设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 论  坛 博  客 视  频 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
 
Pascal的博客  
“朝廷不是让我隐蔽吗?”“你也不看看,这是什么时候了?!”  
我的名片
Pascal
 
注册日期: 2014-10-22
访问总量: 2,578,037 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
我的公告栏
最新发布
· 3.5%定律吓得梁家河令G20打死不许
· 塔利班是如何一步步堕落成恐怖组
· 中方与塔利班就共同打击恐怖主义
· 王毅潘多拉盒子是中共扩散给伊朗
· 好激动终于等到这一天台湾就要解
· 围观国安派到香港特派员谩骂挑事
· 林郑太软弱道什么歉袭警还击死了
友好链接
分类目录
【他山之石】
 · 3.5%定律吓得梁家河令G20打死不许谈
 · 塔利班是如何一步步堕落成恐怖组织
 · 中方与塔利班就共同打击恐怖主义交
 · 王毅潘多拉盒子是中共扩散给伊朗核
 · 好激动终于等到这一天台湾就要解放
 · 围观国安派到香港特派员谩骂挑事的
 · 林郑太软弱道什么歉袭警还击死了白
 · 香港中资银行前排长队兑换提现清空
 · 所有反动统治政治上的完蛋都是经济
 · 外国反华势力策动香港暴动颜色革命
存档目录
06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019
05/01/2019 - 05/31/2019
04/01/2019 - 04/30/2019
03/01/2019 - 03/31/2019
02/01/2019 - 02/28/2019
01/01/2019 - 01/31/2019
12/01/2018 - 12/31/2018
11/01/2018 - 11/30/2018
10/01/2018 - 10/31/2018
09/01/2018 - 09/30/2018
08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018
07/01/2018 - 07/31/2018
06/01/2018 - 06/30/2018
05/01/2018 - 05/31/2018
04/01/2018 - 04/30/2018
03/01/2018 - 03/31/2018
02/01/2018 - 02/28/2018
01/01/2018 - 01/31/2018
11/01/2017 - 11/30/2017
10/01/2017 - 10/31/2017
09/01/2017 - 09/30/2017
08/01/2017 - 08/31/2017
07/01/2017 - 07/31/2017
06/01/2017 - 06/30/2017
05/01/2017 - 05/31/2017
04/01/2017 - 04/30/2017
03/01/2017 - 03/31/2017
02/01/2017 - 02/28/2017
01/01/2017 - 01/31/2017
12/01/2016 - 12/31/2016
11/01/2016 - 11/30/2016
10/01/2016 - 10/31/2016
09/01/2016 - 09/30/2016
08/01/2016 - 08/31/2016
07/01/2016 - 07/31/2016
06/01/2016 - 06/30/2016
05/01/2016 - 05/31/2016
04/01/2016 - 04/30/2016
03/01/2016 - 03/31/2016
02/01/2016 - 02/29/2016
01/01/2016 - 01/31/2016
12/01/2015 - 12/31/2015
11/01/2015 - 11/30/2015
10/01/2015 - 10/31/2015
09/01/2015 - 09/30/2015
08/01/2015 - 08/31/2015
07/01/2015 - 07/31/2015
06/01/2015 - 06/30/2015
05/01/2015 - 05/31/2015
04/01/2015 - 04/30/2015
03/01/2015 - 03/31/2015
02/01/2015 - 02/28/2015
01/01/2015 - 01/31/2015
12/01/2014 - 12/31/2014
11/01/2014 - 11/30/2014
10/01/2014 - 10/31/2014
网络日志正文
华为就是蒙古骑兵所到之处寸草不生浙大老通讯校友 2019-05-23 16:31:46

Inline image

Inline image

image.png


华为 —— 成吉思汗同志的蒙古骑兵 所到之处 寸草不生


浙江大学校友微信群上一个校友发言:华为是个癌细胞


关于华为,作为一个大半辈子的老通讯人,我的态度很直接,

希望这种邪恶的企业早日关门大吉。这就是个癌细胞,

它走到哪里,寸草不生。


1. 一个例子。有个30年前一起进入中国移动通讯行业的老兄弟,

现在自己做的公司,曾经花了好几年投资开发了一点新东西,

去年出了成果,被华为看上找上门谈合作,两次会谈就无疾

而终。然后,上个月整个原创团队集体失踪,华为宣布新产品

研发线开张。这就是所谓走别人的路、让别人无路可走。

2..华为对于国内同行的无底线打压,行内有口皆碑 … 恨不得

送它一墓碑。另一个例子。在中东,华为用负合同(就是不仅

不收客户的钱,反而倒给运营商钱)抢市场,所向披靡,无论

国企外企的已运营系统被它全部拔光换上华为系统。


Inline image

Inline image

Inline image

Inline image

Inline image

Inline image

这就不是一个企业,是成吉思汗的蒙古骑兵,

所到之处市场秩序一片狼藉。

3. 各种下流商业手段无所不用其极,它就像一只饕餮巨兽,

只要它还没饱,别人就必须饿着。有整个国家的财力为它背书,

有一国百姓的血汗钱供它挥霍,这世上没有任何企业能和他

竞争。再说它的企业文化,996最早就是它发明的。

Related image

早先,还没狼性文化这种花词儿,那时候叫军事化管理。


4. 对内残酷压榨把员工当螺丝钉,对外用战争思维驰骋商场,

我一个老兄弟评价狼性文化:“别糟蹋狼了,狼有这么不要脸

的吗?”在我看来,华为就是这国的一个缩影,它的观念、它

的文化、它的作为,是当下天朝丛林社会的一个微缩模型,

理解了华为,就理解了中国的现状。


5. 因为民族主义支持华为的民众,终究会沦为代价,一将功成

万骨枯,也许他们会成为皇座下“自豪的”累累白骨,不是说

“纵做鬼,也幸福”吗?正因为立足现实,所以才明白支持

华为这样的经济蒙古骑兵,就是在和中国的经济转型开玩笑,

就是对这个国家和民族的未来不负责任。

6. 不是因为大家都这样、华为就可以接受甚至必须支持了,

中国农耕社会几千年,这一国的人,每一个都是一脑袋小农观念,

难道这样就是正确了?就不需要转型进入新的文明阶段了?



image.png


 华为公司副 / 轮值董事长徐直军同志


image.png


Image result for Ã¥Žä¸oÃ¥a€|¬Ã¥¸Ã¥a€°Ë‰Ã¨a€˜ï¿¡Ã¤oa€1éa€¢¿Ã¥¾Ã¥¿a€”Ã¥a€ a€o

最新加罪 —— 诽谤诬陷栽赃华为轮值董事长徐直军同志

   涉嫌参与窃取硅谷美国芯片初创公司商业机密的阴谋


 華為手機和平板留有23个后门,证據确凿。

 無论在全球何地,會將你的隱私資料數據

 源源不斷传回中國 ......

 這樣的可怕設备,你敢用嗎?



 中华民族的脊梁 —— 华为任正非同志重磅发声:




   最爱胡锡进! 


   他总是不失时机地告诉人们真相!


image.png

image.png

作者:老牛爷   留言时间:2019-05-23 14:29:35

这个指责也太没道理了,华为恶性竞争是市场行为,

只要它能成功,能占领市场,能赚钱,那就是好样的。


  掠夺性定价   Predatory Pricing


掠夺性定价又称驱逐对手定价,是指企业为了把对手挤出市场和吓退试图

进入市场的潜在对手,而采取降低价格(甚至低于成本)的策略。 [1] 

目录

1 基本信息

2 法律特征

3 理论

4 实施条件

5 标准

6 认识

基本信息

掠夺性定价是一种不公平的低价行为,实施该行为的企业占有一定的市场支配

地位,他们具有资产雄厚、生产规模大、分散经营能力强等竞争优势,所以有

能力承担暂时故意压低价格的利益损失,而一般的中小企业势单力薄,无力

承担这种牺牲。

其次,掠夺性定价是以排挤竞争对手为目的的故意行为,实施该行为的企业以

低于成本价销售,会造成短期的利益损失,但是这样做的目的是吸引消费者,

以此为代价挤走竞争对手,行为人在一定时间达到目的后,会提高销售价格,

独占市场。

掠夺性定价是现代产业组织理论的重要内容之一,长期以来关于其是否理性

一直有争议。所谓掠夺性定价是指在位厂商将价格削减至对手平均成本之下,

以便将对手驱逐出市场或者遏制进入,即使遭受短期损失。一旦对手离开市场,

在位厂商就会提高价格以补偿掠夺期损失。掠夺性定价理论主要包括认为掠夺性

定价非理性、不符合厂商的长期利润最大化目标的芝加哥学派理论,以及通过

引入信息不对称、认为掠夺性定价是厂商理性行为的后芝加哥学派理论。二者

之所以得出截然相反的结论,是因为关于信息的假定不一致。信息在掠夺性

定价理论的发展中起了至关重要的作用。因为掠夺性定价是厂商的一种策略性

行为,策略性行为就涉及到厂商之间的互动,互动就需要了解对手,猜测对方。

因而不同的信息假定得出不同的结论就不足为怪了。信息可以分为完全信息和

不完全信息。芝加哥学派的结论是建立在完全信息的基础之上。而后芝加哥学派

就是通过引入信息不对称——单边或双边不确定,利用博弈论方法来研究掠夺性

定价是否理性的问题。

法律特征

1、其主体为处于卖方地位的经营者,且该经营者具有一定的经济或技术实力。

该特征使其与价格歧视相区别,后者不仅包括卖方之间的竞争,也包括买方之间

的竞争。

2、其地域市场为一国的国内市场。此特征使其与“倾销”相区别。“倾销”是

指以低于国内市场的价格在海外市场大宗销售商品的行为。可见,两者在“低价

销售”和“排挤竞争对手”两方面有相似之处,但它们的区别是明显的。

(1)两者的适用范围不同。“掠夺性定价”适用于国内贸易,而“倾销”适用

于国际贸易。

(2)两者的认定标准不同。“掠夺性定价”以成本为标准,而“倾销”则以

国内同类产品的正常交易时适用的价格为其标准。

(3)两者适用的法律不同。“掠夺性定价”主要适用本国法律,而“倾销”则

主要适用国际条约或其他国家的法律。

(4)两者的后果不同。对“掠夺性定价”的法律制裁是损害赔偿或行政处罚,

而对“倾销”则为征收反倾销税。

据此,我们认为,我国立法及理论上将本属“掠夺性定价”的行为也称之为

“倾销”,易使人们对本已约定俗成的“倾销”概念的理解出现混淆,不利于

国际贸易的发展。

3、其客观表现为暂时以低于成本的价格在市场上连续地销售其商品或提供劳务。

它的实质是宁愿暂时亏本,也要把竞争对手从一定的市场上挤出,形成独占局面,

然后以垄断高价销售,这样做不仅可以弥补它进行低价亏本销售所造成的损失,

而且还可以谋取高额的垄断利润。

4、其行为者的主观故意是试图排挤竞争对手,以谋求垄断地位。但在实践中,

“掠夺性定价”并不象它的直接目的那样消除竞争对手,而可能是引诱、说服

或威胁竞争对手与之进行合作或在一些垄断性方案上与之合作。


       Predatory  Pricing

REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON   Updated Apr 11, 2019

What is Predatory Pricing?

Predatory pricing is the illegal act of setting prices low in an attempt to eliminate the competition. Predatory pricing violates antitrust law, as it makes markets more vulnerable to a monopoly.

However, allegations of this practice can be difficult to prosecute because defendants may successfully argue that low prices are part of normal competition, rather than a deliberate attempt to undermine the marketplace. And predatory pricing isn't always successful in its goal, due to the difficulties in recouping lost revenue and successfully eliminating competitors.

Effects of Predatory Pricing

A price war spurred by predatory pricing can be favorable for consumers in the short run. The heightened competition may create a buyers’ market in which the consumer enjoys not only lower prices but increased leverage and wider choice.

However, should the price battle succeed in slaying all, or even some, of the market competitors, the advantages for consumers may quickly evaporate—or even reverse. A monopolistic marketplace might allow the company that holds the monopoly to raise prices as they wish, perhaps reducing consumer choice in the bargain.

Fortunately for consumers, creating a sustained market monopoly is no simple matter. For one, eliminating all rival businesses in a given market often comes with considerable challenges. For instance, in an area with numerous gas stations, it's usually daunting for any one operator to cut prices low enough, for long enough, to drive out all competitors. Even if such an effort worked, the strategy would succeed only if the revenue lost through predatory pricing could be recouped quickly—before many other competitors might enter the market, drawn by a return to normal price levels.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

In predatory pricing scheme, prices are set low in an attempt to drive our competitors and create a monopoly

Consumers may benefit from lower prices in the short term, but then suffer if the scheme succeeds in eliminating competition, and prices rise and choice declines

Prosecutions for predatory pricing have been complicated by the short-term consumer benefits and the difficulty of proving the intent to create a market monopoly

Dumping as Predatory Pricing

There's even risk in a predatory-pricing practice known as dumping, in which the predator attempts to conquer a new foreign market by selling goods there, at least temporarily, for less than they charge at home. The challenge, especially in an increasingly global market, lies in preventing the "dumped" goods from being bought abroad and resold in the lucrative home market.

A famous cautionary tale from the early 20th century involves dumping into the U.S. by a German cartel that controlled the European market for bromine, an essential ingredient in many medicines as well as a vital element to photography. After American company Dow Chemical exported competitively priced bromine to Europe, the Germans retaliated by selling bromine in the U.S. at below their manufacturing cost. Dow responded by simply buying the bromine stateside at the dumped price and reselling it profitably in Europe, which allowed the company to strengthen its European customer base at the expense of the German cartel.

Predatory Pricing and the Law

The same factors that make predatory pricing beneficial to consumers, at least in the short run— and often of dubious benefit to the predators, at least in the long run—have tended to hamper prosecution of supposed predators under U.S. antitrust laws.

The Federal Trade Commission says it carefully examines claims of predatory pricing. In turn, the Department of Justice, in a paper updated as recently as 2015, has asserted that economic theory based on strategic analysis supports that predatory pricing is a real problem, and that courts have adopted an overly cautious view of the practice.

The U.S. judiciary has indeed often been skeptical of claims of predatory pricing. Among the high bars set by the U.S. Supreme Court on antitrust claims is the requirement that plaintiffs show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize. Further, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be not simply aggressively low but actually below the seller's cost.

That said, it is not a violation of the law if a business sets prices below its own costs for reasons other than having a specific strategy to eliminate competitors.


浏览(2872) (8) 评论(10)
发表评论
文章评论
作者:老牛爷 回复 辛亥革命 留言时间:2019-05-26 21:42:39

Trump举全国之力 封杀华为, 符合“商业法”?

回复 | 2
作者:辛亥革命 回复 老牛爷 留言时间:2019-05-25 14:00:37

西方就是崇尚丛林法则??????

你生活在18,19世纪?你有没有听说过一个叫‘商业法’的东东??????

回复 | 0
作者:辛亥革命 回复 health is no.1 留言时间:2019-05-25 13:56:57

大公司都用这种下三滥手段?至少得在法律框架下吧?

回复 | 0
作者:老牛爷 回复 wangqinbichu 留言时间:2019-05-24 17:52:44

西方就是崇尚丛林法则,怎么到华为就不可以了?你经济学学的好,说说?

华为的恶性竞争比起美国的封杀那是小巫见大巫了。

老美:华为就是偷技术嘛,5G也是偷得

华为:你们美国还没G5,我们怎么偷啊?老美:没偷5G,也偷了4G3G,反正就是偷了。

狼吃小羊的理由就是牙齿。

华为狼性就是学西方的.

再说一句,思想不是课堂上学来的,像你这种用101搞经济,死都不知道怎么死的。

回复 | 5
作者:老牛爷 回复 wangqinbichu 留言时间:2019-05-24 17:41:24

西方就是崇尚丛林法则,怎么到华为就不可以了?你经济学学的好,说说?

G华为的恶性竞争比起美国的封杀那是小巫见大巫了。

老美:华为就是偷技术嘛,5G也是偷得华为:你们美国还没G5,我们怎么偷啊?老美:没偷5G,也偷了4G3G,反正就是偷了。

狼吃小羊的理由就是牙齿。

回复 | 1
作者:wangqinbichu 回复 老牛爷 留言时间:2019-05-24 00:23:30

这位仁兄,你不仅没学过经济学101,连负101都没学过,外行到了十万八千里之外。

回复 | 3
作者:Pascal 留言时间:2019-05-23 22:57:28

Related image

Related image

Image result for baidu  logo

image.png

回复 | 1
作者:health is no.1 留言时间:2019-05-23 22:18:02

1. 你认为你听说的是事实吗?

2. 那个大公司不是把对手扼杀在摇篮之中?

商场如战场,不是你死就是我活。你要是仁慈,你就被消灭!

回复 | 2
作者:Pascal 留言时间:2019-05-23 20:02:00

掠夺性定价

Predatory Pricing

掠夺性定价又称驱逐对手定价,是指企业为了把对手挤出市场和吓退试图

进入市场的潜在对手,而采取降低价格(甚至低于成本)的策略。 [1]

目录

1 基本信息

2 法律特征

3 理论

4 实施条件

5 标准

6 认识

基本信息

掠夺性定价是一种不公平的低价行为,实施该行为的企业占有一定的市场支配

地位,他们具有资产雄厚、生产规模大、分散经营能力强等竞争优势,所以有

能力承担暂时故意压低价格的利益损失,而一般的中小企业势单力薄,无力

承担这种牺牲。

其次,掠夺性定价是以排挤竞争对手为目的的故意行为,实施该行为的企业以

低于成本价销售,会造成短期的利益损失,但是这样做的目的是吸引消费者,

以此为代价挤走竞争对手,行为人在一定时间达到目的后,会提高销售价格,

独占市场。

掠夺性定价是现代产业组织理论的重要内容之一,长期以来关于其是否理性

一直有争议。所谓掠夺性定价是指在位厂商将价格削减至对手平均成本之下,

以便将对手驱逐出市场或者遏制进入,即使遭受短期损失。一旦对手离开市场,

在位厂商就会提高价格以补偿掠夺期损失。掠夺性定价理论主要包括认为掠夺性

定价非理性、不符合厂商的长期利润最大化目标的芝加哥学派理论,以及通过

引入信息不对称、认为掠夺性定价是厂商理性行为的后芝加哥学派理论。二者

之所以得出截然相反的结论,是因为关于信息的假定不一致。信息在掠夺性

定价理论的发展中起了至关重要的作用。因为掠夺性定价是厂商的一种策略性

行为,策略性行为就涉及到厂商之间的互动,互动就需要了解对手,猜测对方。

因而不同的信息假定得出不同的结论就不足为怪了。信息可以分为完全信息和

不完全信息。芝加哥学派的结论是建立在完全信息的基础之上。而后芝加哥学派

就是通过引入信息不对称——单边或双边不确定,利用博弈论方法来研究掠夺性

定价是否理性的问题。

法律特征

1、其主体为处于卖方地位的经营者,且该经营者具有一定的经济或技术实力。

该特征使其与价格歧视相区别,后者不仅包括卖方之间的竞争,也包括买方之间

的竞争。

2、其地域市场为一国的国内市场。此特征使其与“倾销”相区别。“倾销”是

指以低于国内市场的价格在海外市场大宗销售商品的行为。可见,两者在“低价

销售”和“排挤竞争对手”两方面有相似之处,但它们的区别是明显的。

(1)两者的适用范围不同。“掠夺性定价”适用于国内贸易,而“倾销”适用

于国际贸易。

(2)两者的认定标准不同。“掠夺性定价”以成本为标准,而“倾销”则以

国内同类产品的正常交易时适用的价格为其标准。

(3)两者适用的法律不同。“掠夺性定价”主要适用本国法律,而“倾销”则

主要适用国际条约或其他国家的法律。

(4)两者的后果不同。对“掠夺性定价”的法律制裁是损害赔偿或行政处罚,

而对“倾销”则为征收反倾销税。

据此,我们认为,我国立法及理论上将本属“掠夺性定价”的行为也称之为

“倾销”,易使人们对本已约定俗成的“倾销”概念的理解出现混淆,不利于

国际贸易的发展。

3、其客观表现为暂时以低于成本的价格在市场上连续地销售其商品或提供劳务。

它的实质是宁愿暂时亏本,也要把竞争对手从一定的市场上挤出,形成独占局面,

然后以垄断高价销售,这样做不仅可以弥补它进行低价亏本销售所造成的损失,

而且还可以谋取高额的垄断利润。

4、其行为者的主观故意是试图排挤竞争对手,以谋求垄断地位。但在实践中,

“掠夺性定价”并不象它的直接目的那样消除竞争对手,而可能是引诱、说服

或威胁竞争对手与之进行合作或在一些垄断性方案上与之合作。

Predatory Pricing

REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON Updated Apr 11, 2019

What is Predatory Pricing?

Predatory pricing is the illegal act of setting prices low in an attempt to eliminate the competition. Predatory pricing violates antitrust law, as it makes markets more vulnerable to a monopoly.

However, allegations of this practice can be difficult to prosecute because defendants may successfully argue that low prices are part of normal competition, rather than a deliberate attempt to undermine the marketplace. And predatory pricing isn't always successful in its goal, due to the difficulties in recouping lost revenue and successfully eliminating competitors.

Effects of Predatory Pricing

A price war spurred by predatory pricing can be favorable for consumers in the short run. The heightened competition may create a buyers’ market in which the consumer enjoys not only lower prices but increased leverage and wider choice.

However, should the price battle succeed in slaying all, or even some, of the market competitors, the advantages for consumers may quickly evaporate—or even reverse. A monopolistic marketplace might allow the company that holds the monopoly to raise prices as they wish, perhaps reducing consumer choice in the bargain.

Fortunately for consumers, creating a sustained market monopoly is no simple matter. For one, eliminating all rival businesses in a given market often comes with considerable challenges. For instance, in an area with numerous gas stations, it's usually daunting for any one operator to cut prices low enough, for long enough, to drive out all competitors. Even if such an effort worked, the strategy would succeed only if the revenue lost through predatory pricing could be recouped quickly—before many other competitors might enter the market, drawn by a return to normal price levels.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

In predatory pricing scheme, prices are set low in an attempt to drive our competitors and create a monopoly

Consumers may benefit from lower prices in the short term, but then suffer if the scheme succeeds in eliminating competition, and prices rise and choice declines

Prosecutions for predatory pricing have been complicated by the short-term consumer benefits and the difficulty of proving the intent to create a market monopoly

Dumping as Predatory Pricing

There's even risk in a predatory-pricing practice known as dumping, in which the predator attempts to conquer a new foreign market by selling goods there, at least temporarily, for less than they charge at home. The challenge, especially in an increasingly global market, lies in preventing the "dumped" goods from being bought abroad and resold in the lucrative home market.

A famous cautionary tale from the early 20th century involves dumping into the U.S. by a German cartel that controlled the European market for bromine, an essential ingredient in many medicines as well as a vital element to photography. After American company Dow Chemical exported competitively priced bromine to Europe, the Germans retaliated by selling bromine in the U.S. at below their manufacturing cost. Dow responded by simply buying the bromine stateside at the dumped price and reselling it profitably in Europe, which allowed the company to strengthen its European customer base at the expense of the German cartel.

Predatory Pricing and the Law

The same factors that make predatory pricing beneficial to consumers, at least in the short run— and often of dubious benefit to the predators, at least in the long run—have tended to hamper prosecution of supposed predators under U.S. antitrust laws.

The Federal Trade Commission says it carefully examines claims of predatory pricing. In turn, the Department of Justice, in a paper updated as recently as 2015, has asserted that economic theory based on strategic analysis supports that predatory pricing is a real problem, and that courts have adopted an overly cautious view of the practice.

The U.S. judiciary has indeed often been skeptical of claims of predatory pricing. Among the high bars set by the U.S. Supreme Court on antitrust claims is the requirement that plaintiffs show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize. Further, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be not simply aggressively low but actually below the seller's cost.

That said, it is not a violation of the law if a business sets prices below its own costs for reasons other than having a specific strategy to eliminate competitors.

回复 | 1
作者:老牛爷 留言时间:2019-05-23 17:29:35

这个指责也太没道理了,华为恶性竞争是市场行为,只要它能成功,能占领市场,能赚钱,那就是好样的。

回复 | 4
共有10条评论  当前为第1/1页  首页 上页 下页 尾页  跳转到: 
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2017. CyberMedia Network /Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.