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'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.
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.
"...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.
As a great teacher once said, "Go educate thyself!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Academic
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.
Who is world would call Elizabeth warren an academic?
Apparently, the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard as she taught at each of their Law Schools. From Wikipedia:
Warren was formerly a professor of law, and taught at the University of Texas School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and most recently at Harvard Law School. A prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law, Warren was among the most cited in the field of commercial law before starting her political career.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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 :|
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?
^does not appear to understand how named chairs work^
You are welcome on my lawn.
And also by the University of Texas Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, proving that everybody's an idiot but not you, no sir, you can see right through their "consensus reality". Your mama didn't raise no fools, by-golly.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Warren is not an academic, she's a politician.
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!
Gee, it's almost like there's a difference between state colleges and the Ivy League. It's quite likely those colleges hired her for her talents at that level - they are, after all, state colleges and they need people to fill positions. There's no reason to believe that she isn't quite capable of teaching at state college.
But Harvard? Harvard can afford to attract the world's best talent. So why hire Fauxcahontas? Because she was a "two-fer" - both a woman and a "minority." They immediately used her as an example of how "diverse" their talent was.
You want proof of that? She was a complete nobody until her appearance on the Daily Show, having accomplished essentially nothing during her Harvard career. And she's accomplished essentially nothing as a senator, too, making it unclear why anyone would care about her opinions on anything. These days she's known more for her Twitter rants about Donald Trump than anything else.
But, go on, tell me about how we should respect Fauxcahontas's "academic credentials" when they're just "worked at state colleges until she allowed Harvard to tick off two boxes on the diversity checklist."
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."
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.
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
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.
Anonimo Coward...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
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.
Whoever modded you down probably thinks you're just making stuff up or spewing conspiracy theories. But sadly, you are not: http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/
Many are the long-bread-lined nations on the ash heap of history that revolved around the primacy of government central planning.
So what does that have to do with Warren and Obama? They're Democrats, not Communists or Socialists.
It tells us that Wareen knows nothing about the industry she's criticizing.
Except property rights almost caused the collapse of Western civilisation in the 1920s/30s. Without proper moderation of the economy through sensible market regulations including Trust Busting/Anti-Monopoly/pro-competition government action. We will just repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century. Small businesses are the real drivers of the economy and Google/Amazon/Apple are sure as hell not small businesses. Small does not mean young business, and young business doesn't make it small. There is a huge difference. What should be happening is the largest companies should be getting taxed to shit and the money should be being pumped into the small business economy. That's how you create economic growth that benefits the entire economy. By having money influencing politics. A perverse reversal of economics occurs where the largest businesses capture the political class and most of society's wealth.
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.
Just to clarify a point... the University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League school... so 2/3 of the schools on this list are Ivy League. She has taught at 25% of the 8 Ivy League schools. Pennsylvania state system of higher education indeed is inferior to Ivy league, but University of Pennsylvania is not part of the state sytem of higher education. It's a private school. I have no data about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have no data about University of Texas standing to clarify my point.
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
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
America has done pretty well by stealing property and dis-respecting the rights of various groups of people. The trick is to have good propaganda and respect the rights of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Except property rights almost caused the collapse of Western civilisation in the 1920s/30s.
I think the Great Depression has turned into a mirror which merely reflects the viewer's opinions. The obvious rebuttal is that property rights have been around forever, and they haven't caused the Great Depression before or since. The second obvious rebuttal is that you never refer to property again. For example:
Without proper moderation of the economy through sensible market regulations including Trust Busting/Anti-Monopoly/pro-competition government action.
No reference to property rights.
What should be happening is the largest companies should be getting taxed to shit and the money should be being pumped into the small business economy. That's how you create economic growth that benefits the entire economy.
No reference to property rights.
By having money influencing politics. A perverse reversal of economics occurs where the largest businesses capture the political class and most of society's wealth.
No reference to property rights.
To belabor a point that you should have agreed with in the first place, you can't have small businesses without property rights. You can't have "proper moderation of the economy" or "sensible market regulations". You can have small businesses being the "real drivers" of the economy. But you can have money influencing politics and "perverse reversal" of economics, if you don't have property rights.
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.
You're confusing optimality with having benefits.
Many small players (plus a few other assumptions) is a sufficient condition for optimality of free markets. But it is not a necessary condition for optimality; a free market can still be optimal even in the presence of monopolies. Furthermore, a market doesn't need to be optimal in order to be better than all available alternatives.
But, more fundamentally, those notions of "optimality" or being "better" are rooted in overall economic performance. But what a free market actually is about is the absence of coercion; it is a lucky coincidence that not coercing people also produces overall better outcomes than other economic systems, but free markets would be preferable even if that were not the case.
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.
OK, but besides the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard who is world would call Elizabeth warren an academic.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They're Democrats, not Communists or Socialists.
A rose by any other name...
If the shoe fits...
Looks like a duck, walks like a ducks...
etc.
"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.
You're pretty fucking dismissive of UT when it's one of the top universities in the world, let alone the nation.
UT is one of the best law schools in the nation according to the only ranking system that matters (USNWR).
loony tune. The world is full of them.
They're Democrats, not Communists or Socialists.
A rose by any other name...
If the shoe fits...
Looks like a duck, walks like a ducks...
etc.
So the Republicans are Fascists?
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.
She was a complete nobody until her appearance on the Daily Show
You keep parroting this absolute nonsense while dismissing everything that doesn't fit your narrative.
For instance, a year before her first Daily Show appearance she was appointed to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel which monitored the TARP bailout.
Not even close. The only socialist even running is Sanders.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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 !!
Straw man; I'm not defending Republicans.