Elizabeth Warren Calls To Break Up Facebook, Google, and Amazon 414
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing to break up technology companies, including Amazon.com, Google and Facebook, calling them anti-competitive behemoths that are crowding out competition. From a report: "Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. "It's a great story -- but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets." Warren's call also comes as Democrats have begun to plan for increased oversight of tech companies after winning control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats introduced legislation to establish strong net neutrality protections that would look to prevent major service providers from using their power to manipulate how users experience the internet. Update: In a statement, Warren's team said that the proposal would also apply to Apple. "They would have to structurally separate -- choosing between, for example, running the App Store or offering their own apps," a spokesperson said.
Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Amazon have good and bad sides and might need some regulation,
Yes, regulation like being broken up.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Though I think as a company they are no better than FB regarding privacy, etc;
The problem with FB is that it owns the competing social media networks, and that in itself is a reason to break it up.
Amazon? Well they make their money from AWS, then there is their retail side, then their video/entertainment side, etc.
Why wait to break up Amazon? It is a mutating virus of a company taking over disparate industries. It has to happen s
Re:Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You could also argue that their retail operations and their marketplace could be broken apart. When "amazon.com" is only one of the Prime sellers selling an item, it's fair to say that they are in a position where they can abuse their control over the platform. Amazon could operate more like "ebay with distribution centers" and items that are presently "Sold by Amazon.com" could be spun off into a separate business that works like any other large FBA seller.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking up Google would be a catastrophic disaster for privacy.
That's why you break up Google... and then you break up the fucking pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
As awesome as this may seem, it's not that simple. Which piece gets your data? Do all of them? With no real limitations on data usage and sale, this will very likely result in a vast dissemination of your data with no controls. If laws were passed which strictly controlled that data, on the other hand, this would rapidly become far more attractive. The same goes for Facebook.
Amazon and Apple are different in so many ways, which would require a much more careful approach on the business unit side, I would th
GMO wildebeeast: Brassica cepa (Score:2)
Right, because the current incentive is the only incentive (according to Grimm's law of narrativium butterfly rivets).
And onions are turnips, too.
I could say FTFY, but it's closer to a brain transplant.
Step aside, world according to onions with one layer to make a welcoming cavity for inbound cerebral folds.
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point. You're looking at horizontal breakups (there are now AmazonA and AmazonB websites and each gets half the wearhouses, etc.). That's not what they're saying.. They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate. So if you create "super-market-search.com" that somehow is better at finding products than Amazon, you could just purchase logistics from their vendor. It's saying that Google cannot own YouTube, GMail, the App Store, etc. There would be a search co
Re: (Score:3)
They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate.
Which is so absolutely ridiculous that it should alert any attentive reader to the nonsense Warren is pulling. Yes, you can order from Amazon the website, but we can't tell you if what you want is in stock, how much it will cost, when it will ship, or any of the back end logistics bits. Maybe it would be good if Amazon the website prints out each order it gets and then faxes it to Amazon the warehouse, hmmm?
Let's punish every success by splitting it into pieces too small to succeed. That will be Very Good
Re: (Score:3)
You are forgetting about AWS, which should be spun off into its own company.
Why? Do you imagine in some fictional world that this would create competitors? Anyone who wants to can already compete, so what exactly do you think would be different? Do you really imagine that there are, today, people who say "we cannot compete against AWS because Amazon also has online shopping?" Really?
Or is it just because is has Amazon in the name you hate it?
Re: (Score:2)
Where does Amazon have anything approaching a monopoly? Walmart alone has over half a trillion in revenue, more than double Amazon's.
Re: Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
This canard again? Antitrust laws aren't just about monopolies, they're about anticompetitive behavior in general.
Amazon right now controls roughly half the online retailing in the US and had been driving local retailers out of business with questionable business practices. Increasingly they are the option for many purchases.
Worse is that after driving Border's out of business and destroying the book store industry they're opening physical bookstores and getting involved with other retail establishments.
Antitrust laws work best when they're enforced before a company can bankrupt entire industries.
Re:Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google and Amazon have good and bad sides and might need some regulation,
Yes, regulation like being broken up.
Not liking a company is not a good reason to break up a monopoly- you need an actual reason.
Google it could be said has a near-monopoly on search results but there is no way to split that up. The only way to split Alphabet would be along lines like Waymo, Hardware, Search, and Software. Doing so would not solve the issue of monopoly in search. Google doesn't have a monopoly in any other area.
Amazon has a monopoly on... well nothing.
The only excuse to break any of these companies up is "I don't like them" or "they're too big"; neither of which are legal reasons to break a company up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not suggesting this is the right answer, but I think the obvious way to break up google would be to break the advertising business away.
Google ads is very successful because it's very good. It's very good because it has access to a level of data (from search, gmail and analytics) that their competitors can only dream of. If google had to monetize search using a third party ad network then i think that'd mitigate a lot of the privacy concerns.
Re:Apple? (Score:4, Informative)
Amazon has about 5% of American retail sales [bloomberg.com]. So it may be premature to label them a monopoly.
So far, they are not even the market leader. Walmart has more than twice their revenue.
Amazon: $239B
Walmart: $514B
Re: Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
So ignorant and short sighted. They have half the online sales in the US and the only reason they're at 5% of sales in general is that they have basically no physical locations.
Amazon isn't a monopoly, thankfully there is no legal requirement to be a monopoly in order to run afoul of antitrust regulations.
Why wait until they've completely taken over the economy when they're already breaking the law?
Re: (Score:3)
They have half the online sales in the US
"Online" is a different channel, not a different market. If they raise prices, people will drive to Walmart instead.
Why wait until they've completely taken over the economy
They are now at 5%. I think we can afford to wait. They are only going to "take over" by giving consumers a better deal than their competitors.
... when they're already breaking the law?
What law are they breaking?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
zuckerberg and his buddies at fakebook should be put in a federal prison for collecting and selling other people's personal information and facebook utterly destroyed
At the risk of provoking a hornet's nest, what Federal laws has Zuckerberg violated? The answer, of course, is none. While it may feel very satisfying to propose throwing him in jail, in a country where the rule of law prevails someone must actually be convicted of a crime before the State can punish them. Are you advocating for a government that arbitrarily imprisons people that have broken no laws? What a frightening proposition.
Likewise, "utterly destroying" Facebook is not the job of the government. You, the consumer, have that power right now if you and enough similarly-thinking individuals work in concert. An article appeared yesterday showing millions of people are abandoning FB, all (gasp!) without government telling them to! Shocking, I know, that people can exercise individual choice without being ordered about by an all-powerful government, but it happens.
You might want to consider the consequences of having a government that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever it wants.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's true that Facebook has violated the Sherman Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act then prosecute them. That requires no additional laws be passed, sponsored by Warren or anyone else.
Let's also not pretend that this is anything more than a stunt by a person gearing up for a presidential run. Any bill Warren or any Democrat proposes has zero chance of passing in the Senate or being signed by the president. If Warren gets nomination, which I find about as unlikely a happening as anything I can think of, t
Re:Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook should be killed with fire, not broken up where it can turn back into itself like the Terminator from Terminator 2.)
Kill Facebook and something else will just take its place and do the exact same thing, unless you've addressed the fundamental issues first.
Re: (Score:3)
Small business doesn't stand much of a chance when you will be undercut by Amazon on pricing. Every time.
Amazon's prices are not very good. Walmart is almost always cheaper, if they carry the product. Amazon wins on convenience and selection, not price.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There are Cherokee phone cases for iPhones?
Re:Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
If it ain't broke don't break it (Score:2)
No complaints about Apple and their walled-garden?
No, because there are easy alternatives - you can always get an Android phone, perhaps you've heard of them?
In no way in any space is Apple a monopoly, there are always other options - and the world would be poorer within a choice as distinct as Apple from other offerings.
The ones under discussion - Google, Facebook, Amazon, each have rather more a lock on what they do - although I don't see really how you can "break them up". What would that really mean fo
Apple isn't a new company (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple doesn't fit her reasoning. Look at what her reasoning is for why government (her) needs more power:
--- ...
25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world.... That highlights why the government must break up
---
She's saying they must destroy "new* companies that have done well. Apple isn't new.
I'm not sure she read what she wrote before sending it in, though. The fact that upstarts can compete and become major players, like Amazon beat both Walmart and IBM/Dell/HP is why government has to break up established companies, she says. Because Amazon wouldn't have stood a chance if the government hadn't knocked Walmart down? Amazon couldn't have competed in data center computing if the government hadn't gotten rid of HP? Google couldn't have done anything with search, had the government not broken up Yahoo?
The lists off a bunch of companies that beat out the established big players, by being BETTER, not by having the government break up the existing successful companies. Then says those are examples of why the government needs to break up successful companies. Those are actually examples of why the government doesn't NOT need to meddle with things. All of the companies ahe listed beat out much larger companies, by simply offering something customers prefer, by being better.
Not what she said (Score:3)
This is what she said:
--
25 years ago they didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world
--
She SAID it's because they didn't exist 25 years ago (not part of the good old boys club that finances her) and they've been very successful.
I understand you wish she had said something different, something you could agree with. She didn't say something different, she said exactly what she said. If you don't like what she said, if you don't agree with what she said, the that's
Re: (Score:2)
No complaints about Apple and their walled-garden?
A walled garden does not a monopoly make.
Besides, there's Android as an alternative, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's not mentioned explicitly, but there it is. Their store couldn't be owned by either their hardware or software business.
Re:Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While making a ton of money, Apple doesn't have unrestricted market dominance. iOS is under heavy competition from Android, and most of the companies that can get into the Apple Walled garden also make an Android port of the Apps. Their Macintosh lineup has been very niche lately, and no where near as popular they were over a decade ago.
If Apple were to go out of business tomorrow the total effect would be in general limited. Yea the stock market will bomb, but being mostly consumer devices, the American i
Re: (Score:2)
I was just talking about this this morning with co-workers as it pertains to phones. ALL the choices for phones are equally bad in different ways.
Apple: No configurability, everything dumbed down. It's my way or the highway approach. Better privacy but still completely unacceptable that using the device to its fullest potential requires cloud services
Android: Horrible privacy, actively works to pester you into doing things in ways that decrease your privacy even more. Better configurability
Both are walled g
No Plan, just Populism (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, that's her plan "break up the monopolies" ... and give the market to the Chinese who have a vested interest in maintain control of the world's infrastructure and who have demonstrated the ability to exploit a totalitarian surveillance state? This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.
Re:No Plan, just Populism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.
You need to look at the political realities. She is in a very crowded primary field, against people like Bernie that are even further to the left. She has to do what she can to stand out.
Stances like this will help her win the nomination, especially in caucus states like Iowa. If she wins, it will hurt her in the general election, but she has no choice. All she can do is veer left for the nomination, and then try to backtrack to more sensible policies after the convention.
Unfortunately, it is looking mo
Re: No Plan, just Populism (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is looking more and more likely that Trump will win a 2nd term.
No, iâ(TM)m quite certain that a victor will emerge unscathed from this 24+ candidate thunderdome Democrat primary and all democrats will rally behind the old, white candidate that emerges. Democrats are so screwed, they run a serious risk of losing yet another easy election against Trump.
Re:No Plan, just Populism (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Trump has a chance
You don't understand American Politics. Trump didn't have a chance last time either. Almost all the Media Pundits were wrong last time, and they are wrong for all the same reasons this time.
And Democrats have gone Batshit Crazy and Nancy Pelosi is looking like the most grownup in the crowd.
The fact that Warren is still viable after her "I'm an Indian. No I never claimed to be Indian. Hey look, I have less Indian than most Americans that proves I'm Indian, but I am not claiming to be Indian" stunt is proof how bat shit crazy they are.
The rampant Anti-Semitism in the party is fracturing the Jewish part of their coalition.
Blacks are starting to figure out that after 60 years of "civil rights" that the Democrats aren't really supportive. Now with "Hey look, Illegal Aliens are the preferred minority" bit, more and more are realizing that the Democrats were the real racists all along, only courting the Black vote every other and four years, while ignoring them during off election years.
Hell, even Californians and New Yorkers are starting to bail on their Liberal states, the only problem is they haven't figured out that Taxing People to death (and beyond) isn't productive and are taking their stupid ideas with them.
America is having boom years, record Employment, Jobs, wage Growth .... If Trump ran SIMPLY on that, he'll win in a landslide.
And the tired "America and Trump Supporters are Racist" tag line by liberals is all but gone after Covington Catholic boys and Jussie Smollett proves that is the best the media can find in "racism" category are FAKE and fraudulent. THAT is the best they can actually find. Meanwhile the actual violence by Antifa Types and deranged left-wing loons are largely panned as "Not that common" (but happen way more often than racist violence)
Which of the confirmed candidates do you think has a chance?
Re: (Score:3)
Please check your ideology at the door. The very fact that you're pulling out the Fox trope proves you live in the Liberal echo chamber.
Studies have shown and, Twitter for one admits, that when it comes to the Left they only follow each other and they only get their news from liberal sources. Conservatives follow everybody and get their news from both liberal and conservative sources. That means that while a Conservative is not likely to trust a liberal source at face value, they typically don't take anythi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Dems, keep pushing LEFT like they are, if the AOC crazies push for such extreme socialism, and even THEY are blatantly using the term....they likely will be handing Trump a 2nd term.
That socialism thing may work on the far east and west coast, but it doesn't fly with the rest of America, which is still mostly main stream, middle of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, breaking up the companies in question would be senseless.
Google is search. Everything else they're involved in is a sideshow bordering on philanthropy. What's the plan, tell them stop doing free sideshows because somebody else would like to make money at it?
Facebook is their fickle users. The folks who don't want to be on facebook (I'm one of them) set up personal web pages and do just fine. Behemoth, yes. Monopoly... what monopoly powers do they exercise? What monopoly powers *can* they exercise?
Amaz
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, that's her plan "break up the monopolies" ... and give the market to the Chinese who have a vested interest in maintain control of the world's infrastructure and who have demonstrated the ability to exploit a totalitarian surveillance state? This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.
When giving advantage to Chinese is proffered as an excuse for a position safe bet the underlying argument is "JV level retarded".
Nothing is being given away to the Chinese or anyone else. Companies are simply being prevented from leveraging their positions.
Throng throng throng... (Score:5, Interesting)
Warren has to say something to separate herself from the throngs of Democratic Presidential hopefuls, and elevate her campaign into the limelight, but she doesn't really have a clue what her proposal would do.
Internet neutrality is poorly understood by Washington, and there would be throngs of salivating international competitors for the void created if the US government handicaps their domestic tech industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet neutrality is poorly understood by Washington, and there would be throngs of salivating international competitors for the void created if the US government handicaps their domestic tech industry.
The opposite is true. The point of competition is promoting a health industry. The US is only handicapping itself in the long run by failing to insist on a competitive market.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie doesn't seem likely to drop out though, unless he drops dead/sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie Sanders is polling ahead of Warren right now. Warren is getting a lot of coaching and her on-camera persona is improving quite a bit.
Bernie doesn't seem likely to drop out though, unless he drops dead/sick.
Unfortunately neither have the appeal for independents and/or moderate republicans that don't like Trump so either of them winning would hand 2020 to Trump.
Re: Throng throng throng... (Score:3)
Split Google ... (Score:5, Funny)
So to get the full search results you'll have to look-up the same thing on:
googleatlantic.com
googlepacific.com
googlesouth.com
googlesouthwest.com
googlewest.com
googletech.com
googleny.com
?
Re: (Score:2)
I give it 5 minutes 'til someone comes up with an aggregating page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Search isn't really a business on it's own. Google's search exists in order to provide advertising revenue. But ALL Google businesses exist in order to provide advertising revenue, so breaking them up into search+ads, mobile, office suite, etc. would both reduce their monopoly vertical integration and also increase privacy.
Google already broke themselves up internally to a certain extent.
Re: (Score:2)
Search isn't really a business on it's own. Google's search exists in order to provide advertising revenue.
Search makes money on advertising, but they also provide a lot (if not most) of the other ads that you see around the internet, including on Slashdot. That is their ad network. And while you brought up the topic again, Youtube could be broken out into a separate company, too.
I think Elizabeth Warren's main problem is that most people don't hate these companies. A very vocal minority complains about them, but most people who use Amazon or Facebook are quietly happy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Google shows most of the ads on the internet. That's what I mean. Their business is advertising. Search is a product they provide in order to gather information to make their advertising more effective. Search is so expensive, I doubt it's a viable business on it's own. You could show ads and offer preferential ranking in a standalone search engine, but I don't think you'd make enough to keep the business going. Same problem journalism has: the service costs more to offer than the on-site ad revenue
Re: (Score:2)
I guess splitting it into Search, Andriod, and Advertising network components probably makes sense.
Except the advertising revenue is what makes the other two possible.
MS Licensing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Telcos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Telcos (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to internet service providers however, many people have no choice, or a choice between two shitty providers. There are good examples in other countries of ISP's competing with one another while using the same infrastructure.
Re:Telcos (Score:4, Insightful)
This. People have a choice when it comes to using Google, Amazon or Facebook -- and not to defend Facebook, but I don't know what breaking it up would accomplish, since for many people the only reason they're on Facebook is because that's where everyone else is (though I guess there's a good argument for breaking off WhatsApp and Instragram).
Facebook is the only one you could really legally make a case for. Google only has near-monopoly on searches, but even for that there is viable opposition- and you can't split a search engine into two.
Splitting off any of the other companies doesn't make sense because they don't have anything near a monopoly on any of their other companies.
Same with Amazon- they're not nearly a monopoly for ANYTHING.
Facebook on the other hand keeps buying up competitors and DOES have a near monopoly on Social Media. It's the only one that I could see any sort of legal excuse for splitting... but I'm against splitting it, even though I hate it.
Monopoly legislation is for common good- not for petty vendettas against companies you dislike. People need to be responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% agree.
Infrastructure should be required to be it's own thing, no direct sales, no content. This could be wires, fiber, or cellular/radio. I doubt we could get cellular, but wired needs to go here last decade.
ISPs ride on the infrastructure, and compete on it providing services to business, residential, etc.. I would also add a rule that the infrastructure provider has to work with any ISP and the rates are the same for everyone. 100 Mbit/s costs the same for 1M customers as 100 customers. No special de
Facebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facebook? (Score:4, Insightful)
You could kill their business model though, by placing strict limitations on the collection and use of personal data, and strictly enforcing those rules.
We must kill their current business model, if we value freedom. Permitting them to sell that information is counter-productive in that regard. They may still be able to function on advertising, and shitty web games, in which case they can continue doing business.
This issue is just going to come up again and again even if we do the smart thing here, but it will be a lot worse if we don't. For example, self-driving cars are going to collect a lot of information about us, and automakers have already formed alliances to collect and share it. If we don't get reasonable limits on how and why it can be shared, autonomous vehicles will make Facebook look like an ice cream shop.
Re:Facebook? (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook agrees to allow you to:
You agree to allow Facebook to:
If someone really wants to agree to all that, it's not your or my place to stop them. My beef is only that it isn't made clear to people exactly what they're giving up when they sign up for a "free" Facebook account. The biggest culprit being lawyers burying the important details in a 50 page EULA of dense, obscure, and difficult to understand language. If the business model dies when you shine a light onto its inner secret workings, then it never deserved to operate in the first place. OTOH if people willingly choose to use the business after its inner workings are completely exposed, then it's not the government's place to stop the people from using it.
Hey now (Score:2)
Facebook is a drain on humanity for being the megaphone of ignorance and narcissism.
If you're going to use that metric, you have too shut down the entire internet - and most of Hollywood.
Seems like they missed a bunch of companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Walmart
Microsoft
AT&T
Oracle
Disney
Koch Brothers
and so on.
I guess if you wanted to break them all up for the betterment of the people of the US, there wouldn't be any corporate entities left to contribute to :campaign finances", which would also be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... of those:
Disney, growing toward a monopoly, but definitely not there yet.
Walmart, a reasonable submission, but possibly overreaching due to growing competition from Amazon
Oracle, no.
Microsoft, This is very reasonable as their interests are so intertwined with their captureware. Not to mention they've provably broken the law in this regard in recent memory with no substantive penalties.
Koch Brothers, this one is just wrong. They are in some of the most competitive industries, (Oil & Gas? The mone
Re: (Score:2)
She's got my vote (Score:4, Insightful)
balls (Score:2)
Today March 8th it's time to tone down male chauvinism discourse: She's the only politician who has the ovaries ...
How? (Score:2)
And how is this to be accomplished?
Didn't we have that discussion about Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
... it didn't happen.
IMHO it won't work. For one thing these companies have far too much influence already to let that happen, also the US aren't interested in devalueing their most successful companies.
Another thing is, that they are in a business (especially facebook) where having more customers makes the service more attractive to additional customers. participation in a social network is more interesting the larger that network is.
With amazon the case is slightly different: there it's about convenience (ordering and paying via only one instance) and scaling effects.
With google: As far as i can remember there was always one search engine that people flocked to (at some point that was alta-vista), just because it gave the most useful results. Google became successful because their page-ranking algorithms gave the most useful results. Of course now they are so big, and know how to monetize their services, it'll be hard for any competitor to get a foot in the door. An exception may be niches like the one DuckDuckGo found (better privacy).
So i don't think breaking these companies up will be a realistic goal. I think that they should be regulated though, to hinder them from abusing their power (e.g. censoring or just imagine an amazon embargo).
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft should also be broken up if this actually gain traction and happens. Their PC OS marketshare % is higher than the smartphone marketshare of both Apple and Android.
We did it to Ma Bell (Score:2)
Probably just naming companies who haven't donated (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone is probably bitter about the big tech companies that haven't donated to her campaign. What would really be more useful would be to break up the 6 companies that own all Mainstream Media. Since Bill Clinton passed the law allowing the media companies to consolidate, just a few companies now control the "trusted" news outlets.
i propose more breakups (Score:3)
lets break up the Ford motor company because they have a monopoly on Ford cars and trucks
I'm all for fairness, but this is bullshit. (Score:2)
Going on principle only, Facebook and Twitter - what I call Facetwat - must be cleaned with fire. For one thing they make it far too easy for disinformation to get out into the heads of the gullible, and for another thing they engage in selective censorship. While it's their right as a private non-government entity to censor what they don't like, it doesn't always make it right.
Same for google. Monopoly in what sense? In the sense that they attempt to control the flow and content of information? Yes, t
Why not Microsoft? (Score:2)
I mean don't they fit the category? seems like they should also be on the list. I have always though require a company to produce 1 and only 1 product would be a boon for the average citizen. Greatly increasing jobs ( by the proliferation of companies) , personal engagement by creating smaller companies and forcing companies to favor consumers, because a boycott would hurt them a lot more.
Not monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
"Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. "It's a great story -- but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets."
Except none of them is actually a monopoly. Facebook might come closest with social networking but even then to call it a monopoly is something of a stretch. Amazon and Google aren't monopolies in any serious sense of the word. Yes they are 800lb gorillas in their respective space but not monopolies unless you define the market so narrowly as to make the term lose meaning.
Believe me, I'm all for breaking up and regulating companies if/when they become problems but this isn't it. The companies that need to be broken up are the large banks. THEY are a threat to the financial stability of the country. Look to the events of 2008 if you need evidence. The big tech companies are not even close to being a serious systemic threat.
Update: In a statement, Warren's team said that the proposal would also apply to Apple. "They would have to structurally separate -- choosing between, for example, running the App Store or offering their own apps," a spokesperson said.
Umm, Apple doesn't really sell much of their own software through the App store. They aren't Microsoft where they have some dominating application like Office. I think these people have no clue how Apple's business actually works or how they make money.
Well 2020 will be interesting to say the least. (Score:2)
I wonder how much Trump's camp had to pay her to do something this stupid?
Pandering to the crazy fringe left will not win her an election.
Google is an advertising monopoly (Score:2)
I seriously doubt Warren understands this though. Heck, most slashdot users think they are google's customer.
Foreign competition is still competition (Score:2)
Excellent argument against nationalize health care (Score:2)
If you make the private market illegal and let the government run everything, you are back to a monopoly with all the abuse an inefficiency that comes with it.
Never happen (Score:2, Insightful)
They are the biggest Democrat funders. This is like a Republican coming out against Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
I would toss in software as a separate company: iOS, Mac-OSX, iWorks, etc.
Microsoft to their credit can run their OS on older hardware.
But Apple abandons old hardware as quickly as they can, and doesn't even provide a paid software upgrade option for security fixes, or unlocks the bootloader to allows users to install alternative OS (such as Linux or Android) on older but still decent hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But Apple abandons old hardware as quickly as they can,
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Re: What about Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
iOS 12 runs on the 2013 iPhone 5s. What android device from 2013 can run the newest version of Android?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is successful, but it doesn't have a monopoly position by far. Even in their strongest branch, phones and tablets, they don't even remotely hold half of the market.
With Google you're looking at a very dominant position in the search engine (and related ad) market and I hope we needn't go into detail of FBs position in social media.
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually be more interested in seeing them break apart into hardware / software / licensed entertainment.
I don't think the mobile computing vs. desktop computer is a big deal. The real issue is that the same people making the hardware are making the software. If you can buy yourself an iphone and decide whether to install android or ios, then it's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re:Title is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking up monopolies is socialist now?
So the world did turn 180 degrees while I wasn't looking...
Re:Title is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
In America, Socialist has a totally different meaning then what the dictionary says.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking up monopolies is socialist now?
So the world did turn 180 degrees while I wasn't looking...
Both parties are having a bit of an identity crisis at the moment.
Republicans are splitting between the traditional pro-business, pro-capitalism, small government Republicans and the more authoritarian, high-spending, big government protectionist Trumpist Republicans driven by populists.
Democrats are splitting into a Northern European, larger government style social democrat party also driven by populists and a "republican light" style group with people like Cory Booker who at one time in history could have
Re: (Score:2)
You don't break up the search engine. You break up the various functions. Email, search, advertising, google's office suite, maps/earth, Android, and the Play Store should all be separate businesses. Search continues to be one business, but it's not the same unit as the advertising company.