51–60 of 246 posts
Two hundred years ago, it was understood that national borders were things that neither persons, nor goods, nor money, nor information should routinely cross. That understanding was correct and necessary, and must perforce be regained, after who knows what further unnecessary harm has been done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a supplier has oursized market power that's monopoly. When a buyer has outsized market power it's called a monopsony. I guess that's the concept gp is reaching for.
No no, it’s when there’s no one else to buy from
The "smell" of a monopsony is the ability to squeeze suppliers to the point of having the power to drive them out of business if they don't meet your terms.
Two hundred years ago, it was understood that national borders were things that neither persons, nor goods, nor money, nor information should routinely cross. That understanding was correct and necessary, and must perforce be regained, after who knows what further unnecessary harm has been done.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Sure, Apple offshoring their semiconductor mfg compounded the US' lack of domestic semiconductor mfg capacity/expertise. Apple also did that because it is a _business_, and has not always been the behemoth it is today. They went overseas because it made more sense, not because they had some anti-American goal of crippling US mfg capabilities. The AELP is, ideologically, a anti-big-co instit…
The kind of monopoly apple has is interesting. In the US Apple has a complete monopoly on customers that spend money. If your app shows ads, apple customers are more valuable. If your app sells any kind of product apple users buy more. Market power is not determined by the number of users but by control of revenue.
I guess apple works more as a "cultural monopoly", where if you don't own some apple device you're automatically ostracized by other apple customers. To them apple is more like a fashion clothing company like gucci than a technological one. Apple provides some sort of "privileged status" to their customers, just like purpur in ancient rome, so of course each apple stan considers themselves superior, and to keep their…
The kind of monopoly apple has is interesting. In the US Apple has a complete monopoly on customers that spend money. If your app shows ads, apple customers are more valuable. If your app sells any kind of product apple users buy more. Market power is not determined by the number of users but by control of revenue.
Nothing you mentioned could be described as a monopoly. Monopoly has a definition, we can't just make it up as we go.
Regardless of what you call it, any market vertical that you can define with less than 5 genuine competitors invariably winds up being anti-consumer and needs to get broken up.
Apple is the focus here, but Google is no better and neither is Microsoft. Search, messaging, email, video--all of these are easily definable market verticals.
All of these need to get broken up until we have at least a half-dozen competing companies in those spaces.
This isn't limited to tech. Grocery store chains, industrial suppliers, financial companies, etc. all need to get smacked with the same breakup stick--especially if we want not just to not only stomp out anti-consumer behavior but also to have genuine supply chain resilience.
Two hundred years ago, it was understood that national borders were things that neither persons, nor goods, nor money, nor information should routinely cross. That understanding was correct and necessary, and must perforce be regained, after who knows what further unnecessary harm has been done.
I have zero doubt Apple's influence is considerable and maybe monopolistic or something like that in a number of ways. But I find an article that doesn't even address any other companies a little hard to swallow. Are other companies simply not able to "reshore" chip fabs? I have no idea what some of the tidbits thrown in about the apple watch has anything to do with the topic. Let alone some of the heavy handed lines…
I feel like I'm getting trolled by the author who is citing sales and profits instead of units produced as a metric.
The Imagination Technology example in particular is poor since they were a supplier of intellectual property, not physical goods. So Apple’s usage of them as a supplier had limited bearing on the firm’s other customers or lack thereof. Similarly, the ban of Apple Watches over IP theft has nothing to do with the supply chain issues that the authors attempted to outline.
The thesis is also all over the place. The title indicates the problem is semiconductors, but then lots of the arguments have to do with suppliers outside of semiconductors. If Apple’s reliance on TSMC is the big problem, then why isn’t even mentioned that TSMC is the only competitive fab on cutting edge nodes?
Lastly, the overarching theme is severely misguided. All of these supply chain dealings are as old as semiconductors themselves. When the industry moved towards targeting consumer electronics in the 70s, semiconductor manufacturing moved out of the US long before Apple was relevant. And if Apple weren’t a powerhouse of consumer electronics today, other companies would be doing the same things. It’s just part of the nature of trying to manufacture and sell mass market electronics.