4 ms·

Invisible hand? Yeah maybe when you're early-stage Capitalism, in late-stage it's all about the invisible knife.

by omot 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago
This is ironic considering that Apple displaced the former unstoppable phone monopoly. Never mind that Walmart displaced the former unstoppable Sears monopoly, and Amazon did the same to Walmart. IBM which people predicted was unstoppable, was going to rule the world. IBM's descent into irrelevance (I B What?) has been profound. The only interesting thing is people still insist that this time it's gonna be different.
- spankalee 5y ago
  Which phone monopoly?
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  What phone monopoly did Apple disrupt? Nokia? Symbian? Java mobile? Palm? Blackberry?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    AT&T
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      With the help of the FCC (1968 Carterphone) and US Justice (1974 US v ATT), no? If Apple (and IBM) had been banned from communicating through long distance lines, except with ATT's permission, then it's hard to see how Western Electric (aka ATT) wouldn't have taxed all the nascent PC companies and retained enough profits to remain larger. Edit: And on the later, iPhone side, that was the luck of power dynamics (single strong device manufacturer, bargaining against multiple competing cellular providers) coupled with phone company executive shortsightedness. If the cell phone industry has been less diverse (e.g. original ATT above), nobody would have felt the need to grant Apple any concessions.
    - lokalfarm 5y ago
      Do you have more information about how Apple disrupted Ma Bell? It is also worth noting that the iPhone was originally released as an AT&T exclusive...
      - ksec 5y ago
        >It is also worth noting that the iPhone was originally released as an AT&T exclusive The deal was done with Cingular ( Later acquired and merged with AT&T ). Neither AT&T and Verizon wants to deal with Apple at the time.
  - acdha 5y ago
    The phone carriers. They charged a fortune for data, restricted useful features on your phone (I remember one model which wouldn't play non-DRMed music because they wanted to boost their revenue), and things like mobile apps were held back by the way the carriers would look at your finances and decide how much to charge just for the privilege of being listed. When Qualcomm was getting started with BREW we looked into it for a few customers but even a modest business would get something like the _MINIMUM_ $50k listing fee for each carrier, adjusted up based on your perceived ability to pay, and they wanted more than 30% of the app pricing, too.
    - lokalfarm 5y ago
      How did Apple change any of this? (Genuine question - I am not well versed in cellular network technologies or their history, but I would love to read about how Apple led to improvements in the US infrastructure.)
      - mdorazio 5y ago
        There's a decent (though high level) explanation here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/07/04/how-iphone-changed-telecommunications-industry/103154146/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/07/04/how-ipho... It's actually kind of hard to articulate how bad things were in the early-mid 2000s with respect to carriers all trying to push their own garbage and monetize absolutely everything possible.
        lokalfarm 5y ago
        Thank you for linking the article. I purchased my first cellphone in 2004 so I experienced the era, but I've never used AT&T or an iPhone, so this is all news to me. I also was a late adopter of 'smartphones' and didn't purchase one until 2013 so take my experiences with a grain of salt. (I also visited Japan in '04 and remember being blown away by their phone technology - "large" color screens!)
      - acdha 5y ago
        It wasn't on the network side but rather the business side, where Apple had an unexpected amount of leverage due to its popularity: the iPod was incredibly popular — not just selling well but being a prestige item with an outsized cultural impact — and AT&T was eager enough to get the iPhone that they were willing to give up a significant amount of control over the device and its data plans. Previously, the U.S. carriers were basically king-makers selecting which devices were available for sale and what features were enabled on them — to the point where I knew a couple of people who imported phones from Europe to get something which either wasn't available from a U.S. carrier or was restricted to one they didn't wish to be a customer of for some reason (e.g. poor coverage), and it wasn't uncommon to hear about people reflashing phone firmware to remove things like the carrier's wallpaper or preinstalled apps which the user was prevented from deleting. I refreshed a phone simply to change the audio codec settings because Cingular had restricted it to the lowest-bitrate which was painfully garbled.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  It’s not helpful to say it’s inevitable if no timeline is given. If it won’t happen for 30 years, there is little point in talking about it right now. Though looking at history, when one of these tech giants do fall, a lot of people who were saying it would happen will act like prophets. Especially funny because the downfall of Facebook has been predicted for a decade now. Since Friendster and MySpace each did not last that long.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Who has been proven wrong are all the pundits who proclaimed their monopolies were unstoppable. Other giant companies have fallen as well. RCA, Xerox, GE, Kodak, on and on. The reasons are well known. They become bureaucratic, wasteful and ossified, and become unable to adapt to a changing marketplace. I've seen this play out again and again and again in my lifetime.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      Which sort of pundits? You said "pundits...their monopolies". Are you referring to people with a vested interest in the companies/monopolies? If so, that makes sense. They have no reason not to say that, whether they believe it or not. Yes you're right. However on HN and similar tech/geek areas, the common theme regarding FB for a decade now has been direct or indirect implying of its coming demise. Which was what I was saying in my comment. Those people are not correct. It is being said in this thread and other recent threads too. If FB is still a $5-600B+ company in 2025, then these recent comments are also not correct. Which is to say, it's hard to imagine FB dropping lower than the ~11th biggest US company and ~15th biggest worldwide[0] company at a $600B market cap in 2025. A valuation they did not cross until May 2020. [0] Right now they are 8th in the US and world. Top 5 for earnings. Usually 5th-6th.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I've been online on tech groups for 40 years. It's always the same thing - the current crop of tech companies are unstoppable monopolies.

Invisible hand? Yeah maybe when you're early-stage Capitalism, in late-stage it's all about the invisible knife.

by omot 5y ago

Invisible hand? Yeah maybe when you're early-stage Capitalism, in late-stage it's all about the invisible knife.

This is ironic considering that Apple displaced the former unstoppable phone monopoly. Never mind that Walmart displaced the former unstoppable Sears monopoly, and Amazon did the same to Walmart. IBM which people predicted was unstoppable, was going to rule the world. IBM's descent into irrelevance (I B What?) has been profound. The only interesting thing is people still insist that this time it's gonna be different.

spankalee 5y ago
Which phone monopoly?
paulryanrogers 5y ago
What phone monopoly did Apple disrupt? Nokia? Symbian? Java mobile? Palm? Blackberry?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  AT&T
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    With the help of the FCC (1968 Carterphone) and US Justice (1974 US v ATT), no? If Apple (and IBM) had been banned from communicating through long distance lines, except with ATT's permission, then it's hard to see how Western Electric (aka ATT) wouldn't have taxed all the nascent PC companies and retained enough profits to remain larger. Edit: And on the later, iPhone side, that was the luck of power dynamics (single strong device manufacturer, bargaining against multiple competing cellular providers) coupled with phone company executive shortsightedness. If the cell phone industry has been less diverse (e.g. original ATT above), nobody would have felt the need to grant Apple any concessions.
  - lokalfarm 5y ago
    Do you have more information about how Apple disrupted Ma Bell? It is also worth noting that the iPhone was originally released as an AT&T exclusive...
    - ksec 5y ago
      >It is also worth noting that the iPhone was originally released as an AT&T exclusive The deal was done with Cingular ( Later acquired and merged with AT&T ). Neither AT&T and Verizon wants to deal with Apple at the time.
- acdha 5y ago
  The phone carriers. They charged a fortune for data, restricted useful features on your phone (I remember one model which wouldn't play non-DRMed music because they wanted to boost their revenue), and things like mobile apps were held back by the way the carriers would look at your finances and decide how much to charge just for the privilege of being listed. When Qualcomm was getting started with BREW we looked into it for a few customers but even a modest business would get something like the _MINIMUM_ $50k listing fee for each carrier, adjusted up based on your perceived ability to pay, and they wanted more than 30% of the app pricing, too.
  - lokalfarm 5y ago
    How did Apple change any of this? (Genuine question - I am not well versed in cellular network technologies or their history, but I would love to read about how Apple led to improvements in the US infrastructure.)
    - mdorazio 5y ago
      There's a decent (though high level) explanation here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/07/04/how-iphone-changed-telecommunications-industry/103154146/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/07/04/how-ipho... It's actually kind of hard to articulate how bad things were in the early-mid 2000s with respect to carriers all trying to push their own garbage and monetize absolutely everything possible.
      - lokalfarm 5y ago
        Thank you for linking the article. I purchased my first cellphone in 2004 so I experienced the era, but I've never used AT&T or an iPhone, so this is all news to me. I also was a late adopter of 'smartphones' and didn't purchase one until 2013 so take my experiences with a grain of salt. (I also visited Japan in '04 and remember being blown away by their phone technology - "large" color screens!)
    - acdha 5y ago
      It wasn't on the network side but rather the business side, where Apple had an unexpected amount of leverage due to its popularity: the iPod was incredibly popular — not just selling well but being a prestige item with an outsized cultural impact — and AT&T was eager enough to get the iPhone that they were willing to give up a significant amount of control over the device and its data plans. Previously, the U.S. carriers were basically king-makers selecting which devices were available for sale and what features were enabled on them — to the point where I knew a couple of people who imported phones from Europe to get something which either wasn't available from a U.S. carrier or was restricted to one they didn't wish to be a customer of for some reason (e.g. poor coverage), and it wasn't uncommon to hear about people reflashing phone firmware to remove things like the carrier's wallpaper or preinstalled apps which the user was prevented from deleting. I refreshed a phone simply to change the audio codec settings because Cingular had restricted it to the lowest-bitrate which was painfully garbled.
skinnymuch 5y ago
It’s not helpful to say it’s inevitable if no timeline is given. If it won’t happen for 30 years, there is little point in talking about it right now. Though looking at history, when one of these tech giants do fall, a lot of people who were saying it would happen will act like prophets. Especially funny because the downfall of Facebook has been predicted for a decade now. Since Friendster and MySpace each did not last that long.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Who has been proven wrong are all the pundits who proclaimed their monopolies were unstoppable. Other giant companies have fallen as well. RCA, Xerox, GE, Kodak, on and on. The reasons are well known. They become bureaucratic, wasteful and ossified, and become unable to adapt to a changing marketplace. I've seen this play out again and again and again in my lifetime.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Which sort of pundits? You said "pundits...their monopolies". Are you referring to people with a vested interest in the companies/monopolies? If so, that makes sense. They have no reason not to say that, whether they believe it or not. Yes you're right. However on HN and similar tech/geek areas, the common theme regarding FB for a decade now has been direct or indirect implying of its coming demise. Which was what I was saying in my comment. Those people are not correct. It is being said in this thread and other recent threads too. If FB is still a $5-600B+ company in 2025, then these recent comments are also not correct. Which is to say, it's hard to imagine FB dropping lower than the ~11th biggest US company and ~15th biggest worldwide[0] company at a $600B market cap in 2025. A valuation they did not cross until May 2020. [0] Right now they are 8th in the US and world. Top 5 for earnings. Usually 5th-6th.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I've been online on tech groups for 40 years. It's always the same thing - the current crop of tech companies are unstoppable monopolies.