6 ms·

Is there a model anywhere for this having been tried, successfully or otherwise? The obvious hesitation I have is just that some companies really do benefit fr

Is there a model anywhere for this having been tried, successfully or otherwise? The obvious hesitation I have is just that some companies really do benefit from a lot of vertical integration. Could Apple be Apple if they were forced to spin off the phone business, or the chip design house, or the OS? What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting bought by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit? How would regulators enforce that the split off entities were truly independent vs faking it and then having exclusivity deals that meant they were basically still the same singular entity?

dmbche 3y ago
Should Apple exist in it's current form? If it weren't, the things that are integrated become available for others - meaning better products for all, no? What's the societal benefit of integrating all these advances in single companies?
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Not so much because then, for example, you become Qualcomm and have 50 different customers all asking for different things from your chips and you reach a local optimum where you solve everyone’s issue a little bit but don’t actually do a good job. There’s a reason that Apple’s chips are so much better in terms of performance and energy efficiency. Similarly, it’s why Apple did the W1 first and it took a very long time before any competitor figured out how to do the same thing. And you’ll see the same with VR where FB will struggle to make HW with comparable specs while Apple’s chip gives their SW a leg up. TLDR: it’s complex, but successful vertical businesses have fairly different products, efficiencies, and outcomes.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    Thank you for the answer! My first thought is that the "apple Qualcomm" that would come out would have incentives to make better chips without needing to also sell phones (competing with other chip manufacturers) but I can understand that the chip industry is very costly and risky, I can see how without integration they can't compete with any current player - too expensive and risky.
  - bogwog 3y ago
    Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is a monopolist, and thus doesn’t need to actually compete. The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass kicked. Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that off, but that’s only because Apple themselves are a monopolist with the market power to fight another monopolist. That’s not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn’t more monopolies. A much smaller company than Apple could have theoretically created a better processor than Qualcomm, but it just couldn’t happen due to multiple anti-competitive factors. Like how Qualcomm has a patent portfolio that gives them a monopoly on 4G modems, and can use that to force companies to purchase other components from them if they want a modem. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips-smartphones-phones-patents-monopoly-court/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips...
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed to monopolize their own products. There is no iPhone market - that’s a product within a huge market of other mobile devices that anyone can join.
      - bogwog 3y ago
        These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind of truth. And if I’m completely wrong about you, then I apologize. My patience for these internet arguments isn’t what it used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt thousands of comments on this website about that topic. Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and you’ll find the right answers.
- kylehotchkiss 3y ago
  Substantially less opportunities for your private data to be hacked and leaked all over the web. I think Apple’s long term privacy and e2ee pushes and googles recent attempts at the same would not exist across a pile of medium sized companies. iCloud Photos leaking would continue to be a thing.
ehnto 3y ago
> What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting bought by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit? I guess going public would be the move realistically. I would prefer to see a shift toward startups aiming for solvency though, which I believe would make better companies. Companies that fit a role in society better. Free market capitalism isn't really happening if consumers aren't paying for anything and the money rains in from the VC heavens instead.

dmbche 3y ago

Should Apple exist in it's current form? If it weren't, the things that are integrated become available for others - meaning better products for all, no? What's the societal benefit of integrating all these advances in single companies?

vlovich123 3y ago
Not so much because then, for example, you become Qualcomm and have 50 different customers all asking for different things from your chips and you reach a local optimum where you solve everyone’s issue a little bit but don’t actually do a good job. There’s a reason that Apple’s chips are so much better in terms of performance and energy efficiency. Similarly, it’s why Apple did the W1 first and it took a very long time before any competitor figured out how to do the same thing. And you’ll see the same with VR where FB will struggle to make HW with comparable specs while Apple’s chip gives their SW a leg up. TLDR: it’s complex, but successful vertical businesses have fairly different products, efficiencies, and outcomes.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Thank you for the answer! My first thought is that the "apple Qualcomm" that would come out would have incentives to make better chips without needing to also sell phones (competing with other chip manufacturers) but I can understand that the chip industry is very costly and risky, I can see how without integration they can't compete with any current player - too expensive and risky.
- bogwog 3y ago
  Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is a monopolist, and thus doesn’t need to actually compete. The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass kicked. Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that off, but that’s only because Apple themselves are a monopolist with the market power to fight another monopolist. That’s not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn’t more monopolies. A much smaller company than Apple could have theoretically created a better processor than Qualcomm, but it just couldn’t happen due to multiple anti-competitive factors. Like how Qualcomm has a patent portfolio that gives them a monopoly on 4G modems, and can use that to force companies to purchase other components from them if they want a modem. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips-smartphones-phones-patents-monopoly-court/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-us-ftc-apple-chips...
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed to monopolize their own products. There is no iPhone market - that’s a product within a huge market of other mobile devices that anyone can join.
    - bogwog 3y ago
      These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind of truth. And if I’m completely wrong about you, then I apologize. My patience for these internet arguments isn’t what it used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt thousands of comments on this website about that topic. Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and you’ll find the right answers.
kylehotchkiss 3y ago
Substantially less opportunities for your private data to be hacked and leaked all over the web. I think Apple’s long term privacy and e2ee pushes and googles recent attempts at the same would not exist across a pile of medium sized companies. iCloud Photos leaking would continue to be a thing.

ehnto 3y ago

> What would it mean for the startup ecosystem if getting bought by a conglomerate was a less plausible exit? I guess going public would be the move realistically. I would prefer to see a shift toward startups aiming for solvency though, which I believe would make better companies. Companies that fit a role in society better. Free market capitalism isn't really happening if consumers aren't paying for anything and the money rains in from the VC heavens instead.