Weekly reading – 13th February 2021

What I wrote last week

I reviewed Exercised: Why Something We Never Evolved To Do Is Healthy And Rewarding, a book that talks about how important exercise is from a Human Evolution and Anthropology perspective

The importance of owning a relationship with your customers

I talked about Uber as a business and its acquisition of Drizly

Business

An interesting piece on the CEO of Adobe and his relationship with fellow CEOs

An interview with the richest man in Japan

A very interesting piece on the threat that Canva and Fima pose to Adobe

An interesting post on the culture of writing memos at Amazon

Bloomberg has a piece on how Tim Cook built his own version of Apple. Tim Cook’s version isn’t bad at all as the company is now worth $2.3 trillion

How Facebook is doubling down on Marketplace

What I found interesting

A story on Yuta Watanabe, a Japanese basketball player who is having a season in the NBA

According to a new study, Apple Watch can help identify Covid-19 symptoms

Interesting stats

Contactless payments are expected to grow by 6-8% after Covid

40% of consumers in the US that used a “Buy Now, Pay Later” service missed at least one payment

The App Store saw more than $10 billion in consumer spending in 2020

Apple Watch is reportedly worn on 100 million wrists

Impressive as it is, Apple’s Services is still in the early days

Long known as an iPhone company, Apple has transformed itself in recent years to become less dependent on the iconic consumer gadget. I doubt the transformation stemmed from a desire to get rid of the association. Rather, the transformation is to respond to the consumers’ tendency to hold on to their devices longer and to keep the ecosystem strong as well as the products sticky. In FY 2014, Services was responsible for only 10% of Apple’s revenue. In FY2020, the figure doubled to 20%. It may not sound much, but it is given that we’re talking about a company of Apple’s size, stature and $250+ billion in annual revenue.

The growth of their Services is also reflected by the steadily expanding number of paid subscribers. In Q4 FY2020, Apple announced that they had 585 million paid subscribers and were well on track to finish the calendar year 2020 with 600 million subscribers. Only two years ago, the subscriber base stood 330 million as of Q4 FY2018.

Two days ago, Apple provided a few data points with regard to their services:

  • Developers have earned $200 billion through the App Store since 2008
  • Between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve in 2020, consumers spent $1.8 billion on digital goods and services on the App Store, with $540 million alone on New Year’s Day
  • Apple Music added 52 new territories and now has 70 million songs and 250,000 exclusive radio episodes
  • Apple TV App is “1 billion screens in over 100 countries and regions”
  • Apple Pay is available in 90% of stores in the US, 85% in UK and 99% in Australia
  • Apple Books has 90 million monthly active users
  • Apple Podcast is available in over 175 countries with programming in more than 100 languages
  • “More than 85 percent of iCloud users are protected with two-factor authentication”

I wish there would be more context for us to judge these numbers, but two data points specifically stand out for me. First of all, developers earned more during the Holiday Week between 24th Dec and 1st Jan in 2020 than they did in 2019. The App Store’s spending in 2020 went over $72 billion, easily dwarfing the $39 billion that Google Play had to offer. When consumers spend more on the App Store year after year, developers have more incentives to produce apps which, in turn, make the App Store even more vibrant. Plus, even though Android is on more devices than iOS, the App Store still generated more consumer spending, confirming the long observation on the market that Apple users are a more lucrative clientele for developers. If resources are constrained, why not focusing on where the money is?

Second, 85% of iCloud users enable two-factor authentication. Personally I only turn on the two-factor authentication for important accounts like my bank accounts, Gmail and iCloud. The figure provided by Apple indicates to me how iCloud users think about their account, implying a high degree of attachment and stickiness.

When it comes to Apple’s Services, I don’t consider them user-acquisition tools. Acquiring users is more like the job of the company’s legendary brand, marketing and hardware. I don’t think anyone switches from Android to iOS simply because they want to use either Apply Pay, Apply Books or Apple Podcast. Rather, Services keep users engaged and locked into the ecosystem. So far, these Services have done wonders for Apple and there is so much room to grow. Some s such as Apple Card, Apple TV+, Apple Fitness+ or Apple One are very new and limited to only a few markets. They are still in the development stage. Once they are further developed and introduced to more markets, Apple’s Services pie will grow bigger and their “overseas” customers will be even more locked in.

And then there are areas where Apple can potentially make inroads. The company has a knack for making small, incremental yet meaningful changes in complicated matters. It will not surprise me if they find a way to make our lives easier in areas such as our job, education or insurance. These offer plenty of opportunities for improvement and they are very personal; which is what Apple is all about. The company doesn’t even need to come up with paid services to generate more revenue. Even free services that can keep customers happy and locked in would already be valuable. Once customers are happy and locked in, the money will come later.

I heard and saw criticisms about Apple’s Services such as Apple TV+ or News+ or Fitness+. While some of those criticisms were warranted, it’s worth remembering that it’s rare to get something perfect at first try. Apple launched great and disappointing products before. Yet, the company is still here and among the top 5 richest companies in the world. The company is in the early days to grow their Services portfolio, trying, tweaking and expanding as they go along.

Disclaimer: I own Apple’s stocks in my portfolio

Weekly readings – 26th September 2020

What I wrote

Some data points and arguments in favor of Apple and its App Store guidelines

My review of the book: The Psychology of Money

Business

How Wegmans Keeps Winning

A bear case on Microsoft Azure

Innovation is rampant in the fintech world and this new idea for a credit card is one of them

An investigative piece on how Mark Zuckerberg responded to criticisms from his own ranks

The SaaS Financial Model You’ll Actually Use

Technology

The secret history of Windows on Surface Duo

Adobe introduced Liquid Mode in even Free Adobe Acrobat Reader! It makes changing a PDF’s content so much easier. Try it out!

What I found interesting

In the last 30 years, under-5 child mortality rate has dropped from 93 per 1000 children in 1990 to about 38 in 2019. A remarkable achievement

About a special Japanese citrus

South Korea managed to contain the pandemic while minimizing the impact on its economy. WSJ had an interesting piece on how it did so

Apple’s investment in the App Store and its value

Many folks criticize Apple for taking commissions on the sale of digital content on iOS devices, saying that the company doesn’t do anything in the sale process to deserve the commission. I disagree. I outlined my thoughts on the criticisms of the App Store. In the latest filing as part of its legal battle against Epic Games, Apple provided some data points on what they spent on the App Store and the impact. Because these excerpts come from a legal document submitted to a court, it’s unlikely that Apple made them up. Have a read and decide for yourself if it’s reasonable to ask a company not to benefit from the servers it renders and investments it makes. Also, would you do the same if you were Tim Cook running the company?

Investment in data centers and staff maintaining the App Store

Apple has spent billions of dollars to develop and maintain the App Store. The data centers alone that Apple has established to facilitate the App Store have cost Apple many billions of dollars, and Apple spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year to employ the engineers who contribute to the App Store’s success.

Services that Apple provides under the License Agreement include handling more than 25 million customer support cases a year with a dedicated team of over 5,000 full-time AppleCare advisors; verification of customer accounts to maintain the integrity of the marketplace, including removal of hundreds of millions of fraudulent customer accounts each year; and implementing other measures to combat fraud and refund abuse.

Apple contracts with third-party payment settlement providers to facilitate Apple’s own ability to accept customer payments. During this process, transactions are verified and payments authorized, but this function is just one part of the process and is outsourced to third parties to whom Apple itself pays a fee. 

Source: Apple’s filing

The App Store removes administrative hurdles for developers such as cross-country taxes

While expanding developers’ ability to monetize their apps, IAP also removes administrative burdens and allows developers to effortlessly sell their services to, and receive payments from, customers in the 175 countries where the App Store operates. This support includes collecting and managing payment information from around one billion potential customers around the globe; handling conversions to 45 currencies; and ensuring compliance with local tax laws, and handling tax withholding in scores of countries. Moreover, the records maintained through IAP help Apple provide both routine and customized business analytics to app developers. For many developers, it would be prohibitively complex and costly to carry out these tasks on a similar scale. Yet Apple’s infrastructure makes it effortless for them. 

Source: Apple’s filing

The App Store shields consumers from potentially harmful apps

Since January 1, 2020, Apple has processed more than four million app submissions, approving approximately two thirds of them and rejecting approximately one third for noncompliance with the Guidelines and/or the agreements. For example, more than 100,000 app submissions are rejected each year for data collection and storage practices that run afoul of Apple’s strict requirements for consumer privacy protection. Most of these developers whose apps are rejected make changes to their apps to address Apple’s concerns, and ultimately have their apps published to the App Store.

Source: Apple’s filing

Since 2017, Apple has terminated:

more than 75,000 accounts of developers for introducing new features to their apps without going through App Review, i.e., bait-and-switch conduct, in which a developer makes changes post-review to circumvent the app review process, also referred to as Illicit Concept Changes (ICC);

more than 2,000 developer accounts for introduction of a non-IAP payment method for in-app sales of digital content; 

more than 60,000 developer accounts for inclusion of hidden features or obfuscated code or for facilitating the download or installation of executable code; and

more than 175,000 developer accounts for other fraudulent conduct.

Source: Apple’s filing

Disclaimer: I own Apple stocks in my portfolio

Weekly readings – 4th September 2020

What I wrote

I detailed my thoughts on the common criticisms of the App Store

I found a new business content website called InPractise and it is great!

My thoughts on Walmart’s new membership program called Walmart Plus

Business

Analyzing the Bentley Systems IPO Prospectus

A breakdown on Palantir’s S-1

Vietnam recorded 30 million daily online transactions in April 2020

Apple looks to expand its advertising business. I am not sure I am a fan of this move.

CB Insights deep dive into Stripe

Source: Credit Suisse
Image
Source: 2020 Debit Issuer Report

Technology

A developer’s account of trying to set up App Clip for his app

MongoDB History

Inside Amazon’s New Fresh Grocery Banner

Stuff I found interesting

Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest people, asks for a second chance at charity

The Hustle’s piece on designers who help restaurants improve sales through menus

Electric bike owners progressively use cars less, finds study

Social media preferences in Vietnam. Source: Decision Labs

My thoughts on criticisms of the App Store

Should Apple benefit from the App Store?

If you invest in a restaurant, you are entitled to its benefits and profits. If you write a software from scratch, you’re entitled to the economic benefits from it. That’s how business works. A party puts time and money at risk for a shot at success. It is the case for many and should be the case here for Apple. Apple introduced the App Store in 2008 and over the years, it has invested a lot in growing and maintaining the App Store. On principle, it should be treated equally as other businesses. Some argue that Apple should not charge commission fees on its platform. Well, Apple is responsible for the store and it should be able to benefit from it the way it sees fit. If you run a restaurant and somebody comes in and asks you to not charge for food or drinks, what will you think? Insane, right?

Is 30% too high a commission?

Apple levies a 30% commission on digital goods bought through its in-app purchase. For subscriptions, the commission is 30% in the first year and drops to 15% in the second year onwards. Many have lamented that the fee is too high and it puts an enormous financial strain on developers, especially those that are already operating on a low margin. Well, there is no free lunch in the business world. Developers have access to a lucrative user base with more than 500 million paid subscribers and a billion active devices. By being on the App Store, apps can be found through the search function, as well as accessible in every corner of the world. Users can download the app in a matter of seconds with the level of trust that can be hardly found anywhere. Is it right to argue that developers should get all of those for free without having to pay? I don’t agree with that.

Some said that Apple should NOT get any compensation on a regular basis because it doesn’t contribute to the development of apps. But developers don’t pay Apple to receive development input. They pay Apple for the app distribution. No matter how good your product is, if you can’t figure out distribution and get it to the hands of customers, what worth will it be? People pay Facebook or Google for access to a select group of users. Folks pay to attend high-end conferences to mingle with executives and potential clients. Donors pay to participate in fundraising dinners to talk to lawmakers so that they can have more influence. I don’t see the problem with Apple charging developers for this limited yet important commodity: access to customers who trust Apple and are willing to pay for apps on Apple devices.

When I was researching on Wix, I came across this from its annual report:

The App Market consists of web applications that are developed by us or by third-party developers. All third-party applications undergo a limited evaluation which is focused mainly on technical functionality, and partner agreements are signed prior to publication in the App Market. We are customarily entitled to a share in 30% of net revenues from the sale of every third-party application purchased through our App Market. We are responsible for the development, operation and maintenance of applications that we create, and the third-party developers are responsible for the applications that they create. However, we may remove a third-party application at any time if it does not meet our standards or for other reasons.

Source: Wix

A short while ago, Apple commissioned an independent study on marketplaces’ take rate. When you look at what other platforms charge, the rate at which Apple sets its commission doesn’t look as outrageous as others make it out to be

Source: Analysis Group
Source: Analysis Group

Apparently, what Apple is doing is similar to the industry standards. I don’t see there is anything inherently wrong with the commission approach. As to the question of how high the commission should be, I’ll argue that it will never be low enough for developers unless it goes down to zero. Some long-time industry observers noted that developers used to pay for a much higher share of their revenue to have apps distributed in the past, before the App Store was debuted. They cheered when the App Store was introduced and the commission was 30%. Now, they are complaining that 30% is too high. I suspect that 15% will please developers more in the next two years and they will complain again after that.

Should Apple stop requiring the use of in-app purchase?

If your apps don’t generate revenue on Apple devices, you don’t have to pay Apple for anything. In fact, a study commissioned by Apple estimated that 85% of billings on the App Store in 2019 belonged solely to developers. If an app sells digital content and goods that are consumed on Apple iOS, Apple charges a commission. There are a few cases in which apps can avoid in-app purchase

3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.

3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.

Source: Apple

What these exceptions essentially say is this:

  • If a customer already has a subscription purchased before, the customer can continue to use that subscription and the app doesn’t have to pay Apple. For instance, if you install Netflix or Bloomberg app AFTER purchasing a subscription on a browser, neither Netflix or Bloomberg has to pay Apple
  • If an app acquires new users on an Apple device with its payment mechanism, it is obligated to offer in-app purchase as well and it must not use language that blatantly discourages the use of in-app purchase
  • If you book an Uber, but the transaction takes place in a car, not on an Apple device, Uber can avoid using in-app purchase. The same case applies for AirBnb rentals. If you book a room on AirBnb iOS app, but stay in a physical room, AirBnb doesn’t have to pay Apple. However, if AirBnb offers AirBnb Experiences on iOS, asks users to pay and then offers content on iOS, then it will have to pay Apple

I do think these exceptions make sense. If the consumption of goods or services takes place outside an iOS device, Apple shouldn’t benefit from that. In return for giving such apps access to users, Apple benefits from the presence of the apps that make the ecosystem and their devices more useful. Imagine how much you would like your iPhone less if it didn’t have Uber, AirBnb, Booking.com apps, just to name a few.

If Apple didn’t mandate the use of in-app purchase, how many apps would voluntarily use it? My guess is: not many. Hence, every time a user opens an app on their iPhone, they would have to go to a browser to pay for services. That wouldn’t be a nice user experience.

If Apple didn’t forbid the discouragement of in-app purchase, I imagine apps would play every trick in the book to favor their own payment mechanism. Take Turbo Tax below as an example of tricks that apps could use. In that case, Apple would be affected financially. Therefore, I can see the reasoning behind its requirement of not discouraging the use of in-app purchase. If you don’t look out for yourself, who will?

Source: ProPublica

A curated store or an open system?

Many argue that Apple should open up its walled garden like Android. The problem is that while Apple is known for security and privacy, the same can’t be said about Android, which is prone to malware. A study estimated that Android devices are 50 times more malware-affected than iOS ones. Plus, Apple is known for protecting user privacy. It went to court against the US government for that. Many users, including yours truly, appreciate it greatly.

It’s worth pointing out that Apple wasn’t the first to introduce a locked-down system that didn’t degrade. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft consoles restricted the software that could be modified on their host operating systems and ran with limited capabilities. This resulted in fewer support calls, reduced frustration, and limited piracy.

One of Apple’s most touted virtues is that the company creates secure devices that respect user’s privacy. In fact, they have even gone to court against the US government over security. Yet iOS remains the most secure consumer operating system. This has been made possible through multiple layers of security that address different threats.

For now, let me just say that, as a parent, there are few things that would make me happier than more stringent App Store rules governing what applications can do. In the end, I value my iOS devices because I know that I can trust them with my information because security is paramount to Apple.

In the battle over the security and privacy of my phone, I am happy to pay a premium knowing that my information is safe and sound, and that it is not going to be sold to the highest bidder.

Source: Miguel de Icaza

Opening up a platform to allow total freedom for developers may not be as good as many think. Take Facebook as an example. It strives to give everyone’s freedom to say whatever they want. The consequences are that folks use First Amendment Right to spew out misinformation and hate speech. With regard to apps on Facebook, you don’t need to look further than what happened with Cambridge Analytica.

The problem with an open platform is that giving everyone unrestricted freedom is a preclude to getting the worst behavior from them. Precisely because of that, I much prefer a curated and controlled platform. Of course, that means Apple is very powerful as it can dictate which app is distributed and how. We should definitely strive to continuously hold Apple accountable, but requiring Apple to open its marketplace isn’t the solution.

Apple stifles innovation?

Since its debut, the App Store has facilitated the introduction of many apps. Without the App Store, we likely wouldn’t have Uber, Lyft or Robinhood, just to name a few. So far, it has been a boon to innovation in my opinion.

Some argue that Apple’s iron grip on the App Store limits future innovation. Well, that may sound logical on the surface, but I really doubt the sentiment. The reason is that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what sort of innovation is being stifled by Apple’s rules. There are only a handful of app marketplaces for phones. Even though they differ from one another to some extent, they should work essentailly the same way. If an app can appear on Google Play, which works similarly as the App Store, it shouldn’t have to alter its core too much to be featured on the App Store. If an app cannot work on any of the app marketplace, then it’s hardly Apple’s fault that such an “innovation” can’t be brought to life.

Innovation is very abstract and can be misused as a blanket reason like “national security”. The argument that Apple stifles innovation CAN be a valid one, but as of now, I see it more like a hypothetical scenario with no evidence to back it up.

Apple’s inconsistent enforcement of its rules

In my opinion, most of Apple’s fights with developers resulted from execution failure. The rules are there, but they applied the rules differently from one case to another. To Hey as an example, the app was rejected in the beginning because it didn’t offer in-app purchase. However, the issue was that Hey’s competitors did the exact same thing, but were approved by Apple to appear on iOS. As you can imagine, laws don’t mean much if they aren’t applied fairly and consistently. It’s the same for the App Store Guidelines. To make the Guidelines more respected and mean anything, Apple must be better in its application.

Some may argue that Apple has to handle thousands of updates and apps on a daily basis, so it’s understandable that some slipped through the cracks. I’d say that as a $2 trillion company that holds so much power over us, it should be better.

Solutions to the App Store issue

The App Store Guidelines haven’t changed much since they were written. While I tend to agree that they may need updating, I struggle to see exactly how they should be. One reason is that this is a very nuanced and complicated issue. Apple has to strike a sweet balance between its own interest and the interest of users as well as developers. Only Apple has enough information to make informed decisions.

Some, including Ben Thompson, argued that Apple should update its guidelines based on the marginal cost of apps. Specifically, apps that have marginal costs should be granted a lower commission (10%) than the standard 30% now. While it may sound logical, I doubt its practicality for the following reasons:

  • What would be the thresholds for an app’s marginal cost to be qualified for a lower commission? 5%, 10% or 30%? I suspect if this approach was implemented, we would see more apps claiming to have increased marginal costs
  • How would Apple validate the marginal cost? Surely, relying purely on an app’s words wouldn’t be the case. If an app has to submit financial records, who is to say those records are correct?
  • Plus, do you really want a $2 trillion company to have financial records of thousands of private entities? I don’t.

Right now, the practical and feasible things I think Apple can do include:

  • Be more consistent in its application of the App Store Guidelines
  • Be more transparent and communicative when it comes to high profile disputes to explain its side of the story
  • Think about how to change the App Store moving forward. I am sure they would prefer not having PR onslaughts. Hence, I truly hope that somewhere inside the company, some folks are trying to figure out a solution to this problem.

One grey area that is highly complex lies in the case of Spotify vs Apple Music. Spotify refuses to adopt in-app purchases because its low gross margin doesn’t allow it to. Apple Music, which competes with Spotify, may not be subject to the 30% requirement as Spotify. Some argue that Apple, as the owner of the App Store, shouldn’t launch competing products. However, as a company, Apple should be able to launch any product or service that is in accordance with the laws. I don’t see any legal problem with the existence of Apple Music. It is, to a high degree, similar to retailers launching private labels to compete with brands. I understand that a lot of critics are vocal about this behavior, but it has been around for a long time legally and until somebody makes it illegal to do so, I don’t see why Apple should be an exception.

Summary

It comes down to essentially this: when developers benefit from the App Store, they operate on the terms of Apple. Apple gains its enormous bargaining power by expertly managing both software and hardware. The $2 trillion+ valuation, customer satisfaction and half a trillion in app sales in 2019 are both proof that whatever the company is doing works and a condemnation of the lack of alternatives.

Of course, lawmakers can intervene and force Apple to change. I believe if that is the case, the company will appeal to even the highest court in the land and actually may have a chance to win. There are appeals from tech observers that the existing anti-trust regulations aren’t modern enough for the tech giants and should be updated. I believe it will be a time-consuming and complex process and I, for one, am glad that it’s not my job.

Disclaim: I own Apple stocks in my portfolio

Weekly readings – 27th June 2020

What I wrote

I wrote about this European hard discounter that has been in the US since 1976 and a great success so far

Hasan Minhaj talked about the winner-takes-all system in the US that causes all sorts of problems

Vietnam’s success in handling Covid-19

I finished and reviewed a book called The Art of Thinking Clearly

Business

Why Figma wins

A collection of business memos by Sriram. He also collected some good posts on business strategy

Horace Dediu on ecosystems and the App Store specifically

A primer on marketplaces

A couple of posts summarizing WWDC event and what’s new from Apple by MacStories and WSJ

Craig Federighi on new privacy updates

But in the fullness of time, in the scope of hundreds of years from now, I think the place where I hope people can look back and talk about the places where Apple made a huge contribution to humanity is in helping people see the way of taking advantage of this great technology without the false tradeoff of giving up their privacy to do it.

Source: Fast Company

Other things I think are interesting

Low carb diet leads to “clinical remission” in three case studies of adults with type 1 diabetes

56% of wild animals in Vietnam’s restaurants have a coronavirus, study says

A great essay on the value of appreciating your being alone and facing yourself

Countering illegal hate speech online by EU Commission

How People Read Online: New and Old Findings

THERE’S NOW AN EVEN WORSE ANTI-ENCRYPTION BILL THAN EARN IT. THAT DOESN’T MAKE THE EARN IT BILL OK. I left it capitalized for a reason. It’s alarming

Weekly readings – 20th June 2020

What I wrote

I wrote about the new partnership between Walmart and Shopify

Arguably the hottest topic in tech this week is the saga between Apple and Hey

I also talked a bit about Verisign, a company that makes most of the Internet work properly

If you are interested in Quick-Service-Restaurant franchise, I wrote about operating margin that can be expected by a franchisee

A couple of quick tutorials on SQL and rolling average in Power BI

Business

If You Want Hertz, Have Some Hertz

How Robinhood Convinced Millennials to Trade Their Way Through a Pandemic. Robinhood now has 10+ million users and has become a phenomenon lately

The Observer Effect’s interview with Marc Andreessen

Stemming from the interview above, I found Marc’s previous post on productivity hack

A great post on Structured Procrastination

Structured procrastination means shaping the structure of the tasks one has to do in a way that exploits this fact. The list of tasks one has in mind will be ordered by importance. Tasks that seem most urgent and important are on top. But there are also worthwhile tasks to perform lower down on the list. Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list. With this sort of appropriate task structure, the procrastinator becomes a useful citizen. Indeed, the procrastinator can even acquire, as I have, a reputation for getting a lot done.

Source: Structured Procrastination

The Risk of Outsourced Thinking

Google and HTTP

The Case for ARM-Based Macs

Amazon asks court to block former AWS marketing VP from working on Google Cloud Next speeches

How Large Is the Apple App Store Ecosystem?

Other stuff

The Death of Engagement. A good read on America’s foreign policy with China over the last administrations

A collection of free books from Springer

In Japan and France, Riding Transit Looks Surprisingly Safe

Architects have designed a Martian city for the desert outside Dubai