Computer.rip never fails to hold my attention. This was no exception. One of the best modern-day blogs.
For someone my age, who grew up as the last of the old guard of vertically-integrated conglomerates, and also the odd "diversified" conglomerates were breaking up, it's really a wonder to imagine the scale of a business like (the original) AT&T.
And to be clear, I know we have our share of giant companies today, but there's something so much more honest about a 1960 AT&T, compared to say, Apple, Microsoft, or Google, who while maintaining massive market share, don't even employ the people who sweep their floors or serve meals in their company cafeterias, let alone those who manufacture any of their hardware. So, the large corporate footprints today feel kind of like thin envelopes which serve to capture as much of the profits as possible from a large set of related businesses, without having to get too involved with any of the details. There's nothing I can point to specifically that's wrong with this apparently efficient arrangement, but I just think I like the old model better.
Computer.rip never fails to hold my attention. This was no exception. One of the best modern-day blogs.
For someone my age, who grew up as the last of the old guard of vertically-integrated conglomerates, and also the odd "diversified" conglomerates were breaking up, it's really a wonder to imagine the scale of a business like (the original) AT&T.
And to be clear, I know we have our share of giant companies today, but there's something so much more honest about a 1960 AT&T, compared to say, Apple, Microsoft, or Google, who while maintaining massive market share, don't even employ the people who sweep their floors or serve meals in their company cafeterias, let alone those who manufacture any of their hardware. So, the large corporate footprints today feel kind of like thin envelopes which serve to capture as much of the profits as possible from a large set of related businesses, without having to get too involved with any of the details. There's nothing I can point to specifically that's wrong with this apparently efficient arrangement, but I just think I like the old model better.