4 ms·

You mean they hobbled poor little competitors like Google, Adobe, and the other tech companies that agreed to it? Apple was actually one of the smaller companie

You mean they hobbled poor little competitors like Google, Adobe, and the other tech companies that agreed to it? Apple was actually one of the smaller companies at the time. How is all Apple’s fault? And are you really saying that the iPhone wouldn’t have happened if Apple hadn’t gotten into these agreements? In your alternate universe would Nokia or Rim (who wasn’t involved in the agreement) still been relevant?

Teever 1y ago
No, they hobbled the competitors that their staff could have formed if they had made more money to do so. That collusion between these big companies to deny their employees a wage driven by free markets allowed those companies to accrue wealth and prevent competition from forming. That's terrible for their employees, that's terrible for the consumer.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  How did their collusion stop a new company from offering more money than the depressed wages that the collusion was causing? Alternatively, if hypothetically without the collusion do you think the upper wage pressure would I have materially affected those companies bottom lines to not create the products that made them profitable?
  - Teever 1y ago
    The hypothetical new companies that I'm talking about would have been formed by their former employees who could afford to do so with the increased money that they would have made if it hadn't been for the criminal collusion to deny them that capital and us as a society a freer market. And you're right, there's a distinct possibility the savings that they made in breaking the law could have affected their bottom line at the time in a way that prevented them from making certain products, but it could have also fostered creativity and innovation in the companies that colluded, and increased competition between them and the new companies that would have formed in a way that would have benefited innovation. What's important is that companies don't break the law and that people are paid as much as they're worth so that they can in turn stimulate the economy in ways that they see fit.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      So let me get this straight, if there wages would have been 30% more hypothetically they could have invested their own money (which few startup founders do) built phones or search engines that competed with Apple and Google? Something well funded companies like Microsoft and Facebook couldn’t do? But now are you also saying that Apple did the right thing when they paid Masimo’s employees more so now they can stimulate the economy and in the future start companies?
      - Teever 1y ago
        A charitable interpretation of what I have wrote is that if Apple had followed the law then they would have more competition and the market would be a healthier place that benefits software developers and consumers alike. Apple broke the law because they felt that it was in their best interest to the detriment of others and they will likely continue to do so if they feel it is in their best interest.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        Why focus just on Apple instead of the other companies - Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay? But since when have people making BigTech money been afraid to venture out on their own to found a startup and would 30% more (completely made up number) and that was probably tied up in RSUs and not cash really made a difference? Shouldn’t the idea that these people were making less than market wages spur them to go to other companies besides those seven or venture off on their own?
        Teever 1y ago
        Because this is a thread about apple and the other companies are implied with the word 'collusion.' As to your other points these things are not a binary, they are a gradient with Apple and the companies they colluding with having an incremental effect on the market that accrues over time as they consolidate wealth and restrict competition and the innovation that comes from it. It is difficult for people to find jobs at other companies that don't exist or that are floundering because apple and others have illegally restricted the flow of capital that would spur their creation. It seems from your line of questioning that you don't consider the criminal collusion that Apple and others participated in to be detrimental to the software industry and consumers as a whole. Is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Can you expand on your opinion regarding this matter?

Teever 1y ago

No, they hobbled the competitors that their staff could have formed if they had made more money to do so. That collusion between these big companies to deny their employees a wage driven by free markets allowed those companies to accrue wealth and prevent competition from forming. That's terrible for their employees, that's terrible for the consumer.

scarface_74 1y ago
How did their collusion stop a new company from offering more money than the depressed wages that the collusion was causing? Alternatively, if hypothetically without the collusion do you think the upper wage pressure would I have materially affected those companies bottom lines to not create the products that made them profitable?
- Teever 1y ago
  The hypothetical new companies that I'm talking about would have been formed by their former employees who could afford to do so with the increased money that they would have made if it hadn't been for the criminal collusion to deny them that capital and us as a society a freer market. And you're right, there's a distinct possibility the savings that they made in breaking the law could have affected their bottom line at the time in a way that prevented them from making certain products, but it could have also fostered creativity and innovation in the companies that colluded, and increased competition between them and the new companies that would have formed in a way that would have benefited innovation. What's important is that companies don't break the law and that people are paid as much as they're worth so that they can in turn stimulate the economy in ways that they see fit.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    So let me get this straight, if there wages would have been 30% more hypothetically they could have invested their own money (which few startup founders do) built phones or search engines that competed with Apple and Google? Something well funded companies like Microsoft and Facebook couldn’t do? But now are you also saying that Apple did the right thing when they paid Masimo’s employees more so now they can stimulate the economy and in the future start companies?
    - Teever 1y ago
      A charitable interpretation of what I have wrote is that if Apple had followed the law then they would have more competition and the market would be a healthier place that benefits software developers and consumers alike. Apple broke the law because they felt that it was in their best interest to the detriment of others and they will likely continue to do so if they feel it is in their best interest.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        Why focus just on Apple instead of the other companies - Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay? But since when have people making BigTech money been afraid to venture out on their own to found a startup and would 30% more (completely made up number) and that was probably tied up in RSUs and not cash really made a difference? Shouldn’t the idea that these people were making less than market wages spur them to go to other companies besides those seven or venture off on their own?
        Teever 1y ago
        Because this is a thread about apple and the other companies are implied with the word 'collusion.' As to your other points these things are not a binary, they are a gradient with Apple and the companies they colluding with having an incremental effect on the market that accrues over time as they consolidate wealth and restrict competition and the innovation that comes from it. It is difficult for people to find jobs at other companies that don't exist or that are floundering because apple and others have illegally restricted the flow of capital that would spur their creation. It seems from your line of questioning that you don't consider the criminal collusion that Apple and others participated in to be detrimental to the software industry and consumers as a whole. Is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Can you expand on your opinion regarding this matter?