41–50 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because all companies haven't been found to be illegal monopolies? Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding.
more like same toll-tax/road-tax for vehicles of all sizes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits. By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rath…
The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?
So they want Google’s datasets and search index to be available for other companies and want to prevent Google from being a dominant player in AI based search. I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that… Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about wha…
Google is effectively being punished for retaining their earnings and re-investing in tons of software R&D over the years. Their "monopoly" is because people choose to use them, not because they have to. Not to mention they are are being disrupted by ChatGPT and other LLMs anyways right now. There have always been lots of web browsers and search engines, but Google simply did a better job making and refining their so…
They have indeed invested tons in r&d, but with excessively little results. Besides web search it's tough to see succeses that Google didn't buy their way into. Gmail, maps, ... maybe?
Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?
Because all companies haven't been found to be illegal monopolies? Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding.
Google is the reason for the current AI boom. Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs. YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
Google is the reason for the current AI boom. Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs. YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
You can do basic research without being monopolistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monopolies prevent startups from reaching critical mass. Google and the rest of big tech are like the Jupiter of the tech world. It clears the orbit of anything else that could form. Big tech is so big that it can jump into new markets with ease, kill incumbents, snuff out new players, and perpetually tax non-innovation. We're twenty years behind on antitrust and breakups. It's time we had a forest fire to make way f…
Let’s not pretend that YC and other VCs are noble. They get rich and pawn their money losing investments to the “bigger fool” https://medium.com/@kazeemibrahim18/the-post-ipo-performance... > In aggregate, the average return across these YC companies is -49%, with a median return of -46%. To put this into perspective, over the same period, the S&P 500 yielded a positive return of 58% And for the rest of the companies…
I'm fine with that. Let them make money at the expense of big tech.
Breaking up big tech benefits financial/venture capital, but it also benefits labor capital as well. More opportunity for more startups to succeed, more competition for engineering talent, less market distorting wage collusion.
Big tech already won. It's benefactors already reap the benefits. Break them up and a new generation of engineers can grow wealthy on the field they contribute their labor to.
Right now the proceeds of tech go to hedge funds and pension funds. It's venture capital and entrepreneurs that take risks. They're the ones that should see upside. Unfortunately, big tech monopolies put a ceiling on this.
Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case.
YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours:
- Open access to Google's datasets and search index.
- Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices.
- Limit Google exclusive agreements and pay-to-play distribution deals.
- Enforce anti-circumvention and anti-retaliation mechanisms.
IMO, from a VC standpoint, it's in YC's interest to give their privately funded startups the best chance possible to thrive. If that includes destroying solid giants of the industry, so be it.
Google is the reason for the current AI boom. Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs. YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?
You can do basic research without being monopolistic.
Had Google operated like a normal company, the risk/reward of this kind of research would've looked completely differently.
Google's monopoly helped research along in the same way totalitarian countries like China are developing infrastructure at break-neck speed: if you don't need to care about pesky rights and regulations, you can do things that would otherwise be impossible.
I don't think Google's monopoly is worth having the current generation of lie generator bots around, but I don't think generative AI would be where it is right now had Google been forced to comply with antitrust regulations ten years ago.