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.
Which is why we shouldn't be talking about the EU in this thread. Agreed?
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.
Which is why we shouldn't be talking about the EU in this thread. Agreed?
There is very close connections between the socialists in the EU - socialists that permeate the legislative European commission, and the socialists in the US Democratic party. You can be sure they will coordinate their legislative efforts if they are in a position to break up, tax and regulate companies.
Maybe Warren is a shareholder of said companies, looking for a 25:1 split. Then again, my shares would split too. I guess if you are for government controlled, well, everything, you’d like this idea. I see it as a massive over-reach. And, I might add, that no one is forced to use any of these services. Life goes on just fine without Google, Amazon, FB, and dare I say Apple. Bell telephone was broken up because of a monopoly in communication, and these companies are not monopolies, as I understand it.
Setting aside thoughts about any individual company that is supposedly being targeted and their business practices. This is a policy that penalizes success.
I’m not taking a side on this but I think from Warren’s perspective she views it as applying restrictions (penalizing) to those who abuse or could abuse the power they have gained through success in the market.
I guess I will weigh in a little and say, while I would welcome some additional protections from abusive companies it is problematic to impose restrictions even on successful companies that are in the position to abuse their market power but haven’t demonstrated such activity. Though, let’s be honest - in general, power does not engender the best ethical behavior.
"Though Warren’s post did not mention Apple, her campaign said the plan would affect the tech behemoth. The company could have to choose between running its App Store or building its own apps, Warren spokeswoman Saloni Sharma said."
^ this tidbit was added to the CNBC report after initial publication, and after our assessment of the situation.
This is basically the net-neutrality issue. In other countries, companies are not allowed to own both the pipes and the content. In the US, we already have companies owning both, and so the proposal here is that they can't favor their own content. I think that's the way it will have to go in the US with other platforms as well---at least for platforms such as Apple's that don't have a significant conflict of interests.
The best I can work out is the issue is only that Apple is producing Apps for sale on the App Store as well as owning the App Store. And the only apps that they sell on the App Store from my failing memory is the iWork suite of apps. So if Apple spun them out into another separate company, not under their control it would satisfy Elizabeth Warren’s legislation. It might also serve another purpose of being able to improve those apps a little more.
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."
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.
“Haven’t fully formed an opinion” Are you serious? Every part of her plan is ridiculous. Why the heck should govt busy bodies have any say over these companies. Do you know how politicized these business and decisions will become if you allow things like this to happen.
This isn't govt. stepping in to curb abuse, like when Microsoft slammed the brakes on innovation by requiring hardware companies to ONLY offer Windows or losing their licenses. I'm not comfortable with more govt. overreach, especially in the realm of innovative tech companies. I'm even less enthused when plans such as this are drawn up by govt. officials of low character.
Arguably, that which has made America great is that which makes forums like this great -- FREEDOM. When we leave any corporation or individual alone to enjoy liberty, there is always the risk of great abuse. A corporation may become a monopoly, and an individual may use their freedom to mercilessly take away the freedom of others. That risk never goes away in a free society. But when we ponder the partial or complete removal of liberty in the name of furthering liberty, that removal of liberty having resulted from a small number of abusers whose actions trigger the removal of liberty from the whole, that tremendous loss of liberty to the whole should make us rethink the need to restrict it in the first place. This is not to advocate anarchy but rather to suggest that we be cautious in the extreme about any restriction on liberty.
Apple's freedom to succeed without restraint is a success that can be shared and celebrated by all Americans; not monetarily, but rather in terms of the ability to choose one's destiny without external restraint or intervention. When we forcefully intervene and restrict liberty, even for the best of reasons, those reasons ultimately fade away and become meaningless in light of what we have lost. This is also true when one points to past restrictions on liberty to show how important those restrictions are, claiming we are better off today because of those restrictions, when in fact one is merely speculating and does not truly know how better of we might been had those restrictions never been imposed. Is less freedom really better for us in the end than more freedom?
You know you are a true advocate of freedom when you are willing to afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. Some may say it is but a dream for most Americans to look beyond political party and embrace policies that advocate freedom first. But it is We The People who determine our future by supporting or fighting policies which have an impact on the freedoms of the whole.
I am an American and can only speak for myself. Putting freedom first is my duty. Let freedom reign.
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."
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.
“Haven’t fully formed an opinion” Are you serious? Every part of her plan is ridiculous. Why the heck should govt busy bodies have any say over these companies. Do you know how politicized these business and decisions will become if you allow things like this to happen.
Damn straight. This is about clucking chickens like Warren blackmailing companies to exercise financial or political control over them. Dirtbags like her are a far greater threat to personal freedoms than any alleged “threats” posed by competitive markets.
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."
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.
“Haven’t fully formed an opinion” Are you serious? Every part of her plan is ridiculous. Why the heck should govt busy bodies have any say over these companies. Do you know how politicized these business and decisions will become if you allow things like this to happen.
And you don't think people should take some time to form an opinion? To consider how well or poorly some plan might meet its objectives? To think through possible unintended consequences or consider what, if any, positive aspects there might be? To think about what, if any, changes might make it better?
We should just always have knee jerk ideological reactions that tell us what is good and what is evil?
I understand the perspective that views a companies' market position/strength with trepidation, but wouldn't this approach be more reasonably applied to large ISPs that also own content production? The likelihood of abuse in the post Net Neutrality would warrant divestiture.
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.
Why is it common practice to behave as if we live a purely capitalistic society? Our nations move toward socialism began with the new deal and hasn't abated since. If MEDICAID, Medicare and Social Security, SNAP, EITC, certain Farm subsidies, and corporate welfare aren't socialistic programs what is?
America is already a "Socialist Democracy" and to deny it is delusional!
The underlying problem here is that the Democrats in general share the same confusion toward free markets that has taken root in socialist Europe: in their minds, business success for a company that stems from better tech, better ideas, breakthrough practices that create new value (and with it, new wealth) are automatically labeled as “anti-competitive.” The whole point of a free market, is that the better mousetrap will have a good chance of being the new standard, and therefore, the thing everyone wants and buys instead of the other guy’s mousetrap. Europe in general cannot stand the idea of truly disruptive advances. Their governemnts are all about keeping things “stable,” and taxing away the fruits of success to keep everything “equal.”
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.
Why is it common practice to behave as if we live a purely capitalistic society? Our nations move toward socialism began with the new deal and hasn't abated since. If MEDICAID, Medicare and Social Security, SNAP, EITC, certain Farm subsidies, and corporate welfare aren't socialistic programs what is?
America is already a "Socialist Democracy" and to deny it is delusional!
I agree with your criticism(?). There have been numerous policies enacted by Presidents and members of Congress which are blatant violations of our Constitution. The problem is the Constitution is unable to defend itself. If various combinations of Congressional representatives, US Presidents and the voting public agree they are “OK” with violating the Constitution for mutual benefit, then the Constitution will be violated. FDR and the New Deal was a particularly egregious example of violations of Federal power. FDR, among the US Presidents was probably closest to being an actual dictator.
Between the Constitution, elected representatives and the demands of the public, there is a continual tension between the expansion and the contraction of Federal power. It’s meant to remain in tension. If there are no checks and balances, something has gone terribly wrong.
FDR, among the US Presidents was probably closest to being an actual dictator.
Trying to be generous here - I sincerely hope you mean that relatively and that you are using a Very long yardstick with which to measure. But, seriously, suggesting a whiff of dictatorship...
And then there is relativity to being a dictator versus acting like a dictator. Thinking in terms of the latter, a different name than FDR’s comes to mind.
I find it unfortunate that we are, on a regular basis, treating crackpot ideas & proposals from the fringes (both the far right and the far left) as legitimate and equal to rational, well thought out proposals capable of having an overall positive effect -- instead of just moving problems around.
This stuff happens when we allow ideology (of any kind) to triumph over rational thought based in reality.
She’s a shit. First off. Secondly there is more than enough competition with apple with amazon google Roku and Netflix in video streaming. Then in the computer line has competition from all other manufacturers and vice versa for other manufacturers. Ok streaming music apple has amazon FYE and other smaller companies. Other companies of tried and failed at the MP3 market that is not a fault of Apple. I would be more inclined to see if any company should be broken up and should be Amazon as they are trying to get in there everything and monopolize everything there are plenty of things Apple has not tried to get into so if Miss Warren has a brain she would look at Amazon
She’s a shit. First off. Secondly there is more than enough competition with apple with amazon google Roku and Netflix in video streaming. Then in the computer line has competition from all other manufacturers and vice versa for other manufacturers. Ok streaming music apple has amazon FYE and other smaller companies. Other companies of tried and failed at the MP3 market that is not a fault of Apple. I would be more inclined to see if any company should be broken up and should be Amazon as they are trying to get in there everything and monopolize everything there are plenty of things Apple has not tried to get into so if Miss Warren has a brain she would look at Amazon
Here's an idea: try reading before shooting your mouth off.
Elizabeth Warren advocated for breaking up major tech companies with large services, specifically naming Amazon, Facebook, and Google
Comments
I guess if you are for government controlled, well, everything, you’d like this idea. I see it as a massive over-reach. And, I might add, that no one is forced to use any of these services. Life goes on just fine without Google, Amazon, FB, and dare I say Apple. Bell telephone was broken up because of a monopoly in communication, and these companies are not monopolies, as I understand it.
I guess I will weigh in a little and say, while I would welcome some additional protections from abusive companies it is problematic to impose restrictions even on successful companies that are in the position to abuse their market power but haven’t demonstrated such activity. Though, let’s be honest - in general, power does not engender the best ethical behavior.
But, too often it seems that each feeds the other.
Apple's freedom to succeed without restraint is a success that can be shared and celebrated by all Americans; not monetarily, but rather in terms of the ability to choose one's destiny without external restraint or intervention. When we forcefully intervene and restrict liberty, even for the best of reasons, those reasons ultimately fade away and become meaningless in light of what we have lost. This is also true when one points to past restrictions on liberty to show how important those restrictions are, claiming we are better off today because of those restrictions, when in fact one is merely speculating and does not truly know how better of we might been had those restrictions never been imposed. Is less freedom really better for us in the end than more freedom?
You know you are a true advocate of freedom when you are willing to afford your neighbor more freedom than you are willing to afford yourself. Some may say it is but a dream for most Americans to look beyond political party and embrace policies that advocate freedom first. But it is We The People who determine our future by supporting or fighting policies which have an impact on the freedoms of the whole.
I am an American and can only speak for myself. Putting freedom first is my duty. Let freedom reign.
We should just always have knee jerk ideological reactions that tell us what is good and what is evil?
America is already a "Socialist Democracy" and to deny it is delusional!
Between the Constitution, elected representatives and the demands of the public, there is a continual tension between the expansion and the contraction of Federal power. It’s meant to remain in tension. If there are no checks and balances, something has gone terribly wrong.
And then there is relativity to being a dictator versus acting like a dictator. Thinking in terms of the latter, a different name than FDR’s comes to mind.
This stuff happens when we allow ideology (of any kind) to triumph over rational thought based in reality.