Michael Crichton once emphasized an unusual quirk in human thinking. He called it “Germanic amnesia” after his friend Murray Germanic. Crichton said:
Briefly, the Germanic amnesia effect is: You open a newspaper and see an article about a topic you are familiar with. In Murray’s case, it’s physics. In my case, it’s show business. When you read the article, you can see that the journalist has no idea of the facts or the issues. Often the articles are so wrong that they actually tell the story backwards – reversing cause and effect. I call these “wet roads cause rain” stories. The paper is full of them.
In any case, when you read with indignation or amusement at the multiple errors in the article, and then turn to the domestic and international developments, the rest of the paper seems to be much more sensitive to Palestine than the stupid article you just read. reads as if it is somehow accurate. As you turn the pages, you forget what you know.
Crichton was primarily interested in journalism. You saw news reports covering areas you were familiar with were often full of elementary mistakes and written by people who seemed to lack even a basic understanding of the subject matter. If so, you should at least suspect that news reports on other topics are similarly riddled with fundamental errors. They were full of errors and written by journalists who lacked a basic understanding of the topics. But it seems we rarely do this. But I feel more concerned than journalists about what this topic says about MPs and other politicians. In areas I am familiar with, I have found that MPs are even more likely than journalists to expose a lack of understanding in areas they are keen to exert control over. And lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of stuff like this about technology.
As I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, I’m a huge gadget and technology geek. So, in addition to economics, I developed a strong interest in following news articles about various attempts by legislators to tap into technology. The US government has recently pursued Apple as follows: Exclusive And he slammed various aspects of Apple’s business. And in almost every case, it’s clear that the person making the claim is someone who doesn’t understand the world of technology at all.
Although there are many examples, I would like to focus on the Department of Justice’s argument that “barriers to entry” are the cause of various companies’ failures in the smartphone space.
Many well-known and well-funded companies have not been able to successfully enter relevant markets due to these entry barriers. Past failures include Amazon (which launched Fire phones in 2014, but was unable to sustain the business profitably and exited the following year). Microsoft (discontinued mobile business in 2017). HTC (withdrew from the market in September 2017 by selling its smartphone business to his Google). LG (withdrew from the smartphone market in 2021). Currently, only Samsung and Google remain significant competitors in the U.S. high-performance smartphone market. Even though Google controls the development of his Android operating system, the barriers are very high and Google is in his third position, far behind Apple and Samsung.
There is much to unravel amidst the cacophony of errors. First, Amazon Fire phones didn’t fail because of “barriers to entry.” Frankly speaking, I failed. really bad product. It lacked key features, had substandard hardware, and was priced too high for what it offered. You can search the web for reviews of this phone when it was released, but you won’t find a single example of a reviewer actually recommending the phone to anyone. Companies with far fewer resources than Amazon have successfully entered the smartphone market by offering better products, cheaper products, or both (OnePlus comes to mind).
Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous to put Microsoft, HTC, or LG’s failures as a “barrier to entry.” That’s because all of these companies were well established in the smartphone market long before their eventual demise and even before Apple entered the mobile phone market. . When the iPhone was first announced, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer literally laughed at it, predicted it would fail, and confidently pointed out that: “Right now, we sell millions of phones a year. Apple sells no phones a year.” Before the iPhone, Microsoft was a deeply established smartphone company. , boasted huge sales. The idea that a company’s phone business can’t compete with Apple because of “barriers to entry” can only be said by someone who knows nothing about the history of mobile technology.
Similarly, HTC and LG were previously very successful smartphone manufacturers. HTC manufactured his first Android smartphone, and for several years he was the largest manufacturer of Android smartphones, and by 2011 it became the largest smartphone manufacturer. period – Taira bigger More than Apple or iPhone. There are many reasons why HTC declined and its smartphone business failed, but “barriers to entry” are not included in that list. The same can be said about LG. LG has run a highly successful smartphone business for years, releasing phones that have sold millions of units and garnered solid reviews and a devoted fan base. There are also many reasons for LG’s decline. (Tech YouTuber Marques Brownlee offers various opinions) here(If you’re interested!) But to reiterate the point – LG, HTC, and Microsoft have been in the phone business for a long time in front Apple entered the scene, and all companies at one time or another were more successful in the smartphone market than Apple. To say that it ultimately failed to compete with Apple because it faced “barriers to entry” is out of touch with reality.
