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."

Comments

Re:Business 101

[Berkyjay]

She also seems to understand the role that government should play in combating that first rule.

Academic and member of the Democratic Party?

[SpankiMonki]

Does whoever wrote the summary know that Elizabeth Warren's day job is as a sitting United States Senator? Apparently not.

Re:Academic and member of the Democratic Party?

[_xeno_]

Are those numbers from before or after she backed Hillary? Because based on my Facebook feed, she's pissed off a ton her supporters by pulling that non-sequitur.

By tying herself to the Clinton ticket, she's effectively tied her political career to Clinton. If Clinton fails to win the election, Warren's political career is over. Keep in mind her next election is a mid-term election - which means that a good chunk of her supporters simply won't show up to vote.

Not to mention that if there's one thing the Massachusetts electorate has shown, it's that they hate being taken for granted and will happily elect a moderate Republican if they think that the Democratic candidate is ignoring them.

Of course, if she ends up the VP candidate for Clinton, all of this is moot and her future Senate career would be over regardless.

Re:Well yeah

[bravecanadian]

Pulling up the ladder behind you is a STAPLE of the current tech company leadership.

Not just tech company leadership.

A *lot* of people have had a good long drink of the greed is good/reagonomics/greenspan business philosophy koolaid.

No amount of failure seems to convince them of the problems with it.

Re:what do people expect?

[__aaclcg7560]

Somewhere along the way corporations stopped being corporate citizens that gave back to the local community to being multi-national corporations that don't care about the local community of any nation. Given enough bad PR by community activists and politicians, multi-national corporations can be shamed into doing the right thing for the local community.

Re: Well yeah

[johnsmithperson123]

Er, considering that we seem to have not been operating on an ideal version of any system, anyone could argue "well if things were done right, they would be good."

Re:she's a hypocrit

[fustakrakich]

so her posturing against companies that use government to shut the door behind them to keep competition out are a bit disingenuous

No, it is not. The only way a monopoly can exist is through government protection. Her "posturing" is spot on.

Re:Business 101

[93 Escort Wagon]

She also seems to understand the role that government should play in combating that first rule.

Perhaps she might also lecture her colleagues regarding what they should be focussing on - stuff like this - instead of them devoting their energies towards hobbling encryption and trying to remove their citizen's constitutional rights.

Pocahontas is on the warpath

[Anonymous Coward]

Big tech execs are in big heap trouble...until they share wampum with Democrats.

Re:Pocahontas is on the warpath

[ScentCone]

Correct. Rich people are Eeeeeevil, unless they are Democrats, in which case they are great. Typical.

Re:Well yeah

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Pulling up the ladder behind you is a STAPLE of the current tech company leadership.

I think you meant, "Pulling up the ladder behind you is a STAPLE of every company and government in the history of the universe."

Re:Business 101

[chispito]

I'm glad to see she understands the first rule of business.

Honestly, I don't know what you are getting at. Is it, "Make money?" Or perhaps "Grow your business?" Maybe you mean "Don't talk about Fight Club."

Re:Business 101

[Zantac69]

She also seems to understand the role that government should play in combating that first rule.

:head scratch: So Amazon, Apple, and Google should encourage their competition?

You mean like how the two major political parties have rigged the board so as to discourage political parties outside of the two majors?

Re:she's a hypocrit

[chispito]

The only way a monopoly can exist is through government protection.

You have it exactly backwards. The only way competition exists in certain (most?) sectors is due to government protection.

Re:she's a hypocrit

[Boronx]

Both are correct.

Re: she's a hypocrit

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that a collective (like a society) is more than just a bunch of people crammed together.

It is a bunch of people who have to cooperate with each other. Cooperation requires limiting selfish indulgences, and defining where one person's rights end, and another's begins. Eg, if I am a home owner who is a lazy slob who harbors trash, my freedom to be a willful slob creates a haven for vermin that accosted my neighbors, bease the vermin don't stay put. To satisfy the neighbor's rights to keep their homes free of vermin, my right to be a slob has to be infringed.

We do not live in a universe where ideal fantasies about personal liberty can be realistically entertained.

That is what people try to tell you. You are the one not understanding.

Watch out. The DNC needs that money.

[slapout]

Google and Apple are big supporters of liberal causes. Someone better get Warren back on the reservation.

Re:she's a hypocrit

[jedidiah]

>> The only way competition exists in certain (most?) sectors is due to government protection.
>
> That's a baldfaced lie.

This is why the Sherman anti-trust act exists. Monopolies are very easy to create in an unregulated economy. Even Smith acknowledged this fact.

Re:I don't believe that to be true!!

[__aaclcg7560]

This fallacy rich quote proves that.

What fallacy exactly? Businesses — or individuals — don't exist separately from society and government. We're all in this together as a country for the last 240 years.

Re:Just like the DNC an GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to get into the money for the hypocrisy.

Both the DNC and the GOP are quite guilty of using their dominant positions in politics to keep other parties from gaining any kind of traction.

Re:Just like the DNC an GOP

[ScentCone]

She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.

And then she gets on the stage with the biggest Big Money candidate there is, and shouts, "I'm with her!"

I'm fine with people donating to campaigns. I'm not fine with blatant hypocrisy.

Re:she's a hypocrit

[jcr]

Monopolies are very easy to create in an unregulated economy.

Nope. In an unregulated economy, the only way to make a monopoly is by offering your products or services at a better price than your competition. Rockefeller came close, and he did so by drastically reducing his costs *and* prices.

Even Smith acknowledged this fact.

Smith subscribed to a common misconception. That doesn't make him right.

-jcr