(01-03-2018 06:15 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I45 is right; Apple has never dominated the personal computer market. Hell, Commodore was closer to domination than Apple ever was...



Whippersnappers don't know nuthin.

ETA: I think my smart aleck remark may be a violation of this board's AUP. Apologies!

To the OP: Is it really that big of a deal if, say, Facebook is a monopoly? I don't think I worry too much about one social networking platform dominating all others. The barrier to entry for digital entities is near zero. MySpace was pretty dominant at one point.

I'm a bit uncomfortable when a more substantial business like Google starts crowding out my choices but I'm even more uncomfortable with government intervention to reign them in.

(01-03-2018 08:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The monopoly aspect only matters if the monopoly power is used in an anti-competitive manner. No harm to consumer, no foul.

(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  And to reinforce my earlier point: I don't want the government to act on this. I simply don't want the government to have the kind of power to regulate business in that way. If anything, I'd much rather government help to lower barriers to entry to create more competition.

(01-03-2018 06:15 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I45 is right; Apple has never dominated the personal computer market. Hell, Commodore was closer to domination than Apple ever was...



Whippersnappers don't know nuthin.

ETA: I think my smart aleck remark may be a violation of this board's AUP. Apologies!

To the OP: Is it really that big of a deal if, say, Facebook is a monopoly? I don't think I worry too much about one social networking platform dominating all others. The barrier to entry for digital entities is near zero. MySpace was pretty dominant at one point.

I'm a bit uncomfortable when a more substantial business like Google starts crowding out my choices but I'm even more uncomfortable with government intervention to reign them in.

(01-04-2018 07:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  That chart doesn't have the Apple II and Apple IIe, only the Mac, which was never a big player. Apple was the first one truly in the home market, but not for long.

(01-04-2018 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Facebook as a monopoly becomes a big deal when they start controlling access to media and advertising. It isn't so much the control over posting pictures and messages.

Google has a similar impact on media and advertising.

Apple is more in their music and apps.

Amazon is in access to the marketplace for businesses who use them or compete with them.

(01-04-2018 11:38 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I just don't see how that is a significant harm to a consumer. There are myriad ways to follow a business. Relying on a social media platform to get information is a choice. If you feel they are being deceptive, don't use them, or use another method to get your information. Search engines, news feeds, plenty of aggregators out there. This doesn't require a regulatory fix.

Quote:Silicon Valley billionaire Marc Benioff has compared the current crisis of trust facing the tech giants to the financial crisis of a decade ago, urging regulators to wake up to the threat from Google, Facebook, and the other dominant firms.

The outspoken entrepreneur accused some of the industry's most influential bosses of "abdicating responsibility" and being ignorant to how powerful and sophisticated they had become. Regulators now had "have no choice" but to intervene, he said.

"We are in a new world. A decade ago, you had the banks talking about collaterised debt obligations and credit default swaps, saying they were great for the economy but regulators weren’t paying attention. The government needs to come in and point 'True North'," Mr Benioff said at a panel session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

(01-24-2018 12:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are talking two separate tools when we talk Anti-Trust, reactive, versus regulation, proactive.

It's always a bad idea to impose both in my opinion.

However, if you go down either path you have to actually push.

I believe strongly in a liberal reading of our current anti-trust laws to break up a lot companies in a lot of various industries. However, that comes with a caveat, difficult and complex regulation should be avoided when it comes to the tech industry.

Any industry where the real product is innovation regulation is the wrong tool. We should be reactive in our approach to arising issues.

For what it is worth, there is no such thing as a benign monopoly.

Quote:Starting on Thursday, Google’s Chrome browser will block certain types of online advertisements, a change Google is describing as user friendly. But some in the industry say the ad giant’s move is self-serving, and they contend Google overly influenced the process that selected which ad types to block.

Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., describes the new policy as the work of a collective, industry-wide effort designed to rid the internet of spammy ads like pop-ups, and make other ads more appealing to users.

Some people involved in that initiative say it wasn’t a true joint effort but a Google-dominated one that, while reducing ads widely considered annoying, also could ultimately help Google’s bottom line.

Google is a behemoth in the digital ad industry. About $3 out of every $10 spent on digital ads goes to Google, which generated over $95 billion in ad sales last year. Some critics of the company’s new policy say advertisers may shift more dollars to Google sites and products, which are less likely to be blocked by the Chrome browser. The browser is used by more than 59% of internet users.

Google’s ad-blocking effort is unfolding as the U.S. and European government officials have raised concern about the growing economic power of tech giants. Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s competition chief, last year said she would follow the Chrome ad blocker’s effects closely.

(02-15-2018 10:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  IMHO, more evidence that some kind of regulation needs to happen for the internet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-swayed-efforts-to-block-annoying-online-ads-1518623663

Quote:Starting on Thursday, Google’s Chrome browser will block certain types of online advertisements, a change Google is describing as user friendly. But some in the industry say the ad giant’s move is self-serving, and they contend Google overly influenced the process that selected which ad types to block.

Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., describes the new policy as the work of a collective, industry-wide effort designed to rid the internet of spammy ads like pop-ups, and make other ads more appealing to users.

Some people involved in that initiative say it wasn’t a true joint effort but a Google-dominated one that, while reducing ads widely considered annoying, also could ultimately help Google’s bottom line.

Google is a behemoth in the digital ad industry. About $3 out of every $10 spent on digital ads goes to Google, which generated over $95 billion in ad sales last year. Some critics of the company’s new policy say advertisers may shift more dollars to Google sites and products, which are less likely to be blocked by the Chrome browser. The browser is used by more than 59% of internet users.

Google’s ad-blocking effort is unfolding as the U.S. and European government officials have raised concern about the growing economic power of tech giants. Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s competition chief, last year said she would follow the Chrome ad blocker’s effects closely.

(02-27-2018 08:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/silicon-valley-faces-make-or-break-moment-amid-big-tech-n847301

Good article on regulation and threats.