Live data from Hacker News

Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

bbc.com

311–320 of 352 posts

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#311
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but maybe you missed my point. In principle , like a union / cartel, a whole sector of businesses in a market could decide together to never advertise, and the reduced overhead for everyone would mean more profit. In practice, it just takes a few deviators / scabs etc. to undermine this for everyone. Reality is more complex. Organizing in solidarity is hard, deviation is easy… the whole non-cooperative games th…

My original comment was an argument for the parent thread which said "The value of online advertising is massively inflated." I was not saying that ads are good.

Okay, sorry for the confusion. Your response didn't seem pro-advertising per se, but it seemed to suggest that advertising was a necessary evil maybe. I wanted to clarify that it isn't actually necessary systematically, it's just necessary in a race-to-the-bottom zero-sum game where each player has to accept the necessary evil given the assumption that others are doing it.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, you need to acknowledge the vertical integration. Google has a lock on manufacturers, who have no option put to license Android, and as a requirement of that, must include the Play Store, where Google has a complete monopoly on all devices in that market. Second, I wanted to address the accusatory notion of the back half of your comment, and point out the hypocrisy of Googler coming in here and suggesti…

>First of all, you need to acknowledge the vertical integration. Google has a lock on manufacturers, who have no option put to license Android, and as a requirement of that, must include the Play Store, You mean like the Kindle Fire, which runs a custom version of AOSP and doesn't include the play store? You have it backwards. If manufacturers want to access to the play store on device, they need to meet minimum stan…

I'm glad you bring up the Kindle: The Fire Phone failed, as I pointed out, because you can't succeed on Android without Google Play. Funny enough, it was rumored their next attempt will support Google Play. And since Google's MADA prohibits manufacturers from selling forks, it means Amazon would also have to give up the Kindle Fire. So Amazon is soon to be another example of how you can't fight Google.

If you'd like a detailed opinion of mine about Google at large, feel free to message me, my contact info is in my profile. I don't think the mods would appreciate an in-depth on my issues with your employer here.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume that allowing Google to exist as a monopoly does bring better services, that's a small price to pay for not having to be subjugated by a conglomerate. Countries can already barely withstand pressure from big companies, by allowing them grow even further everything would just turn in a way that would allow such companies to make even more money, whilst increasing the gap between the rich and the poor…

> Even if we assume that allowing Google to exist as a monopoly does bring better services How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In Asia Google isn't even the most popular search engine. Want me to show you how google is not a monopoly? A company with monopoly power would be able to raise the price of its service to the price the market can bear . If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing…

> If google put search behind a pay wall, Bing would destroy it in market share.... if smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail

By using Google services you are Google's product, not Google's customer.

Google's services are free attractions, provided in exchange for highly-profitable surveillance capabilities.

In other words, the value an individual may derive from a interaction with Google is decoupled from the profit Google can derive from that interaction. This breaks the key assumption behind classic "free market" models. For Google, the two are related only in aggregate and in abstract, via network effects, largely as proxies for monopoly status and capital accumulation.

18th C. arguments about "free markets" and competition naturally springing up from animal spirits don't work very well for the modern technology industry.

> There is absolutely zero evidence of [technology monopolies exerting pressure on governments]

Examples of companies paying fines in exchange for breaking the law (a pretty generous punishment considering what happens to non-corporation people) is evidence that companies have not yet taken over from governments, but I don't think that was the parent's point.

The largest gripe from governments is flagrant tax avoidance/evasion. If you need "evidence", I'd recommend keeping tabs on technology news in the 'mainstream media' (e.g. various EU governments re: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple tax evasion; Tim Cook pretty openly asking the US to change tax law for him because he's got a lot of money, and is happy to deprive his countrymen of it).

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#314
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You'll live. Millions have died from the perils of ideas such as yours so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. >> Can we start listing all the bad they've done now? You bet. List said evils and I guarantee you the sheer weight of the good in comparison will invalidate your claims. >> Indeed. If you're living in a dream. However, in most of the cases, many people are losing, and few are winning. Actually we…

>Millions have died from the perils of ideas such as yours so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. I'd count the deaths due to capitalism deeming a cause not profitable enough to solve its problems, but you are going to ignore it anyways because it doesn't fit your world view. Also, you are once again assuming I want communism, and that the only viable alternative is capitalism. You're wrong on both points. >…

I'm from Kenya. I'm black. I don't think Trump is a racist. Anytime there's no valid argument to make against conservatism, it comes down to; they're all a bunch of racists.

Today, more and more people are coming out of poverty. I see it everyday and it's remarkable. It's all directly attributable to free enterprise and technology (or shitty CRUD apps like you call them).

Not too long ago, the level of poverty all around me was just at crazy levels. Not so much today. I'll tell you what it feels like when a people have to rely on government handouts and foreign aid; it's dehumanizing. When people actually earn what's theirs, they have joy and pride in themselves. They feel capable. Something changed in my country, in a big way in the last 10 - 15 years. Government got out of the way of free enterprise at least on some level. Corporations that were owned by government were privatized and left to businessmen to run them. They thrived. They became big corporations that hired many many people. What's even better, not only did they employ, they supported SMEs buy becoming their biggest produce buyers. Some of these SMEs (or cooperatives) grew so quickly that they became even bigger than the corporations they were supplying produce to. All of a sudden millionaires sprung up everywhere (they weren't programmers either).

Not too long ago, when government run them, they were dying.

There's such a spirit of entrepreneurship and capitalism today that it's all people talk about. When you tune into vernacular radio stations, you'll notice one thing, the most consistent topic of discussion is wrapped around how to grow businesses. How to increase their agricultural yield. How, where and when to sell their produce. People want to be self sufficient. It gives them dignity.

When I hear people talk about how government should intervene in the affairs of private enterprise, I cringe. Today, the biggest corporation we have in terms of market cap is Safaricom. You might have heard of one of their products - MPesa. The corporation has grown to be very big and important. Would you then recommend that they should split it into smaller companies because it is getting bigger and bigger by the day? They're able to offer better service and incredible products such as M-Shwari (a credit facility that's helped millions). Let me tell you about a time when government intervened in telecoms in a previous era. Before Safaricom, there was Telkom Kenya a government owned and run corporation. It was horrible. Their employees would make long-distance calls with your phone line and you would get an enormous bill at the end of the month. You couldn't trust your phone either - government could be listening in. We had a REAL authoritarian leader called Moi and he would use these govt corporations to further his influence into people's lives. Everyone and I mean everyone was scared of him to the point that people couldn't have any private conversations and not worry. Our grandparents still feel that way sometimes and it may be funny to us but you can see that they take it seriously in their hearts.

Anything government touches becomes horrific. For this reason, philosophically and fundamentally, I will always oppose government intervention and involvement. Government produces evils as far as I'm concerned and there should be less of it. If I was an American, I would be a conservative advocating for less and less government.

When Obama came to Kenya, our President basically told him off with regards to imposing values that were inconsistent with our African beliefs and culture. When I look at black leaders that I would support in America, Ben Carson comes to mind without a doubt. I salute Ben Carson and what he stood for in his campaign. He was stellar. Here's a black man starting from the bottom and look at what he's done (again, not a brogrammer). If he can do it, nobody has an excuse. When I think of America's heritage and what makes it great; the Kochs come to mind. Their dad, incredibly paranoid of communism, started something that they took and grew to what I'd call a utility to many Americans. I salute the Koch brothers (classical liberals - the best kind of liberals). What they've done should be praised not shunned. Yes, I salute Peter Thiel too. I learnt so much from him and most importantly, he introduced me to the marvelous works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe who in turn turned me up to Ayn Rand, Edmund Burke, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises and Joseph De Maistre.

You made me go on a Yeezy-esque rant but there you have it.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First of all, you need to acknowledge the vertical integration. Google has a lock on manufacturers, who have no option put to license Android, and as a requirement of that, must include the Play Store, You mean like the Kindle Fire, which runs a custom version of AOSP and doesn't include the play store? You have it backwards. If manufacturers want to access to the play store on device, they need to meet minimum stan…

I'm glad you bring up the Kindle: The Fire Phone failed, as I pointed out, because you can't succeed on Android without Google Play. Funny enough, it was rumored their next attempt will support Google Play. And since Google's MADA prohibits manufacturers from selling forks, it means Amazon would also have to give up the Kindle Fire. So Amazon is soon to be another example of how you can't fight Google. If you'd like…

> And since Google's MADA prohibits manufacturers from selling forks, it means Amazon would also have to give up the Kindle Fire. So Amazon is soon to be another example of how you can't fight Google.

This is wrong. The anti-forking clause applies to Open Handset Alliance members only: a group which Amazon does not belong to.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#316
If I didn't know better, I would say this is a reaction to "nouveau riche" companies. When was the last time that the BBC proposed reining-in banks or oil companies despite clear consumer antipathy? Even after LIBOR, the 2008 crisis, Deepwater Horizon and HSBC cartel laundering, no one suggested these companies were to big, outside of the phrase "too big to fail". They were punished by being bailed out or given a nominal fine, but these uppity tech companies ought to be broken up.

Perhaps they are "too big", but only because they isn't a revolving door between tech companies and the corridors of power (yet?)

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#317
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email provider: https://posteo.de ; online maps: https://openstreetmap.org . More on https://prism-break.org (no affilation with those).

It's not even funny to compare the quality of Google maps to anything else.

I disagree. I am using openstreetmap for everything and did not have any problems whatsoever. Of course, it depends on the location. In Europe the coverage is almost perfect.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#318

I agree they should be regulated. The world is a better place with lots of smaller companies. These big companies turn regular people into corporate livestock to serve the wealthy. If you were to analyze Facebook as if it were a country, the wealth gap among employees would be atrocious - The top 1% would own maybe 99% of the wealth of the country and everyone else would earn a minuscule fraction of the total value t…

Having worked at big companies and small companies, my experience was that working at a large company was easier. People could almost forget that you exist. That never would happen in a small company. So I suspect that the whole post-war Michael Moore ideal economy with big companies, big unions, and stable jobs was based on this dream of people not noticing your incompetence. I suspect that is also why government jobs are prized.

So big corporations may be terrible for all sorts of reasons... invasion of privacy, lack of consumer choice, inefficiency, etc... but dehumanizing workplace environment is not really one of them... at least not in a relativistic sense. Small companies can be much more totalitarian.

I've heard the same point made in reference to the difference between local governments and federal governments. Local governments can be all the more tyrannical precisely because everyone knows everyone:

https://thinkprogress.org/freedom-and-the-weak-state-c9a31f5...

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#319
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it is an affront then. You'll live. >These 4 companies (and more) have done more good than all the goodness of your heart will ever do Oh, certainly. Can we start listing all the bad they've done now? Because I can't, not even in a hundred lifetimes, do as much evil as those four. >That for some to win others must lose. No. This is just flawed. Indeed. If you're living in a dream. However, in most of the cases, many…

>> You'll live. Millions have died from the perils of ideas such as yours so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. >> Can we start listing all the bad they've done now? You bet. List said evils and I guarantee you the sheer weight of the good in comparison will invalidate your claims. >> Indeed. If you're living in a dream. However, in most of the cases, many people are losing, and few are winning. Actually we…

>Point is, if he can do it, anyone in the world can do it and people should just stop complaining.

https://xkcd.com/1827/ via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14163589

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You'll live. Millions have died from the perils of ideas such as yours so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. >> Can we start listing all the bad they've done now? You bet. List said evils and I guarantee you the sheer weight of the good in comparison will invalidate your claims. >> Indeed. If you're living in a dream. However, in most of the cases, many people are losing, and few are winning. Actually we…

>Point is, if he can do it, anyone in the world can do it and people should just stop complaining. https://xkcd.com/1827/ via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14163589

May be. But it's better to be hopeful when that's all you have. Stay positive always.

EDIT: Goes back to the pragmatism I alluded to earlier. We can choose to either rely on chance or hard-work/self reliance. I choose the latter. And yes, most times it is mutually exclusive.

It seems I can't win with you. Before I disclosed my location, it was implied that I couldn't understand because I probably hadn't been through tough times and as such I couldn't sympathize. After I talked about my history, now it's survivorship bias? You want to have your cake and eat it.

In any case, your comparison between coin flipping and putting in the effort towards meaningful work is disingenuous. Bad analogy in my thinking.

Post reply on HN