rigid and extracting those billions of dollars from developers, it has created a political problem it doesn't understand. I think they look at this and go, hang on, Facebook is destroying democracy and public health, privacy and competition. Why are you coming after us? And that is a very reasonable question. The problem is that
Fixing Facebook or fixing Google are really complicated. Whereas fixing Apple feels like the starter edition of antitrust. And the sooner Apple recognizes that's what's going on, the better off it's going to be. I think it has a great opportunity to convert this antitrust problem into a strategic win. How could Apple turn its antitrust problems into a win?
first, has to give ground on some of its prices. The pricing of apps, the control of payment systems, the way that things happen for in-app purchases, none of that is strategic data.
Yes, the dollars are huge, but relatively speaking, Apple can compromise there. Lower the 30% fee, McNamee says. Allow alternative ways to pay. Give developers a way to tell users about discounts they can get somewhere else. And I think if they do that, the regulators get a heroic thing because they've won an antitrust victory against the most valuable company in the economy.
without having to go to court. What does Apple get? It puts this thing behind. It makes itself an ally of regulators. So in the future, it's like a get out of jail free card for some reasonable period of time, assuming that they behave well. Both sides win huge. Some of this stuff is actually doable. Google, for instance, just announced it's going to lower the rate it takes from its in-app subscriptions from 30% to 15%.
And over the years, Apple has made tweaks to its own rules and in some cases only takes 15% itself. But Horacio Gutierrez of Spotify says Apple won't make major changes until someone forces it. The way they're looking at it from Cupertino, they're probably thinking, look, we've had fights like this in the past. We can sustain this fight. We might even win it. And it's worth sustaining it because there's tens of billions of dollars of revenue and more importantly, money.
ultimately control of the mobile app ecosystem that's at stake. So they're going to be very motivated, they're very well resourced, and they're going to fight it to the end. Which is exactly what Apple is doing with its Epic court case. In September, after months of deliberation, the federal judge who heard the case announced her ruling. Erin Griffith of the New York Times gave it a quick scan. Immediately, the first blush at reading it was Epic lost.
The judge rejected Epic's claim that Apple runs a monopoly, even though Apple has complete control over its iOS platform and a majority share of the smartphone market. One thing that stuck out to me immediately in the filing was the line, success is not illegal. And so Apple has absolutely run with that. You know, they loved that line. But not everything in the ruling broke Apple's way.
But then as I read a little bit further, I realized that the one thing that Epic prevailed on was actually a pretty big deal. Apple has to allow developers to link out and use their own payment systems. They have to allow developers to circumvent their 30% fee. That could deal a huge blow to the revenue that they make from not just gaming apps, but any app that Apple is taking a 30% fee from.
We're not sure where this is going to land. Both Epic and Apple have filed appeals, and even if the court really does rule that developers can essentially end-run Apple Store and set up their own stores outside, that doesn't mean they will, or that consumers will use them. But in theory, this could be a very big deal. About 70% of Apple's App Store revenue, so maybe $14 billion, comes from people playing games like Fortnite. Moving some of that money to the likes of Epic Games instead of Apple would mean a lot for both sides.
But again, for Apple, the App Store fight is only partly about money. It's also something deeper, more ideological. Apple's belief that it knows the best way to do things. Not the government, not its competitors, not its partners, and not even its customers. And that it's going to do those things regardless of who complains or who gets crushed. And Apple is fine with some crushing now and then. When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he decided he didn't like the Flash software made by Adobe.
So web publishers that wanted to be on the iPhone, that is every web publisher, got rid of Flash on their sites and Adobe's business model was collateral damage. Now Apple has been exerting its power over the way mobile ads work. With its most recent operating system for the iPhone, it has more or less, and mostly more, forced web publishers and app makers to stop tracking users as they move from app to app. That means it's destroying ad targeting. It's the most basic component of the giant digital ad industry.
Apple said it made these moves because consumers shouldn't be tracked around the internet unless they really want that and say so, which seems reasonable. On the other hand, the move also undercuts Facebook, a company that made $84 billion last year from digital ads, and one that Tim Cook has been quite vocal about criticizing. We can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement. The longer the better.
And all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. And it also undercuts a lot of other businesses that depend on digital ads, like ma and pa shops that use ad tracking to sell hoodies on Instagram. And also, while Facebook has been figuring out how to cope with Apple's changes, Apple has been selling more of its own ads in its own app store. Funny how that worked out.
Remember, the reason we're talking about all of this, the reason we've got a six-part podcast series dedicated to Apple, is because of the iPhone. The device that made Apple the most valuable company in the world and one of the most powerful. But one day there will be a new iPhone. Not a new phone necessarily, but some kind of new tech that reorders everything, that reshapes the way we interact with each other in the world. Which means there's a tremendous amount of power up for grabs.
Which also means Apple and every other major tech company, including Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, are on a mad dash to figure out what that next product is going to be. Right now, Apple is betting that it's some sort of augmented reality glasses, which are essentially like strapping an iPhone to your face. You'll look out at the real world, but you'll also be looking at something else. An overlay of data or images superimposed on whatever you're looking at.
Maybe you go to a restaurant and you look at a steak and you instantly see how much it costs and how many calories it is and whether your doctor said you could eat it, whatever. And it's coming sooner than later. Mark Gurman, the WellSource reporter who covers Apple for Bloomberg, says Apple will introduce its first version of the headset sometime in 2022.
though he doesn't think there's going to be a mainstream version for a few more years. There are people at Apple who believe that the AR glasses could be so powerful and so functional one day and have so much technology, cellular, etc. one day, where they could be a completely standalone product that maybe someone would have instead of a phone.
It's possible none of this pans out. This could all be 3D movies and 3D TV sets 10 years ago. The next big thing that everyone wanted to succeed, except consumers. But if Apple and the big tech companies are right, then the stakes are very high. If Apple's competitors figure it out, it's a chance to interact directly with consumers without using the iPhone as a gatekeeper.
And if Apple wins, it means a chance to keep all the customers and power it amassed with the iPhone and roll it into another world-changing platform. And the stakes are very high for us, regular people who live in a world shaped by Apple and a handful of very big companies, people who are belatedly trying to understand how that power works and what, if anything, we can do to shape it ourselves. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were right.
When groundbreaking technology became available to everyone, everything changed. Back then, we couldn't see how big those changes would be. We've adapted to them so completely, we can't imagine a world without them. So how do we want things to play out this time? Hey, a quick note. In this episode, we said that Apple has a majority of the smartphone market. It's more accurate to say Apple has around half of the smartphone market in the U.S.,
Audio of Tim Cook from the podcast Sway and a January 2021 speech for International Data Privacy Day. Land of the Giants, The Apple Revolution is a production of Recode by Vox on the Vox Media Podcast Network.
An amazing group of people made this podcast. Zach Mack is the show's senior producer. Our producer is Matt Frasica. Jolie Myers is our editor. Serena Solon is our fact checker. Brandon McFarlane composed the show's theme and engineered this episode. Sam Altman is Rico's editor-in-chief. Art Chung is our showrunner. Nishat Kerwa is our executive producer.
I'm Peter Kafka. That is a wrap on Apple. If you liked this season, and I think you did because you're listening to the credits at the end of the sixth episode, the good news is we have done seasons on Amazon, Netflix, that was a really good one, Google, and delivery apps. You can follow or subscribe to get our next season first. Extra credit if you can guess what company we're focusing on next. All in our back issues, you can... Why am I talking?
