waffle911
Distinguished
- Dec 12, 2007
- 243
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]iamdsk@charternet[/nom]When you read the title you know what is in the article. If you don't like the info, don't bash the person... read articles that make you happy, don't click on links that you deem to have bad news on them. It is like the old saying, Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.[/citation]
I can only assume you're referring to the guy and the first page of comments who erroneously accused Tom's of Apple-bashing and that he would never again return to this site... the very same post which many others have already pointed out is considerably flawed in its reasoning, and have appropriately down-rated it.
[citation][nom]iamdsk@charternet[/nom]...ask Apple why if they have a closed market for all intents can't they lower the prices and get the iPhone on Verizon NOW!...[/citation]
Let me make sure i understand what it is you're trying to say here, it took me a few reads to piece together:
[citation]...instead ask Apple why they can't lower their prices given their closed-market business model and why they can't get the iPhone on Verizon now![/citation]
I'll respond to the second point first:
Because of two things. Firstly, Verizon uses a proprietary cellular networking technology that no-one else shares (and as far as I know only exists in North America), which is one of the reasons why their phones don't have SIM cards and cannot be used with other carriers (and vice-versa). For a phone which Apple wants to sell world-wide, and have it be usable world-wide (Verizon phones can only be used in America, except their "special" world-wide phone that uses the same technology everyone else use), they have to make one phone that is compatible with multiple carriers' networks. That rules out Verizon until they get their act together with their upcoming 4G tech. The second reason is that Apple has an exclusive contract with AT&T, which is why even though the iPhone is technically compatible with other carriers' networks, you are still locked into using AT&T if you live in the States. This works in favor for Apple because this eliminates the pressure from multiple competing carriers to drive down costs, and it also works in favor for AT&T because they do not have to compete with other carriers to serve iPhone owners and thus do not have to worry about pricing their specific iPhone service competitively (Re: at a reduced profit margin).
Now for the first point:
Because Apple rather enjoys profiting from its vertically-integrated monopoly. Although not a true monopoly, they do control hardware and software so that they can assure a more consistent, high-quality user experience. More specifically, you can only get their OS by buying it with their hardware, so that they can easily account for all possible hardware configurations when developing the OS–something Microsoft has had a great deal of trouble with in the past, leading to the driver conflicts and system instability Apple has been parading around to "prove" that Macs are "better", because the hardware variety in the PC market segment is so vast that Microsoft can't possibly account for every possible configuration. Because Mac OS is such an appealing alternative to Windows due to its "user friendliness", Apple forces customers who want the OS to buy their Apple-branded hardware to get it, and in the process of doing so, they control the entire Mac-compatible hardware segment, which allows them to inflate prices to increase their profit margin without the risk of competing hardware companies offering cheaper alternatives that use the same OS.
But it's not anti-competitive for them to be in control of an entire micro-segment (a horizontal monopoly á la Rockefeller) because they haven't forced anybody out of business in doing so, and because their products fulfill a general need that is also fulfilled by competing companies in the computing segment as a whole. The Mac market is only one small segment and isn't forcing anyone to buy a general-purpose computer through Apple. But it is similar to the way game consoles require that you buy just the one company's hardware in order to use associated software titles. That doesn't prevent companies from developing games for each competing console, or prevent consumers from having a choice in gaming platform. But by having exclusive titles for a specific console, the software developer only has to worry about making a game compatible with one set combination of hardware rather than developing the same game three times with some shared assets and thereby spreading development focus to compromise where necessary to accommodate starkly different combinations of hardware. It's not that a Macs use components that are all compatible with PCs—it's that PCs as a whole may also use hardware that is not compatible with Macs. But by limiting the development platform, they enable better development focus and thus quality assurance. We all may or may not remember how badly the first Matrix videogame sucked because of all its bugs–caused by hardware incompatibilities that required more code to be written and then tested on a very limited development schedule.
Apple is also not a true vertical monopoly (á la Carnegie) because they still buy hardware components and manufacturing services from other companies and they allow third party developers to create software for use on the Mac platform; they also sell their products through third party retailers and resellers in addition to their own retail stores.
I can only assume you're referring to the guy and the first page of comments who erroneously accused Tom's of Apple-bashing and that he would never again return to this site... the very same post which many others have already pointed out is considerably flawed in its reasoning, and have appropriately down-rated it.
[citation][nom]iamdsk@charternet[/nom]...ask Apple why if they have a closed market for all intents can't they lower the prices and get the iPhone on Verizon NOW!...[/citation]
Let me make sure i understand what it is you're trying to say here, it took me a few reads to piece together:
[citation]...instead ask Apple why they can't lower their prices given their closed-market business model and why they can't get the iPhone on Verizon now![/citation]
I'll respond to the second point first:
Because of two things. Firstly, Verizon uses a proprietary cellular networking technology that no-one else shares (and as far as I know only exists in North America), which is one of the reasons why their phones don't have SIM cards and cannot be used with other carriers (and vice-versa). For a phone which Apple wants to sell world-wide, and have it be usable world-wide (Verizon phones can only be used in America, except their "special" world-wide phone that uses the same technology everyone else use), they have to make one phone that is compatible with multiple carriers' networks. That rules out Verizon until they get their act together with their upcoming 4G tech. The second reason is that Apple has an exclusive contract with AT&T, which is why even though the iPhone is technically compatible with other carriers' networks, you are still locked into using AT&T if you live in the States. This works in favor for Apple because this eliminates the pressure from multiple competing carriers to drive down costs, and it also works in favor for AT&T because they do not have to compete with other carriers to serve iPhone owners and thus do not have to worry about pricing their specific iPhone service competitively (Re: at a reduced profit margin).
Now for the first point:
Because Apple rather enjoys profiting from its vertically-integrated monopoly. Although not a true monopoly, they do control hardware and software so that they can assure a more consistent, high-quality user experience. More specifically, you can only get their OS by buying it with their hardware, so that they can easily account for all possible hardware configurations when developing the OS–something Microsoft has had a great deal of trouble with in the past, leading to the driver conflicts and system instability Apple has been parading around to "prove" that Macs are "better", because the hardware variety in the PC market segment is so vast that Microsoft can't possibly account for every possible configuration. Because Mac OS is such an appealing alternative to Windows due to its "user friendliness", Apple forces customers who want the OS to buy their Apple-branded hardware to get it, and in the process of doing so, they control the entire Mac-compatible hardware segment, which allows them to inflate prices to increase their profit margin without the risk of competing hardware companies offering cheaper alternatives that use the same OS.
But it's not anti-competitive for them to be in control of an entire micro-segment (a horizontal monopoly á la Rockefeller) because they haven't forced anybody out of business in doing so, and because their products fulfill a general need that is also fulfilled by competing companies in the computing segment as a whole. The Mac market is only one small segment and isn't forcing anyone to buy a general-purpose computer through Apple. But it is similar to the way game consoles require that you buy just the one company's hardware in order to use associated software titles. That doesn't prevent companies from developing games for each competing console, or prevent consumers from having a choice in gaming platform. But by having exclusive titles for a specific console, the software developer only has to worry about making a game compatible with one set combination of hardware rather than developing the same game three times with some shared assets and thereby spreading development focus to compromise where necessary to accommodate starkly different combinations of hardware. It's not that a Macs use components that are all compatible with PCs—it's that PCs as a whole may also use hardware that is not compatible with Macs. But by limiting the development platform, they enable better development focus and thus quality assurance. We all may or may not remember how badly the first Matrix videogame sucked because of all its bugs–caused by hardware incompatibilities that required more code to be written and then tested on a very limited development schedule.
Apple is also not a true vertical monopoly (á la Carnegie) because they still buy hardware components and manufacturing services from other companies and they allow third party developers to create software for use on the Mac platform; they also sell their products through third party retailers and resellers in addition to their own retail stores.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram