5 ms·

Where is Apple, Google, and Microsoft on this? What is the point of an app store if I can't use 90% of the apps on it? What the hell do I need a search engine f

by jbob2000 9y ago

Where is Apple, Google, and Microsoft on this? What is the point of an app store if I can't use 90% of the apps on it? What the hell do I need a search engine for if there's only a few websites to search? Why would I use a computer at all if it just serves me the same garbage as a TV? Come on, throw your fucking weight around, jesus...

BinaryIdiot 9y ago
I think my viewpoint here is more devil's advocate because I'm not entire sure I believe it myself. But it seems like a possibility so I wanted to share: One thing to consider here is the large juggernauts in the tech industry would actually benefit to this type of legislation. Let's say Comcast adds a fee to get priority access. Google, Apple, Microsoft; pretty much all of the existing and large-enough companies would likely be able to pay for it without much issue. While this would cut into their profits to some degree it makes the bar much, much higher for competition to come into their space. If competition springs up it'll likely not grow as fast in an environment with many paying for special access so the tech companies could buy them at a likely cheaper price if they see them. Alternatively this may help kill existing competition like Spotify who has razor thin (or negative, I can't remember) margins so they wouldn't be able to compete. Aside from a, likely very small, cut into profits there isn't much down side for any of the big tech companies. Are we sure they will want to band together?
- jbob2000 9y ago
  All three of those companies survive off acquisitions. They rely on small independent companies taking a risk and doing the hard work, and when they find the diamond-in-the-rough, they get snapped up and brought under the corporate umbrella. This legislation dries up the well. No small companies to buy = no progress.
  - tetrep 9y ago
    > No small companies to buy = no progress. Which is perfectly fine for incumbents.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    In this environment, they wouldn't need acquisitions. Progress isn't necessary for profit.
    - arcticbull 9y ago
      Ah yes, that little loophole.
int_19h 9y ago
They were there: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/internet-firms-are-winding-up-for-a-fight-on-net-neutrality.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/internet-firms-are-winding-up... Just as they were last time: https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5692578/tech-coalition-challenges-fcc https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5692578/tech-coalition-cha... It's just that this time, it simply wasn't enough.
justforFranz 9y ago
All three companies are sitting on so much cash right now that if the ISPs do destroy net neutrality and start to poop on their customers, any of those three could sweep in and murder the ISPs right in the face. I'm not saying it will happen, but if the ISPs present a large enough target of themselves, there's a lot of investment dollars waiting on the sidelines to pick their pockets.

BinaryIdiot 9y ago

I think my viewpoint here is more devil's advocate because I'm not entire sure I believe it myself. But it seems like a possibility so I wanted to share: One thing to consider here is the large juggernauts in the tech industry would actually benefit to this type of legislation. Let's say Comcast adds a fee to get priority access. Google, Apple, Microsoft; pretty much all of the existing and large-enough companies would likely be able to pay for it without much issue. While this would cut into their profits to some degree it makes the bar much, much higher for competition to come into their space. If competition springs up it'll likely not grow as fast in an environment with many paying for special access so the tech companies could buy them at a likely cheaper price if they see them. Alternatively this may help kill existing competition like Spotify who has razor thin (or negative, I can't remember) margins so they wouldn't be able to compete. Aside from a, likely very small, cut into profits there isn't much down side for any of the big tech companies. Are we sure they will want to band together?

jbob2000 9y ago
All three of those companies survive off acquisitions. They rely on small independent companies taking a risk and doing the hard work, and when they find the diamond-in-the-rough, they get snapped up and brought under the corporate umbrella. This legislation dries up the well. No small companies to buy = no progress.
- tetrep 9y ago
  > No small companies to buy = no progress. Which is perfectly fine for incumbents.
- wvenable 9y ago
  In this environment, they wouldn't need acquisitions. Progress isn't necessary for profit.
  - arcticbull 9y ago
    Ah yes, that little loophole.

int_19h 9y ago

They were there: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/internet-firms-are-winding-up-for-a-fight-on-net-neutrality.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/internet-firms-are-winding-up... Just as they were last time: https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5692578/tech-coalition-challenges-fcc https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5692578/tech-coalition-cha... It's just that this time, it simply wasn't enough.

justforFranz 9y ago

All three companies are sitting on so much cash right now that if the ISPs do destroy net neutrality and start to poop on their customers, any of those three could sweep in and murder the ISPs right in the face. I'm not saying it will happen, but if the ISPs present a large enough target of themselves, there's a lot of investment dollars waiting on the sidelines to pick their pockets.