Setting aside thoughts about any individual company that is supposedly being targeted and their business practices. This is a policy that penalizes success.
It's a prickly issue but if we stick with the words 'penalising success' perhaps we should be debating whether that always has to be bad.
We are squarely in the digital age and need solutions for new problems. If 'success' were to lead to distortion in market practices would it be 'good' for the market?
I have no clear answers but firmly believe in things like interoperability, repairability, convergence etc.
I can see why ideas like this come up and while I don't think breaking companies up is the solution - today - we need to be looking at how to level the different playing fields to ensure abuse doesn't interfere with how things progress.
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.
That was the point of the original "Landlord's Game" which monopoly is based on. It was used to demonstrate the "evils" of monopolies and some other over-the-top forms of capitalism gone amok.
We're going to start with this open, as we have the last few. As of late, we've had a problem with forum-goer behavior towards each other, and in general, ad hominem attacks which has led to the closure of a few threads that I'd have rather kept open.
Keep it civil, and it stays open. You know the rules.
When you close a discussion, why do you still leave the comments from the initial posters up? Since no one else is able to make comments afterwards, the initial posters end up being rewarded by being the only ones whose comments are posted.
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.
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.
We're going to start with this open, as we have the last few. As of late, we've had a problem with forum-goer behavior towards each other, and in general, ad hominem attacks which has led to the closure of a few threads that I'd have rather kept open.
Keep it civil, and it stays open. You know the rules.
When you close a discussion, why do you still leave the comments from the initial posters up? Since no one else is able to make comments afterwards, the initial posters end up being rewarded by being the only ones whose comments are posted.
We delete them all sometimes if something has generated particularly toxic comments. The rest of the time, when something has become not cost-effective to keep moderating, we leave the ones that didn't step over the line. This depends greatly, topic to topic.
If you wish to continue this conversation, my DMs are open. It doesn't belong here.
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.
It's only a real "concern" if that platform has a controlling share of its respective market and demonstrates a desire to push its products in front of others. As Microsoft did in the 90's and as Google did several years ago. (They both also abused their leverage by forcing onerous terms on OEMs)
Apple competing with other developers on iOS means they're only competing on a fraction (at most 20%) of the overall mobile software market. Developers are free to make their products available on other platforms, including the market "leading" Android.
I can definitely understand why someone would think this is necessary, but breaking companies up "just because they're rich" is lazy. The government needs to prove that the company is actually abusing their control of the platform. Simply offering a competing product is not abuse or detrimental to the end user. Neither is being a monopoly, for that matter.
Chances are Apple will break itself up unless they start to treat Mac customers as valued again, and not a second thought to be dumbed down to iOS standards and specs.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren isn't making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil and couldn't anyway. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else. Look up those stats and comment again. In fact I'll save you the trouble, tho your followup comments are certainly encouraged.
Mobile Vendors
Percentage Market Share
Mobile Vendor Market Share in United States Of America - February 2019
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
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.
It's only a real "concern" if that platform has a controlling share of its respective market and demonstrates a desire to push its products in front of others. As Microsoft did in the 90's and as Google did several years ago. (They both also abused their leverage by forcing onerous terms on OEMs)
Apple competing with other developers on iOS means they're only competing on a fraction (at most 20%) of the overall mobile software market. Developers are free to make their products available on other platforms, including the market "leading" Android.
I can definitely understand why someone would think this is necessary, but breaking companies up "just because they're rich" is lazy. The government needs to prove that the company is actually abusing their control of the platform. Simply offering a competing product is not abuse or detrimental to the end user. Neither is being a monopoly, for that matter.
You're right MSFT case wasn't that simple. In general, their is nothing wrong with using your own channel, platform, etc., to push your own product, indeed that's the essence and goal of , but MSFT forced companies to load their product, etc.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
A different discussion and venue altogether, and one where you may be correct. But don't fool yourself into thinking Apple's turn isn't coming if any of the others fall.
As long as Apple can be seen as selling an integrated appliance that completes in the larger market, they are safe from an anti-competitive standpoint.
Where they will err, IMO, is in the area of censorship and limiting free opinions/speech on their platforms, where they unfortunately are in good company with the rest of the large US based social media companies. We cannot have that companies based in the relatively mono-culture, US west-coast political correctness can dictate what can be published or not on their platforms across the planet.
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.
Private property ownership, just like freedom of speech and the right of self-defense are natural rights. They are not given to us by government. They are only protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The fundamentals of this country should be revisited and reaffirmed often, because craven power-hungry scum politicians like Warren need to be aggressively rebuffed or our most basic freedoms disappear to the will of mobs they’re only too willing to whip up.
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.
The part you didn’t get out of the game: Monopolies don’t exist in free market capitalist systems, they can only exist with the force of regulation which prevents competition.
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.
That was the point of the original "Landlord's Game" which monopoly is based on. It was used to demonstrate the "evils" of monopolies and some other over-the-top forms of capitalism gone amok.
Monopolies aren’t a product of free market capitalism. They’re a product of protection FROM the rigors of competition, aka: corporatism or crony capitalism.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
A different discussion and venue altogether, and one where you may be correct. But don't fool yourself into thinking Apple's turn isn't coming if any of the others fall.
As long as Apple can be seen as selling an integrated appliance that completes in the larger market, they are safe from an anti-competitive standpoint.
Where they will err, IMO, is in the area of censorship and limiting free opinions/speech on their platforms, where they unfortunately are in good company with the rest of the large US based social media companies. We cannot have that companies based in the relatively mono-culture, US west-coast political correctness can dictate what can be published or not on their platforms across the planet.
Google isn't selling an integrated service? IMO they are as much as Apple is yet that doesn't mean much to EU competition authorities. Liek I said if one of the other big techs falls it won't be long before Apple's turn in the chair. There's already an increasingly unfriendly view of the big techs, a backlash of sorts and Apple is certainly included in that group. With Google it's ads and privacy, Apple is greed and control.
But anyway, I digress as you do. It's a different discussion than this one. Let's not drag this one off-course.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
A different discussion and venue altogether, and one where you may be correct. But don't fool yourself into thinking Apple's turn isn't coming if any of the others fall.
As long as Apple can be seen as selling an integrated appliance that completes in the larger market, they are safe from an anti-competitive standpoint.
Where they will err, IMO, is in the area of censorship and limiting free opinions/speech on their platforms, where they unfortunately are in good company with the rest of the large US based social media companies. We cannot have that companies based in the relatively mono-culture, US west-coast political correctness can dictate what can be published or not on their platforms across the planet.
Google isn't selling an integrated service? IMO they are as much as Apple is yet that doesn't mean much to EU competition authorities. Liek I said if one of the other big techs falls it won't be long before Apple's turn in the chair. There's already an increasingly unfriendly view of the big techs, a backlash of sorts and Apple is certainly included in that group. With Google it's ads and privacy, Apple is greed and control.
But anyway, I digress as you do. It's a different discussion than this one. Let's not drag this one off-course.
“Greed”? Good lord, Gator the discussion moves to a new low when discussions on what the market will bear turn to moralizing about consumer choice.
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.
Worldwide. Elizabeth Warren is making a proposal that applies to China, France and Brazil. In the US it's Apple and then everyone else.
The EU will most likely support the idea of breaking up FB and Google, less so with Twitter. I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
A different discussion and venue altogether, and one where you may be correct. But don't fool yourself into thinking Apple's turn isn't coming if any of the others fall.
As long as Apple can be seen as selling an integrated appliance that completes in the larger market, they are safe from an anti-competitive standpoint.
Where they will err, IMO, is in the area of censorship and limiting free opinions/speech on their platforms, where they unfortunately are in good company with the rest of the large US based social media companies. We cannot have that companies based in the relatively mono-culture, US west-coast political correctness can dictate what can be published or not on their platforms across the planet.
Google isn't selling an integrated service? IMO they are as much as Apple is yet that doesn't mean much to EU competition authorities. Liek I said if one of the other big techs falls it won't be long before Apple's turn in the chair. There's already an increasingly unfriendly view of the big techs, and Apple is certainly in that group. With Google it's ads and privacy, Apple is greed and control. But anyway, I digress as you do. It's a different discussion than this one.
Macintosh hardware + macOS has been viewed as an integrated appliance by anti-competitive authorities both in the US and the EU for like - ever. Which is why Apple has never been forced to open up macOS to anyone else. You can say the same for the combination Apple hardware and iOS, tvOS and watchOS in isolation.
However, with the Apple mandate to only have one source of apps that provide the gateway to content on the 3 platforms, (as opposed to macOS where applications and content basically can be sourced from anywhere), I am not sure they can expect to be protected by anti-competitive legislation any more. It makes them more likely to be subject to regulatory intervention. – Intervention that is easily supported by both the public in general, and even by the media in the EU which often have fallen out with Apple on the issue of content.
For Apple to not be subject to control and regulation they seriously need to ease up on source of apps, and thereby source of content. They cannot expect to retain worldwide control over how people use their devices.
IMO they also need to stay out of content production not to compete with creators on their mandatory, curated App store and iTunes.
Comments
We are squarely in the digital age and need solutions for new problems. If 'success' were to lead to distortion in market practices would it be 'good' for the market?
I have no clear answers but firmly believe in things like interoperability, repairability, convergence etc.
I can see why ideas like this come up and while I don't think breaking companies up is the solution - today - we need to be looking at how to level the different playing fields to ensure abuse doesn't interfere with how things progress.
If you wish to continue this conversation, my DMs are open. It doesn't belong here.
It's only a real "concern" if that platform has a controlling share of its respective market and demonstrates a desire to push its products in front of others. As Microsoft did in the 90's and as Google did several years ago. (They both also abused their leverage by forcing onerous terms on OEMs)
Apple competing with other developers on iOS means they're only competing on a fraction (at most 20%) of the overall mobile software market. Developers are free to make their products available on other platforms, including the market "leading" Android.
I can definitely understand why someone would think this is necessary, but breaking companies up "just because they're rich" is lazy. The government needs to prove that the company is actually abusing their control of the platform. Simply offering a competing product is not abuse or detrimental to the end user. Neither is being a monopoly, for that matter.
I don't see breaking up Apple is even on the page as seen from the EU.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-apple-twitter-linkedin-face-investigations-violating-european/story?id=61411161
Where they will err, IMO, is in the area of censorship and limiting free opinions/speech on their platforms, where they unfortunately are in good company with the rest of the large US based social media companies. We cannot have that companies based in the relatively mono-culture, US west-coast political correctness can dictate what can be published or not on their platforms across the planet.
The fundamentals of this country should be revisited and reaffirmed often, because craven power-hungry scum politicians like Warren need to be aggressively rebuffed or our most basic freedoms disappear to the will of mobs they’re only too willing to whip up.
But anyway, I digress as you do. It's a different discussion than this one. Let's not drag this one off-course.
However, with the Apple mandate to only have one source of apps that provide the gateway to content on the 3 platforms, (as opposed to macOS where applications and content basically can be sourced from anywhere), I am not sure they can expect to be protected by anti-competitive legislation any more. It makes them more likely to be subject to regulatory intervention. – Intervention that is easily supported by both the public in general, and even by the media in the EU which often have fallen out with Apple on the issue of content.
For Apple to not be subject to control and regulation they seriously need to ease up on source of apps, and thereby source of content. They cannot expect to retain worldwide control over how people use their devices.
IMO they also need to stay out of content production not to compete with creators on their mandatory, curated App store and iTunes.