3 ms·

I read the headline and shuddered, but seeing the examples she gives of the sort of behavior she'd like to curtail, it seems fairly reasonable: "Apple uses con

I read the headline and shuddered, but seeing the examples she gives of the sort of behavior she'd like to curtail, it seems fairly reasonable: "Apple uses control over the iPhone platform to advantage Apple Music over other subscription music services. Amazon uses control over the world’s largest store for e-books to advantage books published by Amazon over books from rival publishers. Google uses control over the world’s most widely used search engine to promote its own Google-generated content even when a straight implementation of Google’s algorithm would surface content by someone else."

justinph 10y ago
I sort of agree with you, but I think the distinction is that the behaviors of Apple, Google, and Amazon aren't solely intended to lock in their marketshare. And, they all three compete with each other now, though in different ways. I think what Elizabeth Warren is expressing, and I agree with it, is that these large monied companies control a growing part of our digital lives. We, as users and consumers, are largely powerless to find alternatives because the barriers to entry are so large that it is almost impossible for competitors to arise. I like Senator Warren quite a bit, but I think we'd be better served if she and other legislators focused her efforts on regulations around privacy, continued work on network neutrality, and making sure that government-funded research is open to all.
freyir 10y ago
> "Apple uses control over the iPhone platform to advantage Apple Music over other subscription music services." Is this true? I don't feel like my iPhone compels me to use Apple Music over Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, etc. Shipping the app with the phone perhaps gives a slight advantage. Of all the examples of tech companies overstepping their bounds, this seems particularly benign. The other two examples are more troubling.
zghst 10y ago
It's all about the finesse in how these issues are worded. She reduces complex issues to a bite sized, strong, yet inaccurate argument. By leaving out the nuance of such issues, we could end up with overreaching legislation that leaves the market less competitive than previously. A company can choose to sell their products through Apple's store front, however they have to play by Apple's rules. Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc all make products in their stores that compete with products from other vendors that sell items in their stores. If we change the rules because Apple is perceived to have an unfair advantage, should the other distributors change? And if so, what sustains the incentive to make services and products that could possibly compete on price and quality with other vendors.

justinph 10y ago

I sort of agree with you, but I think the distinction is that the behaviors of Apple, Google, and Amazon aren't solely intended to lock in their marketshare. And, they all three compete with each other now, though in different ways. I think what Elizabeth Warren is expressing, and I agree with it, is that these large monied companies control a growing part of our digital lives. We, as users and consumers, are largely powerless to find alternatives because the barriers to entry are so large that it is almost impossible for competitors to arise. I like Senator Warren quite a bit, but I think we'd be better served if she and other legislators focused her efforts on regulations around privacy, continued work on network neutrality, and making sure that government-funded research is open to all.

freyir 10y ago

> "Apple uses control over the iPhone platform to advantage Apple Music over other subscription music services." Is this true? I don't feel like my iPhone compels me to use Apple Music over Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, etc. Shipping the app with the phone perhaps gives a slight advantage. Of all the examples of tech companies overstepping their bounds, this seems particularly benign. The other two examples are more troubling.

zghst 10y ago

It's all about the finesse in how these issues are worded. She reduces complex issues to a bite sized, strong, yet inaccurate argument. By leaving out the nuance of such issues, we could end up with overreaching legislation that leaves the market less competitive than previously. A company can choose to sell their products through Apple's store front, however they have to play by Apple's rules. Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc all make products in their stores that compete with products from other vendors that sell items in their stores. If we change the rules because Apple is perceived to have an unfair advantage, should the other distributors change? And if so, what sustains the incentive to make services and products that could possibly compete on price and quality with other vendors.