Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alibaba breaks itself up in six

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 321 posts

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#241

Post by smoldesu »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #224
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, they are engaging in monopolistic behavior, which as mentioned above, does not require them to pass any particular threshold for being a monopoly society has decided that some behaviors are in and of themselves bad, whether or not said threshold of yours is surpassed (for example monopolistic behaviors)

I just want to avoid going back to the time before Apple products were nice and relatively affordable, I hated buying a crappy Windows PC every other year and never being satisfied with it. Apple has transformed the entire industry twice in my lifetime, and I get really nervous when people say they should be forced to be just like another PC maker, and I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely…

Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry". The iPhone is an example of an industry-changer - actual industries changed here. Apple Silicon hasn't really changed the PC market - ARM is still a sideshow ISA for the Windows and Linux desktop alike. The market share hasn't changed dramatically. The line between people who want PCs and who want Macs is roughly the same as it was a decade ago.

> I get really nervous when people say [...] I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.

Well, that's the problem with walled gardens. If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems. A money-ocracy is not a solution to these problems, it's a clever guise to drain your wallet and make you think that life is improving because you spend money and buy products.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#242

Post by Animatronio »

fortuna86 wrote: post #232
Animatronio wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huawei, Gazprom, Google, Facebook, probably each G7 country has a champion it wants to rule the field.

Does any western government activity promote monopolies abroad and threaten consequences if such monopolies are fought against, all while accepting state-backed monopoly at home? https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-threatens-retaliation-aga... To recap, the Alibaba break up wasn't about a monopoly, it was about a rival power base to the CCP that couldn't be allowed to exist.

Well, how about Boeing vs Airbus?

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#243

Post by smoldesu »

kkarakk wrote: post #238
rejectfinite wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? But they do lil bro/sis Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones. etc

tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side comes anywhere close for the same amount of time. i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.

> rather than having to research options for 3 hours

Right. Just buy a Macbook...

Except, don't get the 12". That one was an overheating flop, should have never made it to market (nor the i9 16" Pro). Also, avoid the 2016-2019 ones with the butterfly keyboard. While you're at it, don't get the 13" Pro either, since it's a bit of a scam for the touchbar that wasn't that big of a hit. For all of these machines you'll want to upgrade them from the base memory to 16gb to make them last longer, and if you don't upgrade the storage then there's a good chance you'll only get single module speeds, which is significantly limited.

Simple!

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#244

Post by KoftaBob »

ssnistfajen wrote: post #195
differentView wrote: post #11

How is this a breakup if Alibaba is just going to become a holding company owning those six new companies?

Because it is not breakup, in the same way that the establishment of Alphabet Group was not a breakup. But as it has always been on the U.S.-dominated English-speaking Internet and media, facts and objectiveness do not matter when it comes to any topic related to China. Anyone can twist, spin, or literally invent anything to fit their own narrative about China and people will believe it without question as long as it…

> facts and objectiveness do not matter when it comes to any topic related to China

Replace "China" with pretty much every topic, they do this with everything to draw attention from viewers.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#245

Post by rejectfinite »

kkarakk wrote: post #238
rejectfinite wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then why don’t people buy those over apple products? But they do lil bro/sis Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones. etc

tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side comes anywhere close for the same amount of time. i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.

There is a reason why https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ exists.

Ive seen plenty of people buy a current Mac just for Apple to relesase something new 2 weeks later.

Also, for phones atleast, Samsung Galaxy has been pretty consistent in quality.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#246

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #240
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just disagree that Apple is behaving monopolistically. Dictionary definition of monopolistic behavior: > having or trying to have complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share: She did not consider the fine a sufficient deterrent against monopolistic practices by big producers. The company is accused of monopolistic behavior. Apple has completely control over Apple prod…

your post does a good job of explaining how Apple's behavior is monopolistic, by that very definition, even despite not controlling the entire market: the "something" need not be the entire market as for like vs dislike, the company isn't important enough for me to form such personal opinions about it, they're simply a company engaging in monopolistic behavior just like any other company engaging in monopolistic beha…

Again, the definition is clear. By the definition generalized in that way, any company building a proprietary system would be guilty of monopolistic behavior. If that's the case, then I guess it is a meaningless distinction anyways, and really not my worth much of my time to ponder either.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#247

Post by FormerBandmate »

ssnistfajen wrote: post #227
shp0ngle wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strict law about what can and cannot Chinese say, share, and see online doesn't help this. Yes there are tons of nonsense online about China. But it is not helped by the total dragnet there is over there. And by the fact that some of the over-the-top stuff about China is indeed true. I mean Jack Ma really _was_ disappeared right after the speech.

Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai also step off the stage after finishing speeches. Does that mean they have been "disappeared"? They have a private life in case you aren't aware. Acknowledging the fact that the CCP is meddling with private sector businesses is not an excuse to spout misinfo.

He went missing for months

Tim Cook stepped off Trump’s board of CEOs and did not disappear. Jack Dorsey banned Trump from Twitter and didn’t disappear. Elon Musk constantly goes after Biden for no reason. He has not disappeared.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#248

Post by seanmcdirmid »

smoldesu wrote: post #241
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to avoid going back to the time before Apple products were nice and relatively affordable, I hated buying a crappy Windows PC every other year and never being satisfied with it. Apple has transformed the entire industry twice in my lifetime, and I get really nervous when people say they should be forced to be just like another PC maker, and I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely…

Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry". The iPhone is an example of an industry-changer - actual industries changed here. Apple Silicon hasn't really changed the PC market - ARM is still a sideshow ISA for the Windows and Linux desktop alike. The market share hasn't changed dramatically. The line between people who want PCs and who want Macs is ro…

> Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry".

Huh? I'm only referring to the Apple 2 (when Apple first changed the personal computing industry) and the 00s, when macs finally became fast and stable enough to be considered a decent value (one can argue it was the original iMac, but OS/X and then the first intel macbooks is when Macs really started making sense value wise). Apple silicon, a recent innovation, hasn't really changed the personal computing industry much.

> If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems

I don't think Apple is doing this. They are selling a decent product, which for some inexplicable reason other hardware/software producers can't seem to replicate. They seem to have a monopoly on "not sucking" but that's about it.

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#249

Post by kdmccormick »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #207
toyg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One doesn't need to be clueless in order to lose a power struggle. He might have been betrayed, he might have overestimated the resources he could fully count on, he might have simply been backing a faction in the party that ended up losing. Xi Jinping went as far as kicking out of the public congress a previous president, which was unprecedented; who knows what else he's capable of.

But that’s the problem - the risk of losing a power struggle in a democracy with rule of law, separation of powers, an independent court system, and regular elections is vastly different from the risks of losing a power struggle in the CCP, which controls all branches of government, law enforcement, and the military and is accountable to no one. The former has a limited downside, the latter unlimited. Whatever the Ce…

As reasonable as your argument is, let's apply Occam's Razor. Which is more likely?

1. Jack Ma knows things you don't, and those things made mouthing off seem worthwhile to him. Still, he miscalculated, but not out of sheer cluelessness.

2. You, HN commenter, understand Chinese politics and power better than Jack Ma, a prominent Chinese billionaire. He is clueless.

Doesn't 2 seem a little arrogant to you?

Re: Alibaba breaks itself up in six

#250

Post by s1artibartfast »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #237
s1artibartfast wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think characterizing it as Clueless make some overly broad assumptions on Ma's motivations. It could be as simple as he disagrees with the CCP policy. For example, we don't typically look at human rights or anti-war protesters and call them Clueless, even when governments Crackdown on them

Clueless in understanding the consequences of disagreeing with CCP policy. He should have known what would happen.

That is my exact point. I don't think it is reasonable to assume he wasn't aware that it was a risk.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to conclude that people are idiots simply because you don't understand their actions after a moment of thought and with no information.

Doubly so when you have someone who grew up through the cultural revolution, lived in China for 60 years, and is a Communist Party member.

Post reply on HN