Slashdot Mirror
Elizabeth Warren Says Apple, Amazon and Google Are Trying To 'Lock Out' Competition (recode.net)
Elizabeth Warren, an American academic and member of the Democratic Party, believes that Google, Apple, and Amazon are trying to use their size to "snuff out competition." In a speech about the perils of "consolidation and concentration" throughout the economy, the Massachusetts senator singled out the three of tech's biggest players. From a report:Warren had different beefs with Google, Apple and Amazon, but the common thread was that she accused each one of using its powerful platform to "lock out smaller guys and newer guys," including some that compete with Google, Apple and Amazon. Google, she said, uses "its dominant search engine to harm rivals of its Google Plus user review feature;" Apple "has placed conditions on its rivals that make it difficult for them to offer competitive streaming services" that compete with Apple Music; and Amazon "uses its position as the dominant bookseller to steer consumers to books published by Amazon to the detriment of other publishers.""Google, Apple and Amazon have created disruptive technologies that changed the world, and ... they deserve to be highly profitable and successful," Warren said. "But the opportunity to compete must remain open for new entrants and smaller competitors that want their chance to change the world again."
Do you think they even realize the deep hypocritical irony?
I'm glad to see she understands the first rule of business.
If ISP put restrictions on ports etc, it will make it harder for the next Amazon, Apple or Google to prosper and grow. You look at Comcast, they advertise that they block port unless you pay twice as much for half the speed.
she wants all the consolidation and concentration going to government. so her posturing against companies that use government to shut the door behind them to keep competition out are a bit disingenuous.
what ever happened to people who want individual liberty?
Pulling up the ladder behind you is a STAPLE of the current tech company leadership.
I bet Sen Warren doesn't have a problem with Google Skewing searches for political candidates in Hillary's favor though.
i'm sorry, but it states clearly in company's articles of incorporation, on penalty of the directors being struck off and imprisoned and/or the shareholders suing them, that they MUST maximise profits, to the absolute pathological exclusion of all else. ... so why is *anybody* surprised at the consequences? what am i missing? this is blindingly obvious to me (to the point where i'm actively doing something about it in the tech sector- see http://crowdsupply.com/eoma68) so why is everyone else simply complaining about the consequences instead of taking action to do something about it? what is it that i don't understand?
Does whoever wrote the summary know that Elizabeth Warren's day job is as a sitting United States Senator? Apparently not.
Who is world would call Elizabeth warren an academic?
This is business, nothing changes. Fortunately the small guys have the monopoly of ideas, and eventually get bought out - hopefully for a big sum. Then they go away and think up the next big idea. Etc.
In order to receive the benefits of a free market, there must be many players competing.
In order to preserve those benefits, there must never be any winners.
"...Apple, Amazon and Google Are Trying To 'Lock Out' Competition"
Oh my gawd, say it isn't so.
Seriously, no shit, of COURSE they're trying to lock out competition. In the "Quest For More Dollars" game they'd send death squads around to the other company's Boards Of Directors if they thought they could get away with it. It's all about the benjamins, and killing off the competition (or stifling them) by whatever means necessary is Job One.
This is "news" in the same way that "water is wet" or "criminals commit crimes" is "news".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Big tech execs are in big heap trouble...until they share wampum with Democrats.
Those guys aren't worried about little guys. They'll just wait until they're successful and then buy them out. They're only interested in stifling each other.
How dare you have a successful business model that can afford to draw talented employees! Suffer the shame of being able to buy up new technologies and monetize them much better than the "little guy"! No, no success in America today! Everyone must be equal! Exactly. I know it's not a very popular truth these days, but there will always be winners and losers no matter how many participation medals you hand out.
Hillary Clinton blasted corporations who tried to hide their underhanded business dealings by setting up their own private email server...in their basement...and then mysteriously 'wiped them clean' when the information was subpoenaed by Congress.
I can't wait until trump is elected, so he can dismantle the most anti-competitive company ever to exist. :)
While I will steer clear of accusations of intent here; in terms of service and innovation, oligopolies usually end up sucking rotting eggs in the longer term such that we should have policies and/or regulations in place to encourage competition in key services and technologies.
I know most conservatives will balk at such, but it contradicts their usual push for competition, and oligopolies have insufficient competition. Having a slightly bigger gov't is the least evil compared to letting oligopolies rot progress and choices.
Table-ized A.I.
Her argument really fell apart for me at that point.
"But the opportunity to compete must remain open for new entrants and smaller competitors that want their chance to change the world again."
This sounds an awful lot like how our political landscape is currently setup. Two giants doing everything in their power to ensure that a 3rd party has absolutely no chance at competing. Apparently, it's the American way :|
Non-market strategies.
All business seek to lock/snuff out competition.
And what makes a better tool than a government hammer?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Google and Apple are big supporters of liberal causes. Someone better get Warren back on the reservation.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So if she joins up with Hillary we'll have a ticket that can boast its prowess as
- all women yay
- anti encryption yay
- anti google, amazon, and apple yay
Pretty much a big clue for California voters to go vote for someone else.
What will they come up with next to piss of New York voters?
E
It's always nice to see the American Indian perspective on these things.
Do you have ESP?
What's Google Plus? Oh.
Warren is not an academic, she's a politician.
Now that Amazon has entered the device market with their Echo they've stopped letting you stream Audible on Sonos devices. You could do it once upon a time but not anymore. Not since Amazon decided to compete with Sonos. And the Audible app wont support Bluetooth. The only way to stream to a non-PC speaker is if you buy an Echo. Their website makes sure you cant even use a Smart-TV's browser to stream from TV to home theater. You are stuck either using a PC, listening on your phone, or buying an Echo. And those of use who invested in Sonos kit are extra screwed.
All well and good but Audible is like 90-95% of the audiobook market. They are abusing their monopoly position.
A brown envelop to Hillary will allay her concerns.
They get better every day!
Elizabeth Warren, an American academic and member of the Democratic Party
This is like saying "Paul Ryan, an American academic and member of the Republican Party"
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Maybe I'd take what Senators say more seriously if D.C. didn't have a history of bailing out big monopolies that lock out smaller competitors like the big three. It just comes off as disingenuous to me, as there is some ulterior motive at play.
The cynic in me wonders if these tech companies aren't greasing the palms of the right people on the east coast.
the millionaire speaks for the common man. Look at that Chocktaw jawline!
If we ever enact statues against hypocrisy in this country, she'll be doing 50 to life.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And Lizzy Warrenshield also used to go around talking about what a crook Clinton is. Now she stands by her side supporting her like a sister.
Free market is alright as long as I have a piece of the cake
The fact that she did not mention Microsoft, who are the poster boys for locking out competition, should tell us all something......
pgmer6809
http://www.movetoamend.org/ Check 'em out...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
HOAs are smaller collectives-- the basic idea is the same.
The collective, collectively, decides on a set of rules for the benefit of the collective as a whole, at the detriment of the individuals it is comprised of. The HOA sets rules to keep property values high, which limits who can afford to live there, and a number of other things.
The original question was where the line between the individual and the collective is drawn.
The previous AC said it was right at the individual, asserting that maximizing freedoms of the individuals maximizes the freedoms of the collective. I pointed out sanitation as an example of how he is wrong.
I don't have a clear line on where that line should be drawn. Only that the place he said is demonstrably false.
Are HOAs onerous? Maybe. That wasn't the point
So a few weeks ago we hear stories all over ./ about Hillary (you shouldn't be able to buy a gun if you're being investigated by the FBI but running for the most powerful position on the planet is fine) getting really friendly with the big tech companies, in fact, if you look at who runs these companies and where they donate to you find they're already in bed with each other. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Now rides in the Native American (very white) knight to the rescue blasting the unfair competition, which can of course only by fixed with more government interference and of course control (because it's working so well with our health care system).
So should we expect Warren (who by the way made her millions throwing poor people out of their homes) to rail against the huge Wall Street banks next? I mean how many millions did Clinton receive from them? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/...
Can we expect Warren to rail against Clinton? Nope, not at all, because that doesn't provide the means to consolidate more power under her control.
She forgot to mention that government is in cahoots with big business to stifle competition. Licensing requirements raise the requirements to start a business, or to be hired. The NY Times reports that occupational therapists, manicurists and barbers, fortune tellers, massage therapists, shampoo assistants, librarians, beekeepers, electrologists and movie projector operators all need to be licensed in various states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03...
Existing business can provide campaign donations, otherwise known as graft, to politicians to make rules to keep out the competition.
The rich bribe the communists to make it too expensive for the poor to raise capital to compete with the rich.
If the directors' job is to maximize revenue, how do you justify them approving management buying the shares and taking the company private?
Clearly, if management has some idea on how to run the corporation more profitably they should be doing it *now*, not hoarding the idea and waiting to buy the company out and then increase profits.
Directors that tolerate that kind of self-dealing from management or for their own profit are abrogating their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
California used to be majority WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant - the "white" part is not particularly important, it's a demographic category) but the population was deliberately replaced by importing millions of Hispanic catholics and Asians of no religion or eastern religions, with most of the immigrants being from countries where people view socialism as a good thing.
The state is now permanently a one-party-rule Democrat state. The Democrats have the legislature by 2-to-1 margins and a lock on all state-wide offices. The elections have now been rigged so that the November general election is between the top two primary candidates and NOT the top candidate from each party - thus this November the ballot choice for US Senate will be between two Democrats - no Republican will be on the ballot.
The only way for Trump, or any other non-Democrat, to win in CA would be to appeal to the people in all ethnic groups and convince them that socialism does not work in their interests over the long term - but that's a huge multi-year multi-billion-dollar project given that all the Democrat-run schools are indoctrinating new graduating classes of young socialists every year.
She was promoted up through academia to the level of her incompetence, then she moved to the US Senate and has risen to the heights her incompetence permit.
She's never actually had to be objectively right about anything, never actually had to be a productive citizen, never had to leave a place objectively better than when she arrived. She is used to getting cheered when she speaks, but she is used to speaking in front of adoring propagandized idiots; she would have no ability to face a real opponent and would need a "safe space" (where there are no people who disagree with her), with protections against "hate speech" (which would be any speech she disagrees with and is too intellectually-challenged to refute).
Just like Bernie Sanders, she is a total fraud who is used to rabble-rousing stupid college kids against the very things that built the best economy and the best nation in human history, but then turned-around and endorsed the single-most-bought-by-Wall-Street politician in American history (Hillary Clinton). This is not even new: they both previously supported Barack Obama who was the previous most-funded-by-Wall-Street politician. Their shtick only works because they pander to the young-and-dumb college crowd - and there's a new group of those in every academic year. By the time these young supporters grow up and realize just how badly they've been conned and how much all the debt and regulations will crimp the rest of their lives, their political heroes no longer care about them and are on to the next group of gullible young rubes who will be promised "free college" and other unicorns.
Elizabeth Warren is a phony and hypocrite.
Our "collective arrangement" exists solely to protect individual liberty.
The founders of this country wrote the constitution to establish a government that protects us from other nations and each other - and that's all government should do.
Individuals should be free to do as they please, so long as they do not cause harm to others.
Jedidiah clouded the issue; which remains 'liberties must be restrained for the good of all'. Otherwise you'll have to sue Chrysler because your car has a faulty crankshaft, or sue the local factory because their effluent dam collapsed and the neighbouring town was obliterated. Should your libertine philosophy approve of such legal wrangling, remember, Chrysler is neither dead or poor. That is important because dead people and poor people don't do so well in a civil court.
You don't have the right to be a slob when those actions impose a cost on your neighbor.
Government protecting us from each other squares with libertarianism just fine.
She wants socialism, but this is a capitalistic society. Aawwww
That's why, 240 years ago, a Scottish professor was pro-regulation. The neo-liberalists like to pretend the 'invisible hand' is anti-regulation but that is pure dishonesty.
Monopolies can exist with and without government. The land leading to your house is a limited resource. There can only be so many roads, pipes, and wires leading to your house.
Those physical limitations lead to "natural" monopolies. Part of Government's role is to limit the damage that can be cause by natural monopolies.
For example, roads are mostly owned and operated by governments, yet many governments bid contracts in the free market to construct and maintain those roads.
It's an imperfect system for an imperfect world.
... oh, wait.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The benefit to the whole is the sum of the benefits to the individuals. The situation you posit is impossible.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Libertarian Fantasy Land is a fun game to play, until your house catches on fire.
ever since she jumped on Hillary's donkey cart. Sad.
An HOA is fundamentally different from government: membership in an HOA is a choice, and furthermore, decisions, costs, and benefits are all only made by owners.
You don't have a clear line because it's the wrong question. Once you realize that membership in "collectives" should be voluntary, the answer to where such lines is to be drawn has a simple answer: wherever it is drawn for the "collectives" that you choose to be a member of.
Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon? Why don't they get looked at for their anti-competitive practices?
For some things, we are afforded a choice on our membership status. For others, we are not.
Take nationality, for instance. You do not choose where you are born. Or familiarity-- you do not get to pick and choose your relatives.
Since not all collective memberships are voluntary, or even desired, the direction you suggest is logically invalid.
Just try asserting to the IRS(assuming you are american) that you have decided not to be a US citizen anymore, and therefore do not need to pay them, for a lesson on how involuntary collective membership is totally a thing.
One of the most blatant "lesser of two evils" argument I've heard. If enough people voted for the values they want instead of the candidate they think will win then we wouldn't have this problem. Hillary is enough of a pandering liar that I don't think we're really so much worse with Trump. Don't get me wrong, Trump is a truly horrible person and the last thing we need. But flipping on gay marriage, lying about getting shot at in Kosovo, being a hypocrite and endangering national security through her blasé attitude toward computer security, accepting money from the rich while pandering to the poor. There's no low she won't stoop to. Just don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos.
She may be your VP
There are no fire departments in Libertarian land? Seems like that's a service people would gladly pay for. Maybe you were thinking about the department of land management or the TSA or something imposed by Big Government that nobody wants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BahUjNk478
you know that right? The only person more idiotic was the person who voted this as funny
"Google, Apple and Amazon have created disruptive technologies that changed the world, and ... they deserve to be highly profitable and successful,"
Disruption is usually something that's not considered deserving of reward.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The best thing anyone related to government ever did, was this: Nancy Reagan with her "Just Say No" motto. She was using it in a silly context, but the invention lives on, to great application.
Everything Warren is complaining about here, seems almost completely irrelevant to a consumer, if they have a no tolerance attitude toward proprietary bullshit. Apple and Amazon?! Are you fucking kidding me? These are nobodies in media, with 0 influence over anyone who doesn't go to all the extra trouble to try to be influenced by them.
Google is an even weirder example. Even if, like an Apple or Amazon user, I tried to fuck myself (but using a Google-branded dildo) I'm not sure I can figure out how I'd do that.
But everything she's talking about, requires effort on the part of the consumer to get harmed. If you don't try to fuck yourself, these companies have no say, because (at least for the Amazon and Apple examples; I already admitted I don't "get" the Google one) it wouldn't even occur to you to use their products.
We don't need government for this, except maybe to fund Public Service Announcements: "People, stop trying to lose. Just Say No to proprietary bullshit." Well, in addition, we need politicians to repeal ridiculous laws like DMCA, but that's not so much a role for government as removing a current inappropriate role. (Government never should have taken sides on DRM, or if they did, they should have outlawed it (but really, I think they ought to be neutral).)
This is a brilliant piece of rhetoric from Elizabeth Warren in my opinion. She acknowledges Google, Apple and Amazon openly desire to be disruptive technologies, then turns the language of monopoly-fighting by contending these big three need to leave the market playing field open to those who might disrupt the big three. Basically she's saying the big three need to accept what they dish out.
Quote: ... they deserve to be highly profitable and successful," Warren said. "But the opportunity to compete must remain open for new entrants and smaller competitors that want their chance to change the world again."
"Google, Apple and Amazon have created disruptive technologies that changed the world, and
Two is then got their start painting Microsoft as the big bad wolf. Now they've become the wolves. Ahhhhh capitalism
loony tune. The world is full of them.
Of course businesses will try to restrict competition in anyway possible. That isn't really the issue, the issue is that we have become lax at punishing this behavior. The government should punish this behavior because it has a net negative impact on the country. If a few large companies use their monopoly power to prevent real innovation, the overall competitiveness of the country is hurt.
Ah yes, the old "being a businessman is the only virtuous career" argument.
The chick that said she was an Indian and isn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Two Pinocchios.
She should be run out of politics just as the Democrats keep telling us that everyone not a Democrat (or has fallen out of favor) should resign over a lie.
Drop her mic.
By "Lock Out" does she mean offering better products than their competitors for potentially lower prices?
Better gets some committees together to shut that down !!