Elizabeth Warren calls for tech giant breakup, with Apple in the cross-hairs

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 104
    mknelson said:
    lkrupp said:
    I’m not the least bit worried about Warren’s plan ever becoming law. She’s a radical with radical, untenable ideas, as is AOC.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

    1982… that was while Reagan was president…  ;)
      You obviously are too young to even understand what AT&T was back then.  They were a govt protected monopoly which is not even in the same universe of companies like Google or Facebook etc.  AT&T monopoly should never have been allowed and once it existed it should have ended in the 1940’s. The Termination of the govt monopoly that was AT&T was a godsend for the people of the country.   True monopolies can only exist with govt enforcement power behind them this is not what Google, Facebook, etc. are.  But Warren is just playing to her ignorant base of supports by being an extreme progressive.  
    Dr. MidnightSpamSandwichentropyscornchipwatto_cobranetmagechristophbmobird
  • Reply 22 of 104
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,820member
    I think the title of this article is misleading. Apple are markedly not in the crosshairs, but might get caught in the crossfire. 
    blurpbleepblooprandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 104
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    genovelle said:
    I notice the concept of Apple forcing Netflix and others to pay a portion of their subscriptions
    is brought up once again. Netflix like any other service has the ability to sign their own people and place an app on the App Store for no charge. Apple only gets a cut if the subscription comes from their marketing efforts. If it was Netflix’s marketing driving the customers to subscribe, they would be on Netflix’s website where they would signup then be directed to install the appropriate app.

    In fact, if their marketing was effective and did not need Apple’s influence, they would care because 80-90% of their new subscribers would come directly to them.   
    Netflix will no longer offer subscriptions via the App Store. just what you're suggesting they do. Don't you remember the December story here? 
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/28/netflix-kills-in-app-subscription-option-for-iphone-ipad-users
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 104
    Psychologically, it's really interesting how some people instantly reject the idea of corporations being subject to government regulation, especially since the ability to incorporate a business comes entirely from the government itself and it's legal system. So does the ability to own private property. 
  • Reply 25 of 104
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    temperor said:
    Apple has not the the market share the named companies have, they have no platform that brakes 25% of market share ... move on nothing to see here ...
    Half the smartphones sold in the US come from Apple, and half the US smartphone users are also tied to Apple. The majority of households own an Apple product, many of them in some cases. That sure sounds like a major market share.
    AppleExposedmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 26 of 104
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,566administrator
    On Friday, Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren advocated for breaking up major tech companies with large services, specifically naming Amazon, Facebook, and Google -- but Apple fits in the targeted category as well.

    [...]

    "Platform utilities" subject to mandated break-up would be defined as "companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties."
    According to the Washington Post story on this, "Her plan primarily targets companies with annual revenue over $90 million," -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/08/sen-elizabeth-warren-unveils-plan-break-up-amazon-facebook-google-ambitious-campaign-pledge/ -- which is substantially less than $25 Billion. What source are you using for the $25 Billion figure?
    Warren's Medium post.
  • Reply 27 of 104
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,087member
    Not an ad hominem attack here, but it’s shocking and disturbing how quickly Democrats have adopted the language and policies of Marxism. I foresee a civil war if a politician the likes of Bernie Sanders or worse is elected in the future. Even left-leaning progressives like Howard Schultz, Mike Bloomberg and others are alarmed at the radical swing toward socialism.
    boltsfan17libertyandfreecornchipnetmagemobird
  • Reply 28 of 104
    On this topic, there’s a really good Intelligence Squared debate on this very topic. Well worth the time to take and listen. 

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligence-squared/id708371900?mt=2&i=1000400236170
  • Reply 29 of 104
    Not an ad hominem attack here, but it’s shocking and disturbing how quickly Democrats have adopted the language and policies of Marxism. 
    What exactly is Marxist about regulating corporations? You can't incorporate without a government granting you the ability to do so. 
    yoyo2222asdasd
  • Reply 30 of 104
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 377member
    crowley said:
    color said:
    This proposal would also apply to Walmart, Costco, Target, airlines,etc, etc, etc.  Any company of size that has an online presence that sells any product other than its own would have to either:

    not sell any of its own products on the site
    Or
    not have the site.

    Warren makes Trump look rational.

    Is that so unreasonable/irrational?

    running a platform where you sell other people’s products but also your own products presents an obvious conflict of interest. 
    I agree.  And I love how you are proposing we finally start applying a conflict of interest standard to business. 

    Why does Walmart, Kroger, Target, etc., get to sell their own products in their stores? Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world, and there's a clear conflict of interest for Walmart to sell their brand of baked beans instead of or next to Del Monte's in the grocery aisle.  They shouldn't have any house brands on the shelves.  Break them up now!  Or even better, government stores like in Venezuela where all government approved products compete equally on the shelves.

    And why should Amazon be able to sell Amazon products on Amazon. com along with competitors like Anker?   A clear conflict of interest.  Not fair.  And, of course, why should Apple be able to promote Apple software and services on the platform that it took all the risks, and has spent tens of billions of dollars developing and spends billions each year maintaining and improving?   Totally unfair.  And don't get me started on Spotify.  They are unfairly using their platform to push Spotify instead of letting Tidal, Apple, etc., use the platform to reach and service customers.  

    The obvious answer is to either have these companies spend all these years and billions of dollars developing platforms so only their competitors can use them, or even better, have the government develop stores and platforms and then let everyone use the platforms.


    edited March 8 AppleExposedArianneFeldrylibertyandfreecornchipmbgold1randominternetpersonnetmage
  • Reply 31 of 104
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,576member
    On Friday, Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren advocated for breaking up major tech companies with large services, specifically naming Amazon, Facebook, and Google -- but Apple fits in the targeted category as well.

    [...]

    "Platform utilities" subject to mandated break-up would be defined as "companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties."
    According to the Washington Post story on this, "Her plan primarily targets companies with annual revenue over $90 million," -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/08/sen-elizabeth-warren-unveils-plan-break-up-amazon-facebook-google-ambitious-campaign-pledge/ -- which is substantially less than $25 Billion. What source are you using for the $25 Billion figure?
    Warren's Medium post.
    Based on Warren's Medium post, it appears to be a bit more nuanced than represented by AI (or WAPO). There appear to be multiple level of revenue with different rules -- >= $25B, >= $90MM && < $25B and < $90MM.
    Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.”
    These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.
    For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.

    So,

    • < $90MM, anything goes
    • >= $90MM && < $25B, regulation but not separation
    • >= $25B, separation
    I'm haven't fully formed an opinion on how "good" or "bad" Warrens proposal is, although, it would be quite a departure in antitrust law to base regulations on revenue rather than market control, I think. 
    yoyo2222randominternetperson
  • Reply 32 of 104

    dewme said:
    I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from what Warren is throwing out there for discussion. There’s always an underlying sentiment that is driving people seeking public office to take what seem like oddball and unpopular positions. We saw this with the wave of resentment that determined the outcome of the 2016 elections. There is a similar undercurrent today that the big tech players have gotten too big and too powerful and are running open loop. 

    I welcome these discussions and would would love to see the big tech players participate in the conversations that need to take place. Otherwise everyone is simply going to pick a side based on whatever information source they subscribe to and go on the attack against the other side, I.e., put the brain in neutral and blindly repeat whatever blather “their side” instructs them to spew. These techniques serve the needs of the politicians because they need to divide the vote to tally a winner. But they don’t serve the voters one bit. 

    Thinking for oneself and engaging with people with opinions that don’t match your’s is really hard. Politics plays on this weakness by giving you easy choices that you don’t have to think about. They’ll do the thinking for you, if that’s what you want. That’s how they own you. 

    I wonder why they do this, when big players like MySpace, Atari, Compaq, Palm, and Hitachi are now having people scratch their heads as to who they were.  At least I have my Palm Pilot to help me search it out on America Online.  AOL, since CompuServe is no longer with us.
    cornchipfirelockrandominternetpersonchristophb
  • Reply 33 of 104
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,160member
    Not an ad hominem attack here, but it’s shocking and disturbing how quickly Democrats have adopted the language and policies of Marxism. 
    What exactly is Marxist about regulating corporations? You can't incorporate without a government granting you the ability to do so. 
    Forcing companies to split apart is Marxist. That isn't regulating corporations. 
    netmage
  • Reply 34 of 104
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,060member
    Not an ad hominem attack here, but it’s shocking and disturbing how quickly Democrats have adopted the language and policies of Marxism. I foresee a civil war if a politician the likes of Bernie Sanders or worse is elected in the future. Even left-leaning progressives like Howard Schultz, Mike Bloomberg and others are alarmed at the radical swing toward socialism.
    This nation was founded on compromise. The Constitution encourages compromise through various means like the Senate being equally represented by each state, the Electoral College, the tradition of the filibuster, the requirement of a thirds majority for certain actions (like impeachment). This was all designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the population controls everything then what happens when the 49% refuse to abide by the 51%’s decisions. For this republic to continue in existence we must have compromise. Whether it’s the Republicans or Democrats in control we seem to be heading down the rabbit hole of “my way or the highway” and compromise be damned. As for heading full bore down the road to socialism that’s what happens when there is no compromise. Before WWII the intellectuals were attracted to both Marxism and  Fascism. There was great support for Hitler and Lenin because they appeared to be the answer to inequality...on paper at least. When intellectuals realized how both worked in real life it was too late.
    yoyo2222blurpbleepbloopcornchipmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 104
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,358member
    crowley said:
    color said:
    This proposal would also apply to Walmart, Costco, Target, airlines,etc, etc, etc.  Any company of size that has an online presence that sells any product other than its own would have to either:

    not sell any of its own products on the site
    Or
    not have the site.

    Warren makes Trump look rational.

    Is that so unreasonable/irrational?

    running a platform where you sell other people’s products but also your own products presents an obvious conflict of interest. 
    How is that different from what these stores do every day? If you go to Target or Walgreeens, they have their own labels on the shelf next to the brand names, yet no one claims a conflict of interest there. 

    The difference with Amazon is that it is close to a monopoly for online retailing and uses its dominance to leverage other services. 
    AppleExposednetmage
  • Reply 36 of 104
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 264member
    lkrupp said:
    I’m not the least bit worried about Warren’s plan ever becoming law. She’s a radical with radical, untenable ideas, as is AOC.
    Many would disagree with you (I'm not necessarily one of them), but history clearly shows that an idea's being radical or even untenable doesn't always preclude its being adopted as law.
    edited March 8 cornchip
  • Reply 37 of 104
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,576member
    Not an ad hominem attack here, but it’s shocking and disturbing how quickly Democrats have adopted the language and policies of Marxism. 
    What exactly is Marxist about regulating corporations? You can't incorporate without a government granting you the ability to do so. 
    Forcing companies to split apart is Marxist. That isn't regulating corporations. 
    I don't think that position is entirely defensible.

    If, in a free and open society, based on free market enterprise, some company threatens to destroy the free market through monopoly, or threatens the underpinnings of that society, including it's most fundamental principles -- democracy, freedom, privacy, equal treatment under the law and so on -- then that society, and necessarily its government as the only entity capable of doing so, has a duty to act to protect itself. This is no different in concept that putting down an attempt to overthrow that government, or to repel a foreign invader. It's self defense at its most basic.
    edited March 8 blurpbleepbloop
  • Reply 38 of 104
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,566administrator
    On Friday, Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren advocated for breaking up major tech companies with large services, specifically naming Amazon, Facebook, and Google -- but Apple fits in the targeted category as well.

    [...]

    "Platform utilities" subject to mandated break-up would be defined as "companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties."
    According to the Washington Post story on this, "Her plan primarily targets companies with annual revenue over $90 million," -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/08/sen-elizabeth-warren-unveils-plan-break-up-amazon-facebook-google-ambitious-campaign-pledge/ -- which is substantially less than $25 Billion. What source are you using for the $25 Billion figure?
    Warren's Medium post.
    Based on Warren's Medium post, it appears to be a bit more nuanced than represented by AI (or WAPO). There appear to be multiple level of revenue with different rules -- >= $25B, >= $90MM && < $25B and < $90MM.
    Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.”
    These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.
    For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.

    So,

    • < $90MM, anything goes
    • >= $90MM && < $25B, regulation but not separation
    • >= $25B, separation
    I'm haven't fully formed an opinion on how "good" or "bad" Warrens proposal is, although, it would be quite a departure in antitrust law to base regulations on revenue rather than market control, I think. 
    The lower tiers don't apply to Apple. No real need to include them in the AI piece.
    gatorguyAppleExposed
  • Reply 39 of 104
    yoyo2222yoyo2222 Posts: 116member
    It's a proposal from someone long involved in consumer protection. I can't get angry because she wants to add a new idea to the conversation, whether or not I agree with it. If you don't like it then offer a counter proposal. It's supposed to be a conversation even though we haven't seen much of that from the Senate lately.

    Way back when Teddy was busting trusts I'm sure there were people that thought monopolies were great.
    blurpbleepbloopmbgold1
  • Reply 40 of 104
    I’ve played Monopoly before and once one player owns Boardwalk, Park Place and all the railroads and utilities, all the other players are screwed.
    blurpbleepbloopcornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.