The perfect solution to anyone who dislikes Apple’s monopoly

As most people know, there is a class action lawsuit against Apple for locking its phones to one service provider in the US: AT&T. It did the same in the UK when the iPhone was released, choosing O2 over competitors. Apple has also been criticised, and looks to have legal action being taken against it for “its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets.”

Should Apple not have absolute control over its own property? Does anyone think that a company as massive and successful as Apple would take any major business decision unless it thought it was in its own self-interest as a company? So, these attempts to bring legal actions against Apple actually represent a demand to make Apple act NOT in its best interest. But why? Why should a company not act in its own best interest? The same interest, by the way, that produced the iPhone and other such inventions in the first place.

Communication companies that did not receive exclusivity agreements with Apple, and developers whose apps won’t work on the iPhone bemoan the fact they’re being “locked out” of the party. Well, they are right. They are. But there is a simple solution to their problem that has been there from day one, a solution that doesn’t violate anyone’s Rights, doesn’t stifle innovation, doesn’t punish success simply for being success, and doesn’t offer yet another innovative company up on the altar of anti-trust altruism:

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN iPHONE!!

Oh, what’s that? You can’t? So Apple must produce, so that you can dispose? Apple must create, so that you can use? Apple must sacrifice, so that you can benefit?  There is only one real practice resulting from this sentiment; a practice has been supposedly outlawed against individuals in the entire civilised world: SLAVERY.

(If you really don’t like Apple and want their smartphone “monopoly” broken, vote with your wallet; do what I did and buy an Android phone.  I’d recommend the HTC Desire.  Same features as the iPhone 4; hundreds of pounds cheaper.  And it probably won’t blow up on you either.)

15 Responses to “The perfect solution to anyone who dislikes Apple’s monopoly”

  1. The Vicar Says:

    Of course, you then have to deal with the fact that up to 20% of apps being sold through the Android store are spyware already. Unless you’re going to actually read all the source code yourself — which you aren’t — and take the trouble to thoroughly understand what it does — which you aren’t — then Open Source means nothing as far as security is concerned. “The Community” does not actually figure out bugs which are not obvious; look at the Debian SSL vulnerability, which was “live” for months before anyone noticed it.

    I’m not sure that Apple is actually any better at security (although they seem to at least have the sense not to let random people submit banking apps — I would have thought that that was a red flag for phishing right there) but the more I hear about Android and Google, the less I want anything to do with them.

  2. evanescent Says:

    Thanks for your comment, Vicar, and although I can’t really disagree with you, I guess the best advice either way is to be careful what you install, especially if it’s money-related.

    I’d have to say I’m the opposite to you; HTC are growing all the time and android is gaining popularity. It’s nice to see businesses like this on the up offering quality products at better prices to compete with the big boys. I’m happy to support them and truth be told, I really don’t want to give Apple any more money for over-priced glossy toys.

  3. fileunderaction Says:

    The iPhone is not Apple’s property. Once a customer pays for the phone, it belongs to the customer. Apple has forfeited any ownership. Customers are not renting the phone, they are purchasing it. As a customer I have the right to do what I please with my iPhone because it belongs to me, and that includes installing unapproved apps or jailbreaking my phone.

  4. evanescent Says:

    The iPhone technology is Apple’s property. They can do what they will with their technology. Whilst the phone itself belongs to you, the airwaves that you make calls on don’t, and the technology that makes apps possible doesn’t belong to you. You might purchase a television for example, but nothing is guaranteed to you on what shows broadcasters choose to air.

    As for specifics like jailbreaking, I guess that depends on any terms of service Apple impose. My problem is not with consumers who are relatively free to do whatever they reasonably can with their iPhones (within the law of course), but with third parties who feel excluded by Apple and want them sued for “unfair trade”. Just as you are free to buy an iPhone or not, Apple are free to sell their iPhones or not, to whomever they decide to. If a third party claims rights on Apple’s business, Apple cannot have Rights over its own. If one party cannot have Rights on its own property, no party can claim Rights on anything.

  5. Chris Says:

    “but nothing is guaranteed to you on what shows broadcasters choose to air.”

    But what is guaranteed is that my television can receive signals from any service provider I choose. You’re asking that Apple be allowed to stifle customer choice arbitrarily, with no technical reason at all.

    If Apple does indeed make the best smartphone then they aren’t being stifled by being forced to sell smartphones to people who don’t want AT&T. Right now service provision to smartphones is *definitely* being stifled though, as the clear frontrunner in the smartphone game only works on one provider.

  6. evanescent Says:

    But what is guaranteed is that my television can receive signals from any service provider I choose.

    In this case, yes, because TV providers just sell receivers. Obviously the iPhone is more than just a generic receiver of applications. Now, I personally think it should be – but then Apple has always been this way. It’s one major reason I don’t buy Apple computers (anymore). As for modifying apps already on your iPhone, this would depend on any terms of use Apple impose; I haven’t checked the smallprint yet. However, I agree that they’re on very dodgy ground here and it’s hard to justify this at all.

    If Apple does indeed make the best smartphone then they aren’t being stifled by being forced to sell smartphones to people who don’t want AT&T.

    Actually your statement is the opposite of free trade. If Apple makes the best smartphone people will buy it anyway, regardless of the service provider. Service providers might not like it but they cannot call it unfair. Unfair on whom? Is it fair to force Apple to deal with people they don’t want to? It is fair to stop AT&T making business deals?

    Right now service provision to smartphones is *definitely* being stifled though, as the clear frontrunner in the smartphone game only works on one provider.

    No one even considered this an issue before the iPhone was invented. Apple invent a product that everyone wants and get PENALISED for it. Nothing stifles innovation and productivity than the knowledge you cannot enjoy the fruits of your effort. Any additional benefit Apple are forced to give up to deal with people they don’t want to will not come out of their CEO’s salary or profit margin, it will come out of their investment capital (less R&D) or be reflected in higher prices to consumers.

    Another principle being overlooked here is that, if left FREE, the only way to monopolise a market is to offer a product that no one has, or offer a service than no one else can, or offer a price that no one else has, or a winning combination of these factors. The strive for these elements drives competition, and forces less efficient businesses to up their game. The race is led by the real heroes in the field, the ones who set the bar and say “catch me if you can”; companies like Apple and Microsoft. The most unfair, anti-business, anti-competitive, anti-human thing imaginable is stopping the business champions on the running track, pulling a gun on them and saying “you’re doing too good; you’re doing too well; your products are so excellent; we think it’s UNFAIR on the ones lagging behind. Stop here, so they can catch you up.”

    The use of force here is the point of a gun; it can mean nothing else. Apple doesn’t force anyone to use the iPhone or not. By contrast, the government will force Apple and companies like it to do what they don’t want to. It is the punishment of success for simply being success and the support of inachievement simply for its inachievement .

  7. Chris Says:

    Actually your statement is the opposite of free trade. If Apple makes the best smartphone people will buy it anyway, regardless of the service provider.

    No, under the current setup if Apple and AT&T are the best smartphone/service provider pairing then people will buy them anyway. Having to purchase the two as a bundle makes it a lot hazier, and prevents the customer from getting the best smartphone and the best service. If the iPhone is too good then it stifles development of service provision because the iPhone is the only game in town and AT&T is the only company which can provide service for it—there’s no competition among service providers, and consumers always lose when that happens. When consumers lose, companies end up losing, as demand slowly starts to flag.

    Apple invent a product that everyone wants and get PENALISED for it. Nothing stifles innovation and productivity than the knowledge you cannot enjoy the fruits of your effort.

    Pardon me, I thought people wanted to purchase iPhones and use a provider of their choosing. That strikes me as rewarding Apple for the fruits of their labor.

    Seriously, nothing says “agenda” like hyperbolic statements like “customers should not be free to choose their own service provider, because hardware developers will suffer!” I suppose it’s also legitimate for companies to establish territories wherein each maintains a monopoly on their given product? Hey, companies should be able to act freely, right? Oh wait, no, because that stifles competition, and soaks money from the customers’ pockets while delivering them substandard products because when you stifle competition you stifle innovation!

    Pardon me, but if you really cared about innovation you’d force companies to earn their money rather than collude to extort it from customers.

  8. evanescent Says:

    No, under the current setup if Apple and AT&T are the best smartphone/service provider pairing then people will buy them anyway. Having to purchase the two as a bundle makes it a lot hazier, and prevents the customer from getting the best smartphone and the best service.

    On what grounds do you assert this? You’re making your arguments in a vacuum; that is not how business decisions are made. Would Apple have chosen exclusivity with AT&T unless AT&T had something to offer, like for example quality of service; depth of coverage; experience? It’s not as simple as being the wealthiest. Companies don’t succeed because they are wealthy, they are wealthy because they succeed.

    If Apple really thought it would lose business it wouldn’t have signed with AT&T. If AT&T thought they would lose business they wouldn’t have signed. Clearly they must be doing something right if customers continue to subscribe. Customer who aren’t happy with the bundle are free to not take it. You aren’t free to demand Apple give you an iPhone with a company they don’t want to deal with, any more than you can demand to be given an iPhone simply because you can’t afford one.

    Pardon me, I thought people wanted to purchase iPhones and use a provider of their choosing. That strikes me as rewarding Apple for the fruits of their labor.

    Apple is rewarded by profiting from its business decisions. They made such a decision when they invented the iPhone; a product with massive appeal and value to an enormous number of customers. The iPhone could just as easily have floppped and cost them millions, and no one would be crying for Apple or wanting to sign iPhone agreements. Instead it didn’t. Now everyone wants a piece. Some people are even prepared to use force against the geniuses who created this technology in the first place so they get their hands on it. The point is: Apple is NOT allowed to *fully* enjoy the fruits of its labour if it is forced to sell iPhones to people it doesn’t want to.

    Seriously, nothing says “agenda” like hyperbolic statements like “customers should not be free to choose their own service provider, because hardware developers will suffer!”

    The only agenda I have is supporting individual rights.

    You’ve slightly twisted my words here. I never said customers were not free. Customers ARE free. They are free to not deal with Apple or AT&T. What customers AREN’T “free” to do is force property out of someone else’s hands.

    I suppose it’s also legitimate for companies to establish territories wherein each maintains a monopoly on their given product? Hey, companies should be able to act freely, right? Oh wait, no, because that stifles competition, and soaks money from the customers’ pockets while delivering them substandard products because when you stifle competition you stifle innovation!

    Actually, the history of any market left free is the opposite. In a free market a company cannot sell to you any higher than you’re prepared to pay, and it cannot sell lower than the profit required to manufacture. The best companies are the ones who find the most efficient ways to cut costs AND make a profit AND provide excellent customer service. Because if they don’t, ANYONE else is free to compete with them by slashing prices or offering better service…if they can.

    Having said all of that, there’s one thing you overlooked, and it’s rather strange that you did considering it’s so obvious: the smartphone market has BLOOMED massively overnight. All the major players are getting on board; Android phones are getting more popular; companies like HTC are on the up. Most of them are copying the iPhone in style and functionality…which is kinda my point. Apple set the bar, others are fighting to follow. Just as mobile phones were expensive when they first came out, in a very few short years EVERYONE had one. The market was left free. The mobile phone industry is like the computer industry; moving forward at warp speed, constantly getting better and affordable. Show me anyone who can’t afford a PC and the internet these days. Show me anyone who can’t afford a mobile phone. Today: almost ANYONE can have a smart phone now. In a few more years, smartphones will probably have displaced regular “old” phones.

    If Apple are the market leaders it’s because they are doing something right. But customers are not at the mercy of Apple. In a free market, it is the other way around. Customers are free to go elsewhere, like I did. I didn’t want to pay hundreds more for a shiny iPhone, so I got the equivalent phone much cheaper from HTC. I might have gone to Samsung, or Vodafone, or Blackberry, or a dozen others.

    These companies ARE being left free, and look at the result. Are we seing substandard products “extorting” prices from customers? No. We are seeing prices dropping all the time, quality improving, smartphone technology soaring.

    Pardon me, but if you really cared about innovation you’d force companies to earn their money rather than collude to extort it from customers.

    What I care about is rights so individuals can be free. Being free means not having force used against you unless you are a criminal. Innocent parties are free to trade or free to walk away. Being free to walk away actually undermines Apple by driving customers into the hands of their competitors; which is good for competition. If customers choose to stay with Apple for whatever reason, Apple must be doing something special, and competitors must *work* harder to drag them away.

    *This* is what competition is all about, and the state of the smartphone market vindicates this.

  9. Chris Says:

    On what grounds do you assert this? You’re making your arguments in a vacuum; that is not how business decisions are made.

    People don’t compare the value of the entire bundle when they elect to buy a bundle? News to me. You’d buy a high-end performance car at a decent price even if as a result of the purchase you were locked into a contract that said you had to buy your gas for $5/gallon and you could only put in 87-octane gas that made the engine knock like crazy? I’ll admit that the market is not full of rational actors, but if they stopped to think about it nobody would take that deal when they could get a car just as good and be allowed to put any gasoline in it that they wanted.

    Apple is rewarded by profiting from its business decisions.

    Something we agree on. Apple is in the phone business, so any decisions they make on how to design, manufacture, and market their phone are fair game. If they decide that they can profit by taking money to use their size and renown to limit competition in the smartphone service sector though, that’s not their business, it’s picking money from consumers’ pockets on behalf of AT&T. It’s illegal, and it’s illegal because it hurts consumers by restricting their access to competing services.

    Actually, the history of any market left free is the opposite. In a free market a company cannot sell to you any higher than you’re prepared to pay, and it cannot sell lower than the profit required to manufacture. The best companies are the ones who find the most efficient ways to cut costs AND make a profit AND provide excellent customer service. Because if they don’t, ANYONE else is free to compete with them by slashing prices or offering better service…if they can.

    A noble sentiment, but the whole reason anti-trust legislation exists in the first place is because of anti-competitive practices which established monopolies with all the effects associated with them: higher prices, less goods in the hands of consumers, and no innovation. Why innovate when you have no competition and you’re raking in money hand over fist? Comfort breeds stagnation.

    How much money is AT&T making off of their shoddy service riding on Apple’s coattails, to the detriment of customers who could instead have the phone and the service they thought was best? Too much. They shouldn’t get free customers sent their way just because of an exclusivity agreement; AT&T should either provide the best service for the iPhone, or they should slash their prices—they shouldn’t be allowed to keep getting top-notch rates for bottom-basement service.

  10. evanescent Says:

    People don’t compare the value of the entire bundle when they elect to buy a bundle? News to me. You’d buy a high-end performance car at a decent price even if as a result of the purchase you were locked into a contract that said you had to buy your gas for $5/gallon and you could only put in 87-octane gas that made the engine knock like crazy? I’ll admit that the market is not full of rational actors, but if they stopped to think about it nobody would take that deal when they could get a car just as good and be allowed to put any gasoline in it that they wanted.

    I agree. I think you’ve made the point for me. Very few people are dumb enough to take a deal that makes absolutely no sense and isn’t even what they want…so the fact that tens of thousands of people ARE buying into the Apple bundle deal means there must be something good about it.

    If they decide that they can profit by taking money to use their size and renown to limit competition in the smartphone service sector though, that’s not their business,

    But it is their business. They have a product, and it’s their business who they deal with. Apple makes a business decision and then LIVES OR DIES by how the consumer reacts.

    it’s picking money from consumers’ pockets on behalf of AT&T. It’s illegal, and it’s illegal because it hurts consumers by restricting their access to competing services.

    You still seem to be labouring under the notion that customers and competitors have some kind of a RIGHT to Apple’s iPhone, simply because they WANT it. Is this what you really believe?

    Are you suggesting that any customer in any market has a right to anything in that market and how he goes about getting it is just a matter of arbitrary convention??

    Consumers are not hurt by not being able to force property out of someone else’s hands. If the going rate for washing machines is $200 and you can’t afford one, you aren’t HURT by being unable to get a washing machine; you simply can’t afford one. Would you have the government force the machine manufacturer to cut his costs to do YOU a favour?

    It’s not like Apple don’t WANT to sell iPhones; they’re going to choose the business model that reaches as many customers as possible, with a price that attracts as many customers as possible. Please explain why they should do their competitors a favour, when, as the facts show, the freedom of competing businesses to challenge Apple has produced a host of smartphone devices to rival the iPhone. Competition is thriving! And it’s thriving because the market’s been left alone.

    Why innovate when you have no competition and you’re raking in money hand over fist? Comfort breeds stagnation.

    An excellent question, but I do think you’re arguing against a strawman of capitalism. You see, without government favours or bailouts or privileges or endorsements, i.e.: in a free market, the only way to form a monopoly is to offer something your competitors can’t. To get there, you must be the best. To stay there, you must be even better. Monopolies aren’t maintained through strangeholds; they simply CAN’T be. The biggest companies in the world have collapsed and the smallest ones have blossomed through bad/good business decisions. Like I said in an earlier reply, a seller can only charge as high as you’re prepared to pay, and he cannot charge lower than the cost of his production and overheads. Prices are not arbitrary. And it is a terrible mischaracterisation of businesses and businessman to see them this way. True, a company can keep raising its prices, but only as much as people are willing to pay. If the iPhone cost $1000, sure Apple would make more profit per unit, but so fewer people would buy it that overall profits would drop. Similarly, if the iPhone costs Apple $200 to produce and ship, selling it at $201 would certainly stop their competitors in the short term, but overall it would be business suicide and they’d go bust in no time. A company cannot survive without profit. AND, much of that profit is re-invested back into R&D to create the next big fad to keep them ahead of the curve.

    And this to you is a bad thing??

    How much money is AT&T making off of their shoddy service riding on Apple’s coattails, to the detriment of customers who could instead have the phone and the service they thought was best? Too much.

    Are you saying the customers’ judgment of service is better than Apple’s? Do you really think a company as massive and successful as Apple is going to sign up with any two-bit poxy shoddy service provider for the hell of it? I work in a business (albeit a very different one) where exclusivity agreements are laboured over and debated for months; where the argument to prove yourself to the client is fierce and exhaustive, and they demand the highest standards from you, because they know you will both suffer if you don’t deliver. Do you not think Apple’s exclusivity agreement with AT&T was at least as rigorous?

    And if you’re right and AT&T are that bad, Apple won’t stay with them for long. And/or people simply won’t choose AT&T. Sure that means they won’t have an iPhone in the short term, but as I said above, no one has a RIGHT to an iPhone, just as no one has a right to a washing machine or a pair of shoes, or a football season ticket. And Apple will lose money hand over fist and HAVE to change their businesses model. If on the other hand AT&T are providing excellent service and consumers are happy, who are you to deny AT&T, Apple, and all their hundreds of thousands of customers this quality service simply because you’re not a part of it? Who is anybody to do this?

    I guess you could just go and buy one of the dozens of competing smartphones out there and do what all good consumers do in a free market: vote with your wallet :)

  11. Chris Says:

    Yeah, this is going about as well as any internet discussion can be expected to.

    I’ll spare us both the time and effort of going back and forth on this by choosing one thing I want a last word on (aside from a reminder that monopolies can and have formed in free markets, and an admonition to look up the reasons for antitrust legislation if you don’t believe me):

    You still seem to be labouring under the notion that customers and competitors have some kind of a RIGHT to Apple’s iPhone, simply because they WANT it. Is this what you really believe?

    Despite how you’ve chosen to characterize my statements, they are unambiguous: if Apple doesn’t want to sell the phone they don’t have to sell the phone. If Apple wants to sell the phone and the phone can’t be used without buying additional stuff beyond the phone, Apple has to let the market provide alternate solutions for that rather than it being restricted to one provider.

    If Apple doesn’t like this they don’t have to make a phone, but I don’t know what kind of idiot would pass up the profits from a lucrative product because they can’t choose which of their friends gets the extra business that it generates.

  12. evanescent Says:

    You’re right, monopolies can form in free markets, but not the coercive type you’re referring to. If you look through history, strangehold monopolies are actually acheived under mixed economies through government privileges; monopolies like tv broadcast waves, healthcare, postal service, electricity and water firms.

    Apple has to let the market provide alternate solutions for that rather than it being restricted to one provider.

    I assume by “market” you mean some non-specific and undefinable collective of any number of entities that are affiliated with the market; in other words: Apple must do what a majority of people other than themselves decide they should do, which is the very collectivism I am arguing against.

    You are missing the point that the market has already provided solutions :) Companies are competing with Apple all the time and they are growing. There are dozens of alternatives out there. Apple IS letting the market provide alternatives because they cannot FORCE their competitors or consumers to do otherwise. This is the difference between economic power and political power. Apple’s power extends only as far as it can win customers. The fantastic state of the mobile phone industry is due to its freedom and capitalism. If competitors had their market leaders reigned in and stifled, there would be nothing to aspire to, nothing to pursue. Who cares if Apple is the leader if they can’t lead? Why bother chasing Apple or AT&T if you get a free ride to compete with them, regardless of your ability? That is the sad irony of antitrust, and I am very familiar with it. I reject it fully knowing what it means because of the principles on which it is based: altruism.

    Anyway, thank you for you time and effort in this discussion. Clearly we disagree but your posts have been cogent and respectful all the same.

  13. evanescent Says:

    Further demonstrating how business partnerships are not for life and how quality of service must be maintained at all terms. This further backs up what I’ve said above about Apple choosing exclusivity agreements when in their perceived self-interest and how they would end such agreements if they weren’t. Apple wants to offer a service at the end of the day, otherwise it doesn’t make money.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38313005/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/

    You don’t need Big Brother forcing companies like Apple to make decisions to benefit consumers; what fascists don’t understand is that the profit motive does this by itself.

  14. Corey Says:

    I know this is late in the game, but I just had to pipe in after reading your post as well as the comments between you and Chris.

    Back in January of this year I switched from a Windows mobile device (MS has been making major changes in Windows Mobile 7 which has pushed me away) to a Blackberry. I am dissatisfied with the Blackberry, and wanted to try either the iPhone or an Android. I absolutely love Sprint as a carrier. Sprint offers the Airave (which no other carrier I know of offers a comparable product). This pushed the iPhone out of the competition. Not because the device is substandard, but because of Apple’s decision to exclusively use AT&T (I also have an extreme dislike of AT&T and will choose not to deal with them again if not absolutely nessesary). Google made the choice not only to allow multiple hardware vendors to utilize their OS, but also carriers. This gives them something to offer that Apple chose not to – availability.

    As a result, I’m currently looking between the Samsung Epic and the HTC Evo (both offered by Sprint). Apple might have been in the mix, but they have decided to give AT&T a monopoly on the iPhone market. Do I wish Apple allowed other carriers to offer their device? Yes, however they will not recieve any of my business because of their business decision. I’m sure this was weighed as a possibility when they sat down for a scoring session regarding this decision. As a result, Apple’s hold on the smartphone market is now being threatened by Google’s offering. As you said earlier, getting on top isn’t near a hard as staying on top. From where I’m standing this seems to have worked out much better for AT&T than Apple.

    Apple’s business model has always been based upon proprietary hardware. Apple could have easily been #1 in personal computing had they not adopted this 30 years ago. IBM allowed their PC design to be cloned, which in turn gave Bill Gates (who is losing business to the linux market) the opportunity to write an OS for it and in turn allowed them to manufacture more units than Apple due to a larger market based upon compatibility and diversity. IBM also made mistakes by using a proprietary business model when it came to the Token Ring network. As a result, Ethernet (Xerox’s invention) took hold and has dominated LAN networking for decades despite being a ‘nastier’ network communications structure.

    Another Apple example: I work in IT, and wouldn’t mind learning more about Apple’s OS X (I could make more money servicing their systems). Apple’s license on OS X restricts you to run it only on Apple hardware. I’m willing to buy a license for their software, but unwilling to shell out money towards their hardware just to have a machine to learn on (especially when I can run it on my own PC), so they lose again in this aspect. Do I demand they write software to be used on a machine that they do not wish it to be used on? Hell no, just as much as they no right to demand everyone use thier hardware & software.

    There are thousands upon thousands of examples to demonstrate this, but I feel as if I might be preaching to the choir.

  15. evanescent Says:

    Hi Corey

    thanks for your detailed and well-written comment! I completely agree with you and I think you demonstrate the point perfectly well. You have explained clearly in the real world how businesses left alone can make right or wrong decisions and then succeed or fail based on them. The consumer stands by and votes with their wallet.

    A business will always attempt to act in its perceived self-interest – and if it wins, customers win. Apple made serious business errors decades ago, and paid the price for years to come. Even now, it is still paying the price. Certain companies didn’t make that choice and reaped the rewards. They did EXACTLY what the anti-trust vampires would demand back in the day, but they did it FREELY. As a result of their rational business sense PC hardware and software manufacturers bloomed – in a FREE market. Now, they are being punished for their excellent business sense and success because they are “too big”. Isn’t the hypocrisy and irony staggering?

    Apple were left alone with their “isolationist” policies and failed. If they are going down the same route today with their exclusivity contracts, why not let them fail? Because the anti-trust parasites don’t care about businesses failing – they are terrified of them succeeding!

    Customers demand service, and quality of service. Businesses compete for customers. The history of the mobile phone and IT market is the move towards cheaper, faster, and more available products – and the fortunes made in both industries proves that it’s worthwhile. There is no shortage of competition in either market. We are lucky that both markets have been so FREE for so long. Now the moochers and leechers smell blood (money) and fancy a slice of a pie they had NO part helping to bake.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: