Why are technology giants American?

[mech-eng]

Sure, I'll try. But I first of all agree with
Before, 'made in Japan', now 'made in China' ...
USA 1st, but not made in the US ...
It looks like a mystery to me (although I might have some idea about it ...).

Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China. Main reason might be workers' prices. The firms are very clever and they might want to reduce workers' costs so the best way might be making countries such as China, Indonesia, Vietnam etc do their assembly process in very low prices. Another reason as far as I know is that the developed countries don't want their environment to be more polluted. So they keep patents and production permissions but they make the developing countries produce their products.

Thank you.

 

[jedishrfu]

and they run the risk of copycats or piggyback innovators later on as the product becomes more commoditized.

 

[mech-eng]

and they run the risk of copycats or piggyback innovators later on as the product becomes more commoditized.

Does not patents stand for these cases?

Thank you.

 

[WWGD]

Why are technology giants American? This question is limited to the are of referred firms in the following.

Google: The giant of search engine much more preferred than its rivals and probably the strongest rivals are also American Bing and Yahoo.

.

Well, Google's creators (CEOs), as well as the CEOs of many high-tech startups are born and educated outside of the US. EDIT: Additionally, you have the obvious benefits of having an integrated market of some 330 million people with a high Per Capita GDP, i.e., high purchasing power. No borders nor different languages like in the EU.

 

[WWGD]

For some insight into Apple and Microsoft and Silicon Valley, this is a very good book that I recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1937785769/?tag=pfamazon01-20
View attachment 216912

Despite what many will say, Silicon Valley is the result of heavy government investment in research, not the result of plain " laissez faire" Capitalism. Not that I advocate either as the system to follow, but I think it bears clarification.

 

[WWGD]

There is competitive pressure to provide machines that work with other vendor equipment. MS provides that glue as an assortment of device drivers and will even take on the help service aspect for new user problems.

Also people will tend toward a fully functioning machine over one they still have to configure. Gaming favors windows and vice versa although it wasn’t always that way as early games preferred PC Dos as it gave them greater access to graphics card control.

I can’t say why people think Linux is harder. It’s true that it’s a windowing system on top of a command line collection of arcane commands but so is windows but they now hide it better using GUI based system control.

Historically, there were mainframe OSee that used card language and then transitioned to timesharing. Unix came out of that complexity and got extended with its xwindows as others were exploring windowing technology. All these required knowing what commands to start up xwindows and configuring your machine to accept and use xwindows effectively.

MS windows came out of MS work with IBM on OS/2 where they felt IBM was addressing its corporate clients and was making the system too complex and so they stealthily built Windows and undermined OS/2 development all the while borrowing OS/2 code for windows. It was a bad alliance from the start.

Aka Network Effect?

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China. Main reason might be workers' prices. The firms are very clever and they might want to reduce workers' costs so the best way might be making countries such as China, Indonesia, Vietnam etc do their assembly process in very low prices.

So financial reasons, as far as that goes. I agree.

 

[I like Serena]

How about Samsung? Aren't they dominating the mobile market by now?

 

[anorlunda]

All of those giants in the OP were at at least one point in their history disruptive. European business and regulation favors preservation over disruption.

p.s @jedishrfu , I tried introducing Unix to European businesses in 1977. I was stonewalled because they had made their OS choices and had no interest in anything new an innovative.

The same thing happened with the introduction of minicomputers, workstations, PCs, packet switching, and use of the Internet for commerce and entertainment. Disruptive things were accepted more quickly in the USA.

 

[mech-eng]

How about Samsung? Aren't they dominating the mobile market by now?

I don't thing so but in that field things might be reversed very quickly. There are lots of actors and they are releasing new models constantly.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bTySFwvD9L4J:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies+&cd=6&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr

But in the area of screen LG and and Samsung might be the best ones.

http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/what-is/super-amoled/

https://webcache.googleusercontent....dia.org/wiki/AMOLED+&cd=1&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr

Thank you.

 

[I like Serena]

I don't thing so but in that field things might be reversed very quickly. There are lots of actors and they are releasing new models constantly.

I actually thought that Samsung was Japanese who is a serious contender anyway (confirmed by your reference).
It's only now that I realize that Samsung, the number 2 in revenue, and arguably the most successful mobile manufacturer, is South Korean, which I consider to be amazing!