Google Chairman Eric tells US senators Apple's Siri could pose 'competitive threat'

1678911

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 202 of 232
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is it?



    With Google the complaints here seem to be that the company has used its strength in search to drive disproportionate advantage in other business areas.



    But in all fairness, has not Apple's dominance in the mobile space allowed it to acquire capital that it uses to lock out competitors from critically-needed components?



    Except you've missed the fact Apple is acting as the customer with these purchases, not the seller.



    If Apple was buying 500M widget units per quarter but then only using 50M total units then I could see how this could be an illegal practice of using your market position to unfairly keep competitors out of the market but 1) that doesn't sound very cost effective, 2) that clearly isn't happening with Apple's products as they continue to outsell the market, and 3) Apple only controls 4% of the handset units.



    So what anti-competitive law would that fall under? What exactly are you claiming is illegal wih customers buying up as much as they want to sell to a customer that is using as much as they can possibly get their hands on?
  • Reply 203 of 232
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    As we explore definitions of "antitrust" here, we may want to tread carefully .....



    Or perhaps you, and some of the the jerks here, should try and actually understand what "antitrust" means.



    PS. Here's a clue. It's Google that's up in front of the U.S. Senate antitrust subcommittee... not Apple. Think about that.
  • Reply 204 of 232
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Or perhaps you, and some of the the jerks here, should try and actually understand what "antitrust" means.



    PS. Here's a clue. It's Google that's up in front of the U.S. Senate antitrust subcommittee... not Apple. Think about that.



    Clearly "anti-trust" means Apple is evil whenever they make good business and good engineering decisions that make the company and their products more efficient and more cost effective which in turn makes them more desirable than other brands¡
  • Reply 205 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is it?



    With Google the complaints here seem to be that the company has used its strength in search to drive disproportionate advantage in other business areas.



    But in all fairness, has not Apple's dominance in the mobile space allowed it to acquire capital that it uses to lock out competitors from critically-needed components?



    Apple leverages deep pockets to gain supply chain edge over rivals - report

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ls_report.html



    'Ultrabook' makers squeezed by Apple's control of metal chassis supply

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...is_supply.html



    Supply chain expects Apple's Sept launch of iPhone 5 to boost memory prices

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ry_prices.html



    As we explore definitions of "antitrust" here, we may want to tread carefully as they may apply equally across the board.



    But Apple is buying such large quantities of components to make their own stuff. If Apple were just buying up components and hoarding them, that could be considered "antitrust." But it may well be that they simply want to have enough components to build product.
  • Reply 206 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 207 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 208 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is it?



    With Google the complaints here seem to be that the company has used its strength in search to drive disproportionate advantage in other business areas.



    But in all fairness, has not Apple's dominance in the mobile space allowed it to acquire capital that it uses to lock out competitors from critically-needed components?



    Apple leverages deep pockets to gain supply chain edge over rivals - report

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ls_report.html



    'Ultrabook' makers squeezed by Apple's control of metal chassis supply

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...is_supply.html



    Supply chain expects Apple's Sept launch of iPhone 5 to boost memory prices

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ry_prices.html



    As we explore definitions of "antitrust" here, we may want to tread carefully as they may apply equally across the board.



    But all of these effects on supply chain prices is the result of free market adjustments to Apple's buying power. If Apple can offer cash up front for supply guarantees, does it make them a monopoly? You would have to artificially control supply and pricing in order to prevent the free market from making up its own damn mind, thereby erasing Apple's "edge over rivals". Maybe you should change your handle to MarxRulez
  • Reply 209 of 232
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Sounds fair enough. So what specifically is Google selling in ways that its search provides an unfair advantage for?



    I don't see anything offhand that is illegal about Google's practices. It was clear what MS was doing with IE was anti-competitve even if did make sense to tie a browser into an OS by the time the trial was finished. That's how these things work. We'll know — you'll know! — [if] Google was violating anti-trust laws long before they ever come into any real problems with the law over it. It's reactionary, not preventative, so I expect nothing to come of this little chitchat Schmidt had with the committee.





    PS: If Apple continues to dominate the tablet market expect a civil suit against Apple claiming anti-trust, just like we saw with FairPlay in 2005 and with the AT&T/iPhone in 2008. The former being silly because Apple didn't require FairPlay — the content owners did — which is their right, and the latter is not something only Apple and AT&T partake in. Some might consider the latter illegal tying but there is a clear and obvious nature between a cellphone and a cellphone plan that doesn't make that practice anti-competitive.
  • Reply 210 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 211 of 232
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    How can one believe that there's nothing illegal about Google's practices and also that those practices violate the law?



    Way to leave off the first part of the sentence, DB. I did leave out the word 'if' but the context should have been more than enough.
  • Reply 212 of 232
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Apple avoids being investigated for anti-trust only to the degree that its success is limited.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    But in all fairness, has not Apple's dominance in the mobile space allowed it to acquire capital that it uses to lock out competitors from critically-needed components?



    How 'bout this for a considerate response?



    Dominant or limited success? Make up your fucking mind!
  • Reply 213 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Is it?



    With Google the complaints here seem to be that the company has used its strength in search to drive disproportionate advantage in other business areas.



    But in all fairness, has not Apple's dominance in the mobile space allowed it to acquire capital that it uses to lock out competitors from critically-needed components?



    Apple leverages deep pockets to gain supply chain edge over rivals - report

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ls_report.html



    'Ultrabook' makers squeezed by Apple's control of metal chassis supply

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...is_supply.html



    Supply chain expects Apple's Sept launch of iPhone 5 to boost memory prices

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ry_prices.html



    As we explore definitions of "antitrust" here, we may want to tread carefully as they may apply equally across the board.



    What you are describing is called a monopsony which also has rules like a monopoly, however, Apple hasn't broken any of those rules. Apple would need to use its cash reserves to buy up almost all components but NOT use them for the sole purpose of locking others out of the market OR use its buying power to force vendors to not sell to its competitors. What Apple is currently doing is simply open market forces at work and nothing untoward.
  • Reply 214 of 232
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    What you are describing is called a monopsony which also has rules like a monopoly, however, Apple hasn't broken any of those rules. Apple would need to use its cash reserves to buy up almost all components but NOT use them for the sole purpose of locking others out of the market OR use its buying power to force vendors to not sell to its competitors. What Apple is currently doing is simply open market forces at work and nothing untoward.



    I forgot about the monopsony claim. I can see why some would argue that but I don't see it since we're dealing with Apple securing a component from a vendor or vendors, not securing all components within a product category. Even if they were we'd still need proof Apple was securing them for preventing their competition from using them, not specifically using them themselves.



    It's been over a half-decade since Apple was the largest NAND buyer in the world and I've yet to see any federal office come down on Apple for buying up NAND at great prices. As I understand it, since Apple is paying for built items, not naturally occurring items like silicon or bananas, there is no possible illegal lockout that Apple can be making to the market.
  • Reply 215 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I forgot about the monopsony claim. I can see why some would argue that but I don't see it since we're dealing with Apple securing a component from a vendor or vendors, not securing all components within a product category. Even if they were we'd still need proof Apple was securing them for preventing their competition from using them, not specifically using them themselves.



    It's been over a half-decade since Apple was the largest NAND buyer in the world and I've yet to see any federal office come down on Apple for buying up NAND at great prices. As I understand it, since Apple is paying for built items, not naturally occurring items like silicon or bananas, there is no possible illegal lockout that Apple can be making to the market.



    Yep. That's why I wanted to point out that what he was describing is an actual economic term with rules and consequences and Apple has done nil, zilch, nada in that realm that would cause the government to intervene regarding its buying power.
  • Reply 216 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 217 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Having already made such proud contributions, you can relax now and save your vocabulary for 2012.



    You do all stick together, don't you?
  • Reply 218 of 232
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 219 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    That rings a familiar bell...



    And you have absolutely nothing better to do than to sift through thousands of posts from hundreds of users.



    That clinches it for me. The trolls here are paid, and it's their ONLY job.
  • Reply 220 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    ... Maybe you should change your handle to MarxRulez



    Best suggestion since he joined AI
Sign In or Register to comment.