421–430 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Nvidia leave the market?
CUDA being viewed as anticompetitive by French regulators (source: the article).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly, if a company’s profits are the size of a small country’s GDP, I find that disturbing regardless of the value they’re delivering. Value is the experience and consumer excess, profits are fiat. Could that same value be delivered with compressed profits leading to greater consumer excess? I believe so. Not all profits are earned, some are inherent once an org achieves a certain maturity or industry position.…
You didn't answer the first question about whether you think consumers or Apple have the larger share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI was smart enough to build a moat for itself in Europe. The EU was dumb enough to dig it for them.
What is the value that OpenAI is bringing to the US right now? Mostly its being used to generate text that fit a query.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is benefiting from Apple’s profits being the size of a small country’s GDP? Not most people, therefore, why would this be optimized for? Off the top of my head, probably the millions of people who have a pension through one of Apple’s institutional investors like CalPERS. The effects of Apple’s profitability goes far and wide.
These numbers are always trotted out like these people have a material majority investment in the equities market (“won’t someone think of the teacher pension”), when per the Federal Reserve, the top 10% of Americans by wealth hold 93% of US equities. This doesn’t entirely discount that CalPERS holds almost 40M shares (~$8.7B) of Apple (its top holding), just that them doing so is not reason enough to be more judicio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How important is technological industry? Pretty damn important I'd say if you're interested in economic growth and hence supporting your social safety net.
The technological industry is indeed very important, the mistake is thinking VR goggles and chatbots are somehow the only or even particularly relevant form of technology. Europe is of course full of high technology firms, (the awkwardly named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana ) contains a non trivial amount of high value added industry in the world. What we need more of these days is 155 mm shells, chip fabs…
We get so focused on big tech being social media/ad companies that we ignore the rest of it, which is actually huge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These numbers are always trotted out like these people have a material majority investment in the equities market (“won’t someone think of the teacher pension”), when per the Federal Reserve, the top 10% of Americans by wealth hold 93% of US equities. This doesn’t entirely discount that CalPERS holds almost 40M shares (~$8.7B) of Apple (its top holding), just that them doing so is not reason enough to be more judicio…
That seems all quite orthogonal. You asked who benefits and I’ve given you an example. Some benefit directly and some indirectly. But millions in the economy benefit and not just through institutions such as CalPERS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything that gets close gets bought or killed by non-european giants. Tencent buys basically all game companies, microsoft buys basically all communication companies (skype, nokia come to mind), google buys basically everything. Even ARM is owned by Softbank after starting out in the UK. The Automotive industry and ASML are just about the only things resistant to this because they're so large already; Automotive act…
There is an issue with that perspective though. The Europeans sell out. Ok. Maybe they are bad at valuation and don't realise that their companies are worth more than they are being paid for. Or maybe an EU company can't capture as much value as a US/Chinese company. And those are really the only two options - either the decision is rational or irrational. If it is an irrational decision then there isn't much to talk…
No, Nokia was blown out of the market via the exclusive deal with Microsoft, which in turn made the dumbest management decisions ever. Nokia bled under the horrible management of Steve Ballmer and their own ignorance with regards to Android. They also proved later on that you don't need any expertise to produce decent Android phones, as HMD global used their name as a brand and has been thriving.
To add to this: It's not that hard to develop a mobile operating system that's on par or better than Android, despite what Google might want you to think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that true though? Are there any 5-person startups with < 10k users getting sued/shutdown by this regulation?
That data point is very hard to provide any evidence for, and not sufficient to draw any conclusions from. For example, what if the company was never started? What if they pivoted after speaking to a lawyer?
> Criteria relating to the place of the company in controlling access of other businesses to final customers: the company needs to have (a) more than 45 million monthly active end users in the EU and (b) more than 10,000 yearly active business in the EU;
> "An entrenched durable position" which is a qualitative criterion which the regulator considers met if the numbers of active users in the second criterion are met for three years in a row.
It is indeed very hard to find evidence that DMA does not affect startups, if you don't want to find that evidence.
You're seriously arguing that a startup founder would think "well, when I get to a 75 billion euro valuation, there will be some cumbersome rules, so I might as well not start anything"???