Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 172
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,577member
    davgreg said:
    maestro64 said:
    spice-boy said:

    While I agree with Elizabeth Warren in principle, this for me is a “bridge too far”. If you break these tech companies up, there is a fragmentation of data as well as a loss of control over quality and responsibility. This for the benefit of what?
    Like it never happened before and it will spell doom for just about everything we hold dear....

    (United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] is a U.S. antitrust law case, settled by the Department of Justice (DOJ), in which the technology company Microsoft was accused of holding a monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive practices contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
    You know that case was about Microsoft blocking other internet browsers from being installed on Windows machine, then they integrated internet explorer into the OS even if a user did install a third-party web browser all web Traffic would be router too internet explorer. But the government did not break up Microsoft over this.
    Apple does not allow other browsers excepting ones built upon WebKit. Chrome on iOS has little in common with Chrome on other platforms.
    That has nothing to do with what Microsoft did. Webkit is open source, readily available and free to use for all developers. Apple do not make any money from the use of WebKit, though they do contribute to it's development, along with Google. 

    What Microsoft was doing was requiring browsers to use a special version of Javascript, that they were using in Windows. That would not be a problem except that when Microsoft change some of the codes, in this Windows version of Javascript, they took their time to notify the browser developers or didn't notify them at all. This made other browsers buggy and unstable, until they could issue an update. It was this sabotaging of other browsers (mainly Netscape) that got Microsoft in trouble with US anti-trust laws, not that they had an advantage by bundling IE with Windows. 

    Plus they made it difficult to install another browser as the installation would often fail for no obvious reasons. This caused users to just keep IE, as it was already pre-installed as the default browser. The remedy ended up being, Microsoft could not pre-install IE  with Windows nor force PC vendors to pre install IE, make available installation software of other browsers, with the installation software for Windows or PC's with Windows pre-installed and remove all coding related to IE from Windows OS. No where did the courts say that Microsoft could not include IE with Windows. Microsoft just couldn't pre-installed IE, so the consumer could select the browser of their choice when they install Windows or when they go through the registration process of a new PC.    

    The propose break up of Microsoft, one for Windows OS and the other for software development (including Office), was proposed as a form of punishment for the abuse of their monopoly, but instead they were fined and forced to adhere to the courts proposed remedy. Which Microsoft did and IE still ended up being a monopoly in the browser market, with over to 80% of the market, at the time. But in the past ten years, from 2008 to 2018, IE went from about 70% of the browser market on desktops, to less than 8% (including MS Edge) and Chrome is now about 70% of the desktop browser market. Even though Windows is still a monopoly.   
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 142 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    bells said:
    Democrat here. She'd never get my vote...Apple hater.
    I’m a democrat as well and she would get my vote if she was the nominee but not at the primary. Her view makes more sense for companies like ATT and Comcast not Apple. It is wacky one company can be both an internet service provider and own the content. In many areas ATT and Comcast are abusive monopolies. 

    Apple is not a monopoly and it build the App Store concept from the ground up. I don’t always like how it polices the store but I could switch to another phone if it mattered that much. 

    Google and Facebook and Amazon have different issues. They often use their monopoly status in one area to push a new product in a new area at the expense of fair competition and to the detriment of consumers. 




    Neither Facebook, Amazon nor Google are monopolies. There are perfectly functioning competitors to all of these services. That people voluntarily use them in large numbers is evidence of freedom of choice and that they are delivering a service people want.
  • Reply 143 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    asdasd said:
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
    Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders and numerous other Democrats running for President are debatably advocating for outright Socialism, Marxism or Communism or variations on a theme. The only Left candidate I’m aware of so far who strongly opposes this drift into insanity is Howard Schultz, of all people (Mike Bloomberg opposes it but isn’t running... plus he’s been both a Democrat and a Republican).
    jblanksteven n.
  • Reply 144 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    steven n. said:
    davgreg said:
    lkrupp said:
    The rage against Capitalism has been going on for decades now in education, revisionist history, and media propaganda. Young people are attracted to the siren call of Socialism because it promises them the moon. No more student loans to pay off, free healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment, the list goes on. Who wouldn’t be supportive of stuff like that until you sit down and think how it would be implemented? Warren wants the government to have absolute, total control over the economy, the society, the way we think. And the thing about that kind of mentality is that, once entrenched, there is no tolerance for dissent. We’ve seen what happens over and over again in history when governments control everything.
    This is just a political rant without cited proof against the boogie man of “socialism” that does not address the proposal any part of it.

    FYI- all countries have some elements of socialism in a mixed economy. You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism. Ms Warren is a Socialist like Apple is a  tire company.
    You are going off on people trying to shut them down with a simple "political rant" call while you rant yourself:

    "You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism."

    These are not "socialism" and you know it. Trying to claim "roads" as "socialism" is simply an straw man argument made from not understanding the definitions of words and concepts.

    There is no doubt what lkrupp wrote really is true. All you have to do is watch The Colbert Report interviewing OAC to see there is a strong desire for free education, free housing, free food, free health care as well as free money. She does not believe achieving success is moral if you profit from it and I have heard many 18-30 year olds express this sentiment. The strong push to UBI among the regressive left cheered on by the media and liberal entertainers is a perfect example of the collective sickness in the left and it has driven me away fully. They are centered on the narrative of "oppressor/oppressed", "victim/victimizer" all drawn around specific various physical/emotional identities stripping away the individual. It's scarier than the spray tan in the can man in the Oval Office.

    For example, Andrew's Yang's (who talks very persuasively) free money hand out would cost about $3,000,000,000,000/year and this does not include anything except his UBI concept.
    why can't we multi-quote  any more?

    Its a bit odd to say that free to use public roads and primary and secondary education is not socialist but free education at third level is. And of course there is medicare etc. Housing is not free but subsidised in most countries with socialised housing. 

    The identity stuff isn't socialist, not old school socialism anyway. AOC doesn't seem to use that much. 

    UBI is far out there and some technical elites also believe in it. 
  • Reply 145 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    steven n. said:
    davgreg said:
    lkrupp said:
    The rage against Capitalism has been going on for decades now in education, revisionist history, and media propaganda. Young people are attracted to the siren call of Socialism because it promises them the moon. No more student loans to pay off, free healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment, the list goes on. Who wouldn’t be supportive of stuff like that until you sit down and think how it would be implemented? Warren wants the government to have absolute, total control over the economy, the society, the way we think. And the thing about that kind of mentality is that, once entrenched, there is no tolerance for dissent. We’ve seen what happens over and over again in history when governments control everything.
    This is just a political rant without cited proof against the boogie man of “socialism” that does not address the proposal any part of it.

    FYI- all countries have some elements of socialism in a mixed economy. You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism. Ms Warren is a Socialist like Apple is a  tire company.
    You are going off on people trying to shut them down with a simple "political rant" call while you rant yourself:

    "You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism."

    These are not "socialism" and you know it. Trying to claim "roads" as "socialism" is simply an straw man argument made from not understanding the definitions of words and concepts.

    There is no doubt what lkrupp wrote really is true. All you have to do is watch The Colbert Report interviewing OAC to see there is a strong desire for free education, free housing, free food, free health care as well as free money. She does not believe achieving success is moral if you profit from it and I have heard many 18-30 year olds express this sentiment. The strong push to UBI among the regressive left cheered on by the media and liberal entertainers is a perfect example of the collective sickness in the left and it has driven me away fully. They are centered on the narrative of "oppressor/oppressed", "victim/victimizer" all drawn around specific various physical/emotional identities stripping away the individual. It's scarier than the spray tan in the can man in the Oval Office.

    For example, Andrew's Yang's (who talks very persuasively) free money hand out would cost about $3,000,000,000,000/year and this does not include anything except his UBI concept.
    Yes, I’ve only recently heard about this Yang candidate. That utter nonsense like UBI is able to attract attention in the US these days is evidence of “the madness of crowds” and people willingly suspending all logic to feed a revenge fantasy narrative for their preferred candidate losing in 2016.
    steven n.
  • Reply 146 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    asdasd said:
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
    Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders and numerous other Democrats running for President are debatably advocating for outright Socialism, Marxism or Communism or variations on a theme. The only Left candidate I’m aware of so far who strongly opposes this drift into insanity is Howard Schultz, of all people (Mike Bloomberg opposes it but isn’t running... plus he’s been both a Democrat and a Republican).
    You have your own version of socialism, Marxism and even monopoly on this thread. 
  • Reply 147 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    asdasd said:
    asdasd said:
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
    Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders and numerous other Democrats running for President are debatably advocating for outright Socialism, Marxism or Communism or variations on a theme. The only Left candidate I’m aware of so far who strongly opposes this drift into insanity is Howard Schultz, of all people (Mike Bloomberg opposes it but isn’t running... plus he’s been both a Democrat and a Republican).
    You have your own version of socialism, Marxism and even monopoly on this thread. 
    Just address the points raised if you something to say. Otherwise I have no use for your comments.
  • Reply 148 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    asdasd said:
    asdasd said:
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
    Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders and numerous other Democrats running for President are debatably advocating for outright Socialism, Marxism or Communism or variations on a theme. The only Left candidate I’m aware of so far who strongly opposes this drift into insanity is Howard Schultz, of all people (Mike Bloomberg opposes it but isn’t running... plus he’s been both a Democrat and a Republican).
    You have your own version of socialism, Marxism and even monopoly on this thread. 
    Just address the points raised if you something to say. Otherwise I have no use for your comments.
    I have continually addressed those points throughout this thread.

    1) breaking up corporations is not socialist, nor communist. Ted Roosevelt the Republican ran on that very platform more than one hundred years ago. By the way I am not saying I agree with Warren on breaking an tech industry up.
    2) ABI is not socialist or communist either although it may be nuts. Some libertarians support it.
    3) Google is most definitely incredibly dominant in search, as is Amazon  in online retail. Under US law it just has to abuse that power to be considered monopolistic. Thats the criteria, not if people are free to go elsewhere to use minority platforms in these services. 

    The difference between socialism ( if its defined as European social democracy, which is mostly the case) and communism is a as wide as that between the libertarian and mixed economic systems. Unless there are calls to nationalise corporations the ideology isn't communist. 

    At worse the Democratic Party is moving to the centre left economically, from a centre or centre right position. 

    edited March 2019
  • Reply 149 of 172
    virtuavirtua Posts: 209member
    Apple apps are free anyway.
    whats she on about?
  • Reply 150 of 172
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 690member
    I think she is right. Apple needs to allow 3rd parties to install apps without having to use the AppStore or pay Apple the tax. They could do it like they do with the Mac - install at your own risk from outside sources and call Warren if you get compromised for support.
  • Reply 151 of 172
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,824member
    I don't think Ms Warren understands or knows enough about technology and antitrust theory.  Apple is not in any way close to being a monopolist in smart phones or personal computers.  Apple, of course, is a monopolist in Apple-branded products (name me a manufacturer who is not a monopolist in its own-brand products) but Ms. Warren seems to think this is somehow a violation of antitrust laws and principles.  And to claim that Apple is using the exclusivity of its App Store to push its apps over anyone else's will not be proved by the facts.
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 152 of 172
    These politicians need to worry about fixing government, not sticking their nose into PRIVATE corporations. I understand they are "PUBLIC" (not government) companies, but that does not mean the government should be sticking their nose into their business. The woman is a complete WACK JOB!
    edited March 2019 jblank
  • Reply 153 of 172
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 690member
    tundraboy said:
    I don't think Ms Warren understands or knows enough about technology and antitrust theory.  Apple is not in any way close to being a monopolist in smart phones or personal computers.  Apple, of course, is a monopolist in Apple-branded products (name me a manufacturer who is not a monopolist in its own-brand products) but Ms. Warren seems to think this is somehow a violation of antitrust laws and principles.  And to claim that Apple is using the exclusivity of its App Store to push its apps over anyone else's will not be proved by the facts.
    Curious as to what makes you such an authority on the issue?
  • Reply 154 of 172
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 690member
    These politicians need to worry about fixing government, not sticking their nose into PRIVATE corporations. I understand they are "PUBLIC" (not government) companies, but that does not mean the government should be sticking their nose into their business. The woman is a complete WACK JOB!
    The government has done and continues to do does this all the time on a range of issues like taxes, employment, discrimination, security, possible fraud etc. Why shouldn’t it investigate possible anti-trust issues? 
  • Reply 155 of 172
    jblankjblank Posts: 16member
    jblank said:
    jblank said:
    jblank said:
    jblank said:
    Dial back the wide brushes a little bit, folks.
    What wide brushes? Liawatha and her ilk are attempting to fundamentally destroy one of the greatest companies in history, they deserve maximum criticism. These leftists are trying to destroy the American economic system and in my opinion, it's not painting with a broad brush to call them out for it.

    She shouldn't have taken a DNA test, she needed a CAT-scan.
    The wide brushes that already got pruned from this thread. If your comment remains, it is on the correct side of the line.

    You just registered, and that's fantastic. At the bottom of every thread we have forum rules conveniently posted, and we do enforce them.
    That's fine, but calling a spade a spade isn't a "wide brush". None of my comments were removed so I guess you weren't addressing me. My mistake, I thought you were.
    It might be worth a look-up on where your analogy came from.
    ???
    Yeah, don't worry about it. I had a relevant thought about empire building, but lost it.
    No, I'd like to hear what you had to say, seriously.  
    Try reading some Ta Nehisi Coates. 
    I'll pass. I get enough leftism online, I don't need more. In any case, I don't know what he has to do with anything I said.
  • Reply 156 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    asdasd said:
    steven n. said:
    davgreg said:
    lkrupp said:
    The rage against Capitalism has been going on for decades now in education, revisionist history, and media propaganda. Young people are attracted to the siren call of Socialism because it promises them the moon. No more student loans to pay off, free healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment, the list goes on. Who wouldn’t be supportive of stuff like that until you sit down and think how it would be implemented? Warren wants the government to have absolute, total control over the economy, the society, the way we think. And the thing about that kind of mentality is that, once entrenched, there is no tolerance for dissent. We’ve seen what happens over and over again in history when governments control everything.
    This is just a political rant without cited proof against the boogie man of “socialism” that does not address the proposal any part of it.

    FYI- all countries have some elements of socialism in a mixed economy. You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism. Ms Warren is a Socialist like Apple is a  tire company.
    You are going off on people trying to shut them down with a simple "political rant" call while you rant yourself:

    "You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism."

    These are not "socialism" and you know it. Trying to claim "roads" as "socialism" is simply an straw man argument made from not understanding the definitions of words and concepts.

    There is no doubt what lkrupp wrote really is true. All you have to do is watch The Colbert Report interviewing OAC to see there is a strong desire for free education, free housing, free food, free health care as well as free money. She does not believe achieving success is moral if you profit from it and I have heard many 18-30 year olds express this sentiment. The strong push to UBI among the regressive left cheered on by the media and liberal entertainers is a perfect example of the collective sickness in the left and it has driven me away fully. They are centered on the narrative of "oppressor/oppressed", "victim/victimizer" all drawn around specific various physical/emotional identities stripping away the individual. It's scarier than the spray tan in the can man in the Oval Office.

    For example, Andrew's Yang's (who talks very persuasively) free money hand out would cost about $3,000,000,000,000/year and this does not include anything except his UBI concept.
    why can't we multi-quote  any more?

    Its a bit odd to say that free to use public roads and primary and secondary education is not socialist but free education at third level is. And of course there is medicare etc. Housing is not free but subsidised in most countries with socialised housing. 

    The identity stuff isn't socialist, not old school socialism anyway. AOC doesn't seem to use that much. 

    UBI is far out there and some technical elites also believe in it. 
    UBI is mystifyingly attractive to Left intellectuals and strangely has been a talking point for some philosophically misguided moderates. First of all, the UBI experiments which were performed in Finland led up to the implosion of their government (this happened about a week ago). Subsidies don’t work. People are not rational computers who are able to square working and being productive while lazy people sit back and take bread away from their families in exchange for nothing. Human nature will ensure that UBI never functions. 

    And one reason Yang proposed the “inevitable adoption” of UBI is that AI and robots are theorized to eventually replace most human laborers. That scenario fails to appreciate that AI and robots are just more tools and that what is “work” is continually redefined by the forces of supply and demand. 
    jblanksteven n.
  • Reply 157 of 172
    jblankjblank Posts: 16member
    chasm said:
    jblank said:
    That party has lost its mind. They're so out of touch with reality and they don't seem to care.
    Yes, not like the stable, mature, thoughtful other part----HAHAHAHAHAHA sorry couldn't keep a straight face on that one. 



    Oh look, whataboutism. I'm a libertarian, I'll rip the GOP when they deserve it.   
  • Reply 158 of 172
    jblankjblank Posts: 16member
    slurpy said:
    jblank said:
    Screw her, AOC, who thinks the country is barely above garbage, and the rest of these collectivist leftists that want to destroy our economic system and many great companies, Apple included.

    The Democrat Party has turned into a race towards Communism. They are radical and have the gas pedal planted to the firewall to see who can go furthest left. I'm surprised they haven't called for gulags and re-education camps for white males yet, I guess that's coming soon though.
    I think the concept of breaking up Apple is utterly idiotic, asinine, and counter-productive, so is your post. Literally not a single word of it is true, full of nothing but hyper-sensationalization, zealotry, and abject lies. Communism? "Destroy" our economic system? Gulags? Re-education? Maybe step out of your insane right-wing bubble for a few moments, you seem a lot more brainwashed than anyone in the "democrat" party.
    Are you kidding me? They're not racing to the left? Really? All of it is true, every word.I didn't say they were calling for gulags, I said I was surprised they haven't called for them. I'm not right wing, I'm a libertarian and I disagree with the right on a laundry list of issues, but you're ignorant or a liar if you think the Dems aren't racing towards government control of as much as they can.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 159 of 172
    jblankjblank Posts: 16member
    vvswarup said:
    jblank said:
    Screw her, AOC, who thinks the country is barely above garbage, and the rest of these collectivist leftists that want to destroy our economic system and many great companies, Apple included.

    The Democrat Party has turned into a race towards Communism. They are radical and have the gas pedal planted to the firewall to see who can go furthest left. I'm surprised they haven't called for gulags and re-education camps for white males yet, I guess that's coming soon though.
    I don't agree with Warren one bit and if she makes the ticket, the Democrats will lose my vote but let's face the facts. Republicans are just as capable of government overreach as Democrats. Let's not forget that Donald Trump and many Republicans called for regulating tech and social media companies like Google or Facebook because they allegedly favored left-leaning content. Donald Trump claimed without a lick of proof that Google intentionally engineered its search algorithm to make posts critical of him appear at the top of results and called for an investigation in response. Trump also repeatedly said Amazon would have a lot of problems if he became President during his campaign. I think I've made my point.

    The real problem is populism. Left-wing or right-wing, populism has unintended consequences. People like Warren are the result. 
    I’m not a Republican and had this been Trump doing this I’d be ripping him also, much like I have on tariffs. 
  • Reply 160 of 172
    jblankjblank Posts: 16member
    asdasd said:
    asdasd said:
    asdasd said:
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
    Warren, Harris, Booker, Sanders and numerous other Democrats running for President are debatably advocating for outright Socialism, Marxism or Communism or variations on a theme. The only Left candidate I’m aware of so far who strongly opposes this drift into insanity is Howard Schultz, of all people (Mike Bloomberg opposes it but isn’t running... plus he’s been both a Democrat and a Republican).
    You have your own version of socialism, Marxism and even monopoly on this thread. 
    Just address the points raised if you something to say. Otherwise I have no use for your comments.
    I have continually addressed those points throughout this thread.

    1) breaking up corporations is not socialist, nor communist. Ted Roosevelt the Republican ran on that very platform more than one hundred years ago. By the way I am not saying I agree with Warren on breaking an tech industry up.
    2) ABI is not socialist or communist either although it may be nuts. Some libertarians support it.
    3) Google is most definitely incredibly dominant in search, as is Amazon  in online retail. Under US law it just has to abuse that power to be considered monopolistic. Thats the criteria, not if people are free to go elsewhere to use minority platforms in these services. 

    The difference between socialism ( if its defined as European social democracy, which is mostly the case) and communism is a as wide as that between the libertarian and mixed economic systems. Unless there are calls to nationalise corporations the ideology isn't communist. 

    At worse the Democratic Party is moving to the centre left economically, from a centre or centre right position. 

    T.Roosevelt was a Progressive and my fellow libertarians that support UBI do so with the stipulation that all other social programs are ended. 
Sign In or Register to comment.