Dejay Davison

This conversation is closed.

What IF Apple & Microsoft united?

This baffles me, is this is a simple, clear indication of corporate greed or is there more to it?
Please share thoughts, or enlighten me to something I may be missing.
I don't just mean Apple vs Microsoft either, I mean all large corporations. Ford & Holden, Internet Explorer & Google Chrome.

Wouldn't only positive things come from this? e.g.:
1. Have a wider audience.
2. Their products would most likely be better as they have more people developing them
3. They can't 'claim' an opponent 'stole' an idea or prospect.
4. No competition.

I'm sure there's many more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

  • Jul 25 2012: I wrote something about this also.
    I don't believe in competition
    I believe in cooperation.


    http://www.ted.com/conversations/12616/we_need_more_cooperation_than.html
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2012: Oh wow.
      I feel silly that I haven't seen this before.
      This sums up everything, and more.
      Thank you! :)
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: MiCrapple?
  • Jul 27 2012: 1 part is that they're already uniting in a few cases. Why? For the money. An example for this is the HTML5 video mediatype, where Google, Mozilla and Opera prefer Ogg Theora and/or WebM, while Apple and Microsoft are in favor of the non-royalty free H.264, simply for the reason that they make profit from it as well.

    And the other part is that they'll never TOTALLY unite. Either they won't let them or they won't do it. The reason is simple: if they'd have united, they'd get LESS from the total income (if the 2 companies income/person is about the same) as leaders get the most and the leaders would become semi-leaders. More income in total, however, way more employees=way less percentage.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: It is a widely held belief that the dominance of PC in the desk top market has held back design by a decade or so. Potentially superior operating systems have disappeared due to the PC windows partnership. Another example is the US car manufacturers. A few big players all making very crappy cars because patriotism and government interference stopped competition from over seas. Because of this stagnation American cars are now some of the cheapest cars available in AUS and they still don't sell. Only the Chinese make a cheaper crappier vehicle, and that won't stay like that for long.
  • Jul 24 2012: All united together, with no competition. Seems to work for banks.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: Would you also propose that all small retailers as well as large department stores merge with Walmart and all small restaurants as well as larger ones merge into MacDonald's?

    Is massive always best for efficiency of operation, innovation, variety of choices for consumers, and so forth?

    (You can find research on this, by the way)
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: No innovation without competiiton..!!!
    I may be wrong..
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: Dejay

    That is crazy talk.

    Competition is the cornerstone of raising the standard of living.
    This video explains:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2012: I agree, and disagree.
      While competition may be a part of raising the standard of living, I do not believe it is the prominent cause of it.
      For someone who pioneers into the unknown, and revolutionizes, what has driven him or her? Passion
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Passion is huge. Is the desire to improve life and help your fellow man a part of that passion?
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Do you think that most entrepreneurs small business men write into their business plan, this is how I can exploit man kind? or do they say I have this really cool idea that is a win win exchange with the customer?
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: I do not know, or though I strongly believed that they ask 'How can 'I' benefit from this', more than 'How can mankind benefit from this'.
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2012: I have yet to meet one who did the later. Almost all of them asked what will the customer buy and the reason is because...
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2012: Also, I believe unity is another prominent factor of an increased living standard.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: IN MY VIEW:
    The reason people go separate ways is not always greed. However at least one form or human emotion suppressing the bigger objective might be the case. In all cases we will see that it's our own choice backed up by one form of intense emotion. But the question is are we really capable to over come emotion and unite for a bigger prospect. I think still a great deal of evolution in term of thinking is needed to reach this day.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: They're different mindsets from different generations. Microsoft used to be the biggest powerhouse around. They introduced the concept of "Personal computer." But it was still a new concept. Steve Jobs and Apple basically came in later saying "Wait, this is not how a personal computer should be. THIS is how it should be done" and people started to like Apple products more. It is all about demand and supply. Because people demanded for an easier computer to use, Apple replied by supplying them with it.

    Now as for why they wouldn't fuse, there are a ton of reasons why they wouldn't. One, what does Apple have to gain from doing so (wider userbase, more developers, less competition, less patent lawsuits, I'm just naming the ones you listed)? What does Apple have to lose (money and time are usually the case)? Does the gain outweigh the cost? If not, then Apple will then say, this deal sucks, we lose more than we profit. There's no reason for us to join together.
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2012: No one can know unless it happens I guess.
      But..
      Humans have strived through unity :)
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: well we may not know for sure, but we can think about it logically :)

        And your statement "Humans have strived through unity" may not be as crazy as some think. We have the whole open source movements now and people are starting to realize its greatness, but also its pitfalls (as in open-source is really hard to incorporate in a kind of corporate environment). But if we're talking about true unity, then I really think open-source resources are the kind of "unity" you're talking about.
    • Jul 24 2012: 'Microsoft ...introduced the concept of "Personal computer." '

      Actually, IBM and Microsoft were late comers. You might check this out:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2012: oh my bad, I forgot IBM and a few others were before Microsoft