Editorial: Senator Warren's stance on big tech breakup is dangerous politics

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92

    It reminds me of an elementary school teacher approach to a problem. Let's call it the “Common Core” of big business. One solution fit’s all.  

  • Reply 42 of 92
    Ok Sen Warren... Break up Apple but you MUST do the same to Microsoft. They have a virtual monopoly on Computer Operating Systems and Office Software.
    Go on... I dare you.

  • Reply 43 of 92
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anything that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 44 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    steven n. said:
    gatorguy said:
    karmadave said:
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    A vibrant competitive marketplace ensures companies stay on their toes...
    Capitalism and competition work!
    That's in essence what Ms. Warren is advocating isn't it? 
    No, she is advocating if you are doing well, we have to limit your ability to compete and build platforms.
    It's not possible that some companies might be stifling competition by their actions, size, and/or wealth? That would be anticompetitive if it were to happen wouldn't it?

    Market forces don't always self-correct before significant damage has already been done. There's been times that decades are needed to see results. Oil. Railroads. Mining. Communications.
    In those very rare instances we depend on "other methods" to restore competitive balance and the resultant innovation, good for the economy at large and good for the people in general.
  • Reply 45 of 92
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    knowitall said:
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anytings that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    What, you think API’s and OS security just sprang fully formed into existence?

    Or maybe you’re saying we don’t need Apple any more going foward?

    Please!
    edited March 2019 n2itivguyArloTimetraveler
  • Reply 46 of 92
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,243member
    heli0s said:

    As an Apple-focused site, look no further than the keyboard issues of recent Macs. If you want macOS, there is ONE company that makes it. So take that shitty keyboard or go use Windows. Real choice!
    What utter nonsense. One company makes Ford, one makes Campbell’s soup. One company makes Windows. I can plug any manufacturers keyboard I want into my Mac Pro, or iMac, or Mac Mini. Sure, you have to use Apple’s keyboard on their laptops, same as you would on a Dell, Asus, etc. 
    Go build yourself a Hackintosh and install a stolen copy of MacOS onto it. Nothing is stopping you. 
  • Reply 47 of 92
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    As with this kind of broad brush argument, there is a tiny grain of truth. FaceBook is doing unethical things with our data. Amazon is, one by one, crushing local stores as it drives to take over retail. But is breaking them up without looking at the particular situation the best answer? Is generating a very arbitrary classification of what is an offending company a good idea? Is a one size fits all solution the best idea for all of the problems the country faces? Probably not, but this is politics. She's trying to take the most effective strategy from Sanders and Trump and run with them. Personally I don't think she's going to get that far. OTOH I never thought Trump would. So yes it is a dangerous thing.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 48 of 92
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    knowitall said:
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anytings that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    For someone claiming to "knowitall" you can miss the obvious really easily.

    If Apple does not control the App Store, Apple does not control the API. With no control of the API, Apple will lose access to controlling the security. There is nothing from stopping the application governing body from releasing all the keys needed to publish any application using any system API in any way.

    Senator Warrens effectively ended her campaign the day she announced it.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 49 of 92
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    steven n. said:
    knowitall said:
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anytings that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    For someone claiming to "knowitall" you can miss the obvious really easily.

    If Apple does not control the App Store, Apple does not control the API. With no control of the API, Apple will lose access to controlling the security. There is nothing from stopping the application governing body from releasing all the keys needed to publish any application using any system API in any way.

    Senator Warrens effectively ended her campaign the day she announced it.
    Senator Warren is far from the first politician to thinks she knows more than she does. One need look no further than the present White House occupant to see a glaring example of that on an almost daily basis. What’s important is whether or not she has the capacity to admit she was wrong and change accordingly.
  • Reply 50 of 92
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    Let’s be honest here: Senator Warren was wrong to lump Apple in with the rest of the gang. And she’s wrong to say or even imply that sheer size defines morality.

    But she’s not wrong about tech abuse being prevalent, up to and including it’s manipulation by inimicable foreign powers.

    So all this crap about how she’s a lousy choice for President is more down to folks who, for one reason or another, don’t want her to be President. Speaking objectively, compared to a piece of work like Donald Trump she’s as pure as the driven snow.

    If folks are truly serious about criticising Senator Warren’s POV, then you’ll know who they are, because they’ll be the ones not attacking her personally.

    ’Nuff said.
    n2itivguymystigo
  • Reply 51 of 92
    mystigomystigo Posts: 183member
    I for one miss the days of renting my phone from AT&T and buying my gasoline from Standard Oil. I am glad there are brave editors in this world that understand and resist the urge to break up monopolies.
    JustSomeGuy1
  • Reply 52 of 92
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    sacto joe said:
    knowitall said:
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anything that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    What, you think API’s and OS security just sprang fully formed into existence?

    Or maybe you’re saying we don’t need Apple any more going foward?

    Please!
    This isnt a valid argument, Apple can continue development in this new setting and make its API’s and OS even better. Its the app store only thats split apart.
  • Reply 53 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy said:
    karmadave said:
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    A vibrant competitive marketplace ensures companies stay on their toes...
    Capitalism and competition work!
    That's in essence what Ms. Warren is advocating isn't it? 
    No, she’s advocating for the random breakup of businesses which offend her. She’s an authoritarian.
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 54 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    milleron said:
    I consider global warming to be the biggest problem facing the U.S. (and the world) today. However, the experiment with full-on socialism which the liberal 20-29-year-old cohort seems so intent on starting is the second biggest. Of course, there's no reasoning with these know-nothing youths, but one might have hoped for a leader that would not lead them over the cliff. I had thought that Sen. Warren might be that leader. She is a former Republican who left the party because she thought she needed to in order to "save capitalism" — i.e., she did not launch into Democratic politics to crush capitalism, and she got my attention. I did not donate money right away because I feared that in order to accommodate the lunatic liberal element in her party, she'd have to compromise the principles she was espousing before she launched this campaign.

    She definitely has now compromised those principles, and not just by adopting a cause that dogma-spewing liberal activists can get behind, but by doing it so thoughtlessly. She has changed, and not for the better. The worst is yet to come. America has not so desperately needed a savior since 1860. We got one then. I fear that our only chance is to find another one now, 160 years later. But I can't figure out who he or she might be, and I'm not holding my breath.
    “Global Warming™️” was hilariously rebranded as “Climate Change™️”.
  • Reply 55 of 92
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    knowitall said:
    sacto joe said:
    knowitall said:
    Seems Warren is up to a good start.

    I fail to see how and why splitting up Apple and its store changes security.
    At the moment ‘security’ is created by signing the submitted apps after ‘checking’ the content (running a suite of heuristic checks and sometimes looking at it by a human). Anything that is API wise possible can be created and submitted and if those test fail or the human overlooks the child porn button, the app is signed and added to the store, the same goes for spying apps that cleverly hide behaviour at test time (say ‘defeat device’).
    Inherent API and OS security stayes completely the same, the ony difference is the app governing body is not Apple any more.
    What, you think API’s and OS security just sprang fully formed into existence?

    Or maybe you’re saying we don’t need Apple any more going foward?

    Please!
    This isnt a valid argument, Apple can continue development in this new setting and make its API’s and OS even better. Its the app store only thats split apart.
    The App Store is the API. If Apple does not control the App Store, Apple does not control the API and Apple does not control the security. It is that simple.
  • Reply 56 of 92
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member

    sacto joe said:
    Let’s be honest here: Senator Warren was wrong to lump Apple in with the rest of the gang. And she’s wrong to say or even imply that sheer size defines morality.

    But she’s not wrong about tech abuse being prevalent, up to and including it’s manipulation by inimicable foreign powers.

    So all this crap about how she’s a lousy choice for President is more down to folks who, for one reason or another, don’t want her to be President. Speaking objectively, compared to a piece of work like Donald Trump she’s as pure as the driven snow.

    If folks are truly serious about criticising Senator Warren’s POV, then you’ll know who they are, because they’ll be the ones not attacking her personally.

    ’Nuff said. 
    The current views and near hatred of success in the current Democratic ranks is scarier than what is in the White House (and I didn't think that would be possible).

    'Nuff said.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 57 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    sacto joe said:
    Let’s be honest here: Senator Warren was wrong to lump Apple in with the rest of the gang. And she’s wrong to say or even imply that sheer size defines morality.

    But she’s not wrong about tech abuse being prevalent, up to and including it’s manipulation by inimicable foreign powers.

    So all this crap about how she’s a lousy choice for President is more down to folks who, for one reason or another, don’t want her to be President. Speaking objectively, compared to a piece of work like Donald Trump she’s as pure as the driven snow.

    If folks are truly serious about criticising Senator Warren’s POV, then you’ll know who they are, because they’ll be the ones not attacking her personally.

    ’Nuff said.
    Sen. Warren has been really wrong about big issues, not just this one. Her policies, if enacted, would result in economic ruin for the US. This includes the extremely poorly thought out “Green New Deal”. The swing to far-Left positions by Democrats (not just Warren, but Harris, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and more) is baffling. It seems like they are dead set on offending as many people as they can right now.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    normangnormang Posts: 118member
    Aren't things expensive enough now? At what point do things stop going up, if wages continued to increase, two things happen. people lose jobs, witness the useless $15 hour wage fight, many people got the pay raise, either lost the job eventually, or they lost hours, because business could not afford the cost. The perpetual rise in of many other costs, are tied to wage increases, as well as other factors.. Government makes this worse by forcing wage increases or regulations,... You wonder why college is so expensive, its because of the mindset that everyone needs a college degree and government pays for it, and now its so watered down, its almost meaningless and super expensive to boot..
    edited March 2019 SpamSandwichbshank
  • Reply 59 of 92
    heli0s said:
    In 2019 America only 2-3 major companies dominate every major economic sector, from ecommerce to air travel, to the TV shows you watch - if think that's good for consumers, you're massively ignorant of both economics and history. Tech monopolies are no different than monopolies in any other sphere - there is a point when too big is bad for consumers and the company itself. Monopolies have no interest in innovation, they have an interest in rent-seeking.

    As an Apple-focused site, look no further than the keyboard issues of recent Macs. If you want macOS, there is ONE company that makes it. So take that shitty keyboard or go use Windows. Real choice!
      Your comments reveal your ignorance of economics and business.  Why is it that most sectors have two to three major players and a lot of smaller ones? It’s the result of intense competition where the best emerge from the masses.   And having three big players is not a monopoly by any reasonable definition.  

      Besides as the article mentions, some companies dominate because they are just better at delivering service and products to the consumer and that’s a win win. A true monopoly can only exist for an extended period of time when it’s protected by the govt. otherwise competition will emerge to challenge them.   Look at Microsoft from the 1990’s, many thought they would dominate for decades because of their 90+% market share in PC OS but 10 years later they were playing catch up because of the internet and notice Microsoft isn’t even mentioned by Sen. Warren because they are no longer a dominant player. 

      I have absolutely zero faith in govt being able to solve these type of problems but total faith in the market, which is the people, to solve them.   The market works in the open and adapts to fix the problem whereas govt uses force, coercion and secret backroom deals.   

    I ask you, is not the govt nothing but a group of powerful special interest groups who really have zero interest in our well being but only in the power they wield over us.  
    SpamSandwichbshank
  • Reply 60 of 92
    j2fusionj2fusion Posts: 153member
    I think the  blanket statement by Warren proves how niave she it about tech.  A couple of posts here mention the AT&T breakup and, while I believe overall it was a good thing, it did not come without costs.  The current SPAM call epidemic we are seeing could have its roots in the breakup since AT&T no longer controls end to end security.  This allows caller ID spoofing and making the originator of the calls difficult to trace hence the many we get. My point is tech is complicated and a simple blanket “cure” could cause more problems than it creates. Oh and any product a company produces has certain limitations. For example, I might like the design of the Ford Explorer but the economy of a Chevy engine but I am forced to choose one or the other because I can’t have a Chevy engine in a Ford (disclaimer: I not saying a Chevy engine is more economical than a Ford one, am using it for illustration purposes).
    bshank
Sign In or Register to comment.