Marvin Ammori Quotes

Competition matters.

Domination and monopoly is the name of the game in the web marketplace.

Google's competitors fail to demonstrate that Google's actions stifle competition rather than reflect pro-consumer innovations.

If a company is not a monopoly, then the law assumes market competition can restrain the company's actions. No problem. If a monopoly exists, but the monopoly does not engage in acts designed to destroy competition, then we can assume that it earned and is keeping its monopoly the pro-consumer way: by out-innovating its competitors.

You want an idea that turns into a monopoly. But you can't get a monopoly, in a big market right away; too much competition for that.

All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.

Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation.

What can we learn from the battle between data and design? What can we learn from the relationship between Google and Apple? Clearly no one school of thought is right: Apple and Google are both wildly successful and profitable companies that changed the world.

Consolidating to the point of monopoly has never served the consumer - ever.

Standards wars involve lots of variables, and understanding them often seems more an art than a science. They generally involve just two big players, and end in a winner-take-all situation.

The next thing is: we can make IBM even better. We brought IBM back but we're gunning for leadership.

Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition.

So I think instead of focusing on the competition, focus on the customer.

Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress.

In the long run all producers are forced to use the most efficient methods or give place to others who do.

Competition is good because we need to educate customers, and Ozon.ru itself will not be able to do it.

I think the high-tech industry is used to developing new things very quickly. It's the Silicon Valley way of doing business: You either move very quickly and you work hard to improve your product technology, or you get destroyed by some other company.

When I came into the mobile phone business, I was really the upstart who pretty much took the business, not quite by storm, but really made an impact on it quite early on. But it was from a position, really, of feeling that I was a last mover.

The successful companies try to keep the new entrants down. Now that's great for a company like ours. We make more money that way because we have less competition and less innovation. But for the country as a whole, it's horrible.

We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference.

The breakup was a good thing. It brought competition into a field where there hadn’t been any competition and that’s the American way. Competition brings down price and brings up quality.

The most frequent request we get at the FCC is from companies who say, “Please regulate my rival.” The Commission can become a new tool for competitive strategy.

He who puts ... a product upon the market as it demands, controls that market, regardless of color. It is simply a survival of the fittest.

Most companies in a capitalistic system compete mightily to obtain monopolistic positions so they can avoid capitalistic competition thereafter. Whenever a business person must compete for price, he tends to describe that derisively as a “commodity business” and tries to remedy the situation.

We’re far behind [Microsoft]. They are 3 time bigger than we are. They have a monopoly and we don’t—darnit!