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.
You're talking about "how companies are run" is not the same as the defined purpose of a company. Profits are the goal of a for-profit company. Imagine a trip around the world in 80 days. The goal is get around the world within the alloted time frame. How you accomplish this goal is up to those involved. Within your means you aren't just making choices of whether to take a train or boat but if you wish to use illegal or unethical means to achieve your goal. No matter what path you take physically and mentally/spiritually the goal is still the same: to get around the world in 80 days.
Apple's goal is still to make as much money as possible but they have a long term outlook that exceeds some short term quarterly uptick that a CEO can use to get headhunted by another company willing to pay him twice as much. Apple's goal it make more profit by getting customers to trust their products, trust their ecosystem, trust their customer service. It's still a goal of making money which is why Apple dominates the profits of the handset, PMP, tablet, and PC markets.
I took a 35 day old iPhone 4S that had been dropped in a cup of coffee into an Apple Store on Tuesday. The owner didn't heed my advice to get the extended warranty with the 2 accidental damage replacements for $50. I told the truth as to what happened. It was clear because the back plate was semi-glued on from the coffee residue yet the Apple Store employee replaced it for free because only one of four moisture sensors were tripped (the one at the headphone jack). There is a reason he was allowed to replace this device and it wasn't altruism. It's good for longterm business... if you're in a position to offer it.
The purpose of sex is to procreate. It's only meant to feel good so you'll be likely to push your species. And it's only meant to evoke feelings of intimacy in humans because that gives biological resultant the best chances for survival. There is still the same single goal of sperm production and egg creation. It's not magical. It's not spiritual. It's biological. Everything else just helps accomplish that single goal in nature.
I disagree with your narrow definition of the word "purpose". There are without a doubt, companies that have nuanced purposes that extend beyond simply making a profit.
But we're way off topic so I'll leave it at that. Cheers and happy new year!
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
Ethnic slur, certainly, but it's not racism unless the commenter to whom you've responded is of non-European extraction, which you'd have no idea about - unless you happen to know the individual in question; which I highly doubt.
And, really? Like Britons don't make more caustic comments/jokes about the French and Germans than nearly anyone else in the world? Really?
BTW, having lived in the UK for over seven years I can attest there are plenty of obese Englishmen (and women) as well.
All in all you've demonstrated rather little by having engaged in the exact same behavior to which you, ostensibly, take offense.
While I have no knowledge of French law regarding competition, if the allegations brought by the litigant are factual then it would certainly seem that Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior, at least by the standards in the US. My guess would be the playing field has been level all along and the company has simply been dealing with the very same supply constraints that everyone else has had to deal with, including Apple itself.
In case most folks haven't noticed, they have some pretty smart folks running Apple who would certainly know they were laying themselves open to accusations of anti-competitive behavior if the alleged conduct is factual.
If this business sought to engage Apple in head-to-head competition in the retail space, regardless of how long it had been the incumbent prior to an upstart Apple entering the space, then it should expect to have to deal with all the implications of such a decision. If you want to face the bull sometimes you're going to get the horns.
My first question to the business would be, "how have you differentiated yourself from Apple retail to drive business to you, rather than to Apple's stores"?
Here in Vermont we have a very successful Apple re-seller, Small Dog Electronics (with which I have zero affiliation). One of the reasons they're successful is they serve a market that has no other Apple retail presence outside the big box stores, and they've got a very local attitude that works for the target market. They also happen to have gotten started in 1994 at the advent of Apple's dark days, yet still built a very successful on-line business that preceded their physical retail business.
While I'm not a complete fan (I think their repair service leaves a lot to be desired), they nevertheless laid out a business plan that works, and they've been successful. Although that success is, in part, driven by a local culture that very much is supportive of buying local to support local businesses, they are also in an underserved market that faces the choice of going to a big box, ordering on-line, or driving to the nearest Apple Store ~200 miles away.
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
You both confuse the strategy of making the best products possible with the goal of maximizing total profits.
Not only that, but you also misunderstand "this idea" by presenting it as the "ONLY" goal of a mega-corporation.
The idea is that corporations have a prime directive, and everything else feeds that. Great products, happy customers and a wonderful ecosystem are all things that are intended to feed profits. It all works very well when skilled people execute it.
But why do they do they make any of that sort of stuff happen? for its own sake? In order to perform charity? Nope. They do it because they think it is the very best way to maximize total profits.
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.
You're confusing cause and effect.
Actually, legally and ethically, companies are required to maximize shareholder return.
Now, it is true that different companies have different strategies to do that. Some do so by offering the lowest price possible. Some do it by making fantastic products. Others do so by offering incredible service. But those are the tactics, not the objective.
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.
Nicely put. I am as much of an Apple fan as anyone here, but I agree with you 100% on this issue.
Some of the comments that people have made here are embarrassing.
Actually, legally and ethically, companies are required to maximize shareholder return.
Now, it is true that different companies have different strategies to do that. Some do so by offering the lowest price possible. Some do it by making fantastic products. Others do so by offering incredible service. But those are the tactics, not the objective.
I'm not confusing anything.
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused. )
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused. )
Actually, legally, all companies (in the US) have shareholders... shares may be privately held, publicly held, by an individual, by another company, registered, not registered... but by legal definition, all companies have shareholders (and thus shares) of some sort.
Actually, legally, all companies (in the US) have shareholders... shares may be privately held, publicly held, by an individual, by another company... but by legal definition, all companies have shareholders (and thus shares) of some sort.
Serioiusly? We're still arguing about this? Well if we are going to be pedantic, not all companies have shareholders (plural).
My point was that neither privately or publicly held companies, even ones with traded shares, are legally or ethically obligated to maximize profit while ignoring everything else. To pick just one example, worker safety can be prioritized over profit.
It is baffling why this is such a contentious issue. I thought it was a pretty obvious that companies are not 100% motivated by profit and 0% by everything else.
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused. )
No one said that companies were required to maximize profit. If you're going to participate in the discussion, please stop mis-quoting people.
What I said was that companies are required to maximize shareholder return (technically, shareholder value). It is perfectly legal (and, in fact, often necessary) for a company to sacrifice short term profits to build greater shareholder value. For example, a company might invest a billion dollars in building a new factory. That reduces profits this year, but will improve the business in the long run.
Or a company might choose to donate to charity. That reduces current profits, but if there's a good business justification, it can improve long term value (either by attracting shareholders, getting good PR, or satisfying employees). Or a company might choose to write off poorly performing businesses. Short term, it harms profits, but long term it maximizes the company's value. And, legally, a publicly traded company is required to do that.
You are correct that my statement was too broad. Not all companies are required to maximize shareholder value. For example, a charity can be set up as a corporation. Or a privately held corporation might choose to donate an excessive share of its profits to charity to satisfy the owners' wishes. Even a publicly traded company can choose to be a major contributor to charity (like Ben and Jerry's) - as long as their business plan and 10-K statement spells out that they will be doing so. But, in general, publicly traded companies like Apple are obligated to maximize shareholder value. Doing anything else could open the board of directors up to shareholder lawsuits.
Serioiusly? We're still arguing about this? Well if we are going to be pedantic, not all companies have shareholders (plural).
My point was that neither privately or publicly held companies, even ones with traded shares, are legally or ethically obligated to maximize profit while ignoring everything else. To pick just one example, worker safety can be prioritized over profit.
It is baffling why this is such a contentious issue. I thought it was a pretty obvious that companies are not 100% motivated by profit and 0% by everything else.
I have been on several occasions incorporation and general counsel and I am an attorney.. not trying to be pedantic. I have incorporated high-tech companies with structural protections to shield BOD's in a limited capacity from shareholders who might be demanding profit over other goals, particularly when the founders had concerns about that eventuality. I am not addressing what I think companies should be obligated to do one way or another. As for motivation... I think its easy to draw lines but really what companies are interested in ultimately is survival in my experience. Whether or not they choose a correct evolutionary path towards that goal or just hit an eventual developmental dead-end is often difficult to assess except in hindsight. From what I have observed... it is often the minute goals of the BOD and shareholder that give the aggregate appearance of profit motivation as the factors for survival share much commonality with making profit. That is not to say that worker safety or other concerns have no correlation with survival of the company but it is often harder for a BOD to quantify and assess that quality.
While I have no knowledge of French law regarding competition, if the allegations brought by the litigant are factual then it would certainly seem that Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior, at least by the standards in the US. My guess would be the playing field has been level all along and the company has simply been dealing with the very same supply constraints that everyone else has had to deal with, including Apple itself.
In case most folks haven't noticed, they have some pretty smart folks running Apple who would certainly know they were laying themselves open to accusations of anti-competitive behavior if the alleged conduct is factual.
If this business sought to engage Apple in head-to-head competition in the retail space, regardless of how long it had been the incumbent prior to an upstart Apple entering the space, then it should expect to have to deal with all the implications of such a decision. If you want to face the bull sometimes you're going to get the horns.
My first question to the business would be, "how have you differentiated yourself from Apple retail to drive business to you, rather than to Apple's stores"?
Here in Vermont we have a very successful Apple re-seller, Small Dog Electronics (with which I have zero affiliation). One of the reasons they're successful is they serve a market that has no other Apple retail presence outside the big box stores, and they've got a very local attitude that works for the target market. They also happen to have gotten started in 1994 at the advent of Apple's dark days, yet still built a very successful on-line business that preceded their physical retail business.
While I'm not a complete fan (I think their repair service leaves a lot to be desired), they nevertheless laid out a business plan that works, and they've been successful. Although that success is, in part, driven by a local culture that very much is supportive of buying local to support local businesses, they are also in an underserved market that faces the choice of going to a big box, ordering on-line, or driving to the nearest Apple Store ~200 miles away.
If you can't compete don't blame the competition.
Exactly!
The line I've set in bold above goes for any small retailer, just insert any big business name for "Apple".
As it relates to this thread and Apple, there is a large number of personal acquaintances and people that I have worked for here in Germany, that used to be "Authorized Resellers". I believe last one caved in about 6 years ago, and did not renew the contract with Apple. All of those businesses are STILL in the business of selling, servicing, and installing Macs.... as well as "Your's Truly".
We just help clients choose the right one(s), and configure and install them once they are delivered. Whether from Apple (mostly) or from any other large distributor/wholesaler, of which there are still a couple here, makes no difference. I as well as my colleagues make many times the return delivering tailored services, rather than operating a retail venture. In fact, I personally help small shops of all kinds move out of local retail, and into specialized web or Ebay shops, using Macs and iDevices mostly these days.
There are so many services and add-ons that revolve around making small business work with tech, from servers, networks, entire department installs, integration, what have you... that there is no good reason to be in Apple's consumer-oriented space to begin with. However, we also help individuals get the most from their home and personal Apple products as well, so I see no need to go to the expense of an Apple, MS, or any "retail" venture for that matter.
There's definitely (a lot of!) money to be made without worrying about slim purchase margins, so I'm calling out the French colleague as a "media whore" and a retailer that just doesn't want to accept the fact that times.... they are a... uh... well, they've changed already.
Give it (retail) up, and find your niche in Apple services. You'll sleep better at night, believe me
Comments
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.
You're talking about "how companies are run" is not the same as the defined purpose of a company. Profits are the goal of a for-profit company. Imagine a trip around the world in 80 days. The goal is get around the world within the alloted time frame. How you accomplish this goal is up to those involved. Within your means you aren't just making choices of whether to take a train or boat but if you wish to use illegal or unethical means to achieve your goal. No matter what path you take physically and mentally/spiritually the goal is still the same: to get around the world in 80 days.
Apple's goal is still to make as much money as possible but they have a long term outlook that exceeds some short term quarterly uptick that a CEO can use to get headhunted by another company willing to pay him twice as much. Apple's goal it make more profit by getting customers to trust their products, trust their ecosystem, trust their customer service. It's still a goal of making money which is why Apple dominates the profits of the handset, PMP, tablet, and PC markets.
I took a 35 day old iPhone 4S that had been dropped in a cup of coffee into an Apple Store on Tuesday. The owner didn't heed my advice to get the extended warranty with the 2 accidental damage replacements for $50. I told the truth as to what happened. It was clear because the back plate was semi-glued on from the coffee residue yet the Apple Store employee replaced it for free because only one of four moisture sensors were tripped (the one at the headphone jack). There is a reason he was allowed to replace this device and it wasn't altruism. It's good for longterm business... if you're in a position to offer it.
The purpose of sex is to procreate. It's only meant to feel good so you'll be likely to push your species. And it's only meant to evoke feelings of intimacy in humans because that gives biological resultant the best chances for survival. There is still the same single goal of sperm production and egg creation. It's not magical. It's not spiritual. It's biological. Everything else just helps accomplish that single goal in nature.
But we're way off topic so I'll leave it at that. Cheers and happy new year!
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
Ethnic slur, certainly, but it's not racism unless the commenter to whom you've responded is of non-European extraction, which you'd have no idea about - unless you happen to know the individual in question; which I highly doubt.
And, really? Like Britons don't make more caustic comments/jokes about the French and Germans than nearly anyone else in the world? Really?
BTW, having lived in the UK for over seven years I can attest there are plenty of obese Englishmen (and women) as well.
All in all you've demonstrated rather little by having engaged in the exact same behavior to which you, ostensibly, take offense.
Disappointing, really...
In case most folks haven't noticed, they have some pretty smart folks running Apple who would certainly know they were laying themselves open to accusations of anti-competitive behavior if the alleged conduct is factual.
If this business sought to engage Apple in head-to-head competition in the retail space, regardless of how long it had been the incumbent prior to an upstart Apple entering the space, then it should expect to have to deal with all the implications of such a decision. If you want to face the bull sometimes you're going to get the horns.
My first question to the business would be, "how have you differentiated yourself from Apple retail to drive business to you, rather than to Apple's stores"?
Here in Vermont we have a very successful Apple re-seller, Small Dog Electronics (with which I have zero affiliation). One of the reasons they're successful is they serve a market that has no other Apple retail presence outside the big box stores, and they've got a very local attitude that works for the target market. They also happen to have gotten started in 1994 at the advent of Apple's dark days, yet still built a very successful on-line business that preceded their physical retail business.
While I'm not a complete fan (I think their repair service leaves a lot to be desired), they nevertheless laid out a business plan that works, and they've been successful. Although that success is, in part, driven by a local culture that very much is supportive of buying local to support local businesses, they are also in an underserved market that faces the choice of going to a big box, ordering on-line, or driving to the nearest Apple Store ~200 miles away.
If you can't compete don't blame the competition.
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
aasci is a well- known jerk. Not all "yanks" are as boorish as he....
Ah, casual racism. I wouldn't expect anything less from a fat yank like you.
Is that suppose to be irony?
Anyway, it's unfortunate for resellers but Apple's own stores are going to kill reseller business if it's in the proximity of an Apple Store.
I wasn't overly impressed with the ethics of the owner...
Or, apple should BUY France.
Why bother to buy France, they will surrender quickly...
Moral: go and evaluate in an Apple store but buy from your local dealer; Apple can afford the loss of your direct custom.
That would hurt Apple.
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
You both confuse the strategy of making the best products possible with the goal of maximizing total profits.
Not only that, but you also misunderstand "this idea" by presenting it as the "ONLY" goal of a mega-corporation.
The idea is that corporations have a prime directive, and everything else feeds that. Great products, happy customers and a wonderful ecosystem are all things that are intended to feed profits. It all works very well when skilled people execute it.
But why do they do they make any of that sort of stuff happen? for its own sake? In order to perform charity? Nope. They do it because they think it is the very best way to maximize total profits.
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.
You're confusing cause and effect.
Actually, legally and ethically, companies are required to maximize shareholder return.
Now, it is true that different companies have different strategies to do that. Some do so by offering the lowest price possible. Some do it by making fantastic products. Others do so by offering incredible service. But those are the tactics, not the objective.
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.
Nicely put. I am as much of an Apple fan as anyone here, but I agree with you 100% on this issue.
Some of the comments that people have made here are embarrassing.
No, shameful.
Anyway, it's unfortunate for resellers but Apple's own stores are going to kill reseller business if it's in the proximity of an Apple Store.
That is not what appears to be at issue here.
Why bother to buy France, they will surrender quickly...
Ugh. Retracted. Off-topic.
You're confusing cause and effect.
Actually, legally and ethically, companies are required to maximize shareholder return.
Now, it is true that different companies have different strategies to do that. Some do so by offering the lowest price possible. Some do it by making fantastic products. Others do so by offering incredible service. But those are the tactics, not the objective.
I'm not confusing anything.
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused.
I'm not confusing anything.
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused.
Actually, legally, all companies (in the US) have shareholders... shares may be privately held, publicly held, by an individual, by another company, registered, not registered... but by legal definition, all companies have shareholders (and thus shares) of some sort.
Actually, legally, all companies (in the US) have shareholders... shares may be privately held, publicly held, by an individual, by another company... but by legal definition, all companies have shareholders (and thus shares) of some sort.
Serioiusly? We're still arguing about this? Well if we are going to be pedantic, not all companies have shareholders (plural).
My point was that neither privately or publicly held companies, even ones with traded shares, are legally or ethically obligated to maximize profit while ignoring everything else. To pick just one example, worker safety can be prioritized over profit.
It is baffling why this is such a contentious issue. I thought it was a pretty obvious that companies are not 100% motivated by profit and 0% by everything else.
I'm not confusing anything.
First of all, not all companies have shareholders. And even public companies must hedge maximization of profit against other concerns. As for ethics, sometimes profit should be sacrificed for worker safety, etc.
(Yeah, i though i was done but my ego couldn't take being called confused.
No one said that companies were required to maximize profit. If you're going to participate in the discussion, please stop mis-quoting people.
What I said was that companies are required to maximize shareholder return (technically, shareholder value). It is perfectly legal (and, in fact, often necessary) for a company to sacrifice short term profits to build greater shareholder value. For example, a company might invest a billion dollars in building a new factory. That reduces profits this year, but will improve the business in the long run.
Or a company might choose to donate to charity. That reduces current profits, but if there's a good business justification, it can improve long term value (either by attracting shareholders, getting good PR, or satisfying employees). Or a company might choose to write off poorly performing businesses. Short term, it harms profits, but long term it maximizes the company's value. And, legally, a publicly traded company is required to do that.
You are correct that my statement was too broad. Not all companies are required to maximize shareholder value. For example, a charity can be set up as a corporation. Or a privately held corporation might choose to donate an excessive share of its profits to charity to satisfy the owners' wishes. Even a publicly traded company can choose to be a major contributor to charity (like Ben and Jerry's) - as long as their business plan and 10-K statement spells out that they will be doing so. But, in general, publicly traded companies like Apple are obligated to maximize shareholder value. Doing anything else could open the board of directors up to shareholder lawsuits.
Serioiusly? We're still arguing about this? Well if we are going to be pedantic, not all companies have shareholders (plural).
My point was that neither privately or publicly held companies, even ones with traded shares, are legally or ethically obligated to maximize profit while ignoring everything else. To pick just one example, worker safety can be prioritized over profit.
It is baffling why this is such a contentious issue. I thought it was a pretty obvious that companies are not 100% motivated by profit and 0% by everything else.
I have been on several occasions incorporation and general counsel and I am an attorney.. not trying to be pedantic. I have incorporated high-tech companies with structural protections to shield BOD's in a limited capacity from shareholders who might be demanding profit over other goals, particularly when the founders had concerns about that eventuality. I am not addressing what I think companies should be obligated to do one way or another. As for motivation... I think its easy to draw lines but really what companies are interested in ultimately is survival in my experience. Whether or not they choose a correct evolutionary path towards that goal or just hit an eventual developmental dead-end is often difficult to assess except in hindsight. From what I have observed... it is often the minute goals of the BOD and shareholder that give the aggregate appearance of profit motivation as the factors for survival share much commonality with making profit. That is not to say that worker safety or other concerns have no correlation with survival of the company but it is often harder for a BOD to quantify and assess that quality.
While I have no knowledge of French law regarding competition, if the allegations brought by the litigant are factual then it would certainly seem that Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior, at least by the standards in the US. My guess would be the playing field has been level all along and the company has simply been dealing with the very same supply constraints that everyone else has had to deal with, including Apple itself.
In case most folks haven't noticed, they have some pretty smart folks running Apple who would certainly know they were laying themselves open to accusations of anti-competitive behavior if the alleged conduct is factual.
If this business sought to engage Apple in head-to-head competition in the retail space, regardless of how long it had been the incumbent prior to an upstart Apple entering the space, then it should expect to have to deal with all the implications of such a decision. If you want to face the bull sometimes you're going to get the horns.
My first question to the business would be, "how have you differentiated yourself from Apple retail to drive business to you, rather than to Apple's stores"?
Here in Vermont we have a very successful Apple re-seller, Small Dog Electronics (with which I have zero affiliation). One of the reasons they're successful is they serve a market that has no other Apple retail presence outside the big box stores, and they've got a very local attitude that works for the target market. They also happen to have gotten started in 1994 at the advent of Apple's dark days, yet still built a very successful on-line business that preceded their physical retail business.
While I'm not a complete fan (I think their repair service leaves a lot to be desired), they nevertheless laid out a business plan that works, and they've been successful. Although that success is, in part, driven by a local culture that very much is supportive of buying local to support local businesses, they are also in an underserved market that faces the choice of going to a big box, ordering on-line, or driving to the nearest Apple Store ~200 miles away.
If you can't compete don't blame the competition.
Exactly!
The line I've set in bold above goes for any small retailer, just insert any big business name for "Apple".
As it relates to this thread and Apple, there is a large number of personal acquaintances and people that I have worked for here in Germany, that used to be "Authorized Resellers". I believe last one caved in about 6 years ago, and did not renew the contract with Apple. All of those businesses are STILL in the business of selling, servicing, and installing Macs.... as well as "Your's Truly".
We just help clients choose the right one(s), and configure and install them once they are delivered. Whether from Apple (mostly) or from any other large distributor/wholesaler, of which there are still a couple here, makes no difference. I as well as my colleagues make many times the return delivering tailored services, rather than operating a retail venture. In fact, I personally help small shops of all kinds move out of local retail, and into specialized web or Ebay shops, using Macs and iDevices mostly these days.
There are so many services and add-ons that revolve around making small business work with tech, from servers, networks, entire department installs, integration, what have you... that there is no good reason to be in Apple's consumer-oriented space to begin with. However, we also help individuals get the most from their home and personal Apple products as well, so I see no need to go to the expense of an Apple, MS, or any "retail" venture for that matter.
There's definitely (a lot of!) money to be made without worrying about slim purchase margins, so I'm calling out the French colleague as a "media whore" and a retailer that just doesn't want to accept the fact that times.... they are a... uh... well, they've changed already.
Give it (retail) up, and find your niche in Apple services. You'll sleep better at night, believe me