Was the court case against Microsoft even relevant to loosening their grip on the web browser market? It was the wrong lawsuit to have, in the first place. The real issue was their contracts providing them a strangle-hold on the sales of premade computers (the whole bootloader bundling mess). Look up Be Inc.’s Jean-Louis Gasse’s commentary on that whole situation. BeOS bundled a web browser of its own. The internet was basic functionality for an OS, something we accept today. Control over whether a company could get their non-Microsoft software preinstalled on Dell, Gateway, etc computers was where the real monopoly power abuse existed.
Was the court case against Microsoft even relevant to loosening their grip on the web browser market? It was the wrong lawsuit to have, in the first place. The real issue was their contracts providing them a strangle-hold on the sales of premade computers (the whole bootloader bundling mess). Look up Be Inc.’s Jean-Louis Gasse’s commentary on that whole situation. BeOS bundled a web browser of its own. The internet was basic functionality for an OS, something we accept today. Control over whether a company could get their non-Microsoft software preinstalled on Dell, Gateway, etc computers was where the real monopoly power abuse existed.
True! And it was the reason why Bill Gates crushed CPM, OS2, and MacOS: Marketing beat out superior technology.
How soon we all forget chapters from our history. Go back 100 years in time and look at the landscape in America industry to the time of non regulations on American industries. Robber barons ruled with no competition, vast fortunes never seen before were created and men like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Frick. After 30 some years of conservation rule in the US corporate and bank regulations which created and maintained the middle class, small business have all been snuffed out. Wealth is in the hands of a minute part of the population, corporations swallow each other as in the past and destroy competition and innovation.
Does anyone remember the Microsoft monopoly? If the Feds had not intervened there would be no Apple today, we would all be using PC's and Internet Explorer and most like a brown Zune like cell phone. You may not like Warren or her plan but one version of it or another has existed in our history and such action is vital to keeping a capitalist democracy healthy.
“"As the government has grown larger and more powerful, it has used its resources and control over the people to squash freedom and human rights, and substitute its own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people," she wrote. "To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote freedom and free speech, and to ensure that the next generation is as vibrant as the last, it's time to break up our political party system and substitute it with direct democracy.”
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.
You lost most people when you singled out Apple for "greed" versus Google. LOL.
It should be mandatory for everyone to take Business 101 and Economics 101. Every rational company seeks to maximize profits; it's literally their fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company (the shareholders.) In doing so, free enterprise serves as the most important check and balance. If Apple charges too much, consumers have a wide variety of other choices, including not buying at all, and Apple's profits will fall. This is different from something like a publicly regulated monopoly like an electric utility where you have no choice. *This is the type of thing you will learn in your economics class.
"Worldwide control over how you use your device." LOL. Every time one of the billion consumers purchased an Apple device they did so willingly with an amazing array of other choices. When the time comes to replace their Apple devices they have incredible choices as Apple has the largest companies in the world competing with them (ain't free enterprise great!) which holds down prices for consumers and makes ever greater products. That's why the Apple platform is open to millions of developers, including Apple's massive competitors. In contrast to your preference for government regulatory control over what content companies offer, the success of Apple's upcoming video content will be determined by the free market. If it is too expensive or of poor quality, the consumers are king, not your EU bureaucrats, and consumers will decide its value among an ever growing list of massive competitors such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Google, Sony, Hulu, Verizon, HBO, etc., etc.
sadly the sillyness of proposed policy will further errode US' tech advantage by (1) shooting itself in the foot (fundamental research) and (2) possibly get some one for 2nd term. All EU, Asia Gov - china included are form consortium to further R&D, because the fragmented and short sighted industry hardly have strength alone to do fundamental research, like the old Bell Lab (read "Idea Factory"), IBM Watson lab, and even Military research (read "Tuxedo park"). Current example - Howard Hughes medical lab is far efficient than any others. rotten within was far scary than anything else... corretion, may be 2nd scary compare to the current missel launch code gamble... Company Size matters - Bell lab Murry Hill building facilitated innovation, Apple is imitate it as Jobs wish (space ship campus?), break up will lost the concentration of talent (required even at war time - such as Tuxedo park). IMHO. Extreme view is eye catching news generating, but fully exhibit her limited vision for the tech.
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.
You lost most people when you singled out Apple for "greed" versus Google. LOL.
It should be mandatory for everyone to take Business 101 and Economics 101. Every rational company seeks to maximize profits; it's literally their fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company (the shareholders.) In doing so, free enterprise serves as the most important check and balance. If Apple charges too much, consumers have a wide variety of other choices, including not buying at all, and Apple's profits will fall. This is different from something like a publicly regulated monopoly like an electric utility where you have no choice. *This is the type of thing you will learn in your economics class.
"Worldwide control over how you use your device." LOL. Every time one of the billion consumers purchased an Apple device they did so willingly with an amazing array of other choices. When the time comes to replace their Apple devices they have incredible choices as Apple has the largest companies in the world competing with them (ain't free enterprise great!) which holds down prices for consumers and makes ever greater products. That's why the Apple platform is open to millions of developers, including Apple's massive competitors. In contrast to your preference for government regulatory control over what content companies offer, the success of Apple's upcoming video content will be determined by the free market. If it is too expensive or of poor quality, the consumers are king, not your EU bureaucrats, and consumers will decide its value among an ever growing list of massive competitors such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Google, Sony, Hulu, Verizon, HBO, etc., etc.
I didn't single out Apple and presume it didn't apply to Google, nor was it my opinion being stated. None other than PED brought up the same public perception of Apple as (quote) "too rich and too greedy". https://www.ped30.com/2019/03/07/apple-facebook-fall-grace/
Whether you believe so or not it's out there, and increasingly so. Do a search for recent articles and surveys: "Apple greedy" is all the search terms you need.
Whether Apple has a "fiduciary duty to maximize profits" (they don't, it's a myth) it's still falls under a public perception that they've become too rich, and yes so has Google. Amazon too is beginning to sway in that direction as they swallow up new companies.
Remember when Exxon and the other oil companies had "a fiduciary duty" too? They were still seen as greedy back in 2011/12 and $5/gallon gasoline. You might have thought so too.
How soon we all forget chapters from our history. Go back 100 years in time and look at the landscape in America industry to the time of non regulations on American industries. Robber barons ruled with no competition, vast fortunes never seen before were created and men like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Frick. After 30 some years of conservation rule in the US corporate and bank regulations which created and maintained the middle class, small business have all been snuffed out. Wealth is in the hands of a minute part of the population, corporations swallow each other as in the past and destroy competition and innovation.
Does anyone remember the Microsoft monopoly? If the Feds had not intervened there would be no Apple today, we would all be using PC's and Internet Explorer and most like a brown Zune like cell phone. You may not like Warren or her plan but one version of it or another has existed in our history and such action is vital to keeping a capitalist democracy healthy.
Yes, that is true... But, today, the Progressives seem to want us to bounce off the other wall from that of 100 years ago with their "Money and power are inherently evil" philosophy.
The strength of our democracy is that it ultimately finds the right mix and the right thing to do (unfortunately, as Churchill stated, that's only after we've "tried everything else")
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.
From the Supreme Court ruling on DC vs Heller...
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons ... etc., etc."
Or to quote Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Freedom and rights are always in tension, your freedom and rights verses those of others. You have a natural "right" to Freedom of Speech... except when that right results in defamation or libel. Or, to quote the classic example, to yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium. You have a "right" to own a gun... but not a bazooka. You have a "right" to own property... which might be seized if you don't pay your bills. You have a natural "right" to freedom of action... which ends the second your fist hits my nose and your freedom of action is restricted by being thrown in jail.
In short, that balance and tension between your rights, my rights, and everyone else's rights is subject to law, rules, and regulation, and is the direct result of your living in this thing we call a society.
How soon we all forget chapters from our history. Go back 100 years in time and look at the landscape in America industry to the time of non regulations on American industries. Robber barons ruled with no competition, vast fortunes never seen before were created and men like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Frick. After 30 some years of conservation rule in the US corporate and bank regulations which created and maintained the middle class, small business have all been snuffed out. Wealth is in the hands of a minute part of the population, corporations swallow each other as in the past and destroy competition and innovation.
Does anyone remember the Microsoft monopoly? If the Feds had not intervened there would be no Apple today, we would all be using PC's and Internet Explorer and most like a brown Zune like cell phone. You may not like Warren or her plan but one version of it or another has existed in our history and such action is vital to keeping a capitalist democracy healthy.
Yes, that is true... But, today, the Progressives seem to want us to bounce off the other wall from that of 100 years ago with their "Money and power are inherently evil" philosophy.
The strength of our democracy is that it ultimately finds the right mix and the right thing to do (unfortunately, as Churchill stated, that's only after we've "tried everything else")
The assertion that Progressives believe that “Money and power are inherently evil” is a gross distortion. History has made it clear that money and power are corrupting forces - not that all will succumb but many have. It would be ignorant to turn a blind eye to any who wield a significant amount of either.
The strength of our democracy is not some abstract thing that fixes the problems for us - it is PEOPLE willing to stand up and defend democracy. And democracy does not protect against poor decisions being made - but the hope is that rational debate between bright minds from a diverse array of perspectives will yield better results overall.
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.
If you’re suggesting President DT is even remotely like a “dictator” that’s laughable. He’d be considered the least effective dictator in history. Dictators don’t allow their critics to live to oppose them.
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.
up is down because I say so? please do some research in a history book regarding monopolies before making statements like that again.
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.
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.
Of course they do. Happens all the time. Google is an example.
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.
Of course they do. Happens all the time. Google is an example.
Google is absolutely not a monopoly. If one chooses to only use Google, that’s the fault of the individual.
Comments
Does anyone remember the Microsoft monopoly? If the Feds had not intervened there would be no Apple today, we would all be using PC's and Internet Explorer and most like a brown Zune like cell phone. You may not like Warren or her plan but one version of it or another has existed in our history and such action is vital to keeping a capitalist democracy healthy.
Hear hear!
It should be mandatory for everyone to take Business 101 and Economics 101. Every rational company seeks to maximize profits; it's literally their fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company (the shareholders.) In doing so, free enterprise serves as the most important check and balance. If Apple charges too much, consumers have a wide variety of other choices, including not buying at all, and Apple's profits will fall. This is different from something like a publicly regulated monopoly like an electric utility where you have no choice. *This is the type of thing you will learn in your economics class.
"Worldwide control over how you use your device." LOL. Every time one of the billion consumers purchased an Apple device they did so willingly with an amazing array of other choices. When the time comes to replace their Apple devices they have incredible choices as Apple has the largest companies in the world competing with them (ain't free enterprise great!) which holds down prices for consumers and makes ever greater products. That's why the Apple platform is open to millions of developers, including Apple's massive competitors. In contrast to your preference for government regulatory control over what content companies offer, the success of Apple's upcoming video content will be determined by the free market. If it is too expensive or of poor quality, the consumers are king, not your EU bureaucrats, and consumers will decide its value among an ever growing list of massive competitors such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Google, Sony, Hulu, Verizon, HBO, etc., etc.
https://www.ped30.com/2019/03/07/apple-facebook-fall-grace/
Whether you believe so or not it's out there, and increasingly so. Do a search for recent articles and surveys: "Apple greedy" is all the search terms you need.
Whether Apple has a "fiduciary duty to maximize profits" (they don't, it's a myth) it's still falls under a public perception that they've become too rich, and yes so has Google. Amazon too is beginning to sway in that direction as they swallow up new companies.
Remember when Exxon and the other oil companies had "a fiduciary duty" too? They were still seen as greedy back in 2011/12 and $5/gallon gasoline. You might have thought so too.
But, today, the Progressives seem to want us to bounce off the other wall from that of 100 years ago with their "Money and power are inherently evil" philosophy.
The strength of our democracy is that it ultimately finds the right mix and the right thing to do (unfortunately, as Churchill stated, that's only after we've "tried everything else")
In short, that balance and tension between your rights, my rights, and everyone else's rights is subject to law, rules, and regulation, and is the direct result of your living in this thing we call a society.
The strength of our democracy is not some abstract thing that fixes the problems for us - it is PEOPLE willing to stand up and defend democracy. And democracy does not protect against poor decisions being made - but the hope is that rational debate between bright minds from a diverse array of perspectives will yield better results overall.
Ted Roosevelt was a trust buster.
Evidence: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines