You mean other than including in deals that if a company wants to use Google Search on the website, they MUST use google adsense, then when the EU started looking into that practice, they then changed it to an equally problematic "MUST give google adsense primacy, but can use other advertisers". Or how Google products pop-up "Works best with Chrome, download here!" when you try to access them with a browser other than Chrome with little to no attempt to have them work properly in other browsers? Or the requirements that phone manufacturers default load Google products if they want to use Andriod, etc, etc. All of that is anti-competitive and abuse of their dominance in those markets to push their other products.. Its also things that Microsoft got in a lot of trouble for back in the day...
I appreciate your attempts to fight the CW here. But you need to learn more about how the tech giants actually operate in order to be a better advocate for your position.
I have been looking around for different operating systems from android or apple for a cellphone, and man, there are basically none, even Microsoft threw in the towel. I don't know how you fix that, all you may be able to do is force alphabet to sell their cellphone operating system division, maybe that will starve off android of capital and allow others a fighting chance. But even the Chinese manufacturers use android, I would have expected for them to create their own knockoff version or bough one of the old ones to use (like the old Nokia OS). https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/ The "crazy" part is that China is basically the same. Alibaba = Amazon Baidu = Google Tencent is basically a merger of Facebook, Yahoo and Ebay or something. https://singularityhub.com/2018/08/...tech-giants/#sm.0000k2ub5pj5ke72x631vujc56vt9 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/18/how-to-tame-the-tech-titans
Just to be clear here. It isn’t necessarily anti-competitive for Android and Apple to dominate the market. What is anti-competitive is for Google to use their dominance in the phone OS market to require phone manufacturers to default load Google’s other products on those phones and, thereby, corner the market on those products as well.
There was lots written about this back in the day - to do with the winner takes all economics So for example, lots of companies were offering cloud storage (paid for) But the likes of google, FB and then AWS can compete at or close to the zero price point. So in this way competition is destroyed for anyone who doesn't already have global scale This is how AWS is currently eating the cloud
The thing about Android is google can build and develop a mass OS for free, cross funded from its other business lines. This makes it near impossible for anyone else to develop a paid for OS, unless you are apple and can tie it up with a walled garden I agree with the rest of your post This is of course how MS destroyed all the competitiors in the early days of search by leveraging windows
Never understood the beef people had with that. It just showed the lack of knowledge of how leadership and politics work. I assume it was just Hilary saying it was the problem. Do you know if Bernie is gonna release his taxes this time? Or is he gonna let the other 12 do it then attack them for what is on it while trying to be righteously indignant about his?
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] We gonna talk about how white (and bored) this crowd is, or is that reserved solely for Bernie? pic.twitter.com/JJsAbLvMqx— Comrade Misty is Putin’s Buddy (@SarcasmStardust) March 21, 2019
Appreciate the tech debate, but let's how relevent that is down the line. I imagine in a debate Warren will bring it up. But curious to see if any other candidate goes beyond legislating data protection.
That's because they are the pioneers who created and defined their industry. We are not talking about corrupt companies who take advantage of unfair regulations or a monopolistic condition (example AT&T) to rig the market and provide inferior products and services. These are actually creative companies who created unique products and services and are reaping the rewards of their amazing creativity.
Standard Oil reaped the rewards of its amazing creativity. Until cars became ubiquitous. At the moment, we don't have a verticle monopoly but are rapidly approaching horizontal monopolies in several tech sectors. And If Samsung can write amicus briefs and stop a merger between Lam and KLA Tencor on the grounds that it'd create a monopsony, I think it'd be rather absurd not to apply that same standard back the other way.
Yes... Yes we are. Seriously man, I know there is a big mystique around these companies, but one of the main drivers for Chrome winning this round of browser wars is that when it was decided to finally get rid of IE6, every time you went to a Google product a message would appear saying something to the extent of "I noticed you are using an unsecure browser. If you want to increase the security on your computer and prevent viruses, download Chrome here!" Of course, Chrome was quite a bit better than Internet Explorer performance wise, but it was not the best browser out there and, for the most part, people just didn't care that IE6 (and IE in general) was worse than Chrome. They would have happily stayed on IE6 (or internet explorer in general), but every time they went to search the internet, it told them their computer and personal information was not secure and that they should install this specific browser. How is that not abusing their dominance in the Search engine market to corner the market on browsers? Google put other internet ad companies out of business because whenever a site came to them looking to use Google Search on their website, Google would also require them to use Google Adsense and/or offered Google Search at a steep discount if they used Google Adsense. (They just got dinged for this by the EU, btw). How is that not abusing their dominant position in the Search market to corner the market on the internet advertising market? Now, google has put out a "proposal" to modify Chrome that has the knock on effect of preventing third party adblockers from being installed on Chrome and Chromium based browsers.. If this goes into effect, overnight you'll have essentially one company in the adblocker market. How is that not abusing their dominant position in the browser market to corner the adblocker market as well?
I mean there's competition: https://www.shoutmeloud.com/best-google-adsense-alternatives.html And that's also not completely true as for what you're saying. My wife recently launched her business, has Google webcrawl her site, and doesn't use google advertising. She uses Facebook advertising, listing on PyschologyToday and other SEO conduits. There's a bunch of web browsers - these things have always been free and they offer various levels of ability to block ads. https://www.pcworld.com/article/320...hrome-firefox-edge-and-internet-explorer.html And the other things? The amount of users who need to purchase ads is a tiny fraction of the population that uses google for search engine. Google knocked yahoo and askjeeves and whatever the hell else you were using off their perch. They did it buy doing a ridiculously good job at UI/UX and getting you the best search engine results thanks to their machine learning algorithms. Almost their entire revenue base is based on Ads, and they have model where they maximize that revenue. If you're google, and you have enough inelastic demand to support it, why WOULDN'T you require people who want to take advantage of their free webcrawling service to also use their ad auction system? And further? They GIVE you the SEO tools so you don't even have to purchase advertising. If you put enough effort into it, you can get ranked highly on their search engines without giving them a dime. And then you can also go and figure out Yahoo and Bing as well. In what way is that an unethical barrier of entry for advertising? Especially when you consider that Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn all provide online ads? And that Amazon is starting get big there as well? If you're going to use my free platform, there's going to be a non-monetary price you'll pay. On the other hand - I can see a bit of your point. If you get big, your size itself is prohibitve to competition, because know actually wants to take on goliath. And some of the basic tools of marketing and operations - such as bundling - become a lot more powerful the bigger you are. I don't think it's unfair, but I can see why people don't like it.
They may have figured out how to better pump oil out of the ground, but man it is not even close to tech companies.
Personal use perhaps, but business? my company still uses IE as default, since MS did the same with their bundles and they dominate the business computing. I don't use chrome (I do google a lot), but I did not know they commanded such a market share. Global share 71% https://www.statista.com/statistics/544400/market-share-of-internet-browsers-desktop/ USA share 64% http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/united-states-of-america Global share is where they are killing it. Europeans had the advantage of going after non-European companies, politically that is easier, but some of their rules regarding privacy and stopping companies from abusing their market size are something we could look at and try to implement. Another reason on why people should not use Chrome.
...Except as tech becomes more and more ubiquitous/essential, and as those companies continue to strangle/buy out their competition, there will be increasing calls to end a monopolization of those resources. Some countries consider the internet a human right. Funny that you think that tech companies would be immune to being split up in the interests of the public.
Sorry - I may have misunderstood your post as I was attempting to respond to the points you raised there.
Back to the topic at hand....Those numbers are brutal for Gillibrand. A new Quinnipiac poll in New York finds Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who is running for president, with a lowly 29% approval rating in her home state.
Data is their oil, we do need better protection on data. But every time we download a new app, who reads the fine print on all the information that we willingly allow them to track? We da people are giving away our information for some convenient apps.