Report: Ultrabook supplier caves under pressure from Apple

Is Apple throwing its weight around to keep suppliers from dabbling in ultrabooks? Maybe so, at least according to a Commercial Times report quoted by DigiTimes. (The original report is in Chinese.)

Word is that, as a result of pressure from Apple, Pegatron intends to stop producing Zenbook laptops for Asus. If you’ve seen our review, you’ll know the Zenbook family has quite a lot in common with Apple’s MacBook Airs—at least the first-generation models. The Zenbook UX31 has a higher-density display than Apple’s 13-inch MacBook Air, though, and it costs a little less.

DigiTimes says Pegatron, "eager to solicit orders for next-generation iPads," caved under pressure from the Mac maker. Asus will reportedly have to source its Zenbooks from Compal or Wistron going forward. (Fun fact: Pegatron was spun off from Asus back in 2007. If there’s any truth to this latest story, I’d wager Asus is none too pleased.)

In related news, DigiTimes predicts that ultrabook prices will drop by 20-30% starting early next month. The price drop will help clear the way for upcoming second-gen systems based on Intel’s Ivy Bridge processors. By the looks of it, pressure from Apple can’t stop ultrabooks from undercutting the MacBook Air family more and more.

Comments closed
    • trackerben
    • 8 years ago

    Why so much fuss? Supply shaping is standard industrial practice. If one thinks this is poor corporate behavior, then what many companies do in reverse should be worse.

    In the 1980s IBM’s new PC division required Intel to second-source the nascent x86 line to AMD as a supply hedge. This is the equivalent of Apple requiring Pegatron to share manufacturing tradecraft and resources with rival suppliers if it wants to win contracts from Apple. Which is what many complex brands like HP and Asus and Toyota and Airbus and Huawei routinely do.

      • mutarasector
      • 8 years ago

      Bad example. Your ‘reverse’ example is neither applicable, nor the presumptively bad scenario you make it out to be. The net result is a win-win scenario if anything, or in this case a win/win/win (manufacturer, supplier, consumer).

        • trackerben
        • 8 years ago

        That’s right, it is mostly a win-win-win given the viability of the Asian ODM/OEM industry. My point is that the original, lesser case is usually also a (lesser) win-win-win. Unless you see supplier selection dwindling due to consolidation driven by monopoly-seeking rather efficiency-seeking behavior. The key to keeping competition healthy in the long run is in regulating market behaviors just enough to discourage cartelizing. This means a minimum of government intervention or guidance in other than the financial markets.

        Yet Chinese businessmen learn otherwise. They are quietly “expected” by their government to prioritize employment over other inputs in patriotic pursuit of the Fifty-Year Plan. From their leaders’ point of view things are alive and kicking as the second-order level of competition between political patrons and supporters of the contract production sector, among them the usual Foreign Ministry- and Military-centric camps, is as sizzling as ever.

        What you are rightly concerned about is that Apple is achieving monopsonistic leverage in the specification and sourcing of these unassailable categories of digital personal consumption and exchange ecosystems. The issue is global but is seen most in Taiwan and the mainland in terms of employment. Logically it is the Chinese who ought to be more concerned morally and legally as the pressure is most on their turf (employment) as are the possible Western remedies, i.e. Industrial Policy. But they tend to be more sanguine about these matters as the national strategy is first to “build capacities” and competence to world-class levels. Which Apple is nicely helping along with its $Billion of advanced investments in suppliers’ production technologies and plant.

        As China’s own consumer markets mature and market abuses emerge their polity will come to appreciate the principles which are crucial to trustful exchange in modern discourse and commerce. In other respects they are more old-school Western than we in the liberal-democratic West. The contempt which their business and political elites across the straits share for fringe anarchist movements like the Occupy and Arab Spring movements is legendary.

        For now, the government and the various camps of Party patrons believe it more important for big foreign buyers like Apple to keep production channels going so that the brewing mass unemployment and social unrest which is always around the corner in China gets pushed back a little. The authorities will investigate if there is a disastrous loss of jobs and disinvestment. But right now there isn’t.

    • blastdoor
    • 8 years ago

    I love all how all the people suffering from apple derangement syndrome start screaming “antitrust! antitrust!” when Apple has less than 5% of the worldwide PC market.

    You people keep using that word — I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      • Co0kieMonster
      • 8 years ago

      Pegatron is caving under Apple’s pressure because Pegatron wants to be in line to produce iPads – iPads are a huge business. That means Apple is using its dominant position in the tablet space to boost its position in a different space.

      Doesn’t that sound familiar? Like 1990’s familiar? Microsoft used its dominant position in the OS space to boost its position in the browser space.

        • blastdoor
        • 8 years ago

        If you want to combine tablets and laptops (which from Pegatron’s perspective is “the market” because that’s what they make), then Apple still has far less than 50% of the market, which is a far cry from Microsoft in the 1990s.

        Even if you define tablets as its own market (which makes no sense from Pegatron’s perspective), Apple doesn’t have close to Microsoft’s marketshare numbers.

          • mutarasector
          • 8 years ago

          “Even if you define tablets as its own market (which makes no sense from Pegatron’s perspective), Apple doesn’t have close to Microsoft’s marketshare numbers.”

          Yet that is the very argument Apple fanboys love to boast about – that Apple’s iPad is outselling all other tablets >combined<. Therefore, by that perspective (regardless of Pegatron’s), Apple does indeed have a monopoly. The fact that Apple currently holds that monopoly is not in question, nor is it even illegal. To use that monopoly to restrict competition in a closely related market is still unfairly asserting market dominance thus restricting supply chain side free trade, and hence illegal.

          Between this and its well document patent trollery, Apple should get smacked down in court over this.

      • mutarasector
      • 8 years ago

      “I love all how all the people suffering from apple derangement syndrome start screaming “antitrust! antitrust!” when Apple has less than 5% of the worldwide PC market.”

      [ADS]”Bbbbut” [/ADS]… iPads ARE PCs, and are cannibalizing desktop PCs in this post-PC era (at least according to Jobs before he died, and outfits such as Canalys, not to mention the fangurls), no? This seems to indicate Apple has far more than a mere 5% worldwide market share. @5%, You’re transposing OS X based platform PC market share with iOS PC market share which gives an appearance of being disingenuous.

    • End User
    • 8 years ago

    The tech blogs have jumped on this story yet the original article does not list a source for this information:

    [url<]http://news.chinatimes.com/tech/171706/122012021300277.html[/url<]

    • ludi
    • 8 years ago

    Classic Walmart move, if true. Now wait until Pegatron discovers that the price of dealing with Apple is that your margins are suddenly and arbitrarily cut in a subsequent order, upon which you can either cave, or walk away to other customers such as…whoops, didn’t you just burn one of your other good customers when you switched to Apple?

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Amusing. So the Asus spin-off company is told to choose between Asus and Apple… and it chooses Apple. I suppose that’ll work out when Asus wants to keep manufacturing similar ultrabooks to Apple because they’ve still got their spin-off company in the thick of things getting the designs.

    Then (wink, wink) it’ll be strange how Asus always seems to show up with devices similar to the ones being manufactured by Pegatron for Apple.

    You keep your friends close, but your enemies…

      • entropy13
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]You keep your friends close, but your enemies...[/quote<] ...somewhere far? Outside? IN SPACE?

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      Get that tin foil off your head!

    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    Where’s my Zacate ‘ultrabook’?

    I want a solid aluminium super-netbook that doesn’t come burdened with Intels stupidly imbalanced CPU’s that struggle monumentally at anything involving 3D.

    The only thing that needs CPU power these days is 3D aplications, and a Zacate is almost as good as an HD2000 in those cases, yet only a quarter the price.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      OK, Statements you just made:

      1. Zacate is an amazingly “balanced” product.
      2. Everything Intel makes sucks at 3D (which is about the only half-way rational thing you said).
      3. Zacate is almost as good as Intel’s low-end 2000 series graphics (true statement BTW).
      4. Therefore Zacate is amazing….. ????

      I hate to break it to you, but while Zacate has a better GPU than an Atom, you won’t save very much getting a high-end ultrabook with Zacate in it. The real reason Ultrabooks cost so much isn’t because they include chips from Big Bad Intel, it’s because of all the expense put into to designing the case, LCD, batteries, cooling, etc. etc. to be incredibly light and thin. Slapping a Zacate in there might take $100 off the price, but it still won’t be that $299 “Ultrabook” that you think it will be.

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        i’d be happy to save 100$ and get a zacate ultrabook. Actually, I’d love it. AND if you recall, a report came out that oem’s were crying because intel’s cpu’s were too expensive, and they listed them as the SINGLE most expensive part. I’m not saying it would be 299, but probably could come in at $499-$599. I’d pay that. well, i’d pay it if i had it. that being said, sandy bridge has a pretty good gpu, but i don’t need insane cpu performance, so i’d rather save a few hundred dollars and get zacate.

        • Airmantharp
        • 8 years ago

        For Chrispy_ et al., Intel’s HD3000 can play games, seriously.

        I have a CFX HD6950 2GB setup on my desktop, yet I still don’t hesitate to game on my HD3000-equipped laptop when the situation warrants it.

          • Chrispy_
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, I would never play any serious games even on a Zacate, though I appreciate that Intel’s HD2000 and HD3000 graphics at least *run* most games nowadays.

          What I want is AMD or Nvidia drivers. Functional 3D drivers are the most important feature for me. Rhino isn’t ideal on intel HD graphics. Microstation is practically unusable.

        • Chrispy_
        • 8 years ago

        At what point did I say I wanted a $299 ultrabook? You’re making assumptions about my opinion which is the fastest way to make an ass of yourself.

        I want a high quality physical build, decent keyboard and screen, powered by a capable zacate processor. If that costs $600, fine. You get what you pay for and I don’t WANT cheap. I also don’t WANT intel graphics. Is that really too much to ask?

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Good trolling. +1

        • Sunburn74
        • 8 years ago

        Not really when you consider the resolutions you’ll be using with most ultrabooks. You’ll still be able to crank out 30fps depending on the game and settings with the latest intel graphics.

      • Visigoth
      • 8 years ago

      Go away, AMD troll.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    Oh, look, DigiTimes.

    • Silus
    • 8 years ago

    Hey look, Apple trying to win over the competition, by not competing with new products, but rather conducting monopolistic and illegal tactics…

    No that can’t be!

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      It doesn’t hurt that they have the best ultrabook on the market [i<]right now[/i<], so there's not much competition to stifle at the moment. I'd bet that they are worried about the future. They must know more than we know about future competing ultrabooks. So, if anything, Apple is probably trying to stifle [i<]future[/i<] production so they can get their next Macbook Air out before Ivy Bridge ultrabook manufacturers can ramp up production. I look forward to seeing the products that Apple is trying to keep quiet.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        “It doesn’t hurt that they have the best ultrabook on the market right now,”

        I would really contest this notion. The mac book air has been as slim on profile as it has on utility for a long time. Quality netbooks took a good bite out of that market for a reason now their own Ipad does the same. The macbook air is not a well rounded or competitive product, never has been, (and without major revisions) never will be. If ultra books prove they can offer a good aesthetic and actual utility at a lower price point the macbook air will be nothing but a foot note in history going forward.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 8 years ago

          Apples to oranges, stop embarrassing yourself.

          When someone says “Best Ultrabook”, they are comparing [b<]ultrabooks to ultrabooks[/b<], not ultrabooks to tablets or netbooks or giraffes. We are comparing the Macbook Air, Zenbooks, Ideapad U300s, Aspire S3, Folio 13, and the Portege Z835 against each other. And among all of these laptops, the Macbook Air is easily the best. All the others have shitty trackpads or poor battery life or shitty screens (or all three). Also, I really don't understand why you mentioned performance. All ultrabooks use about the same internals. Some have SSDs and some don't, but the CPUs and GPUs are nearly identical. I feel like you may just be confused about the current crop of ultrabooks.

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      How is it monopolistic to say to someone ‘you can either stop dealing with them, or we’ll take our business elsewhere. Apple can’t FORCE them to do it, but Pegatron can decide that its in their best interest to drop Asus as a client if Apple decides to move to a different manufacturer.

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        You know, what you just said is exactly WHY it’s called monopolistic and also what the article says at the beginning about “Apple throwing its weight around”. It’s what monopolies do, they throw their weight around to keep everyone on their side, or else…

          • Palek
          • 8 years ago

          We’re not even talking about standard supply chains here, we’re talking about contract manufacturing. Apple is not even the biggest client for OEMs, let alone a dominant one. Pegatron can make computers for Asus if they don’t like Apple’s terms. How is this a monopoly?

            • mutarasector
            • 8 years ago

            This reasoning sounds a bit flawed. It’s not so much an issue of pure monopolism as it is _anti-competitive_ because of its market dominance restrictive actions on free trade. Intel got called on it by AMD and Nvidia because they were about to hand Intel it’s arse in courts both here and abroad, and look what (nearly) happened to Microsoft until Ashcroft eased up on them with a slap on the wrist.

        • xeridea
        • 8 years ago

        If you get a lot more business dealing with Apple, it is forcing you to choose them as the lesser evil to your bottom line. Especially for small manufacturers.

        Intel and Apple are similar in this reguard. They told OEM computer makers to not sell AMD. Intel new their chips sucked royally, and didn’t want the world to know this, so they forced computer makers to not use AMD, so they could keep their dominant marketshare, not through superiority, but through stifling competition, and in the long run, severely limiting AMDs ability to be a competitor with 1/8 marketshare. Hard to keep up with the bleeding edge CPUs if you have limited R&D and manufacturing. AMD had better chips back in the day, Intel didn’t like this so they forced others to not buy AMD.

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        you aware of the whole intel AT suit? that’ what they did…. and paid billions for it…

          • Corrado
          • 8 years ago

          Thats completely different. Intel told OEMs “We won’t sell CPUs to you at a competitive rate unless you don’t use AMD.” Apple is saying “We won’t PAY YOU to do things for us unless you drop Asus as a client.” The situation is reversed here. This is like HP saying to Intel “If you don’t stop selling to Dell, we won’t buy your chips.” If Intel thought that HP was worth it, they’d tell Dell to pound sand. I know thats a silly thing, but thats what this is equivalent of. You’ve got the roles reversed trying to compare it to Intel.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Apple is saying "We won't PAY YOU to do things for us unless you drop Asus as a client."[/quote<] This is called abusing your dominant position in the market. They have no right to tell Pegatron who they can or cannot do business with. They could simply [i<]not go with Pegatron[/i<] because of it, but even that's a stretch -- because, essentially, it amounts to Apple being butthurt that [i<]other companies compete with them[/i<]. I mean, that's been their modus operandi since the late 1980's, but that still doesn't make it right. ASUS is allowed to compete. ASUS is allowed to make similar products as Apple, as they compete in the same market. The Zenbook isn't anything like the MacBook Air, and Apple fully knows that they can't pull a Samsung on ASUS and litigate them away -- so they're just abusing their dominant position to push ASUS around. They [i<]should[/i<] lose customers over this, but people who want iThings usually don't read tech industry news and have no idea that this happened, so Apple will continue to rake in the profits and they'll do it again.

    • My Johnson
    • 8 years ago

    Not enough information to determine what sort of deal is being forged. But Apple is very focused on its supply chain and I would guess that pressure on Pegatron to dedicate its manufacturing may be getting misconstrued.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      I think you’re probably on to something.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 8 years ago

    Didn’t Intel get into a lot of trouble by “pressuring” companies as well?

    EDIT: LocalCitizen, you beat me to the punch by 3 minutes (I grabbed breakfast while I was still writing).

      • LocalCitizen
      • 8 years ago

      just lucky there.

      read TR with morning coffee, before run off for work. good start of your day.

    • LocalCitizen
    • 8 years ago

    if that’s not abusing market dominant position, i don’t know what is.

      • Palek
      • 8 years ago

      Apple does not even register in the top five of the computer industry, so it’s hard to argue the dominant position part. Additionally, Pegatron is just one of about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laptop_brands_and_manufacturers#ODM_Laptop_Units_sold_and_Market_Shares<]eight major computer OEMs[/url<] and is not even a top 3 player. Asus has other suppliers to choose from, and Pegatron was free to walk away from the Apple deal if they had wanted to keep Asus as a customer.

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        while that’s true, it’s still a dick move.

          • Palek
          • 8 years ago

          How so? Would you continue giving business to a supplier who also makes products for one of your direct competitors, when the competitor’s products look so similar as to suggest that some of your design know-how might have even “migrated” over?

            • dmjifn
            • 8 years ago

            If you were an auto manufacturer, would you continue giving business to Firestone for tires on your cars when they make tires for other manufacturer’s cars? Even when some of the customizations your engineers put together with Firestone’s engineers might “migrate” over?

            It’s not like Pegatron competes with Apple. In fact, you’d think the more similar final products they put together, the better they’d be at it, rewarding them and Apple. You can argue propriety and protection of intellectual property but this is probably a maneuver designed to hamper Asus more than either.

            • Palek
            • 8 years ago

            Err, that is what I was getting at: Apple know-how “accidentally” passing to Asus by way of Pegatron.

            • helix
            • 8 years ago

            If that was the case then why would Intel have to spend hundreds of millions to cattle-prod OEM:s into making ultrabooks.

            Also, it might well be that Pegatron don’t have an infinite capacity and the ipad job needed similar tools as the Zenbooks. I would expect an ipad order to be much higher volume than Zenbook.

            • Palek
            • 8 years ago

            Look, I obviously have no access to intimate details, but the article suggested that Apple specifically wanted Pegatron to stop producing Zenbooks for Asus. Zenbooks compete with Macs, and according to Cyril the Zenbooks were very similar to Apple products. It’s not a huge leap of logic to assume Apple made this move to stop their know-how from spilling over to their competitors. There are probably all kinds of tricks and techniques Apple (well, their OEM) uses to add polish to their products. It’s all the little touches that, when added together, take a product to a different level.

            As for the intel/ultrabook bit: have you [b<]seen[/b<] laptops prior to the ultrabook push? Who aside from maybe Sony and Panasonic could compete with the design prowess of Apple? PC manufacturers needed all the help they could get.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            BS.

            If Apple thought this would be design copyright violation, they would sue Asus/Pegatron. They don’t sue, because they know they don’t have a case.

            Instead, they start using their dominant market position (>90% of high-priced ‘ultrathin’ market) to try to force out an emerging competitor because having Ultrabooks out there could impact Apple profits and margins.

            This is nothing but an anti-competitive move by Apple, and Asus should sue.

            • Palek
            • 8 years ago

            I’m no expert on design related litigation (or any kind of litigation) but I imagine it would be pretty hard to prove something like this conclusively and irrefutably.

            I understand everyone’s viewpoint that Apple’s move appears rather underhanded, but there are plenty of other contract manufacturers in Taiwan and elsewhere, so Asus has not been forced out of the market. There are lots of other OEMs eager to accept their business, I’m sure.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            AMD sued Intel successfully for similar reasons and rightfully so.

            Intel goes to Asus, “produce an AMD motherboard and we won’t provide you with chipsets.”
            Intel also made offers to OEM’s whereby an OEM planning on selling 90% Intel product and 10% AMD, Intel would offer for free an additional 10% of product so the OEM wouldn’t buy any AMD product.

            Apple is leveraging it’s market position to stifle competition the same way Intel is, you claiming that someone else can do the work for Asus is hypocritical to the extreme.

            Apple buys parts they don’t build them, they tried and it almost killed the company.

            • dmjifn
            • 8 years ago

            Which I think is a legit concern if Pegatron is making the Macbook Air, even though Asus could merely buy 100 an reverse engineer anyway. Apple’s physical designs are a competitive advantage, and if they’re unique I could see them wanting to protect even the manufacturing lines if Pegatron could say “Hey, Asus – we can do your Zenbook cheaper /because/ we’re tooled up for the Macbook already.”

            But, AFAIK, Foxconn makes macbooks and Pegatron only iPhones and iPads? And even then doesn’t “make” merely mean “assemble, test, package” in this case?

            • mutarasector
            • 8 years ago

            “If you were an auto manufacturer, would you continue giving business to Firestone for tires on your cars when they make tires for other manufacturer’s cars? ”

            Bad example. Auto manufacturers often do exactly that… give their business to supply chain parts vendors who also do business with their competitors. Happens every day…

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Would someone (Intel) continue giving business to a OEM (Dell) who also uses parts from your direct competitor (AMD)?

            Would it be OK for that someone (Intel) to say to an OEM (Dell) that they won’t get business if they don’t stop doing business with the direct competitor (AMD)?

            -E- Double Standard Overflow, return code -666

            • Palek
            • 8 years ago

            Does Apple have 80% market share? Are they forcing multiple suppliers to stop serving their other customers? Nope.

            [EDIT]Argh, wrong reply for second paragraph.[/EDIT]

            • blastdoor
            • 8 years ago

            It’s the 80% marketshare part that’s key and that those stricken with Apple Derangement Syndrome will never comprehend.

          • End User
          • 8 years ago

          Can you confirm that Apple has done this?

        • LocalCitizen
        • 8 years ago

        What do you mean not dominant? Apple has 12.9% of US market in Q3 ’11 and growing fast. That’s excluding the iPad. It’s #1 or #2 of smartphone makers. It totally dominates the pad market, which is the factor influenced Pegatron. Like you’ve pointed out, Pegatron is a little guy, which makes the abuse more obvious.
        It will cost Asus money to switch makers. With reduced competition, the new maker is more likely to charge more (especially now it knows Pegatron is not competing). In any case, Asus will pay more, and it’s caused by Apple using it’s size to hurt competition.
        It’s very similar to what Intel did to AMD not long ago thru Dell or HP or Lenovo.

          • Decelerate
          • 8 years ago

          I believe that Intel had a bit more than 12.9% market share back when it played against AMD. And Intel did this to ALL manufacturers at the same time.

          Not saying Apple’s white as snow, but something in this news seems fishy and/or inconclusive.

            • mcnabney
            • 8 years ago

            Localcitizen was probably talking about Intel compeling HP and Dell to NOT purchase AMD chips at a time when AMD chips were pounding Intel in performance. Perhaps if AMD had those markets at the time the extra money they made would have allowed them to develop better products and NOT be outclassed by Intel as they are now. That is EXACTLY how a near monopoly can manipulate and control their market.

            • Decelerate
            • 8 years ago

            HP and Dell had more than 12.9% market share. Intel already had more than 12.9% market share.

            Apple wrestling Universal, EMI, and/or Sony to *not* sell music to Wallmart is abusive monopoly.

            This situation is more questionable.

          • Palek
          • 8 years ago

          First, the US market may be still be the single most important market, but you cannot just look at US numbers anymore. There is a world outside North America with a whole lot more than 300 million people. You also seem to suggest that Apple is hurting tablet competition here, when really Asus “only” lost its Zenbook manufacturer. The potential damage is much more limited than you imply.

          Suppliers compete for contracts, and the buyers get to dictate terms, however “unfair” those terms may seem – as long as there’s no actual foul play involved, of course. It’s really all business as usual.

          You may think this is some rare incident. The truth is that Apple simply receives a whole lot more media attention than any other business due to its celebrity status; in reality suppliers in all sorts of industries face choices similar to Pegatron’s. There is a risk involved in playing two or more fiercely competitive rival companies and it’s naive to expect to hold on to the business of all your clients unless you have some very special sauce to sell.

          It may be tempting to compare this situation to the Intel versus AMD fiasco, but that was a whole different ball game. For one thing, intel and AMD were suppliers. Further, they were the only two suppliers of a key computer component, and intel had dominant market share. intel used its position to squeeze its only competitor out of key contracts, severely damaging AMD’s ability to conduct business and limiting consumer choice, thus also hurting end customers.

          In the Apple/Pegatron/Asus case, Apple is the client, not the supplier. That alone makes this case completely different. Next, Apple is just one client in a highly competitive market with a wide variety of clients and suppliers. If Apple was the dominant one of only two or three computer companies in the world and Pegatron was the sole supplier of a key component, then the environment would be ripe for a similar situation to present itself. We are so far from that, though, that it is not appropriate to draw parallels, I think.

            • grantmeaname
            • 8 years ago

            Apple is the second biggest company in the world. It’s a major player, period.

            • Palek
            • 8 years ago

            Major player: yes. Dominant: I don’ think so.

            1. They had a good run with the iPhone but Samsung and the rest are catching up quick.
            2. Their computer/notebook share dominates a niche, the $1,000 plus market, but they are practically non-existent outside that niche, and their share is negligible outside the “developed” world. They are not even in the top 5 of the computer industry.
            3. The iPad had a very good run similarly to the iPhone but, once again, other makers are becoming more and more competitive here as well.

            All the media attention given to them inflates Apple’s position. Their dominance is in mindshare, if anything.

            (The one market where Apple may still be dominant is digital music distribution, but content does not belong in this thread.)

            • mutarasector
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]You may think this is some rare incident. The truth is that Apple simply receives a whole lot more media attention than any other business due to its celebrity status...[/quote<] I realize this is not an industry rarity, but the the latter half of your reasoning doesn't quite wash. Apple is not some "poor little rich girl" celebrity 'target', either. It's no secret Apple is tough on >all< of its supply chain/manufacturing partners. Its not that big of a stretch to believe they constantly step over the line. Everything about Apple smacks of communistic corporate mentality sponging off of selectively applied capitalism, much like the very country Apple (amongst many others) seeks to move into, employs more people in than here, and has an an ever growing allegiance to.

      • TurtlePerson2
      • 8 years ago

      I’m pretty sure that telling a company not to do business with someone else in order to keep your business is a piece of smoking gun evidence in an anti-trust case.

      • blastdoor
      • 8 years ago

      then you don’t know what is.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This