If Apple doesn't want resellers, or a particular reseller, this is their right. But if they do authorize resellers, and those resellers are meeting Apple's guidelines, then Apple should provide them reasonable appropriate access to their products.
Likely, Apple has, and has some formula that determines allocation based on revenue, square footage, etc... - the reseller in question simply may not like the methodology or is questioning the fairness.
Apple reseller agreements are highly detailed, but if there is/are some unfair trade practice(s0 contained in them, governing local laws would supersede the agreement.
No matter how well run a reseller is however, its nearly impossible to compete with Apple selling their hardware - the margins are too thin, and Apple can offer staffing/support options/exchanges that would break the bank of an independent. Their focus needs to be on high quality training, extended (on-site) support, small business focus, third party product expertise, etc...
Best points made on this thread so far. This suit may have a couple issues to be argued:
* whether Apple has been engaging in unfair or illegal retail competitive practices
* whether it has violated the terms of the contract entered into with the reseller
Apple is not in the business of destroying businesses.
If you knew the history of Apple vs. 3rd party resellers, you'd know this statement is false. The exact same thing happened in the U.S. when Apple opened its stores here. Multiple lawsuits followed. If not for that background, I might find this current French lawsuit suspect, but I fear Apple has a pattern of behavior here that leads me to root for eBizcuss.
Of course Apple is going to favor its own stores. They make more money that way. Third party retailers have their place where there isn't enough traffic for an official Apple Store. In addition, kiosks/sections at Best Buy etc may persuade potential Windows buyers into considering a Mac/iPad.
In any case, if the third party retailer wants a lot of product, put down the $$$ to get it. Just like Apple drops $$$ on the supply chain side.
Really? If thats going to create interest in Mac products over Windows, why should Apple not consider placing their products in stores like BestBuy (BB have it now anyways). If Walmart is having a bad reputation with the Americans, why place iPods/Pads/Phones in Walmart? Is it because they have more money to buy products in bulk by paying 100% money in advance?
If Apple does not like resellers, then why even lure them to spend millions at the first place to set up stores the way Apple wants? If the tables were to be reversed, wont Apple demand others not open their store within few hundred miles vicinity for x number of years in future? This is pure greed to keep profits to themselves and minimize sharing it with people who wish to spread the brand.
Compare this to the eBooks and subscriptions offered by Apple. They demand the 30% cut and at the same time put a restrictions to sellers not to sell at lesser price to anyone else. That means, consumers have to shell out more even if a reseller is willing to offer these consumables for lesser margins.
I love Apple products. But that does not mean I should be blinded by the fact that Apple is using its fat bank balance to ruin small players in the market, ruin the competition and make people shell more money.
Coming to the supply chain question, I can not comment if Apple drops $$$ on the supply chain in advance. But its indirect evidence of Apple's tight control on the supply chain that sees Foxconn offering terrible work environment to its employees and Apple turning blind eye to those employees. If Apple can challenge Samsung to move away from their processors, they definitely use the same dominance not to drop $$$ to the supply chain in advance.
The French are just pissed because they want to control the "design" and Apple cleans their clock on Design.
Sheesh, hardly. First of all there is no "The French". Grow up. This is one individual business suing Apple, not the whole country. Second, it sounds a lot as if they have some highly valid points. You'd sue too if you were treated like this.
And finally, saying "Apple doesn't need France" is like saying "Apple doesn't need money." OK, perhaps Apple is flush. But ask yourself why Apple is undercutting its 3rd party resellers. The only possible answer is that it does need (or at least want) French business. So Apple itself is also undercutting your braindead argument.
I'm reading over all these threads and see how many of the readers feel that Apple and big corporations needs to step in and take over the retail process. Do we forget that we created this process. Suppliers and consumers. Mom and Pop stores. That helps to create fair competition in this world. The moment you say forget those retailers and i hope Apple would bring one of their stores to my town so that we can stop going to the local dealers, you've basically given up the chance to compete in this world. Its great when you have choices, this does not always mean that the experience will be the best at the small retailer or at the big department store, but at least you have the opportunity to try out different choices. You see the reason those retailers are there is because not too long ago Apple was struggling to get their product out to the Microsoft Dominated world and had no other way of pushing it out. Now Apple is on top (for the mean time) and no longer feels it has to honor its agreements. Only sure thing in the Technology world is that today your on top and tomorrow another Tech giant is buying you out. So in summary, support your local dealers for they are the ones that help maintain fair competition.
At the rate we are going, we will never own our own businesses anymore instead we will all be working for Big Corporation or worst Big Red (China)!!
Be a little enterprising and call Tim cook up and tell him what the situation is , and tell him you would like to open their store in Portugal. They need people like you to do it. Do it the way Steve jobs would.
Sure. He should "be enterprising" and open a store only to have Apple come in a year later and run his store out of business as they've been doing all over the globe. Riiight. THIS is exactly how Apple's behavior turns right around and bites them in the butt; they get a reputation for not being a company you would want to be an independent reseller for. They have zero loyalty and will run you into the ground through anti-competitive measures faster than you can spit. So Apple loses potential sales in Portugal and who knows how many other countries & cities?
I'd love to hear from some knowledgable person about how favoring their own retail stores is a violation of law in France and whether that is unique to France or applies in other significant countries.
In the US, my (limited) understanding of how&why the government gets involved in retail issues is to protect consumers, not to protect retailers. The two main ways in which the government does this are to prevent anti-competitive behavior and to prevent fraud/deception.
For example, I think maybe the FTC worries about things like CocaCola making deals with supermarkets to crowd out RC Cola from store shelves. But the government only worries about this when a practice actually harms consumers. If it doesn't harm consumers, then the government (quite rightly) doesn't care.
It's not clear to me how favoring their own stores hurts consumers. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple products and plenty of places to buy those alternatives.
Now, if Apple had 90% of the market for smartphones (or PCs or whatever) this would be a very different situation. But Apple, either through wisdom or happenstance, has never had a business model that gives them that kind of market power. So my guess is that at least in the US, Apple is doing nothing that would warrant government scrutiny because they just aren't big enough in any single market to be in a position to use their size to hurt consumers.
Frankly, I'm surprised Apple has allowed brick-n-mortar resellers for this long.
While I'm sure Apple resellers create a great retail experience... it just seems like Apple would want to be the ones to provide it.
Apple's all about controlling the message... they march to their own drum.
This also explains their tradeshow policy... they don't attend them anymore.
In France, there are 9 Apple stores serving a population of 65M, a ratio that's much lower than the 1 store per 1.2M in NA. Unless Apple decides to shift their focus from China to France and start building more stores (not just in France but in continental Europe), they need the resellers there.
Furthermore, screwing over those who supported you thick and thin is wrong, no matter what drumbeat you're marching to.
Some of you guys are defensive Apple fanboys that make it uncool to like Apple gear.
I mean, what's wrong with you.
I agree with you Ireland. Xenophobic sneers are inappropriate and offensive.
Those of us who can remember the bad days in the 1990s will know that it was the small independent retailers who kept Apple alive. It seems very unfair that their loyalty to the brand was repaid by being forced to compete with official Apple Stores, which obviously operated on much higher margins and could carry far more stock.
Moral: go and evaluate in an Apple store but buy from your local dealer; Apple can afford the loss of your direct custom.
I'd love to hear from some knowledgable person about how favoring their own retail stores is a violation of law in France and whether that is unique to France or applies in other significant countries.
In the US, my (limited) understanding of how&why the government gets involved in retail issues is to protect consumers, not to protect retailers. The two main ways in which the government does this are to prevent anti-competitive behavior and to prevent fraud/deception.
For example, I think maybe the FTC worries about things like CocaCola making deals with supermarkets to crowd out RC Cola from store shelves. But the government only worries about this when a practice actually harms consumers. If it doesn't harm consumers, then the government (quite rightly) doesn't care.
It's not clear to me how favoring their own stores hurts consumers. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple products and plenty of places to buy those alternatives.
Now, if Apple had 90% of the market for smartphones (or PCs or whatever) this would be a very different situation. But Apple, either through wisdom or happenstance, has never had a business model that gives them that kind of market power. So my guess is that at least in the US, Apple is doing nothing that would warrant government scrutiny because they just aren't big enough in any single market to be in a position to use their size to hurt consumers.
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
... and I have to admit I would not have expected such support from this source. May be I will have to revise my theory about the hereditary ennemy, you can be proud of this ...
Frankly, I'm surprised Apple has allowed brick-n-mortar resellers for this long.
While I'm sure Apple resellers create a great retail experience... it just seems like Apple would want to be the ones to provide it.
Apple's all about controlling the message... they march to their own drum.
This also explains their tradeshow policy... they don't attend them anymore.
Here in Helsink, there are 5 or 6 reseller all within a kilometer of each other and they are all doing monster biz because of their service and product knowledge. The experience is outstanding because of the sales personnel.
Sure. He should "be enterprising" and open a store only to have Apple come in a year later and run his store out of business as they've been doing all over the globe. Riiight. THIS is exactly how Apple's behavior turns right around and bites them in the butt; they get a reputation for not being a company you would want to be an independent reseller for. They have zero loyalty and will run you into the ground through anti-competitive measures faster than you can spit. So Apple loses potential sales in Portugal and who knows how many other countries & cities?
Actually I read Drax's post as suggesting he call Tim Cook and offer to be the one to open an official Apple store in his area.
I'm not surprised in the least that an official retail outlet for a company would be supplied first. I can't imagine that Sony's retail outlets are low on stock compared to Sony products at places like Best Buy. Here in Louisville, I think the only places to get Apple products besides the Apple store, is big box retail like Best Buy and iPods and iPads at places like Target and Wal Mart. If my choices are going to one of the big box stores or going to the Apple Store, I'll pick the Apple Store every time. Besides, it's my kids favorite store in the mall
Apple is in business for one reason. To make money. Anything they can legally do to maximize profits, they will do. If disadvantaging resellers achieves this, they will have no compunctions about doing so.
Jobs was smart. Sell a good, proprietary product at a premium price, and you can do quite well in the long term, thank you very much. Cutting out resellers just rakes in more margin for the big A.
This idea that businesses are ONLY concerned about making money is often bandied about. Yet the world isn't that simple.
Apple has historically focused on making the best possible products while still making a profit. It is a constant balancing act. Every business falls somewhere along the spectrum of profit at all costs vs also incorporating other goals.
Reading the Jobs biography provides good perspective on this. Look at how Jobs ran NeXT. He was fixated, indeed obsessed, with the quality of their work. The factory and offices were built with what is often considered reckless disregard of finances. In the end he achieved his goal of making the world's most advanced personal computer and computer production facility. To this day, NeXT is a marvel, perhaps even 15 or 20 years ahead of it's time... but it never turned a profit.
Apple may not care about 3rd party resellers or may even being trying to squeeze them out of the market. But that is a separate topic than if Apple is ONLY concerned about money.
This idea that businesses are ONLY concerned about making money is often bandied about. Yet the world isn't that simple.
Apple has historically focused on making the best possible products while still making a profit. It is a constant balancing act. Every business falls somewhere along the spectrum of profit at all costs vs also incorporating other goals.
There are many ways in which their products could be better but would inflate the price so much that they would no longer have enough customers to support the R&D and would end up makes far less money. The balancing act is trying to maximizing their total net profits.
It's all about profit. Always has been. Always will be. Giving you better customer service, higher quality materials, etc. are just a means to an end. It's just one way in which a company can pursue profits.
There are many ways in which their products could be better but would inflate the price so much that they would no longer have enough customers to support the R&D and would end up makes far less money. The balancing act is trying to maximizing their total net profits.
It's all about profit. Always has been. Always will be. Giving you better customer service, higher quality materials, etc. are just a means to an end. It's just one way in which a company can pursue profits.
That seems like a conveniently simplistic and naive world view. Not everyone is motivated 100% by profit and 0% by everything else.
That seems like a conveniently simplistic and naive world view. Not everyone is motivated 100% by profit and 0% by everything else.
The naivety is to suggest that anything is 100% and everything else is 0%, but the fact is that profits are the reason that for-profit companies exist. This has no barring on the owners of a company wanting to make the best product possible or simply make the cheapest product possible. Creating a for-profit company doesn't mean you have nothing to prove, have no one you don't to impress or make proud, don't wish to make the best product possible, it just means that your goal is to profit. If you don't wish to profit then you start a not-for-profit company. It's that simple.
Actually I have some sympathy for the re-seller here. Firstly they have been an ambassador for Apple since 1977 supporting the companies products through thick and thin. they have invested heavily at Apples request in a POS system only to have the ground chopped away under their feet.
Apple does not need re-sellers now but there is such a thing as ethics and doing the right thing. Apple do not need to treat their re-sellers so badly.
The naivety is to suggest that anything is 100% and everything else is 0%, but the fact is that profits are the reason that for-profit companies exist. This has no barring on the owners of a company wanting to make the best product possible or simply make the cheapest product possible. Creating a for-profit company doesn't mean you have nothing to prove, have no one you don't to impress or make proud, don't wish to make the best product possible, it just means that your goal is to profit. If you don't wish to profit then you start a not-for-profit company. It's that simple.
Well at least we agree that profits aren't the only motivator... right?
But I disagree that the desires of owners, CEOs, and board members has no bearing on how companies are run. Almost all humans balance profit against other motivation. For example, ethics play a roll in some important decisions. It is frequently possible to get ahead by doing illegal and unethical things. Even when there is no chance of getting caught, altruism often rears its head.
Or another example. Many luxury good companies could increase both short and long term profits by producing lower quality products. Sometimes though they choose to remain only in the high-end because they prefer working at and running that type of company. This tends to happen more at smaller companies or ones that are under the control of relatively few people.
But this is getting somewhat off topic. I'm harping on it only to rebut the myth that companies care about nothing other than profit.
Comments
If Apple doesn't want resellers, or a particular reseller, this is their right. But if they do authorize resellers, and those resellers are meeting Apple's guidelines, then Apple should provide them reasonable appropriate access to their products.
Likely, Apple has, and has some formula that determines allocation based on revenue, square footage, etc... - the reseller in question simply may not like the methodology or is questioning the fairness.
Apple reseller agreements are highly detailed, but if there is/are some unfair trade practice(s0 contained in them, governing local laws would supersede the agreement.
No matter how well run a reseller is however, its nearly impossible to compete with Apple selling their hardware - the margins are too thin, and Apple can offer staffing/support options/exchanges that would break the bank of an independent. Their focus needs to be on high quality training, extended (on-site) support, small business focus, third party product expertise, etc...
Best points made on this thread so far. This suit may have a couple issues to be argued:
* whether Apple has been engaging in unfair or illegal retail competitive practices
* whether it has violated the terms of the contract entered into with the reseller
Let's have a trial and see the evidence.
Apple is not in the business of destroying businesses.
If you knew the history of Apple vs. 3rd party resellers, you'd know this statement is false. The exact same thing happened in the U.S. when Apple opened its stores here. Multiple lawsuits followed. If not for that background, I might find this current French lawsuit suspect, but I fear Apple has a pattern of behavior here that leads me to root for eBizcuss.
Apple does not need France...
I think the correct phrasing here would be "Apple does not need the resellers as much as the resellers need Apple."
Which would be correct, but yeah also an annoying, pointless kind of thing to say.
Of course Apple is going to favor its own stores. They make more money that way. Third party retailers have their place where there isn't enough traffic for an official Apple Store. In addition, kiosks/sections at Best Buy etc may persuade potential Windows buyers into considering a Mac/iPad.
In any case, if the third party retailer wants a lot of product, put down the $$$ to get it. Just like Apple drops $$$ on the supply chain side.
Really? If thats going to create interest in Mac products over Windows, why should Apple not consider placing their products in stores like BestBuy (BB have it now anyways). If Walmart is having a bad reputation with the Americans, why place iPods/Pads/Phones in Walmart? Is it because they have more money to buy products in bulk by paying 100% money in advance?
If Apple does not like resellers, then why even lure them to spend millions at the first place to set up stores the way Apple wants? If the tables were to be reversed, wont Apple demand others not open their store within few hundred miles vicinity for x number of years in future? This is pure greed to keep profits to themselves and minimize sharing it with people who wish to spread the brand.
Compare this to the eBooks and subscriptions offered by Apple. They demand the 30% cut and at the same time put a restrictions to sellers not to sell at lesser price to anyone else. That means, consumers have to shell out more even if a reseller is willing to offer these consumables for lesser margins.
I love Apple products. But that does not mean I should be blinded by the fact that Apple is using its fat bank balance to ruin small players in the market, ruin the competition and make people shell more money.
Coming to the supply chain question, I can not comment if Apple drops $$$ on the supply chain in advance. But its indirect evidence of Apple's tight control on the supply chain that sees Foxconn offering terrible work environment to its employees and Apple turning blind eye to those employees. If Apple can challenge Samsung to move away from their processors, they definitely use the same dominance not to drop $$$ to the supply chain in advance.
Spot On
The French are just pissed because they want to control the "design" and Apple cleans their clock on Design.
Sheesh, hardly. First of all there is no "The French". Grow up. This is one individual business suing Apple, not the whole country. Second, it sounds a lot as if they have some highly valid points. You'd sue too if you were treated like this.
And finally, saying "Apple doesn't need France" is like saying "Apple doesn't need money." OK, perhaps Apple is flush. But ask yourself why Apple is undercutting its 3rd party resellers. The only possible answer is that it does need (or at least want) French business. So Apple itself is also undercutting your braindead argument.
At the rate we are going, we will never own our own businesses anymore instead we will all be working for Big Corporation or worst Big Red (China)!!
Be a little enterprising and call Tim cook up and tell him what the situation is , and tell him you would like to open their store in Portugal. They need people like you to do it. Do it the way Steve jobs would.
Sure. He should "be enterprising" and open a store only to have Apple come in a year later and run his store out of business as they've been doing all over the globe. Riiight. THIS is exactly how Apple's behavior turns right around and bites them in the butt; they get a reputation for not being a company you would want to be an independent reseller for. They have zero loyalty and will run you into the ground through anti-competitive measures faster than you can spit. So Apple loses potential sales in Portugal and who knows how many other countries & cities?
In the US, my (limited) understanding of how&why the government gets involved in retail issues is to protect consumers, not to protect retailers. The two main ways in which the government does this are to prevent anti-competitive behavior and to prevent fraud/deception.
For example, I think maybe the FTC worries about things like CocaCola making deals with supermarkets to crowd out RC Cola from store shelves. But the government only worries about this when a practice actually harms consumers. If it doesn't harm consumers, then the government (quite rightly) doesn't care.
It's not clear to me how favoring their own stores hurts consumers. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple products and plenty of places to buy those alternatives.
Now, if Apple had 90% of the market for smartphones (or PCs or whatever) this would be a very different situation. But Apple, either through wisdom or happenstance, has never had a business model that gives them that kind of market power. So my guess is that at least in the US, Apple is doing nothing that would warrant government scrutiny because they just aren't big enough in any single market to be in a position to use their size to hurt consumers.
Frankly, I'm surprised Apple has allowed brick-n-mortar resellers for this long.
While I'm sure Apple resellers create a great retail experience... it just seems like Apple would want to be the ones to provide it.
Apple's all about controlling the message... they march to their own drum.
This also explains their tradeshow policy... they don't attend them anymore.
In France, there are 9 Apple stores serving a population of 65M, a ratio that's much lower than the 1 store per 1.2M in NA. Unless Apple decides to shift their focus from China to France and start building more stores (not just in France but in continental Europe), they need the resellers there.
Furthermore, screwing over those who supported you thick and thin is wrong, no matter what drumbeat you're marching to.
Some of you guys are defensive Apple fanboys that make it uncool to like Apple gear.
I mean, what's wrong with you.
I agree with you Ireland. Xenophobic sneers are inappropriate and offensive.
Those of us who can remember the bad days in the 1990s will know that it was the small independent retailers who kept Apple alive. It seems very unfair that their loyalty to the brand was repaid by being forced to compete with official Apple Stores, which obviously operated on much higher margins and could carry far more stock.
Moral: go and evaluate in an Apple store but buy from your local dealer; Apple can afford the loss of your direct custom.
I'd love to hear from some knowledgable person about how favoring their own retail stores is a violation of law in France and whether that is unique to France or applies in other significant countries.
In the US, my (limited) understanding of how&why the government gets involved in retail issues is to protect consumers, not to protect retailers. The two main ways in which the government does this are to prevent anti-competitive behavior and to prevent fraud/deception.
For example, I think maybe the FTC worries about things like CocaCola making deals with supermarkets to crowd out RC Cola from store shelves. But the government only worries about this when a practice actually harms consumers. If it doesn't harm consumers, then the government (quite rightly) doesn't care.
It's not clear to me how favoring their own stores hurts consumers. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple products and plenty of places to buy those alternatives.
Now, if Apple had 90% of the market for smartphones (or PCs or whatever) this would be a very different situation. But Apple, either through wisdom or happenstance, has never had a business model that gives them that kind of market power. So my guess is that at least in the US, Apple is doing nothing that would warrant government scrutiny because they just aren't big enough in any single market to be in a position to use their size to hurt consumers.
There was a similar action in the US in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
(search for 'favor')
It was settled out of court, so it is not clear how the court would have ruled on the resellers' accusations.
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
... and I have to admit I would not have expected such support from this source. May be I will have to revise my theory about the hereditary ennemy, you can be proud of this ...
Frankly, I'm surprised Apple has allowed brick-n-mortar resellers for this long.
While I'm sure Apple resellers create a great retail experience... it just seems like Apple would want to be the ones to provide it.
Apple's all about controlling the message... they march to their own drum.
This also explains their tradeshow policy... they don't attend them anymore.
Here in Helsink, there are 5 or 6 reseller all within a kilometer of each other and they are all doing monster biz because of their service and product knowledge. The experience is outstanding because of the sales personnel.
Sure. He should "be enterprising" and open a store only to have Apple come in a year later and run his store out of business as they've been doing all over the globe. Riiight. THIS is exactly how Apple's behavior turns right around and bites them in the butt; they get a reputation for not being a company you would want to be an independent reseller for. They have zero loyalty and will run you into the ground through anti-competitive measures faster than you can spit. So Apple loses potential sales in Portugal and who knows how many other countries & cities?
Actually I read Drax's post as suggesting he call Tim Cook and offer to be the one to open an official Apple store in his area.
I'm not surprised in the least that an official retail outlet for a company would be supplied first. I can't imagine that Sony's retail outlets are low on stock compared to Sony products at places like Best Buy. Here in Louisville, I think the only places to get Apple products besides the Apple store, is big box retail like Best Buy and iPods and iPads at places like Target and Wal Mart. If my choices are going to one of the big box stores or going to the Apple Store, I'll pick the Apple Store every time. Besides, it's my kids favorite store in the mall
Apple is in business for one reason. To make money. Anything they can legally do to maximize profits, they will do. If disadvantaging resellers achieves this, they will have no compunctions about doing so.
Jobs was smart. Sell a good, proprietary product at a premium price, and you can do quite well in the long term, thank you very much. Cutting out resellers just rakes in more margin for the big A.
This idea that businesses are ONLY concerned about making money is often bandied about. Yet the world isn't that simple.
Apple has historically focused on making the best possible products while still making a profit. It is a constant balancing act. Every business falls somewhere along the spectrum of profit at all costs vs also incorporating other goals.
Reading the Jobs biography provides good perspective on this. Look at how Jobs ran NeXT. He was fixated, indeed obsessed, with the quality of their work. The factory and offices were built with what is often considered reckless disregard of finances. In the end he achieved his goal of making the world's most advanced personal computer and computer production facility. To this day, NeXT is a marvel, perhaps even 15 or 20 years ahead of it's time... but it never turned a profit.
Apple may not care about 3rd party resellers or may even being trying to squeeze them out of the market. But that is a separate topic than if Apple is ONLY concerned about money.
This idea that businesses are ONLY concerned about making money is often bandied about. Yet the world isn't that simple.
Apple has historically focused on making the best possible products while still making a profit. It is a constant balancing act. Every business falls somewhere along the spectrum of profit at all costs vs also incorporating other goals.
There are many ways in which their products could be better but would inflate the price so much that they would no longer have enough customers to support the R&D and would end up makes far less money. The balancing act is trying to maximizing their total net profits.
It's all about profit. Always has been. Always will be. Giving you better customer service, higher quality materials, etc. are just a means to an end. It's just one way in which a company can pursue profits.
There are many ways in which their products could be better but would inflate the price so much that they would no longer have enough customers to support the R&D and would end up makes far less money. The balancing act is trying to maximizing their total net profits.
It's all about profit. Always has been. Always will be. Giving you better customer service, higher quality materials, etc. are just a means to an end. It's just one way in which a company can pursue profits.
That seems like a conveniently simplistic and naive world view. Not everyone is motivated 100% by profit and 0% by everything else.
That seems like a conveniently simplistic and naive world view. Not everyone is motivated 100% by profit and 0% by everything else.
The naivety is to suggest that anything is 100% and everything else is 0%, but the fact is that profits are the reason that for-profit companies exist. This has no barring on the owners of a company wanting to make the best product possible or simply make the cheapest product possible. Creating a for-profit company doesn't mean you have nothing to prove, have no one you don't to impress or make proud, don't wish to make the best product possible, it just means that your goal is to profit. If you don't wish to profit then you start a not-for-profit company. It's that simple.
Apple does not need re-sellers now but there is such a thing as ethics and doing the right thing. Apple do not need to treat their re-sellers so badly.
The naivety is to suggest that anything is 100% and everything else is 0%, but the fact is that profits are the reason that for-profit companies exist. This has no barring on the owners of a company wanting to make the best product possible or simply make the cheapest product possible. Creating a for-profit company doesn't mean you have nothing to prove, have no one you don't to impress or make proud, don't wish to make the best product possible, it just means that your goal is to profit. If you don't wish to profit then you start a not-for-profit company. It's that simple.
Well at least we agree that profits aren't the only motivator... right?
But I disagree that the desires of owners, CEOs, and board members has no bearing on how companies are run. Almost all humans balance profit against other motivation. For example, ethics play a roll in some important decisions. It is frequently possible to get ahead by doing illegal and unethical things. Even when there is no chance of getting caught, altruism often rears its head.
Or another example. Many luxury good companies could increase both short and long term profits by producing lower quality products. Sometimes though they choose to remain only in the high-end because they prefer working at and running that type of company. This tends to happen more at smaller companies or ones that are under the control of relatively few people.
But this is getting somewhat off topic. I'm harping on it only to rebut the myth that companies care about nothing other than profit.