|Taos Gorge Yesterday|
I read the news that closing arguments were presented in the iPod anti-trust suit today, and that the case comes down to whether Apple Inc. had a duty to deal. Interesting legal and business issues. I imagine there's a divide between Apple shareholders who are down with an aggressive business model that seeks out every advantage and puts the hurt on the competition whenever wherever it can, and those who don't like to see Apple throwing its weight around, and wish it had played nicer.
It seems like water under the bridge to me, but it does provoke other thoughts about what else might Apple Inc. have a duty to deal with, and from where other than law duty derives. Does Apple Inc. have a duty to deal with income inequality? Does Apple Inc. have a duty to deal with systemic racism? Does Apple Inc. have a duty to deal with the fact that it's creating a corporate culture of vapidity.
I know Apple Inc. caters to the "high end" of the market. But just like the concept of multiple intelligences, can't we also have multiple "high ends"? Does that term have to be restricted in its meaning exclusively to economics?
My vision for Apple Inc. is that it becomes the tug that turns the ocean liner around.
|Risk and reward. How about some pro-trust initiatives for a change?|
Speaking of, the share price deescalated, so to speak, $1.51taking us to $108.22. Deal with it.