I don't thing supmango was implying that Apple should bail the government out with their cash reserves. I understood the post as, Apple has people running the company that know how to spend money wisely. Unlike the government.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How Apple Uses Its Cash to Keep Latest Technology for Themselves
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't thing supmango was implying that Apple should bail the government out with their cash reserves. I understood the post as, Apple has people running the company that know how to spend money wisely. Unlike the government.
It would be a real uphill battle to claim that Apple has a monopoly on anything.
The sheer demand for their consumer products dictates that they must take drastic measures to ensure supply. It might not be helpful to competitors, but no one could reasonably consider that Apple's concern.
As for them getting access to new products early, if there's any unfairness or anti-competitive behavior there it's on the part of the supplier. They are the ones offering the product to Apple and no one else. I don't see an issue with it personally, I even wonder how likely it is that some of these products would even enter production if it weren't for Apples massive advance orders. The competition might get these things later than Apple, but it's possible they wouldn't get them at all otherwise.
Really, to be a monopoly, a company must have zero competition. Bell Telephone was a monopoly, Apple is far from it.
Apple makes computers--so do dozens of other companies
Apple makes OS & other software--so do other companies
Apple makes mobile phones--so do many other companies
Apple makes MP3 players--so do many other companies
Apple makes tablet computers--so do many other companies
We all see where I'm going with this. Apple is not anything even remotely resembling a monopoly, not even in a single market. In fact, look at the markets they're in, in most they don't even control the majority share.
I don't think there's anything to worry about in the "anti-competition" arena.
Technically, no one is investing money in Apple. They maybe buying existing shares in Apple, but they are not actually investing a dime in Apple's business, they are merely buying a share of the business.
And when you buy a share in Apple, you are simply buying the share off of another Apple shareholder, you are not buying the share from Apple. So technically your cash is not being held onto by Apple.
They wouldn't be referred, although I can see why you are thinking that.
The difference between Apple tying up a supply chain and acting as a monopoly are that they aren't putting any strings on the supply chain. For instance, they aren't telling a supplier that the supplier can only deal with Apple exclusively.
If Apple dictated exclusive terms to the detriment of the rest of the industry, then yes they would get referred.
However, what Apple can say is that if their money is used to build a factory for a supplier, then the products from that factory are exclusively delivered to Apple. That would probably be ok.
If you look carefully, Apple deals with people very differently from Microsoft in the past, and Google today. For instance, Microsoft did not allow their customers to supply alternate OSes if they were getting Windows from Microsoft. Because MS were so big, they stepped on any competition.
The same goes for Google with the Books deal; Google didn't want exclusivity from the US book copyright body, but wanted terms that were always better than anyone else was being offered. Another example is where Google have had apps removed from Android in return for various Google Apps being loaded instead, Skyhook being one example. Microsoft did this with Real several years ago - it eventually cost MS $791m.
Essentially, if your terms dictate what a customer/supplier can do with an unrelated 3rd party, that's when you get referred to the various competition bodies.
While I agree there are too many loopholes in our tax laws, in this case they do have a valid point - the taxman is double dipping. It is two different governments but the effect is the same.
With all the cash Apple has, why not lower the price of their computers? They can eat any losses that might happen (which I doubt) and honestly if Macs were priced more competitively, Apple would make even more money. Like if the Mini's were $300-$400, I'd buy two of them. They make enough money from iPhones and iPods anyway. Sounds like a no brainer to me if they really want to catch up to Windows in market share.
You forget that people buy Apple products as status symbols. Lowering the price doesn't always equal maximizing profits. One of main principles of marketing.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
yo, r-man-capitalism is a failed economic system, plain and simple. There will always be another third world country (besides us, soon!) to offer up their workers for 39¢ an hour to satisfy the consumption of this and other "civilized" nations. Apple should take some of their cash and build a factory in the US and build a line of iPhones or iPads or iPods as MADE IN THE US APPLE PRODUCTS, at fair market retail prices, I for one would spend more to support for this product as a business model to support the revitalization of manufacturing on the US ...
; ~ )
Rocketman said:
yo, r-man-capitalism is a failed economic system, plain and simple. There will always be another third world country (besides us, soon!) to offer up their workers for 39¢ an hour to satisfy the consumption of this and other "civilized" nations. Apple should take some of their cash and build a factory in the US and build a line of iPhones or iPads or iPods as MADE IN THE US APPLE PRODUCTS, at fair market retail prices, I for one would spend more to support for this product as a business model to support the revitalization of manufacturing on the US ...
; ~ )
True but it just seems that Apple's being greedy. 65 billion cash, come on now. Imagine if you went to Best Buy and saw an HP desktop for $600 sitting next to an iMac for $600. Which would you buy? Apple already has a reputation for being a leader in technology. It's time to let all the "mere mortals" get a chance to own some awesome technology.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's a great strategy Apple has. They deserve it. Phone companies had years to innovate, to create something different, but they decided to stick with the same old product.
Now they feel the pain and for some bizarre reason they're trying to play catch up. Apple has the next 5-10 years sewn up. They need to think out of the box and deliver tomorrow's product.
It's a great strategy Apple has. They deserve it. Phone companies had years to innovate, to create something different, but they decided to stick with the same old product.
Now they feel the pain and for some bizarre reason they're trying to play catch up. Apple has the next 5-10 years sewn up. They need to think out of the box and deliver tomorrow's product.
It's funny how investors can complain about how Apple does it's business buts it's how they do their business that makes them a leader. If they did things like every other company do you think they'd be where they are now?
I guess if you don't like your Apple stock you can just sell it to me.
I guess if you don't like your Apple stock you can just sell it to me.
that's some serious progression_of_technology stifling right there.
i'm not so sure the general public should be praising this type of stuff.. we're victims but for the most part, people seem to believe we're benefitting from this crap.
i'm not so sure the general public should be praising this type of stuff.. we're victims but for the most part, people seem to believe we're benefitting from this crap.
sounds like some wall st guys are jealous, must be a hard life on wall st, with those trillion dollar government hand outs.
Bottomline - Anyone can advice...but the truth is they created this cash pile...so they know how best to use it...
likre or not like thats the truth...
likre or not like thats the truth...
That would be a little bit short sighted. Do you think that Apple doesn't know exactly how high they can price a Mac Mini and still count on it selling? They don't need to sale you two at lower prices when they know they going to sale both at the higher price to other consumers. Why should they sale 4 for $1,200 when they can sale 2 for $1,200? Yes, there is something to be said for bringing new customers into the ecosystem, but the "Halo Effect" strategy was planned to bring iPod owners to the desktop/laptop not the other way.
I think catching up to Microsoft in terms of installed OSes stopped being a goal of Apple when they dropped "Computer" out of the name. They moved on. The future of the company is not gonna be in the traditional OS. So who cares is Microsoft has a lion's (
) share of the OS market. The market itself will be completely changed in 5 years.Apple makes great products, no doubt about it. But in addition to the product being great it is also a status symbol. Seriously, look for little white HP stickers on car windows in the parking lot when you leave Best Buy if you think i'm wrong.
People buy Breguet watches as much because they are known to be expensive as for the quality. The same is true with Apple products. Apple makes the least exclusive and most attainable elitist products in the world. Oddly enough part of the appeal of Apple products are that you paid extra and got extra (quality if nothing else). It apparently works very well for them.
A company that knows how to manage and leverage money and has a pile of it on hand knows a thing or three on what to do. Those Wall Street people who are deriding Apple on this obviously don't have the know-how to follow suit for themselves or their clients. Maybe the US Congress could learn from Apple... or not.
Nice analogy!
Still, the network is so central to the Mac experience (increasing everyday) that it cannot be ignored. It'd be like Disney relying on Viacom for the parks' characters. Charlie Sheen doesn't make a family oriented attraction.
All I know is that Apple has definitely figured it out. As soon as they saw the success of the iPod, they probably created the same type of a plan for all of their products. Make sure that they are one step ahead of the competitors, in some way, shape, or form. And as we can see, it's definitely paid off for them.
The truth lies in between.
Many unions are flatly embarrassing with their ridiculous upfront fees and other demands that are well above normal-level in todays field (whatever it is)
On the flip-side, the idea of not having ANY Unions are ANYONE to oversee these contracts should scare the daylights out of everyone.
I am not sure why anyone would even think of trusting big corporations to pay reasonable salaries, work-hours, etc....if nobody was looking over their shoulder making sure all of them are reasonable in a basic way.
Have we not been shown time and time again how absolutely corrupt and misguided these big corporations are?
And no, we don't need government being directly involved with them but having the government REVIEW large contracts or just set floor rules....I fail to see the harm
Unions were initially formed and justified to improve workplace conditions and safety. Health and Safety code revisions since have eliminated the need for that. Unions morphed into collective bargaining arrangements. About 15% or less of the workforce is unionized. The remainder of folks both hourly and salaried are operating under some loose variant of a free market and with protections offered by civil laws and courts, health and safety code, and insurance and government rules.
Interestingly the majority of union workers are in fact also PUBLIC workers, the one class of worker that does not need unions at all. These collective bargaining arrangements exploit the lack of price sensitivity public entities have as compared to private businesses to negotiate outsized pay, benefits, pension, and other perks like paid and saved vacation time. The most extreme examples include prison and fire employees in CA, MA, and NY, large politically liberal/D overtaxed states.
The fact is undeniable. What to do about it? I suppose ban unions for ANY public worker, but the chance of that happening is near zero IMHO.
Rocketman
