91–100 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?
It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store. Like the world _just_ got past learning not to click 'download here!' on a browser, and that was after 20 years of the internet. I'd be open to alternative proposals, but separating the App Store with no replacement is not a secure solution by any means and causes more problems than it solves, a…
I don't understand why people should not be permitted to go to netflix.com to install the netflix app, or to twitter.com etc etc
> This is a restriction on competition produced not by market dominance, at least not directly, but rather contracts that OEMs could not afford to say ‘No’ to. I'm not seeing a significant difference here. They couldn't afford to say "no" because MS was so dominant.
" What is more striking is that, in retrospect, the core piece of the government’s case doesn’t make any sense: of course a browser should be bundled with an operating system; a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?). Moreover, Apple, not without merit, argues that restricting rendering engines to the one that ships with the OS (all browsers on iOS have no…
"...a new computer without a browser would be practically useless (for one, how do you install a browser?)."
He's confusing network access with a browser, which seems an atrocious mistake. You don't need a browser to support http:// links in the OS.
We see this here, with fans of Warren saying getting things wrong is irrelevant, because we all know FANG is too powerful and she says it. Thus, quibbling over details is nitpicky pedantry. This tactic is also used by Trump fans, who keep telling us we must "take him seriously, but not literally", where any random nonsense he says is re-interpreted to hint at a larger truth.
In this world, Birtherism for example, has absolutely nothing to do with racism and we shouldn't be so nitpicky, because it hints at the larger truth that Obama's life-arch is very different from that of the average American, and they are thus correct to feel that he is more "foreign".
Whoever you support, you should not let your guy/gal off the hook like this. Once you start, there's no feedback mechanism to hold you back, you can justify any nonsense using only bits of clever rhethric.
The author is nitpicking. Warren may be wrong about the history of bing and google, but that's not really important. She's 100% right about Amazon, and the author conveniently forgot to mention. Most people in tech industry always strive to build monopoly and dominance. In their eyes, Warren's idea is of course insane. But viewing from another point, in order to protect competition and small businesses, her proposal…
Actually amazon is the one that I would say doesn't have a monopoly. It doesn't have a monopoly in the retail space (far from it), nor in the cloud hosting (let alone server hosting) business, nor in online streaming (music/tv). Google on the other hand has close to a monopoly on search (and browsers). Facebook on social medias.
and, if you can prove it, predatory pricing is illegal. amazon is absolutely subsidizing a bunch of stuff with profit from elsewhere. if and what and how the government can do something about that is a huge can of worms with wide reaching implications outside the tech industry.
IF the government wants to get involved with separating product development from distribution, they should be going after splitting primevideo from aws (like saying movie studios cant own theaters), or trying to prove that netflix is being unfairly charged for resources different than primevideo (price discrimination.) they should go after amazon logistics.
amazon is a vertical conglomerate problem not a monopoly problem (if its a problem at all.) whatever amazon is, the law wasnt ready for, but whether amazon is a good or bad thing is more a matter of perspective.
> the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor. This is part I find interesting. If there is a difference between the titans of now vs old, its that they behave lik…
(Now, it's also pretty easy to imagine breakups going horribly horribly wrong for consumers, precisely because consumers are pretty happy with the state of play. I would hate paying for a calendar app at this point in history, and I would also hate having to comparison shop for one that didn't suck...)
Stratechery is weirdly insular site. I don't know the background but it looks like the writer/writers just read business news and create their own ideas and don't like to study or read economics. The "Aggregation Theory" is perfect example of this. It's like the author is not aware that the idea he came up has not been under study for decades and has well developed concepts, terminology and research subject.
> the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor. This is part I find interesting. If there is a difference between the titans of now vs old, its that they behave lik…
Its even uglier when the price these companies charge is "free"... But in actuality you pay with your data. And I know of no human who would be able to accurately price access to parts or all of their data. "Its just data. How much am I really worth?", is a common refrain. And then, well, its freeeeee....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are just two phone makers in existence: Google and Apple. If you care about privacy and security, there is just a single phone maker: Apple. The only difference between different brands of Google phones is how much additional insecurity and crap the notional manufacturer adds on top. Amazon has complete dominance over books in the US and are on their way to abolishing book ownership outright.
No one is currently preventing you from homerolling a mobile operating system and building your own smartphone (provided that you avoid or license existing patents). It would be difficult to break into that market, establish share and make money in the short term, but no one is actively being prevented from doing so (see Chinese knockoffs). I fail to see how you see the above scenario as some flavor of monopoly. The…