Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
As of Yet - The Reciprocacity of May in My Study of the Tech World and Capitalistic Function

As of Yet - The Reciprocacity of May in My Study of the Tech World and Capitalistic Function

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Published by Andrew Schenkel
With deference to Adams and Marx, tech-world capitalism is explored and explained
With deference to Adams and Marx, tech-world capitalism is explored and explained

More info:

Published by: Andrew Schenkel on May 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Month: May, 2012
So, google has two problems in India
first, their adwords cash based ranking systemoutweighs their usability and relevancy ratings (or is claimed to be by a company lawsuit).Second, not necessarily as problem yet, they retain at least 50 percent of the market share.Other tech problems in India; Apple inc. is being questioned for choosing distribution outlets,which, one might assume, is the process of licensed retailing.Solutions: first
from a USA domestic perspective, as per the divisions explored inearlier posts, there is more than legal and capitalistic arguements maintaining Apple`s abilityto find, sponsor, and support their own licensed retail outlets. The processs is anunshakebable truth in the realm of intellectual property. To the sense that Indians can forgoethe absolute catalyst of mass i-phone consumption, the price can be guaged by marketstandards abroad, that fluctuate depending on market and import trends, respectively. Not fairtrade, claims India, with so many years of external IT services to American clients under itsbelt. But, `the macro take` is the likelyhood of google impingement at a monopolybenchmark where, in a sense, the company will be forced to build the philanthropic portion of their business development model. In a sense, google is driving growth so quickly that theIndia market will actually flux, for free, on it`s standard growth model.Micro solutions are harder to find though. For Apple, it`s easy
use the google marketbuilding to necessarily stem growth and save on legal costs. For google, the derivative cost of market enhancement, with questionable broadband capacity, requires innovative techmeasures for adjusting their capitalistic standard for optimization. In a sense, the company
has to buıld efficiency in their delivery models, as per the service provider`s ability, the
customer not-withstanding, other than ability and speed. Other than that, google may have to just accept this market expansion as somewhat minimal operations costs for expanding aglobal market, and to rely on the expanse of search users as an indicator to boost their profitsand marketability.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577389280326071526.html?KEYWORDS=google+india
The capacity for tech industry to retain characteristics of innovation, the supreme and justifiable truth is laid in the satisfaction of irregularity by the means of appeasement of rulingclasses. Investor relations, thereby takes a role in the capacity of the industry to createinventive replication. In protecting these masses, the retainment and quality of thepredecessors becomes that of an oppressive force, whereby the investor becomes the ruling
class of the tech world, rather than the provision for advancement. In these models, the truesubdivision of intuity lays not with the capacity for innovation, but the qualities of massproduction, even whereby the ability of elite non-workers reciprocate and appreciate theadvancement energy towards sustainable markets. That said, the probability of social contractexists in the appeasement workers who reach predetermined goals that are receptive to outsidescrutiny.But, this model is not sufficient to replicate the capacity of the tech industry in full, as itreaches a functional goal of mass distribution rather than sustainability. In the instance of mass production, as characterized in databot and commercial productivity, the subjectivity orruling elitism is carefully imbedded in the satisfaction of workers demands, rather than globaldemands for creative solutions to real and identifiable possibilities for advancement.In creating a workers class, the industry realizes the qualities of production of absolutist termsand forgoes the opportunity that it appreciates in full, which is the ability to enhance theunderstanding and ability of users, rather than the industry itself. As a result, thedissemination of data is sent directly towards upper class establishment, rather than users, andthe determination of rejection is accounted in dollars, rather than user capacity.This is the ultimate dichotomy and contradiction of tech advancement, that users are not arepart of the valuation process. The supply demand model for tech items is based solely on thecapacity for the elite to participate in the process, rather than for users to work towards theirattainment. In that sense, the user data collected, which measures and gauges interest foritems, is then catalogued in servers, rather than user interest, and the collective interest is setinto a demand model that more replicates luxury items than quantity produced goods,although quantity is the investor standard. As it has been said, the general aptitude of thesebusinesses is direct manufacturing, on a standard of capacity; rather than on demand base.And while commercial stock maintains certain levels of differential, user demand is notaccounted, if not only to appease luxury demand value.In a commodities investment strategy, the basis for valuation is held at the standard of production, where user demand is an inverted assessment for receptivity and characterized associal demand for value points that match purchasing power. Only then, in the sense of global capacity, is the surplus sent to foreign markets, where luxury valuation matches theuser demand and interest.As a forbearance of foreign trade, the impending virtues of foreign distribution could, in fact,generate user trends in foreign markets and the ability of those users to satisfy traderecommendations of fair surplus distribution. In this sense, the tech commodity gainsimportance as a treasury base for both direct and foreign markets.The secured treasury will act as an construct for sustainable standards and will increase thepropensity of foreign markets to replicate the sophistication in some manner or other, butwithin their own markets, as a process of demand and price categorization. There will,however, be instances of overlap where the tech commodity will act as a both a treasury andcommodity, thereby enriching foreign supply of redeemable qualities in the sense of replication and market share. But, the in these instances, the market share value can be drivenby the ability for production given the capacity for distribution.
The increase of worker base, in both markets will sensibly, if not turbulently, create a userbase of itself, ready to reinvent the internal process of flux. The ownership, thereby, asrepresented by the actual interest based demand, will generated capital enhancement on bothsides, where the working class will benefit from an overall price reduction of goods and techservices on a global scale. This process, in the financial sense, will determinately capacitate afinancial ingenuity that could, if not can, defeat the lesser know values of social elaborationbased on ruling class elitism. If nothing else, the generative capital will evaluate the stock holders as participants in the social classism that is defined as progressive andcounterbalanced. In that sense, the system becomes a step towards user and workers rights inthe value of product and satisfaction.
If a dominant, nearly capitalistic force is distracted from the tendency for obsessivedistribution in force, towards a competition, or the intellectual property of those competitiveforces, the customers or users will seek advancements from the free market place. It is not,necessarily a direct force of competition, but the acknowledgement that other forces arereadily capable of speaking towards to the subject matter of users intentions that brings theentrance to free market subjectivity. With that said, the danger for outside businesses is thepossibility of direct or secondary actual competition, of which the business cannot find theforce to prevent loss. In these instances, it is wise to seek common ground with themonopolistic force through secondary measures.
Let’s put apple in this case study, if a smaller distribution chain wishe
d to compete with appledirectly, their prototype technology must retain a small portion of the market, with notableand real function in the global market. At that time, user standards for secondary productsbecome the main differential between the products. IE = apps. It could, in manner measures,help foreign businesses to work with app creators to advance the process towards a capableand functional capacity within their own product. But, keep in mind that investor satisfactioncomes from earnings reports that make news, and not lawsuits. The issue with trustingsecondary units, task forces, or app generating business techs, with the advancement processis the origination of pre-data types and the possibility of copyright infringement based onthose terms.If, however, a company is small sized, from the innovative or tertiary production sector, theorigination of more complex data types for non monopolized company user-faces isdeveloped, of secondary knowledge, but with advancement, internally, against the forces of monopoly, the partitions of copyright are not infringed, but bought out, in wealth andtechnology.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->