There's a world of difference between physical addiction and compelling experiences. I'm all for some legal investigation into some of the shady practices (mostly) mobile and social game developers do to psychologically manipulate you into coming back to their product, much like I love:loot boxes" being regulated as gambling, but it's not the same category as cigarettes.
Same for FB itself. Even if FB is pulling the same sort of shady, psychologically manipulative, tricks to get people to keep coming back, that's not in the same league as physically addictive substances. Also, I've seen no evidence that FB is being shady in that specific way - people just seem to naturally like spending time there. Maybe there's an argument for keeping kids away from FB, but then it's not FB that kids are addicted to in the first place.
But what does any of that have to do with the companies named, in this decade? None of those companies looks like it's leveraging market dominance for shady ends, except maybe Google in putting it's own products first in search results (allegedly - though I believe it).
Most phones are not Apple phones - so not only are they not leveraging a monopoly here, they're not even leveraging a dominant market position. Amazon doesn't have a dominant position in retail (Walmart is much large), MS wasn't on his list, but most computers run Android, not Windows. Facebook I can see, but their near-monopoly is the result of consumer choice - would you remove consumer choice? In the name of what?
Personally, I think duckduckgo is better than google, so I use it. That's the point here really: people are already free to use the search engine they want, and he's not satisfied with that consumer choice and wants to force his own ideas on people. Not good.
I don't see the problem with these companies being large: the only company on that list that seems to have an effective monopoly is Facebook (though I guess Google is close), and that's just the nature of social networks - everyone wants to be on the same one. In any case these near-monopolies seem to be the result of customer choice. Most phones aren't iPhones, and in retail Walmart has 3x the revenue of Amazon, so I don't see any sort of issue there.
Notice MS isn't on that list. These companies mostly grew organically - Google's probably acquired the most, but to small effect. Amazon's largest acquisition was the company that made robots for their warehouses (and had no other customers). I don't think there's an M&A theme for why these particular companies are so large.
I get what he's saying about Facebook and Google (not that I agree - by I understand the argument), but Apple and Amazon? Those are not social networks, or search engines, to shape opinion. Sure, Apple does limit what goes in their store, and Amazon has made a few bad TV shows, but they seem unrelated.
From this I deduce he simply doesn't like large companies, and is fishing for excuses.
Why would you argue that? Do you deny that the most popular music on the planet is targeted for the mentally impaired? The most popular fashion accessories?
Making a lot of money means the vendor is smart, not that the customers are smart (in fact, it typically suggests they aren't).
School funding isn't the answer, or even the question.
Most differences in school outcome can be explained statistically by the income level of the students' families. Once you adjust for that, there's almost no correlation between school funding and outcome.
Also, teachers with STEM degrees? Where is that? Teachers have education degrees.
Rather than pull all the way up to line, more and more of these Bozos are at least almost one car length away from the line.....like they stop when they see the nose of their large truck at the line, which is NOT near the line.
I started seeing this in California a few years back - blew my mind. Often room for a whole extra car in front of them - are they seeing an invisible car I'm not, or something? For some reason I don't see this problem in Texas - must be because the truck is just an extension of one's self.
Which is fundamentally unconstitutional, not that it will ever be challenged. The SCOTUS carved out a special exemption to the first amendment to ban child porn, on the basis of the social harm involved. Basically, banning child porn is OK because it's a roundabout way to avoid harm to children, not a content-based ban. But a "depiction" involving no harm to children? Doesn't fit the rationale, as that's purely content-based prior restraint. Not that anyone is likely to challenge such laws - no modern-day Al Goldstein.
Except the actual products *were* good. Dismissing them as jewelry or status symbols says more about you than them.
Fanboyism aside, Monster cables were also high quality (but not to match the price). And most Apple products are deliberately crippled: fewer features to confuse the user didn't stop with the one-button mouse or iPod with terrible controls, it went right through to zero-headphone-jack phones.
You don't see the use of a handheld computer that also has access to the Information Superhighway? I would think that your vision is severely limited.
Nope, I have a real computer, with a real screen and an internet connection that doesn't rape me by the GB. If you like squinting at a 5" screen, I don't think it's my vision that's limited.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a world of difference between physical addiction and compelling experiences. I'm all for some legal investigation into some of the shady practices (mostly) mobile and social game developers do to psychologically manipulate you into coming back to their product, much like I love :loot boxes" being regulated as gambling, but it's not the same category as cigarettes.
Same for FB itself. Even if FB is pulling the same sort of shady, psychologically manipulative, tricks to get people to keep coming back, that's not in the same league as physically addictive substances. Also, I've seen no evidence that FB is being shady in that specific way - people just seem to naturally like spending time there. Maybe there's an argument for keeping kids away from FB, but then it's not FB that kids are addicted to in the first place.
But what does any of that have to do with the companies named, in this decade? None of those companies looks like it's leveraging market dominance for shady ends, except maybe Google in putting it's own products first in search results (allegedly - though I believe it).
I never suggested a breakup was warranted. But AC's claim that "Apple is not that big" is wrong. Apple is quite large.
Most phones are not Apple phones - so not only are they not leveraging a monopoly here, they're not even leveraging a dominant market position. Amazon doesn't have a dominant position in retail (Walmart is much large), MS wasn't on his list, but most computers run Android, not Windows. Facebook I can see, but their near-monopoly is the result of consumer choice - would you remove consumer choice? In the name of what?
Personally, I think duckduckgo is better than google, so I use it. That's the point here really: people are already free to use the search engine they want, and he's not satisfied with that consumer choice and wants to force his own ideas on people. Not good.
I don't see the problem with these companies being large: the only company on that list that seems to have an effective monopoly is Facebook (though I guess Google is close), and that's just the nature of social networks - everyone wants to be on the same one. In any case these near-monopolies seem to be the result of customer choice. Most phones aren't iPhones, and in retail Walmart has 3x the revenue of Amazon, so I don't see any sort of issue there.
Notice MS isn't on that list. These companies mostly grew organically - Google's probably acquired the most, but to small effect. Amazon's largest acquisition was the company that made robots for their warehouses (and had no other customers). I don't think there's an M&A theme for why these particular companies are so large.
Sure, but Walmart has 3 times the revenue of Amazon (and that includes AWS in Amazon), so I don't think that's what he was on about.
Apple is not that big. And plenty of competition in the form of pc and android
Third largest company in America by revenue, ninth largest in the world.
I get what he's saying about Facebook and Google (not that I agree - by I understand the argument), but Apple and Amazon? Those are not social networks, or search engines, to shape opinion. Sure, Apple does limit what goes in their store, and Amazon has made a few bad TV shows, but they seem unrelated.
From this I deduce he simply doesn't like large companies, and is fishing for excuses.
By that wording it includes car dashboards. I hope that sticks.
It's a problem only Apple users have - everyone else works normally with office equipment.
Why would you argue that? Do you deny that the most popular music on the planet is targeted for the mentally impaired? The most popular fashion accessories?
Making a lot of money means the vendor is smart, not that the customers are smart (in fact, it typically suggests they aren't).
Try the simple act of plugging an Apple toy into the projector in a conference room without buying more parts.
School funding isn't the answer, or even the question.
Most differences in school outcome can be explained statistically by the income level of the students' families. Once you adjust for that, there's almost no correlation between school funding and outcome.
Also, teachers with STEM degrees? Where is that? Teachers have education degrees.
If the actuarial prediction is accurate, it's accurate. Doesn't matter if you think it's fair.
A lot of US states specifically ban reclaiming loss of resale value. Corruption through-and-through.
Rather than pull all the way up to line, more and more of these Bozos are at least almost one car length away from the line.....like they stop when they see the nose of their large truck at the line, which is NOT near the line.
I started seeing this in California a few years back - blew my mind. Often room for a whole extra car in front of them - are they seeing an invisible car I'm not, or something? For some reason I don't see this problem in Texas - must be because the truck is just an extension of one's self.
That's a "old guy" view. Digital Natives see a smart phone very differently - it's their always-on social network, chat, wikipedia, and so on.
Sorry but don't compare intelligent species with non-intelligent species. Makes no sense.
You know nothing about psychology (or neurology).
Also it makes no sense to link sex and pair bonding
You know nothing about psychology.
One has nothing to do with the other unless you glorify sex, making it be more important than it is.
You know nothing about psychology (or neurology).
You're just making shit up.
Which is fundamentally unconstitutional, not that it will ever be challenged. The SCOTUS carved out a special exemption to the first amendment to ban child porn, on the basis of the social harm involved. Basically, banning child porn is OK because it's a roundabout way to avoid harm to children, not a content-based ban. But a "depiction" involving no harm to children? Doesn't fit the rationale, as that's purely content-based prior restraint. Not that anyone is likely to challenge such laws - no modern-day Al Goldstein.
What kind of moonshot leads to yet another run of the mill security company?
Seriously. And who on their right mind would install any product contaminated by Symantec? Has the geek world forgotten Norton AV? Never forget!
Except the actual products *were* good. Dismissing them as jewelry or status symbols says more about you than them.
Fanboyism aside, Monster cables were also high quality (but not to match the price). And most Apple products are deliberately crippled: fewer features to confuse the user didn't stop with the one-button mouse or iPod with terrible controls, it went right through to zero-headphone-jack phones.
But they are shiny.
Except, you know, Amazon tried to sell phones once. Got my hopes up. Sadly, they tried for the wrong end of the market.
You don't see the use of a handheld computer that also has access to the Information Superhighway? I would think that your vision is severely limited.
Nope, I have a real computer, with a real screen and an internet connection that doesn't rape me by the GB. If you like squinting at a 5" screen, I don't think it's my vision that's limited.