Windows 10 News and info | Forum
August 05, 2020, Loading... *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This is a clean Ad-free Forum and protected by StopForumSpam, Project Honeypot, Botscout and AbuseIPDB | This forum does not use audio ads, popups, or other annoyances. New member registration currently disabled.
  Website   Home   Windows 8 Website GDPR Help Login Register  
By continuing to use the site or forum, you agree to the use of cookies, find out more by reading our GDPR policy.
Pages: [1]
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on YahooShare this topic on Google buzz
Author Topic: Apple's Tim Cook said the strangest thing and I keep wondering why  (Read 93 times)
Hero Member
Online Online

Gender: Male
United States United States

Posts: 31640

I Do Windows

WWW Email
« on: December 13, 2019, 05:13:54 PM »

Apple's CEO seems to think monopolies aren't inherently bad. Now, why would he say that?

Can there be a holy monopoly?
I want to be everything to you. I really do.

I realize, however, that I can't be because I don't know enough about, oh, Marvel movies, coding and the alluiring softness of Allbirds.

So I accept my failings and hope you'll be good with that. I'm not so sure Tim Cook feels the same way.

You see, he just gave an interview to the Nikkei Asian Review in which he said one of those things that sound benign, until you realize what's being said.

Cook was addressing the notion -- promulgated by sniffy regulators -- that Apple's App Store operation doesn't take kindly to, well, anything that competes with Apple.

He offered this philosophical thought: "A monopoly by itself isn't bad if it's not abused."

Neither, I hear you snort, are cocaine and Major League Baseball.

I, though, wanted to ponder the nuances here. Cook apparently insisted Apple isn't a monopoly. Why, then, might he be in favor of benign monopolists? Whom could he have in mind?

I used to think PG&E might be benign until it started to cut off my power while holding dinners and wine tastings. But Cook was presumably talking about big, good corporations as opposed to big, bad ones.

I couldn't help thinking, therefore, about Facebook board member and New Zealand citizenship investor Peter Thiel. A few years ago, he suggested competition just wasn't where it's at. Instead, he mused, creating lasting value ideally ought to involve being a monopoly.

He said: "By 'monopoly,' I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute. Google is a good example of a company that went from 0 to 1: It hasn't competed in search since the early 2000s, when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo!."

It's a painfully tech industry notion that you can be so good at something that no one can defeat you. Why is it, some might wonder, that Facebook is always trying to squish competitors not by being so very good, but by copying what they do?

Then again, I'm not sure Cook would hold up -- Thiel's suggestion -- Google as an example of not-badness. He tends to use it and Facebook as examples of very-heinousness.

This notion of monopoly as a (potentially) good thing began to gnaw at me. After all, the whole notion of market domination is antithetical to the American way of life, even if "The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up On Free Markets" by Thomas Philippon suggests America isn't quite as keen on competition as it used to be.

What, then, could Cook have had in mind? What sort of monopoly could be not bad, if it's not abused?

Oh, I know. He was talking about China. 


Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines

Google visited last this page January 28, 2020, 03:01:52 AM