Candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota also has Google and Facebook in her sites, I believe. Divesting Instagram and WhatsApp and Doubleclick etc is worth a look, in my opinion. If nothing else, it's the price certain tech giants pay for reckless disregard of their effects of 2016 US elections and more. Of course in these early days, they'll overreach. But I'd be more worried if opposition parties just wanted status quo.
Well at least I know who I'm NOT voting for! Maybe the idea sounds good in her head, but I don't think it'll work out like she thinks in the end. So basically Apple doesn't get to run its own store? It did all of the work, keeps its customers as safe as possible with this method and now it can't do that. It has to relinquish control to someone else who is probably just more interesting in making money than security and privacy.
Candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota also has Google and Facebook in her sites, I believe. Divesting Instagram and WhatsApp and Doubleclick etc is worth a look, in my opinion. If nothing else, it's the price certain tech giants pay for reckless disregard of their effects of 2016 US elections and more. Of course in these early days, they'll overreach. But I'd be more worried if opposition parties just wanted status quo.
I have no love for Facebook, but what is there to break up? I just don’t understand the desire to force these companies to split up. I think FB, Twitter, YouTube, all have free speech issues, but I don’t think breaking them up solves anything. What’s needed at most of the tech companies is a culture shift, a change of mindset, not government force.
Whatever you think about the idea sett aside (I'm from sweden so I think it sounds reasonable), there are some things that get me wondering... "If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you don't get to sell your own items on the platform because you have two comparative advantages." Well, so the App-store, Apple don't get to get paid for what few Apps they actually sell? Do Pages and numbers still cost money? I can't seem to find any other apps. Maybe Apple Music would be eligible though. I see no problem Apple making Pages and numbers free. They tend to agree with her view on privacy. "Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.", which is something Apple already doesn't do.
If I understand the proposal correctly, Apple could, e.g., continue to sell iOS devices and continue to run the App Store. It just couldn’t distribute its own apps through the App Store. So it would have to pre-install (without the possibility to remove) any apps it wanted iOS users to have access to? Or just make them part of iOS? Could they use a separate platform to distribute just their own apps? As in, there would be the App Store for third-party apps and the Apple App Store which would use a different app to access it?
That said, Ms. Warren: You should either get to vote on the enactment of laws or get to use your position to advocate for the policies you prefer. You shouldn’t get to do both; it’s too much power in one person’s hands. Also, you should either get to be a U.S. Senator or get to run for President. You shouldn’t get to do both. Being a U.S. Senator gives you an unfair advantage in running for the presidency. Other people don’t get the benefit of the attention created by being a U.S. Senator, and they can’t get credit for voting to enact laws like you can. If you want to run for President, you should have to step down from being a U.S. Senator at least 5 years before the election.
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.
Just another politician who doesn’t use the technology that they’re going to be responsible for changing. Yes, Apple sells FCPX and Logic X on the App Store. FCPX isn’t keeping video editors from using Resolve if they want to. The App Store may give Apple a slight promotional edge over old school Mac DAWs like MOTU’s Digital Performer, but Apple’s come back in the late ‘90s may have saved MOTU and other companies from going down with the mothership. And Logic isn’t keeping me from using Digital Performer (which is my DAW of choice, not Logic although I use it some).
Bottom line. Apple selling a few apps on the App Store does in NO WAY interfere with 3rd party sales. PERIOD! I can’t think of one iOS app made by Apple that I’ve ever paid for, or had to pay for. And every non OS critical or security critical app has 3rd party equivalents in the App Store that many people choose to use. Google Chrome for example. Or some of the paid for apps like Cubasis 2 (a competitor to GarageBand which I paid for and use).
Besides most people realize that half of Apple’s apps are simpler versions of apps that 3rd parties have done better, or are full featured (Pages, Numbers and Keynote), and these are free anyway. Or these are apps that are filling a very niche market, (macOS Server, Apple Configurator). How many times have Apple made it clear that they’re not an app company? Jobs said it a million times. When they do build apps it’s usually to jump start a market or because no developer has met their basic standards for what an app should be like. Airport was the hardware equivalent of this strategy. When the market matured Apple dropped Airport (and I wish they hadn’t).
I don’t think Warren and people like her have a clue how little these apps add to the bottom line. They’re valuable in that they place a competitive app into a market they want to see grow. These apps sell the idea of macOS as a platform. And macOS helps sell the hardware. That’s were Apple makes their money. But Apple rarely has the best app or the standard in any category. FCPX and in a way Logic are the only two and their competition isn’t hurting. IT HELPS THE COMPETITION. This goes all the way back to the Claris days. I was at Apple back then, I would know.
I doubt she she even consulted with anyone about this.
While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh
Given the proposal, and that Amazon couldn't sell Amazon Essentials anymore, this is a possibility.
I don't think she's actually thought this through. This proposal, as presented so far, would affect pretty much every large retailer in the US who sells white label products -- i.e., products made by a third party for the retailer and uniquely labeled for them. This is Warren's main problem: she doesn't really think through the details of things. There are businesses that exist only for (or at least by) making these white label products. This would effectively put all these companies out of business and their employees out of jobs.
While I agree that some of these companies present a real threat to our society, clearly there are unintended consequences of this proposal that make it untenable. Simplistic, headline grabbing proposals are not what we need. What we need are ideas that are thoughtfully developed and directly address the problems.
While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh
It’s really dumb since. They created the store and allowed others in. Others can actually have access for free if they are not using Apple’s marketing power to grow their business. Apple supports but makes nothing of free apps.
While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh
Given the proposal, and that Amazon couldn't sell Amazon Essentials anymore, this is a possibility.
A scary one. They're just using base emotions against people, playing up jealousy, pitting the "gimme" class against the wealth creators, what used to be called class warfare, demonizing the bourgeoisie.
I’m with you up until the wealth creators part. More like wealth hoarders. They fight to keep anyone else from having anything more than they feel they deserve because it takes from what they can get.
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.
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.
While she’s at it, why not prevent Apple from selling their own accessories in their retail stores too? Since other brands are there, we wouldn’t want Apple to have a competitive advantage in their own store or anything. Smh
Given the proposal, and that Amazon couldn't sell Amazon Essentials anymore, this is a possibility.
A scary one. They're just using base emotions against people, playing up jealousy, pitting the "gimme" class against the wealth creators, what used to be called class warfare, demonizing the bourgeoisie.
I’m with you up until the wealth creators part. More like wealth hoarders. They fight to keep anyone else from having anything more than they feel they deserve because it takes from what they can get.
Companies are beholden to their shareholders. They're under no obligation to give money away anymore than you or I are.
Comments
That said, Ms. Warren: You should either get to vote on the enactment of laws or get to use your position to advocate for the policies you prefer. You shouldn’t get to do both; it’s too much power in one person’s hands. Also, you should either get to be a U.S. Senator or get to run for President. You shouldn’t get to do both. Being a U.S. Senator gives you an unfair advantage in running for the presidency. Other people don’t get the benefit of the attention created by being a U.S. Senator, and they can’t get credit for voting to enact laws like you can. If you want to run for President, you should have to step down from being a U.S. Senator at least 5 years before the election.
Bottom line. Apple selling a few apps on the App Store does in NO WAY interfere with 3rd party sales. PERIOD! I can’t think of one iOS app made by Apple that I’ve ever paid for, or had to pay for. And every non OS critical or security critical app has 3rd party equivalents in the App Store that many people choose to use. Google Chrome for example. Or some of the paid for apps like Cubasis 2 (a competitor to GarageBand which I paid for and use).
Besides most people realize that half of Apple’s apps are simpler versions of apps that 3rd parties have done better, or are full featured (Pages, Numbers and Keynote), and these are free anyway. Or these are apps that are filling a very niche market, (macOS Server, Apple Configurator). How many times have Apple made it clear that they’re not an app company? Jobs said it a million times. When they do build apps it’s usually to jump start a market or because no developer has met their basic standards for what an app should be like. Airport was the hardware equivalent of this strategy. When the market matured Apple dropped Airport (and I wish they hadn’t).
I don’t think Warren and people like her have a clue how little these apps add to the bottom line. They’re valuable in that they place a competitive app into a market they want to see grow. These apps sell the idea of macOS as a platform. And macOS helps sell the hardware. That’s were Apple makes their money. But Apple rarely has the best app or the standard in any category. FCPX and in a way Logic are the only two and their competition isn’t hurting. IT HELPS THE COMPETITION. This goes all the way back to the Claris days. I was at Apple back then, I would know.
I doubt she she even consulted with anyone about this.
While I agree that some of these companies present a real threat to our society, clearly there are unintended consequences of this proposal that make it untenable. Simplistic, headline grabbing proposals are not what we need. What we need are ideas that are thoughtfully developed and directly address the problems.
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.
Companies are beholden to their shareholders. They're under no obligation to give money away anymore than you or I are.
That wasn't a label, it's a description (accurate) of where they are politically.