Slashdot Mirror
Should We Break Up the Tech Giants? Not if You Ask the Economists Who Take Money From Them (fastcompany.com)
This week's FTC hearings on the growing power of companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google only included economists who have taken money, directly and indirectly, from giant corporations that have a stake in the debate. From a report: Amid growing concern over the power of such behemoths as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and other tech giants, in recent months there's been a bipartisan push for better enforcement of antitrust rules -- with even President Trump saying in August that their size and influence could constitute a "very antitrust situation." The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched its most wide-ranging study of corporate concentration in America in more than 20 years with a series of hearings being held around the country. Chairman Joseph Simons, a practical enforcement-minded leader, launched the hearings by expressing concern over the growing problem of monopoly, which is now found in nearly every sector of the economy. "I approach all of these issues with a very open mind," said Simons, "very much willing to be influenced by what I see and hear."
But there's a problem. The FTC organized these hearings so that Simons and the public would be hearing from many economists who have taken money, directly or indirectly, from giant corporations. For example, on Monday, the FTC convened a panel titled "The Current Economic Understanding of Multi-Sided Platforms" to look specifically at the most dynamic and dangerous set of concentrated economic actors, the big tech platforms. Every single one of the economists who testified had financial ties to giant corporations. One example is David Evans, the chairman of the Global Economics Group. Evans scoffed at the danger of platform monopolies. He indicated that the question of "whether Facebook and Google and Amazon are monopolies, it's all interesting, it's great to read in the New York Times," but it's "not all that relevant" to the practice of antitrust. His firm has taken money directly from Microsoft, Visa, the large investment bank SIFMA, and the Chinese giant tech giant Tencent. Another example is Howard Shelanski, a partner at Davis Polk. Shelanski is more enforcement-minded, but he expressed caution, testifying that we don't know enough for antitrust enforcers to understand whether powerful technology companies hold unassailable market positions. Shelanski pointed to his own children, saying that they've stopped using Facebook because it's uncool. As it turns out, his law firm's clients include Facebook, as well as Comcast, and Chinese search giant Baidu.
But there's a problem. The FTC organized these hearings so that Simons and the public would be hearing from many economists who have taken money, directly or indirectly, from giant corporations. For example, on Monday, the FTC convened a panel titled "The Current Economic Understanding of Multi-Sided Platforms" to look specifically at the most dynamic and dangerous set of concentrated economic actors, the big tech platforms. Every single one of the economists who testified had financial ties to giant corporations. One example is David Evans, the chairman of the Global Economics Group. Evans scoffed at the danger of platform monopolies. He indicated that the question of "whether Facebook and Google and Amazon are monopolies, it's all interesting, it's great to read in the New York Times," but it's "not all that relevant" to the practice of antitrust. His firm has taken money directly from Microsoft, Visa, the large investment bank SIFMA, and the Chinese giant tech giant Tencent. Another example is Howard Shelanski, a partner at Davis Polk. Shelanski is more enforcement-minded, but he expressed caution, testifying that we don't know enough for antitrust enforcers to understand whether powerful technology companies hold unassailable market positions. Shelanski pointed to his own children, saying that they've stopped using Facebook because it's uncool. As it turns out, his law firm's clients include Facebook, as well as Comcast, and Chinese search giant Baidu.
>ask the industry
Seems like wasted steps. Just write BUT INNOVATION on a sign and hold it up when necessary.
Why are such people even consulted? And screw 'economists',they are the among the most useless bunch of experts out there. Break 'em up,specially google and facebook!
Google's search algorithm business should be nationalized, its patents freed. Then their ad network would be much less offensive.
.torrent-based publicization method. It would end up similar to Newsgroups, but the security & trust problems are significant ("magic").
Facebook is different. We would need a magic-box-software install from which non-tech people could publish their own content, then a
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
The tech giants have a monopoly. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google
You listed 4 companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. I consider the tech companies and their size and prominence to be something to watch and be concerned about to watch out for their worst anti-competitive behaviours, but I wouldn't go so far as to break them up. Nothing any of them is really a monopoly at this point.
Facebook probably comes the closest; but there is still twitter and linkedin that are independent.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Break 'em up,specially google and facebook!
Under what context? Just because you don't like them? Because they're too big and successful? They're not really monopolies- and yes, they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours at time, but the courts slap them when they do. I don't see any legal justification to break them up.
"I don't like them" isn't a good reason.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
This isn't necessarily my view on it.
However Economist who theories seem to favor the big companies, may choose to work for such companies.
Economist working with big companies may see and realize things that other may not notice.
That being said, we should listen to their explanation, however take it with a grain of salt knowing that their self interest is towards getting paid by such a company.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Eliminate corporate personhood. 2. Drag the C-level out into the street, hang them from lamp posts, and hand their employees sticks to beat them like pinatas. Don't worry I'm sure everyone loves them and someone will cut them down. Maybe. Probably. Well, okay, probably not, but it was a thought. 3. Watch wages grow like they did after the French dragged their aristofucks out into the street. Funny, they were cool with wages rising after that shit.
Yes we should break them up because it will benefit Russia and China.
Doesn't sound like it?
It takes only ONE company for a monopoly.
You're right, we've got a oligopoly. Far worse.
Get Nationalized.
This is encroachment of government. First, the idea was monopolies are bad, and they are. But, government is the only place to get a monopoly these days.
If there is a monopoly that forms, it won't stay a monopoly for long. At some point, it's profits will reflect its monopoly, and new entrants will raise the necessary capital to compete with it, based on a stronger value proposition (sacrificing those profits in the industry for market share).
Natural monopolies do not need to exist. We just got jinxed into believing they need to. Power companies are a great example. In Texas you can purchase power from any producer you choose, and the rates are pretty good.
The government used monopolies as an excuse to rip apart companies that were big. Now, they are looking to do so to companies that are not as big (relative to their market's size), because what they really don't want is companies that can influence government.
Facebook and Twitter has a strong effect on the elections, which is why we are here.
No, but "too big and successful" is. And "they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours" is.
After all, it was for those same reasons that Bell telephone and GM were broke up. Even though Ford and Chevy existed.
If they cannot be broken up under tge current laws then I am of the opinion thye must then be changed,for Google has a monopoly of search engines and FB on the social network scene. They have done more harm than good and are already far too embedded into the life of ther average individual. This isnt about laws,but public health.
Let Facebook have to let their users interact with other similar sites.For example if we guys start slashbook,we should be able to semd a friend request to Zuckerberg.
Anybody taking money from the tech giants are in a conflict of interest and so need discounted.
The tech giants have a monopoly. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google, If they aren't going to be broken up, then Bell telephone and GM both need to sue the government because they were broken up and they were smaller and less controlling than the tech giants of today.
Ever look at the the market capitalization of the companies that were formed from the breakup of AT&T?
Going even further back, when John D. Rockefeller was asked for advice about Standard Oil being broken up, his reply was, "Buy Standard Oil stock."
When you look at the market capitalization for the multitude of companies Standard Oil was broken into, you're not going to get many shareholders wanting to go back.
Same with AT&T.
The only reason breakups are opposed is control - AKA egomania for guys like Fuckerburg.
Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on search. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on social networking. Google doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems. All three however do have monopolies.
I'm actually not sure why the GP mentioned Apple, they don't appear to me to have a monopoly in anything major, maybe control over applications for their own devices? Even that's suspect.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
IMO facebook isn't really that complicated to redo... technically it's already done. Diaspora more or less already does this. In short, it works like e-mail. Any group can make their own smallish group of servers, users can register at them. In short it more or less works exactly lie facebook in terms that you just go to a webpage, register and set things up. You get an account more or less like "Username@domain.com"... your account is hosted by that domain. The only thing that may be slightly more complicated on the user end, is when they add a friend they need to add @domain.com . kind of like how they do with e-mail, if you don't trust or like the host you have, you can move over, and still carry over your contacts (though they have to re-approve you to grant you permissions to their things). The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there. It's getting people in enough quantities to take the time to get off of facebook... and to stick around on a not-facebook service with few users, long enough that every user doesn't come in, see nobody on and leave ad infinium.
"I don't like them" isn't a good reason.
What? Have you been living under a rock?
"I don't like them" is now considered a great reason for just about anything! Evidence be damned!
I hate Google and Facebook with a burning passion, and would love to see them fail, but even for those stinkers: what right would the government have to break them up? The whole discussion makes no sense to me.
If they were engaged in specific abuses of monopoly power, hold them accountable for that (as the EU has been doing with Google), but this seems like a straight-up desire to punish success. Heck, as much as I hate the lack of an alternative to e.g., YouTube and it's bizarre and arbitrary censorship, it's not like Google has been unfairly stomping competing products - people just like YouTube.
Regulate them as carriers? Sure, that's an interesting discussion, and the conclusion isn't obvious. But break them up? On what basis other than envy?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Natural monopolies do not need to exist. We just got jinxed into believing they need to. Power companies are a great example. In Texas you can purchase power from any producer you choose, and the rates are pretty good.
I hope you realize that the only reason you can buy power from the producer of your choice is because the state of Texas mandates that distributors must deliver power from any supplier - and that is done by regulation. Without regulation, you would buy electricity from whoever your last mile provider said you would buy it from. Texas did go through "deregulation" in 2002, but that only refers to suppliers - the entire market only exists because of the regulation placed on the distributors and those in charge of the large-scale transmission lines.
I do not think they should be discounted, but they should not be the only voice at the table.
If there is a monopoly that forms, it won't stay a monopoly for long. At some point, it's profits will reflect its monopoly, and new entrants will raise the necessary capital to compete with it, based on a stronger value proposition (sacrificing those profits in the industry for market share).
The big tech companies often benefit from "network effects". Facebook's value comes from the people you can connect to on Facebook. Social platforms have an inherent tendency to reward technologies with more users. Add to that the fact that software development is expensive, but is only done once and the cost is divided across all participants, and you get a market where large companies earn more dollars per new head and software improvements cost fewer dollars per head. That's a huge advantage to incumbents.
Itâ(TM)s insidious and endemic tech that fosters healthy economics numbers against a reality of unaffordable unsustainable rents. From housing, transportation to eats whether WholeFoodsPRIME or UberEATS apps inflate through subscription and inflated expectations prices.
Economist donâ(TM)t want to talk rent. SO what we have is a tech driven rent culture masquerading as apps, subscriptions and services that disrupt and destroy the affordable alternative
No company, tech or otherwise, should grow to the point of eliminating the value of private enterprise.
Companies that grow too fast or too powerful will implode, destroying the market beyond them. Nobody licensed them to be surrogate fragmentation grenades.
Evolution, adaptation, awareness - these should be emphasized. Profit should not. Profit motives are the prime cause of failure, not success.
Good businesses, like good houses, should last 500 years.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
MySpace will never be defeated?
Facebook is one really bad blunder away from being irrelevant. If all the hot chicks go elsewhere, so will everyone else.
I doubt the next one will be any better.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Two-thirds of the paid English language digital music marketplace. Perhaps 10% of the total one.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
MySpace will never be defeated?
Yes, I totally said that. Thank you for translating to the world that "That's a huge advantage to incumbents" is exactly the same thing as "Incumbents can never be defeated".
iTunes is big, but I've never felt like I had to use it. More importantly, it doesn't even work with 90% of the world's smartphones - I'm not even sure I believe the stat you mentioned because of that, either Android users rarely buy music or Doubletwist should be a hell of a lot less obscure.
I can believe they're the single biggest music store, but I doubt it's more than a plurality.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Breaking up the tech companies isn't going to help because they're not a monopoly in the sense that they're the only game around. You have a freedom to use ANY social network you wish. There's alternatives to Facebook, there's alternatives to Twitter, there's alternatives to YouTube. The problem here is kind of a reverse monopoly.
Instead of a traditional monopoly where there is one company and everyone is forced to use that one. You have one company that everybody uses, to the exclusion of everything else.
For example: Facebook offers social networking timeline, keeping in touch with family/friends, group forums.
Facebook has 3.5 billion users. So if you have a brand and want to get noticed, or you want to reach folks, you DO have a choice, but it's a bad one:
A. Use Facebook, reach 3.5 billion users
B. Use unknown social network X, and like maybe 300, and spend all your time trying to get your Facebook friends to switch to that other network.
The solution is not to break up Facebook. Who cares. So you break up Facebook how? Break up FB, Instagram, and Whats App?
It doesn't matter. You still have one network that has the largest user base and dominates social media. Two really, big guys are Facebook and Twitter. Instagram is a different animal. And actually Instagram works amazingly well, but I digress.
The problem is that Facebook and Twitter are public forums where there should not be ANY hindrance of free speech, and here's why:
Moderation of speech on all social networks is done at the user level. You can block people or in the case of Twitter, mute them. Muting them does not prevent you from following them or even DM'ing them, it just means you don't see their tweets. It's like unfollowing someone on Facebook, kind of.
The whole "hate speech" narrative by the left is ridiculous. Now if you go around calling black people the N word and promoting white supremacy that should be smacked down. But again, that can be handled by block/mute. And I think most of us agree that kind of speech and behavior is atrocious and we won't accept it.
That said I see no reason to break apart social networks, it's not going to fix the problem or enable smaller companies to succeed, because ultimately you have to pry away users from Facebook and Twitter. Which is dumb anyway.
Google, Facebook and Twitter provide wonderful things to the world. They need to be kept in check, not split up. Because you can't split up a social network. What are you gonna do, say 1 billion users go to company A and 1 billion go to company B? It's stupid. And it's going to create more problems because now you have the userbase divided in two different places.
So let's say you break up FB so that Instagram and WhatsApp are two different companies. That COULD be good for Instagram or Whatsapp, but FB is still FB. And it still has the majority of users.
Ultimately I think as usual this is the result of legislators not understanding technology.
- Alex
We need to transform Internet-based services, chat, blogs, news (aka facebook, whatsapp, instagram, twitter etc.) into decentralized peer to peer services. Key for this transition is IPv6 because it enables us to give every human a set of personal IP addresses. For anonymization, we can use tor like overlays. Of course we need IPv6 routing without NAT.
I would be amenable to breaking up the tech giants, but only we break up the cable monopolies first. The tech giants are a problem, yes, but not as much of a problem to everyday people as the fact that they're being exploited mercilessly by att&t and comcast. If you're going to break up anyone, you need to think about them first.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
They just haven't pissed off the hot chicks yet.
Social networks are like 'meat market' bars. Every hot chick hangs at one, until, for no apparent reason, they hang at another.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you NEED your next paycheck, you're a wage slave.
If you NEED your next paycheck, you're also a moron who can't manage money. Almost certainly have a $100/month cable TV bill.
Lifetime wage slaves exist as a warning to the young. Don't make the decisions they made.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
^^ That's the whole issue: Facebook is a closed platform. Use open protocols, then make your platform have value over others. They did it backward.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
The tech giants have a monopoly. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google
You listed 4 companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
Perhaps the OP meant they have a monopoly in their specific focus, not tech as a whole. Does any of the mentioned companies come close to competing with Google for search? Or Microsoft as a desktop OS? Or Facebook for social media?
I
don't recall Bell Telephone defending their monopoly because of CB radios, or ham radio, or cans attach by a string. The reason was a monopoly on telephone communication, not communication on general.
While I'm not a fan of Apple, I don't know how they can be considered to have a monopoly. Except for the waning reality distortion field of Mr. Jobs.
What other 'huge advantages' are you aware of that just disappear, virtually overnight?
MySpace was dominant not that long ago. Its 'death' looked a lot like the rug being pulled from under them. They thought like you do.
They are in the 'fashion industry'. Like every business that is basically about getting laid (e.g. Bars).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there.
Well, you're wrong. Critical social-mass requires an ease-of-use that is equivalent to FB's. Ease of use is what hooked people. Unfortunately, there's probably not any money in solving this problem.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
where a virtual company with a free product is going to use their powers as a monopoly to affect my life? If you think that facebook, which is a voluntary, needs to be broken up because it's too big than you've got some screws loose. No one is forced to use it (hopefully), other social media exists and is allowed to be created whenever by whomever, and it actually increases in value the larger it gets. A town owned facebook is useless.
I think some portion of the field of economics is actually just "capitalism justification" -- it builds theories that confirm that the past behavior of successful firms is "good economics" and encourages that behavior in the future, disregarding or minimizing the externalities or opportunity costs. Economists also love to cling to their claims of being a science and ignore the human/moral/ethical problems of "good" economics. This isn't to say that all economics is worthless or that all economists are corrupt, I think there's probably a lot of mathematically valid economics. The problem is too often "good" economics is just used as a shield/justification for bad public policy.
You need to read up on the history of standard oil and ATT.
The government has a vested interest in not allowing businesses to become 500lbs gorillas.
If they cannot be broken up under tge current laws then I am of the opinion thye must then be changed,for Google has a monopoly of search engines and FB on the social network scene. They have done more harm than good and are already far too embedded into the life of ther average individual. This isnt about laws,but public health.
If we're redefining "monopoly" to mean >60% of a market, then the anti-trust lawyers are going to be busy for the next century.
By that definition:
Raytheon is too big.
Lockheed Martin is too big.
Boeing is too big.
Kraft Heinz is too big.
General Mills is too big.
Procter & Gamble is too big.
Dow Du Pont is too big.
GlaxoSmithKline is too big.
Walmart is too big.
News Corp is too big.
Walt Disney is too big.
NBC Universal is too big.
Comcast is too big.
General Electric is too big.
Bank of America is too big.
Adobe is too big.
NVIDIA is too big.
BNSF is too big.
Visa is too big.
AT&T is too big.
Each and every one of those companies has a >60% marketshare in something, and has leveraged that marketshare to gain something else, somewhere, the criteria for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
You know what? I agree. Let's break them up. Let's break them all up.
Oh wait. You only wanted to break up the ones with politics you don't like. Right.
Selective enforcement is indistinguishable from fascism.
Regulate them as carriers? Sure, that's an interesting discussion, and the conclusion isn't obvious. But break them up? On what basis other than envy?
Really the only basis is anti competitive practices with their hardware platforms or software services. If there are contracts that force customers, partners or vendors to only use big tech company A's products, then sure antitrust issue there especially if the market intrusion is significant. I suspect this has more to do with the free speech argument floating around; aka political pages, channels and media creators being banned because of TOS violations and then their supporters crying a violation of free speech, so politicians start to cry antitrust. And now we have the supreme court about to hear a case of whether freedom of speech applies with private corporations, so antitrust could balloon in to constitutional violation arguments. There is some irony here... but not on topic.
They thought like you do.
Dunno. I think they did have a huge advantage, but that was overcome by several factors. First, the market was growing, so a competitor could gain fewer users, but still gain a measurable amount. Second, Facebook focused on higher education only, so they were able to become the dominant social network for a specific market segment, then counted on those users to want to continue to communicate with the people they knew back in college.
In summary, you can have a "huge advantage" and still lose. The evidence that Myspace lost is not evidence that incumbents don't have a huge advantage where network effects are significant. Your logic is flawed. You saying it again and telling me the story of Myspace doesn't fix your logic error. A single contrary event is not evidence of the non-existence of a trend.
If you could produce some sort of evidence that shows that competing against Facebook is no harder than competing against the TV repair shop down the street, then you would be on the right track from a logic perspective.
I don't see where you are getting at in terms of that. I see no noteworthy difference in the time or difficulty of creating an account on say pluspora.com, versus making one on facebook.com. As far as I can see, the only increase of difficulty is on facebook most people already have an account they made 5 years ago, so setup is moot, 2. everyone they want to talk to is already on facebook. If you took pairs of 12 year olds that have access to e-mail and basic mouse/keyboard understanding, but don't have a social media account. Set them all the challange to make themselves accounts and send a message to eachother. Putting one pair at facebook, one at pluspora.com, and oh lets say one on mewe... with the challange of creating accounts for each of them and sending a message from one to the other.. I can't see why any group would take more or less time than any other, registration and adding people is very basic and straight foward on all 3 of those options. Facebooks obvious advantage is... nobody has to create a new account because almost everyone has registered for facebook within the last decade or so... but obviously that's going to be a universal problem for anyone that isnt' facebook unless you allow facebook to become a master authentication service... which kinda defeats most good reasons to get off of them.
The government has a vested interest in not allowing businesses to become 500lbs gorillas.
The government has a vested interest in preventing abuse of monopoly power. But that's not what we're talking about here. There's nothing implicitly wrong with a company being very successful.
I think the real topic is "how do we regulate social media to prevent corporate abuse of communication platforms for political ends?" This is something we've figured out for other carriers and broadcast companies: you're either just a pipe, or you're a publisher responsible for what's published.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I realize this. And, I agree with you that some things the government should provide (roads are another example). Power infrastructure to carry power across public spaces should be maintained by the government. So should waterworks, so to should data connectivity infrastructure. The private party enters at the supply side, not the side that maintains the public ways.
The government should have the right to charge maintenance and construction fees to the two parties (supplier, consumer).
But, I am speaking about an encroachment on government where none is needed. Tech companies are not monopolies. There isn't one single trillion dollar company crushing all others. They are all healthy, and the market is very healthy (as illustrated by the advance in technology at a breathtaking pace, coupled by the reduction in its price and general high availability to consume it).
Just my opinion, but "they are too big" should be enough of a reason to break a company up. With that amount of money and power, they have the resources of a nation state. They can bribe, er, sorry, lobby their way into anything they like, so they are practically immortal.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Live by network effects, die by them.
It is just like a bar, everybody goes where the 'hot chicks' go. The population of 'hot chicks' is constantly rotating, as the old ones age out rapidly. Facebook is already the place for kid's parents to go.
What happens when someone owns facebook (or insider), messengers all subs the most embarrassing thing facebook knows about them? People that bought out of the money put options get rich?
Your prognostication is no more logical than mine. You just believe 'past performance is predictive'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Perhaps the OP meant they have a monopoly in their specific focus, not tech as a whole. Does any of the mentioned companies come close to competing with Google for search? Or Microsoft as a desktop OS? Or Facebook for social media?
Bing... sure not as good, and not as many people use it, but it has a big enough following that Google isn't a monopoly. From what I understand Google, despite being very healthy, is actually losing a littel market share now- so that couldn't be considered a monopoly.
MS as a monopoly makes less sense now than 20 years ago. Apple is bigger than it once was, Chromebook is a significant player in the light-weight sector. Even Linux desktop is bigger than it used to be.
Facebook for social media... that probably comes closest to monopoly of the any of the companies here... but even then- there are plenty of social media competitors... Facebook buys most of them when they get big, but there is no shortage of entry to that space and several companies have done well.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Too big and successful isn't.
Abuse their power definitely is though, if this is actually believed.
... new entrants will raise the necessary capital to compete with it...
Much easier said than done. What happens when the necessary capital to enter the market is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. See, for example, trying to run cables to start an ISP.
No, but "too big and successful" is. And "they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours" is.
After all, it was for those same reasons that Bell telephone and GM were broke up. Even though Ford and Chevy existed.
When was GM broken up? Do you have more information on that? I know they've dropped some of their less successful brands (Ford dropped Mercury, and Chrysler dropped Plymouth- so GM isn't the only company to drop brands).
I'm not aware of the government breaking up GM (Chevy IS part of GM).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
No, he's right, because he's talking about companies. Companies (corporations and related entities like LLCs) are the creation of government, and therefore their rights, and limitations, are defined 100% by the government.
You'd have been right if you were talking about people, but you're not.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Companies are associations of people. People have rights. The only creation of government is "limited liability". It's not obvious why a group of people should lose their natural rights for limited liability.
The reasonable argument (IMO and the O of the SCOTUS) is that a public corporation has fewer rights than a group of people who all know each other, but even then, what rights would you deny the New York Times?
We have plenty of laws on how people get to treat other people, in groups or otherwise. Being a corporation doesn't shield you from those laws, beyond when the debt collectors come calling.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your prognostication is no more logical than mine. You just believe 'past performance is predictive'.
I said no such thing. All I said was that incumbents have a huge advantage. I never said they couldn't lose, or that they wouldn't lose, or made any other prediction for the future of any of the tech giants. You equated my statement that they had a "huge advantage" to a prediction... and I've been trying all day to inform you that it was the little man in your head that said that, not me.
What I did say (huge advantage) is simply the network effect and is believed by pretty much anyone that has given this more than ten seconds of thought. There's no way you can spin this as "you're wrong too".
Thanks for compiling a list of companies many of whom should be broken up. But pretending, as surely you know, that corporation break-up for monopolistic practices is the only remedy possible is deception.
Also your phrasing "has a >60% marketshare in something" is telling. When a diversified corporation (GE, say) has a monopoly position in some significant market, only that portion of the corporation needs to addressed, possibly by divesting in part of that business -- micro-breakup if you will.
Observation of existing anti-trust laws has been in abeyance for decades, so yes, there is a large backlog of violators to address. For example when the Travelers-Citigroup merger was announced, which definitely violated existing law, rather that having regulators step in to block it Congress passed the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to retroactively make it legal a year later.
I absolutely do want all violators who really do have monopoly power in their major business space to be broken up. I don't give a damn about their "politics" (which is mostly all about favoring the color green, essentially no large corporations have any other politics).
You declaration that "I agree. Let's break them up. Let's break them all up." wouldn't be, you know, contrary to fact would it? The rhetorical use you put this declaration to suggest that you are much less than sincere.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Google's business is not search. Google's business is advertising. Everything that Google does, from giving away free GSP Maps to letting people upload videos to search is to get money from advertisers.
Facebook is in the same business. The only reason Facebook lets anybody post for free on a page they provide is to support their advertising business.
So are Facebook and Google colluding together? If they are then we something to talk about. If they are not, and it appears they are competitors. then we don't.
The difference is that unless the people you want to connect to are also on the same platform it's useless.
That's exactly what Google found out with Google+. No one uses Google+ because none of the people they want to connect with are on Google+. Businesses don't have Google+ pages because most of the customers they want to attract aren't on Google+. No one goes to Google+ to view a business page because the chances are the business they are interested in isn't on Google+.
Critical social mass is everything. It's the reason that, with all the problems insecure email has no one has been able to replace it.
Without agnostic cross-platform and cross application standards there will never be competitive social media. What will most likely happen to Facebook is that it will age out. I already see this as it's already two cohorts behind. The young people now in college didn't use Facebook when they were in High School and they aren't using it now. Likewise those now in High School aren't using it. The Facebook generation is in their 30's now. Grandma has a Facebook page, but her grandchildren don't (or if they do it's only so they can post pics for grandma.) They don't read their newsfeed and they don't see the ads (Which is Facebook's real business.)
Except search isn't their business. Their business is advertising. Do they have a monopoly on advertising?
The govt should be broken up first. It has proven to be corrupt, inefficient and a poor steward of the environment.