Live data from Hacker News

Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

nytimes.com

291–300 of 309 posts

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, I actually think a more open platform could increase privacy significantly. On a Mac, you can install Little Snitch to carefully monitor connections into and out of your phone. Security researchers also have the ability to probe apps as they see fit. Not on the iPhone. The iPhones's closed nature also prevents security researchers from sufficiently examining third party apps for vulnerabilities.

That's all well and good, despite doing little to address my point, but you seem to be dodging the question of why you don't just go buy an Android phone. You don't like how the guy at the local convenience store treats you? Pound sand and go down the block to the other one. You have yet to explain why you don't do the same with phones. I happen to like the way iOS works in the this respect, and you sound like someon…

Quite frankly, the primary reason I can't switch to Android is iMessage, which is used by my family and coworkers. (I also greatly prefer iOS's UI and touch response time.)

My current, personal solution is a Jailbroken iPhone, which I'm very happy with. But, I'm getting tired of worrying about what happens if my phone breaks and I can't get a new one on an exploitable firmware. I wish Apple would stop fighting to make this impossible. Build in a switch to unlock the bootloader or what have you, and nothing will change for the rest of the user base.

> You sound like someone that just moved into the neighborhood complaining things that have been that way for the last 20 years.

Is Comcast not a monopoly because you have the option to move to a different city?

If the only neighborhood with good jobs and a good school also prevented me from buying my own furniture, I'd complain.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#292
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's almost as if the theory that monopolies inevitably grow to take over the world has serious problems :-) Even if they don't last forever they cause harm while they are around. The theory isn't that monopolies allow companies to last forever but that they prevent competition and harm consumers.

I know that it isn't binart but I can't help but note the irony: if they don't last forever and their demise isn't from obsolescence but a competitor isn't that a statement contradicting preventing competition? One could be technically more precise and limit prevention to "full effectiveness in all in their domain" or use it loosely enough that simply making one potential competitor unable to set up due to lower marg…

> I know that it isn't binart but I can't help but note the irony: if they don't last forever and their demise isn't from obsolescence but a competitor isn't that a statement contradicting preventing competition?

You're right and I also mispoke when I said monopolies cause harm in and of themselves. The issue isn't monopolies but when companies use their position as a monopoly in an anticompetitive way.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against paying with currency, except insofar as this inherently benefits a subset of humanity. But the issue is not that ads are inherently bad, it's that the interaction is inherently dishonest. A more honest way would allow you, the end-user, to bid for the same ad spots to allow a proper valuation of the ad to the perspective of the consumer. My impression is that Google goes to large efforts to obscure th…

My recollection is that google has tried variants on what you suggest (contributor). Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough.

> https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing.

> Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough.

Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#294
post #46

Disappointed that the telecom media conglomerates aren't getting more scrutiny.

I'm more disappointed that "regulating telecom" apparently means Net Neutrality these days. In the United States, the telecom industry engages in quite a bit of anticompetitive practices, specifically MSOs (multiple system operators) like Comcast and Spectrum.

They frequently have agreements to be the only registered cable operator for a given geographic region. They frequently become the only provider for a given apartment complex or multi-tenant location. We're not allowed a la carte programming due to bundles of channels these companies have a large stake in because of distribution rights. Rates have been outpacing cost-of-living and previous profit margins year-over-year since the 90s. Consumer broadband internet is still slower than most other developed nations, and we pay more for it at all pricing tiers. The only time I remember seeing speeds increase while rates dropped were when Google started building out fiber, and that only happened in a couple microcosms.

I think there's a serious need for trustbusting, but the tech industry at large doesn't seem to be a good target yet.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recollection is that google has tried variants on what you suggest (contributor). Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough.

> https://contributor.google.com/v/beta If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. > Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough. Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.

> If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing.

This was the second attempt, after a previous one (in 2015?) also failed.

> Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.

To justify providing a service. Unfortunately Google isn't a charity. To clarify, my recollection is that contributor leads to less revenue because consumers are unwilling to pay as much as advertisements provide for the same site. That means that either

1. You as a consumer have to pay more than you're willing (and maybe you're willing to pay more, but not enough people are)

2. Google subsidizes contributor users

3. Publishers take less money.

It appears you're suggesting that its inexcusable that a corporation doesn't want to subsidize your preferences.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second wording reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal. But... please feel free to tell me why I’m mistaken. You can start with why the Federal Firearm License requirements make sense to only 1/2 deploy to citizens while preventing their access from the NICS system directly, that a citizen’s rights should be directly tied to a 4473. Then also please tell me why the compromise of the 1993/4 Brady Bill wh…

> reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal No, it reflects your stubborn partisan viewpoint which I'm uninterested in debating. https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan... The numbers speak for themselves. Unless you have some alternative polling data to show I am not interested.

>The numbers speak for themselves

Except that’s exactly my point that you can’t argue.

How about in Washington. I-594 required background checks. The NRA spent a lot of money fighting it - but was outspent by gun control groups over 14:1, 10:1 of that was Michael Bloomberg alone.

You know results when it was actually put to a vote? 60/40.

A far cry from the polling lie that 92% want mandatory background checks on all sales performed by a dealer for a fee who has no obligation to perform using a system that has no obligation to be online.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#297
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're painting a picture of greedy homeowners restricting housing to make their investments go up. But there are other, more legitimate reasons for homeowners to resist turning every town into high-density mega-apartments. Some people highly value a quiet neighborhood. Some people (like myself) are extremely sensitive to the sounds of neighbors playing music with subwoofers. Good luck avoiding that in a high-density…

then dont live in a city.

Sure, I'll go move out into the country. And others like me will do the same. And then soon people will start whining about how expensive it is to join us, because of the low population density, and how we ought to replace our houses with apartments...

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but in this case it's clear Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on spreadsheets. They just make the best software. They aren't bashing vendors over the head with Excel, etc. IMO the case for Apple or Microsoft being monopolistic is pretty weak compared to Google, Facebook and perhaps Amazon. Apple has a problem because it's such a walled garden. Microsoft generally doesn't have any of the problems the F…

What's the difference between this and Google's "monopoly" on search, which is again based on a superior product (You could argue the same about Facebook, but at least in the search case, there's no network effects tying people to using Google).

Because Google removes consumer choice and forces vendors to play ball with its search platform on Android devices. Microsoft does not make you use Excel on Windows, iOS or Android. Google can cripple your entire company or industry by cutting APIs. You can't do that in Windows, even if Microsoft bans you from volume licensing, you can still install Windows on virtually any machine.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was really the only possibility that IBM had while still holding to those earlier legal restrictions on bundling, tying, and license restriction. How does that fit in with the IBM PS/2 design, which was carefully closed?

The PS2 was released in 1987, 5 years after the US antitrust suit against IBM ended, and after IBM no longer had a monopoly position in the PC market. It was a different era and the horses had left the barn. The PS/2 was a dead end. The original PC architecture, openly evolved, is still generating hundreds of billions in revenue each year - just not for IBM.

I'm still interested in a reference that says the IBM PC being open was a result of anti-trust.

Re: Antitrust Troubles Snowball for Tech Giants as Lawmakers Join In

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://contributor.google.com/v/beta If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. > Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough. Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.

> If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. This was the second attempt, after a previous one (in 2015?) also failed. > Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable. To justify providing a service. Unfortunately Google isn't a charity. To clarify, my recollection is that contributor leads to less revenue because consumers are unwilling to pay as much as advertis…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN