Technology Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google defend firms against calls for break-up

[Jake84]

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google face claims of 'harmful' power

The executives of the four US tech giants defend their records at a five-hour hearing in Congress.

www.bbc.com

Just worth a few trillions...

 

[BCNTM]

So you get a good idea - work hard and build a massive business and then someone wants to split you up

If I were them I would block all access to google and cancel their Amazon orders

 

[muck]

So you get a good idea - work hard and build a massive business and then someone wants to split you up

If I were them I would block all access to google and cancel their Amazon orders

Anti-monopoly legislation predates the establishment of Google or Amazon. The fact is, a conventional corporation would've long since been forced to sell off some of their branches.

 

[BCNTM]

Anti-monopoly legislation predates the establishment of Google or Amazon. The fact is, a conventional corporation would've long since been forced to sell off some of their branches.

google is not a monopoly - I regularly use bing as google hides things

there is an alternative to Amazon - ebay - in fact most online sellers are cheaper than Amazon you just have to look

Bangood - there are loads of far east sellers - just because google pumps amazon to the top of your searches does not mean there are not alternatives

people are lazy and thus the rise of amazon and google

 

[TheKiwi]

I can't think of a single anti-tech monopoly action over the past 35 years that served any purpose other than allowing the investigators to bloviate loudly about how wonderful they are.

The anti-IBM one over their domination of the mainframe market was rendered obsolete by market changes. Likewise the anti-Microsoft one over Internet Explorer - do you remember IE, the browser you used to download a better browser.

They are all just used as a tool for political blackmail. Microsoft used to be looked down upon in Washington because they were notorious for refusing to play the lobbying game. "They think they're better than us" was a common complaint. Now they make damn sure that stupid actions from Washington that affect them are lobbied against.

 

[Flagg]

I can't think of a single anti-tech monopoly action over the past 35 years that served any purpose other than allowing the investigators to bloviate loudly about how wonderful they are.

The anti-IBM one over their domination of the mainframe market was rendered obsolete by market changes. Likewise the anti-Microsoft one over Internet Explorer - do you remember IE, the browser you used to download a better browser.

They are all just used as a tool for political blackmail. Microsoft used to be looked down upon in Washington because they were notorious for refusing to play the lobbying game. "They think they're better than us" was a common complaint. Now they make damn sure that stupid actions from Washington that affect them are lobbied against.

Bullseye.

Big tech all learned from Microsoft‘s combination of naïveté and arrogance.

Now everyone with a huge market cap in tech runs a desert strategy.

Warren Buffett said he likes businesses with a moat.

Big tech like to keep a massive desert between themselves and all else.

Acquihire of competing talent, acquisition of competing product.

It is of existential importance to balance innovation/job/wealth creation regulating big tech with supporting the global success of American(western) superplatforms of GeoDigital importance.

FAANG+ are the new Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

And they are all fighting each other and government.

BATH+(Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei) are all fully aligned and integrated with CCP/PLA One Belt, One Road strategy.

We are at war.

Why did everyone go nuts with Microsoft 20 years ago? Because the OS was what mattered and everyone wanted Windows sourcecode/backdoors or else government anti monopoly lawsuits......and China rightly avoided Windows at the government level.

Then it was about search.

And now it’s about perpetual connectivity offering automated deep data insight on individuals that represents power far greater than the nuclear weapon.

And most elected politicians and senior level appointees can’t explain Moore’s, Metcalfe’s, or Zipf’s Laws.

If we fail. If we are shortsighted. We could lose forever.

It really is that serious.

We need to ensure big tech doesn’t suffocate innovation.

And we need FAANG+ to beat BATH+, especially in the developing world.

It is a GeoDigital War.

 

[morris]

US federal, state governments file antitrust lawsuit against Facebook

The Federal Trade Commission could seek, among other things, the divestment of "Instagram and WhatsApp".

www.smh.com.au

The US Federal Trade Commission and nearly every US state sued Facebook on Wednesday, local time, saying that it broke antitrust law and should potentially be broken up.

With the filing of the twin lawsuits, Facebook becomes the second big tech company to face a major legal challenge this fall.

 

[primer]

Amazon, numerous shops on there have lower prices on their own websites.
Copy the amazon shop name and paste into dear I say google and find the price is lower than amazon.
As countries include tax for amazon the little stores avoid it. A brass plaque on amazon was 30% less on its British home website as NZ now adds GST through amazon sales. Plus its usually less the amazon fees that are quite high.

 

[Fluff]

The 25 Worst Business Failures in History (businesspundit.com)

Seriously 3D printing will simultaneously crucify China and kill off a lot of this trading. Of course you could still be ordering on Amazon, they print it in your town, and some kid on a bike delivers it to you. For all we know thats what they're already doing!!

 

[nicememe]

google is not a monopoly - I regularly use bing as google hides things

there is an alternative to Amazon - ebay - in fact most online sellers are cheaper than Amazon you just have to look

Bangood - there are loads of far east sellers - just because google pumps amazon to the top of your searches does not mean there are not alternatives

people are lazy and thus the rise of amazon and google

I don't think it's a matter of alternatives.
At some point corporations become so successful, they hold more money and power than some countries in the world. That begs the question, if quantitative power is contentious and has to be subject to democratic processes and/or constitutional boundaries in power and/or good faith, whatever are the shenanigans of each state to establish the "social contract"... then what do multi-billion transnational titan corporations do to legitimize their power? Nothing, as the primary goal of any corporation is financial profit.
Hence, breakups aren't required just to avoid monopolism. And I would argue the UN has to establish strict limitations on the reach of any private company (or corporate alliances) in the world. Unless you want YouTube, Twitter, Google, etc. to continue electing American presidents and choosing sides in revolutions around the world at their own behest.

 

[TheKiwi]

Come back to me when google start using drones with Hellfires to attack people who use Bing or GoDuckGo. Or when Twitter has a team of inept SWAT police to raid people who move to another platform. Or when Apple starts up secret camps to hold the vile Android infidels.

Until then governments are a far larger threat to liberty, democracy and freedom than those companies. This is all just a powerplay with the various political actors looking for a payoff in cash and/or favours.

 

[primer]

People are like sheep? These monoliths have proven that statement and banked trillions.

 

[TheKiwi]

It shows that if your product is good and convenient then people will use it. Oh noes. If the answer to that is to make things less convenient then it’s a stupid answer.

 

[primer]

Usually the home site of the seller has better price, info, service and contact. Everyone and their dog can take credit cards

 

[morris]

Until then governments are a far larger threat to liberty, democracy and freedom than those companies. This is all just a powerplay with the various political actors looking for a payoff in cash and/or favours.

Governments at least have a claim of getting it's power via democratic elections.

 

[TheKiwi]

Usually the home site of the seller has better price, info, service and contact. Everyone and their dog can take credit cards

And yet Amazon is popular because you can compare multiple products at once.

Governments at least have a claim of getting it's power via democratic elections.

And these companies have a claim that their power is equally ascribed to people voting with their wallets. Once again, no one is forced to use Amazon or google or Apple or Twitter. Everyone is forced to pay their government. I'll take choice and an absence of force everytime.

 

[morris]

people voting with their wallets

Are these people majority or not, where are the numbers?

 

[TheKiwi]

Amazon's 2019 share of online commerce in the US was 37.5 percent.

...its share of total retail commerce—a more appropriate relevant market—was about 6 percent.

So that suggests that somewhere around 40% of the US consider them to be a useful service, but that they are no monopoly.

These anti-trust actions aren't based on some kind of "consumers are suffering" but rather "other companies connected to powerful political interests are suffering".

 

[primer]

Its simple to just use amazon reviews. Those reviews are some of the best free market research in the net. There is no need to secretly mine data for that purpose. Its right there at the click of a button at no cost.

 

[muck]

Nevermind their strategy of outcompeting rivals through disregarding local labour law, Amazon has been found to abuse its power through Marketplace numerous times. Here in Europe, they used favourable conditions to goad smaller competitors into becoming Marketplace vendors only to change their terms and services in a way that crippled those companies once they'd begun to invest into their new customer base.

But the real problem is big data. Your success as a company in the Western world hinges on you ingratiating yourself with Google. And social media companies have become absurdly powerful, providing even communication channels for governments. Or try finding a job if you're not on social media. You're just not going to get that call; personnel managers openly state it's "suspicious" not to use social media nowadays.

I'd definitely agree their firm grip on our economies is a big problem.

In my opinion, most of those issues tem from the fact we were so childishly fascinated with the internet we just about forgot to regulate it. Myself, I'm not necessarily advocating more regulation but most of the pushback against the regulation proposals being made strike me as silly – whether that pushback comes from Fortune 500 companies or liberal dreamers.

Why don't we just draw parallels to existing "analogue" services and business?

For instance, why shouldn't the regulations that applied to the yellow pages apply to Google as well? You might be able to argue they should be allowed to accept cash-for-prominence even though they claim your search results are ordered purely by relevance. But I think you won't be able to argue Google should be allowed to accept money to keep the payer's competitors from appearing in their search results. That's frankly immoral.

And then there's obviously the issue of political interference and free speech.

Should big data's role in the relaying of news and opinions be considered as that of a publisher? If yes, the nature of the published content is entirely at their discretion. However, if they're merely providers of the infrastructure of distributing content they have as little right to regulate the contents of your social media posts as the postal service gets to make redactions to your physical letters.

But even that issue won't be solved anytime soon, owing to their power.