Talk:Vertical integration/Archives/2012

Apple
I'm not sure if Apple is a worthwhile example of vertical integration -- Their products are full of parts (processors, memory, etc.) supplied by third parties, and the manufacturing is almost entirely performed on a contract-by-contract basis by large Asian manufacturing firms. While it's fair to say that they're more vertically integrated than most other computer companies (designing both software and hardware and selling it all at their own chain of stores), they're far, far short of what one might call a full vertical integration.
 * Well full vertical integration can only exist in the most elementary sectors of the economy, like in agriculture. Anything beyond that, and the economy already becomes heavily specialized, with a large competitive business-to-business capital goods market coming into existance. Vertical integration examples are scarce when competition exists. I think a better example can be found than the Apple one. Intangible 16:44, 13 J

Apple actually is a pretty bad example. Look at any iPod or Apple notebook and you'll see that it was "designed by Apple in California". Manufacture takes place in Taiwan or China by third-party contractors. This is the same for most other computer manufacturers. (Visited a Flextronics plant once where notebooks for three different brands where produced side-by-side.)

What about Ford (River Rouge) as an example for vertical integration??? That was -- at least to my knowledge -- the first and is still be far the most far-reaching form of vertical integration.

I'm not sure if Apple is a good example. They have a large line of products but they do not own the companies that compliment their technology. For example, Bose is making a lot of speakers/headphones that are specifically made to be paired with iPods, this is an example of horizontal integration.

I think Apple is a modern example of vertical integration. It might not own all the different parts of it's supply chain, but it's strong partnerships with overseas suppliers are as effective and influential as upstream integration by ownership.

I've deleted Apple. Vertical integration is all about ownership. It has nothing to do with "strong partnerships" and "influence". Vertically integrated firms are firms that directly perform multiple stages of the production process. If work is contracted out, even with strict instructions, the firm is no longer vertically integrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.89.82 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored Apple, as their ownership extends forward all the way to consumers (in contrast to it's competitors) as well as backwards. Apple does exert a huge amount of control with it's suppliers and partners in various parts of it's vertical, and it's control, not strict ownership that defines vertical integration. One should also consider the nature of the carrier relationships that Apple has maintained as an example of control vs. strict ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.28.113 (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Apple is the most vertically integrated company in the world." -Wired  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.28.113 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Carneggie "introduced the concept the concept of 'vertical integration'"??
The student website cited here (quote nr. 1: http://www.slu.edu/x28249.xml) only says that "Andrew Carnegie monopolized the steel industry by employing vertical integration to tie up all aspects of steel production and distribution.", nothing about the introduction of the theoretical concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torotazo (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)