Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 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. 

    Say what? Are you for real? The Democrats are only moving one way and that’s univerally left. There are VERY few moderates left and you hear almost no Democrats want free market solutions to anything. Add to it the cultural leftism and cultural Marxism and it’s just another sign. 
    steven n.
  • Reply 162 of 172
    grifmxgrifmx Posts: 92member
    does this mean Apple has to license their operating system out to run on PCs now?
  • Reply 163 of 172
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,226member
    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. 
    You forgot the free food, housing, medical and free money. Lots of technical elites believe socialism and communism are moral as well. The identity stuff is strait out of Marxist ideology. Think proletariat=oppressed/victim and bourgeoisie=oppressor/victimizer.

    AOC is 100% full in on identity politics. 
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 164 of 172
    jthomas5g51jthomas5g51 Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    Elizebeth Warren has no right or credibility to tell Apple what they can do with the App Store platform that THEY invented. What has Liz invented?
    jgojcaj
  • Reply 165 of 172
    jthomas5g51jthomas5g51 Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    Elizebeth Warren has no right or credibility to tell Apple what they can do with the App Store platform that THEY invented. What has Liz invented?
  • Reply 166 of 172
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 995member
    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.
    Google, e.g., isn't a true monopolist. Almost no one is, unless we define the relevant market to only include their products or services.

    But one doesn't have to be a true monopolist in order to have monopoly power under our anti-trust laws. You can have monopoly power even with less than 50% market share, though a higher share is more typical. But 60 or 80% can, in many contexts, be enough for you to have (what's considered) monopoly power. The real key is how the relevant market is defined. 

    To be clear, having monopoly power isn't in itself an anti-trust (Sherman Act) violation.
  • Reply 167 of 172
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 334member
    bulk001 said:
    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.
    Why does Apple need to allow 3rd parties to install apps through channels other than the App Store? They're free to buy other phones if they want the freedom to install other apps. Many people are fond of pointing out that the iPhone is an inferior phone but it just happens to have a bunch of sheeple who want to shell out money for it. If that's the case, instead of wasting time demanding that Apple let in other apps, why not buy a phone that's superior to the iPhone and have all that freedom?
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 168 of 172
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,394member
    From Ben Thompson at Stratechery and reposted by PED:

    Perhaps it is best for Senator Warren’s argument that her article never does explain how these companies became so big, because the reason cuts at the core of her argument: Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple dominate because consumers like them. Each of them leveraged technology to solve a unique user need, acquired users, then leveraged those users to attract suppliers onto their platforms by choice, which attracted more users, creating a virtuous cycle that I have christened Aggregation Theory. Specifically:

    • Google solved search, which attracted users; Google’s supply (web pages), thanks to the fundamental nature of the web, were already effectively “on Google”, but even then web pages have worked diligently to deliver content in a way that Google expects. Why? Because users start at Google — demand is what matters.

    • Facebook digitized offline relationships, which attracted users, which were both consumers and suppliers of content; professional content creators followed, not only linking to their content on Facebook but creating content specifically tailored for Facebook’s audience, making Facebook that much more attractive for users. Again, what mattered was demand, not supply.

    • Amazon leveraged the Internet to achieve a dominant strategy of offering superior selection and the lowest price, starting with books. This gained Amazon customers, which gave the company leverage to bring on first other media like CDs and DVDs, which gained them more users, and later goods of all types; Amazon then launched the Amazon Marketplace, through which suppliers could come onto Amazon directly. Why? Because that is where demand was.

    • Apple defined the modern smartphone, gaining users who were blown away by Apple’s first-party apps; that attracted app developers, who were soon clamoring for access to iPhone users. Apple closed that loop by creating the App Store, which attracted more users, which attracted more developers, etc. Critically, though, the users came first; one of Microsoft’s many mobile mistakes was believing it could effectively “buy” a supply of apps and thus earn users, but that doesn’t work in a world where owning demand matters most.

    Aggregation Theory is the reason why all of these companies have escaped antitrust scrutiny to date in the U.S.: here antitrust law rests on the consumer welfare standard, and the entire reason why these companies succeed is because they deliver consumer benefit.

    The European Union does have a different standard, rooted in a drive to preserve competition; given that the virtuous cycle described by Aggregation Theory does tend towards winner-take-all effects, it is not a surprise that Google in particular has faced multiple antitrust actions from the European Commission. Even the EU standard, though, struggles with the real consumer benefits delivered by Aggregators.

    edited March 2019
  • Reply 169 of 172
    So she doesn’t plan on having any of Silicon Valley’s support, which that doesn’t help when it’s part of the biggest state that supports her party.
  • Reply 170 of 172
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,237member
    Elizebeth Warren has no right or credibility to tell Apple what they can do with the App Store platform that THEY invented. What has Liz invented?
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which returned over $10 billion to consumers affected by fraud and malpractice.

    I'll assume your thank you letter is in the mail.
  • Reply 171 of 172
    jgojcajjgojcaj Posts: 48member
    Elizebeth Warren has no right or credibility to tell Apple what they can do with the App Store platform that THEY invented. What has Liz invented?
    Being Native American I suppose...
  • Reply 172 of 172
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy said:
    From Ben Thompson at Stratechery and reposted by PED:

    Perhaps it is best for Senator Warren’s argument that her article never does explain how these companies became so big, because the reason cuts at the core of her argument: Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple dominate because consumers like them. Each of them leveraged technology to solve a unique user need, acquired users, then leveraged those users to attract suppliers onto their platforms by choice, which attracted more users, creating a virtuous cycle that I have christened Aggregation Theory. Specifically:

    • Google solved search, which attracted users; Google’s supply (web pages), thanks to the fundamental nature of the web, were already effectively “on Google”, but even then web pages have worked diligently to deliver content in a way that Google expects. Why? Because users start at Google — demand is what matters.

    • Facebook digitized offline relationships, which attracted users, which were both consumers and suppliers of content; professional content creators followed, not only linking to their content on Facebook but creating content specifically tailored for Facebook’s audience, making Facebook that much more attractive for users. Again, what mattered was demand, not supply.

    • Amazon leveraged the Internet to achieve a dominant strategy of offering superior selection and the lowest price, starting with books. This gained Amazon customers, which gave the company leverage to bring on first other media like CDs and DVDs, which gained them more users, and later goods of all types; Amazon then launched the Amazon Marketplace, through which suppliers could come onto Amazon directly. Why? Because that is where demand was.

    • Apple defined the modern smartphone, gaining users who were blown away by Apple’s first-party apps; that attracted app developers, who were soon clamoring for access to iPhone users. Apple closed that loop by creating the App Store, which attracted more users, which attracted more developers, etc. Critically, though, the users came first; one of Microsoft’s many mobile mistakes was believing it could effectively “buy” a supply of apps and thus earn users, but that doesn’t work in a world where owning demand matters most.

    Aggregation Theory is the reason why all of these companies have escaped antitrust scrutiny to date in the U.S.: here antitrust law rests on the consumer welfare standard, and the entire reason why these companies succeed is because they deliver consumer benefit.

    The European Union does have a different standard, rooted in a drive to preserve competition; given that the virtuous cycle described by Aggregation Theory does tend towards winner-take-all effects, it is not a surprise that Google in particular has faced multiple antitrust actions from the European Commission. Even the EU standard, though, struggles with the real consumer benefits delivered by Aggregators.

    He’s made essentially the same arguments I have (albeit with more citations to back him up), but his comments on the EU are a bit off the mark. The EU’s idea of competition in their market is protectionist and involves regular shakedowns of successful companies.
Sign In or Register to comment.