As it stands, Google is beating Apple in mobile phone activations per day.
Apple is beating Microsoft in market cap. Meanwhile, Apple & Google are laughing at Microsoft for even trying to enter the mobile market after the whole Kin situation right after Zune died.
Meanwhile, you can connect with all of these companies and their employees on Facebook.
This week, Apple was critiqued on Techcrunch by monologist Mike Daisy because the company manufactures its iPad/Phone devices at Foxconn in China, where child labor is used and reasonable US-standard labor laws aren’t. (they aren’t in the U.S. after all… but why should that matter, I guess).
Then, Microsoft was critiqued by Google because Microsoft apparently records its IE browser users’ activity while their on Google, and then uses that data to power its Bing search engine results. My girlfriend called this “cheap” when I told her about it.
There’s a TechCrunch columnist who also thinks someone’s cheap… all of us. While Mike Daisy accuses Apple of profiteering in a “country run by Fascist thugs”, this columnist points the finger at our wallets. He says we’re to cheap to pay the price US-manufactured iPhones would cost.
I guess the real question here is… if Apple could make the devices in the US for the same price, but could still make more money by going to China… would they still manufacture in China where they don’t have assurance about labor conditions?
And would the investors, who want the most return for their dollars, annually vote to retain an executive team that didn’t earn them the best possible return for their dollars?
[Mike Daisy says that] Steve Jobs says that Mike doesn’t understand the “complexity of the situation”.
And if Microsoft could afford to enhance their search results to Google’s level, would they still copy search results? Wait… Microsoft can afford pretty much anything Google can… they must need the search volume Google gets to generate Google-level relevance…
So sometimes, for these corporations, semi-ethical hurdles are overcome by pushing down the hurdles instead of jumping over them.
Maybe a disruptive start-up will roll out that holds corporations accountable for things that aren’t necessarily illegal but are arguably immoral. Maybe there could be some kind of arbitration that could seek societal and competitive fairness when looking at perceivably immoral corporate acts. But then you have to worry about ambulance-chasing lawyers. I suppose these are some of the “complexities” Jobs was talking about.
Meanwhile, Facebook is still signing up more members.