Apple has had no "mergers" to speak of. The ones that have happened are trivial relative to its size.
This is some silly bureaucrat. running around with a random hammer looking for a nail. It'll be DOA.
Well we could argue a bit about the competitive impact Apples buy ups have had but that isn’t really a significant issue.
The problem is you have an idiot like E. Warren driving this non sense. The non sense being extremely aggressive break ups of these companies far beyond what is needed. Sadly that same idiot is currently a front runner to run for president for the Democrats. That is absolutely scary if you have any concept at all as to what is involved in running a business.
Im not sure where her gate of tech companies comes from but there has to be a better middle ground to the problem than an extremist approach.
For several decades after the breakup we saw tremendous advances in cellular communications as the baby bells competed with each other.
The "tremendous" advances were from carriers? Really? Can you cite some examples? Or were they from telecom equipment companies (e.g., Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson)?
Also, how do you explain the better coverage, the higher quality, far more data, and the lower telecom prices all over Europe and in countries like Japan and S Korea, where few -- if any -- state-owned telecom champions were broken up?
For several decades after the breakup we saw tremendous advances in cellular communications as the baby bells competed with each other.
The "tremendous" advances were from carriers? Really? Can you cite some examples? Or were they from telecom equipment companies (e.g., Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson)?
Also, how do you explain the better coverage, the higher quality, far more data, and the lower telecom prices all over Europe and in countries like Japan and S Korea, where few -- if any -- state-owned telecom champions were broken up?
As I remember from the time, the biggest issue was that Ma Bell was resisting change. New technologies were in the pipeline, but there was a huge clog at the end. Third party phone manufacturers could not sell their products because Ma Bell would not let you plug it in. That sort of thing. Breaking ip AT&T didn't add any new technologies, competition forced the baby bells to accept new technologies.
For several decades after the breakup we saw tremendous advances in cellular communications as the baby bells competed with each other.
The "tremendous" advances were from carriers? Really? Can you cite some examples? Or were they from telecom equipment companies (e.g., Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson)?
Also, how do you explain the better coverage, the higher quality, far more data, and the lower telecom prices all over Europe and in countries like Japan and S Korea, where few -- if any -- state-owned telecom champions were broken up?
As I remember from the time, the biggest issue was that Ma Bell was resisting change. New technologies were in the pipeline, but there was a huge clog at the end. Third party phone manufacturers could not sell their products because Ma Bell would not let you plug it in. That sort of thing. Breaking ip AT&T didn't add any new technologies, competition forced the baby bells to accept new technologies.
Actually, some people attribute the messy, walled-off standards we ended up with -- e.g., CDMA v. TDMA, GSM v. non-GSM, etc -- to the breakup.
But even if I grant you that competition had a positive impact on adoption of new technologies, I am not sure that addresses the second part of my post.
Ben Thompson of https://stratechery.com has been advocating the idea of restricting acquisitions more rigorously as a way of ensuring continuing competition. Sounds like Mr Simon subscribes to the same school of thought.
Ben Thompson of https://stratechery.com has been advocating the idea of restricting acquisitions more rigorously as a way of ensuring continuing competition. Sounds like Mr Simon subscribes to the same school of thought.
He has a good take on it IMHO. Seems like every startup with a good idea and inventive processes gets bought up by Apple or Google or Facebook before they ever get a chance to prove themselves. Some of those companies might well have become competitive and aggressively inventive entities in their own right if not for being snatched up early on and merged with the hives.
"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joe Simons is open to the idea of breaking apart giant tech firms like Apple by undoing mergers, if it is determined large entities like Facebook are harming competition across the tech industry as a whole by being too dominant. "
Breaking down this sentence - If entities like Facebook (which Apple is not one of) are harming competition then break up Apple. If that truly is what Simons is thinking and not just a misrepresentation through sloppy journalism, that really is a classic example of the woolly thinking of this administration...
Comments
Well we could argue a bit about the competitive impact Apples buy ups have had but that isn’t really a significant issue.
The problem is you have an idiot like E. Warren driving this non sense. The non sense being extremely aggressive break ups of these companies far beyond what is needed. Sadly that same idiot is currently a front runner to run for president for the Democrats. That is absolutely scary if you have any concept at all as to what is involved in running a business.
Im not sure where her gate of tech companies comes from but there has to be a better middle ground to the problem than an extremist approach.
Also, how do you explain the better coverage, the higher quality, far more data, and the lower telecom prices all over Europe and in countries like Japan and S Korea, where few -- if any -- state-owned telecom champions were broken up?
But even if I grant you that competition had a positive impact on adoption of new technologies, I am not sure that addresses the second part of my post.
No! USA Government would never allow that to occur even in your wildest nightmares!
/S
Apple fanboys when AAPL is involved: Full Libertarian