[WS:] Many doubt that. For example, their main attraction for a while was graphic interface, which they "borrowed" from Xerox.
>From the start, their strategy was niche-seeking where they had few or no
competitors. So the quality of their products was not exactly comparable.
They maintained the impression of superiority through clever marketing stunts and appeal to snobbery - as long as they did not face any serious competition. But as soon as others moved to their market niches, they started losing ground. The smart phone or tablet market is a case in point.
Personally, I think that the only reason they can stay in business despite their monopoly pricing is their aggressive marketing based on appeals to cultural identity and snobbery.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, JOANNA A. <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> Strictly speaking, that's not a monopoly. Just a closed box.
>
> That strategy could have resulted in the demise of the company except that
> for a good while they delivered superior products.
>
> I don't know if that's the case any more.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Its type of computer products, of course. In the PC computer market, if
> you buy say an HP computer and want to add software or hardware - you do
> not have to go through the HP shop - you can order them on ebay from any
> manufacturer. You buy hardware from one manufacturer, software from other
> manufacturers, peripherals from still other manufacturers.
>
> Not so with Apple - you have to buy everything from their company store at
> inflated prices: hardware, software, parts, peripherals They even want to
> monopolize the shape of their devices - something unheard of in the
> computer world - and partially succeeded by legal maneuvering in US courts.
> They monopolized this particular computer market niche. If you were to
> compare to, say, shoes it is as if you wanted to buy sneakers, you would
> have to buy Nike.
>
> Monopoly is the only way businesses can make profit - according to
> Schumpeter, for example - so it is only natural that all businesses try to
> monopolize their market niches to the extent possible. But few do it as
> aggressively as Apple.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Apple itself is a monopoly.
> >>
> >
> > A monopoly monopolizes something. What type of commodity does Apple have
> > monopoly control over?
> >
> >
> >
> > Shane Mage
> >
> > "All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things,
> > as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
> >
> > Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90
> >
> > ______________________________**_____
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."