8 ms·

I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about this article. First, the internet itself is only in danger if net neutrality is genuinely threatened by ISPs. Until then

I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about this article. First, the internet itself is only in danger if net neutrality is genuinely threatened by ISPs. Until then, the network itself is as open as it ever was. As for the services on top, the meta-layer of products and infrastructure we rely on--social media, content sources, smartphones and smart devices, etc--there's a lot of reason to be concerned. But Amazon's marketshare is tiny compared to traditional retailers. They're growing, sure, but they're not a monopoly yet. Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. Google is successful in a few areas (search, email, android), but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services, social, etc). And Facebook also has basically one core competency. So, there's lots of reasons to be concerned. But this article feels more than a little hyperbolic. And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves.

idlewords 9y ago
Amazon's role in the oligopoly is running much of cloud computing. It comes down to this: - Google and Facebook capture all the value in online ads - Amazon, Google and Microsoft control the cloud - Apple and Google have a duopoly mobile OS - Apple and Microsoft dominate desktop OSs (sorry linux bro) - Facebook essentially controls online political advertising, and its founder is gearing up for a run at office Even if the pyramids were made by happy, paid, unionized workers with a good health/mummification plan (which seems a stretch), they were a terrible misuse of resources.
- psyc 9y ago
  I'd say it's a bit of an optical illusion that we even think of Apple being in the same class as Microsoft for desktop OSs. Isn't it something roughly like 90/10 in Windows' favor?
  - idlewords 9y ago
    At least. But I include it because OS X is the only other "real" consumer OS on the market.
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  Actually Chromebooks have already passed the Mac in the US and growing at 38% YoY versus the Mac is flat. https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outsold-macs-us-idc-figures https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outs... Chromebooks outsold Macs for the first time in the US - The Verge Heck we have. http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-macbooks-in-apple-tim-cook-high-school/ http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-mac... At Apple CEO Tim Cook's old high school, they are selling their ...
  - fhood 9y ago
    This is sort of a silly argument though. Mac and Chromebook don't really exist in the same space. One is ultra high-end and one is decidedly budget conscious.
    - mbrumlow 9y ago
      I don't think it is so silly. The owners of the devices still use them for general computing as a desktop. Also, I am fairly sure the vast majority of apple's laptops sold are the "low end" versions such as the Macbook and the Air. Lets also not forget you can get some fairly pricey chrome books. The last one I bought was $2100 which out specked most of apples offerings with the exception of storage. But beyond that if people don't want "high end" and are buying "low end" that still does not change the argument. Chromebook uses is growing and apple laptops usage is not, so maybe apple is providing a product people don't want... And that is sort of the point the parent made.
      - fhood 9y ago
        My point was that Chromebooks are eating away at the market formerly catered to by netbooks. They aren't really useful as full fledged machines to the average user. I don't believe that the people who are buying Chromebooks were ever in the market for a apple laptop. As an aside, why did you buy a Chromebook that was that high spec?
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
jon-wood 9y ago
> Google is successful in a few areas ..., but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services... Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?
- Nerdfest 9y ago
  The writers seem to be solid Apple fans and exaggerate their influence. With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nerdfest 9y ago
      ... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that? It's a little quieter lately, but they have a huge fan-base in the media world due to them using Apple kit for both audio and video editing for years. How many other phone manufacturers get multiple articles in the news when a new model is released?
      - idlewords 9y ago
        I don't think free advertising gets you to 780B market cap. I think you're mistaking cause for effect.
      - fhood 9y ago
        Samsung and Google for one. I always see multiple articles on the newest Galaxy S whatever and the Pixel got a ton of coverage when it was released.
jrs95 9y ago
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. Not if you're measuring profits and not just sales. They're still the dominant manufacturer by far. But maybe I'm just being pedantic. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of this. The article comes across as hyperbolic to me as well.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mattferderer 9y ago
Glad you pointed out the pyramid builders part. That bugged me. I believe I've read that their graves showed that the builders were intelligent engineers, not just random farmers. The graves also showed that the workers were treated very well. Thoughts are that Egyptians may have believed treating employees well resulted in better output. I think this may have covered this topic - http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyramids-work.htm http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyrami...
jonnathanson 9y ago
[Warning: semi-tangential deep dive on your point about Amazon not being a monopoly] Amazon isn't in the retail business. Amazon isn't in the cloud computing business. Amazon isn't in the logistics business. Amazon is in the business business. It is no longer The Everything Store; it is now the Everything Everything. It wants to be the platform around which all of the world's businesses depend. This is about as ambitious a mission as a company has ever launched, in my opinion -- and Amazon may be the first company with a justifiable claim to such ambition. Its only business constraints at this point are geopolitical, really. I believe it aims even higher in the long run: it is aiming to become the macroeconomic backbone of at least the Western world. When viewed in that context, traditional definitions of monopoly -- especially the most widely known definition of the state, which is based on market share within a specific industry -- almost feel antiquated. Jeff Bezos isn't JP Morgan; he's freaking Cohaagen from Total Recall. It is not in his interest, in fact it is starkly antithetical to his interest, to monopolize any single industry. He wants to engineer a state wherein stronger competition within any given market makes Amazon better off, not worse off, because it is the seller to that market moreso than a competitor in that market. (Though it holds de facto monopolist power in at least the publishing business, and probably others, these positions were the stick that makes Amazon's pivot to being in the carrot business credible and effective.) Concern about Amazon as potentially Too Big to Fail may be warranted, but not yet. I'd argue that the sudden failure of Amazon tomorrow would have a severe but ultimately noncatastrophic impact on the US economy, with competitors like Walmart and Google and Apple ready to absorb the fallout with net-minimal total economic loss. It is not TBTF yet, though at some point it seems to be on trajectory to get there. Now the tricky part is in gauging what metric we should even be using to talk about Amazon in the next 5 years. (To be very clear, I say all of this in admiration of Jeff Bezos, not in fear or criticism of him. His business acumen is mindblowing. Whether you think of him as Business Yoda or Business Palpatine is your choice to make. But either way, you have to admit that the force is strong with him)
- sacheendra 9y ago
  That kind of sounds like Berkshire Hathaway. Or an private equity fund for that matter. A business which owns businesses. Amazon is taking the concept to the extreme in that it starts its businesses.
woodandsteel 9y ago
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. And the OS for those other smartphones is made by Google, which is one of the other Big Four.
pchristensen 9y ago
>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. Just like they are every year in Q4 before their new phones come out.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Apple doesn't care if its being "beaten". It always has cared if they can keep their margins.
nickbauman 9y ago
> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves. This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Don't take it out of context, OP is saying that at one point in time in a particular place, slavery may have possibly been more "secure" or reliable as far as having food, water, and shelter. This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
  - nickbauman 9y ago
    Slavery, which is to turn people into personal property, is an abomination. Even the ancients described slavery as "unnatural". In certain situations, however, it might be preferable. You don't deliberately leave your bike out in the rain. But you would if your bike was responsible for keeping itself out of the rain.

idlewords 9y ago

Amazon's role in the oligopoly is running much of cloud computing. It comes down to this: - Google and Facebook capture all the value in online ads - Amazon, Google and Microsoft control the cloud - Apple and Google have a duopoly mobile OS - Apple and Microsoft dominate desktop OSs (sorry linux bro) - Facebook essentially controls online political advertising, and its founder is gearing up for a run at office Even if the pyramids were made by happy, paid, unionized workers with a good health/mummification plan (which seems a stretch), they were a terrible misuse of resources.

psyc 9y ago
I'd say it's a bit of an optical illusion that we even think of Apple being in the same class as Microsoft for desktop OSs. Isn't it something roughly like 90/10 in Windows' favor?
- idlewords 9y ago
  At least. But I include it because OS X is the only other "real" consumer OS on the market.
johnsmith21006 9y ago
Actually Chromebooks have already passed the Mac in the US and growing at 38% YoY versus the Mac is flat. https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outsold-macs-us-idc-figures https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/19/11711714/chromebooks-outs... Chromebooks outsold Macs for the first time in the US - The Verge Heck we have. http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-macbooks-in-apple-tim-cook-high-school/ http://9to5google.com/2016/06/20/chromebooks-taking-over-mac... At Apple CEO Tim Cook's old high school, they are selling their ...
- fhood 9y ago
  This is sort of a silly argument though. Mac and Chromebook don't really exist in the same space. One is ultra high-end and one is decidedly budget conscious.
  - mbrumlow 9y ago
    I don't think it is so silly. The owners of the devices still use them for general computing as a desktop. Also, I am fairly sure the vast majority of apple's laptops sold are the "low end" versions such as the Macbook and the Air. Lets also not forget you can get some fairly pricey chrome books. The last one I bought was $2100 which out specked most of apples offerings with the exception of storage. But beyond that if people don't want "high end" and are buying "low end" that still does not change the argument. Chromebook uses is growing and apple laptops usage is not, so maybe apple is providing a product people don't want... And that is sort of the point the parent made.
    - fhood 9y ago
      My point was that Chromebooks are eating away at the market formerly catered to by netbooks. They aren't really useful as full fledged machines to the average user. I don't believe that the people who are buying Chromebooks were ever in the market for a apple laptop. As an aside, why did you buy a Chromebook that was that high spec?
  - logfromblammo 9y ago

jon-wood 9y ago

> Google is successful in a few areas ..., but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services... Are we talking about the same Google here? The one that owns YouTube, which created an entire culture around video streaming online?

Nerdfest 9y ago
The writers seem to be solid Apple fans and exaggerate their influence. With billions in free marketing from every media site on the planet, Apple would be pretty much irrelevant already.
- idlewords 9y ago
  Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nerdfest 9y ago
    ... and you don't think all the free marketing is a large part of that? It's a little quieter lately, but they have a huge fan-base in the media world due to them using Apple kit for both audio and video editing for years. How many other phone manufacturers get multiple articles in the news when a new model is released?
    - idlewords 9y ago
      I don't think free advertising gets you to 780B market cap. I think you're mistaking cause for effect.
    - fhood 9y ago
      Samsung and Google for one. I always see multiple articles on the newest Galaxy S whatever and the Pixel got a ton of coverage when it was released.

jrs95 9y ago

>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. Not if you're measuring profits and not just sales. They're still the dominant manufacturer by far. But maybe I'm just being pedantic. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of this. The article comes across as hyperbolic to me as well.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mattferderer 9y ago

Glad you pointed out the pyramid builders part. That bugged me. I believe I've read that their graves showed that the builders were intelligent engineers, not just random farmers. The graves also showed that the workers were treated very well. Thoughts are that Egyptians may have believed treating employees well resulted in better output. I think this may have covered this topic - http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyramids-work.htm http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-egypts-pyrami...

jonnathanson 9y ago

[Warning: semi-tangential deep dive on your point about Amazon not being a monopoly] Amazon isn't in the retail business. Amazon isn't in the cloud computing business. Amazon isn't in the logistics business. Amazon is in the business business. It is no longer The Everything Store; it is now the Everything Everything. It wants to be the platform around which all of the world's businesses depend. This is about as ambitious a mission as a company has ever launched, in my opinion -- and Amazon may be the first company with a justifiable claim to such ambition. Its only business constraints at this point are geopolitical, really. I believe it aims even higher in the long run: it is aiming to become the macroeconomic backbone of at least the Western world. When viewed in that context, traditional definitions of monopoly -- especially the most widely known definition of the state, which is based on market share within a specific industry -- almost feel antiquated. Jeff Bezos isn't JP Morgan; he's freaking Cohaagen from Total Recall. It is not in his interest, in fact it is starkly antithetical to his interest, to monopolize any single industry. He wants to engineer a state wherein stronger competition within any given market makes Amazon better off, not worse off, because it is the seller to that market moreso than a competitor in that market. (Though it holds de facto monopolist power in at least the publishing business, and probably others, these positions were the stick that makes Amazon's pivot to being in the carrot business credible and effective.) Concern about Amazon as potentially Too Big to Fail may be warranted, but not yet. I'd argue that the sudden failure of Amazon tomorrow would have a severe but ultimately noncatastrophic impact on the US economy, with competitors like Walmart and Google and Apple ready to absorb the fallout with net-minimal total economic loss. It is not TBTF yet, though at some point it seems to be on trajectory to get there. Now the tricky part is in gauging what metric we should even be using to talk about Amazon in the next 5 years. (To be very clear, I say all of this in admiration of Jeff Bezos, not in fear or criticism of him. His business acumen is mindblowing. Whether you think of him as Business Yoda or Business Palpatine is your choice to make. But either way, you have to admit that the force is strong with him)

sacheendra 9y ago
That kind of sounds like Berkshire Hathaway. Or an private equity fund for that matter. A business which owns businesses. Amazon is taking the concept to the extreme in that it starts its businesses.

woodandsteel 9y ago

>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. And the OS for those other smartphones is made by Google, which is one of the other Big Four.

pchristensen 9y ago

>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included. Just like they are every year in Q4 before their new phones come out.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Apple doesn't care if its being "beaten". It always has cared if they can keep their margins.

nickbauman 9y ago

> And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves. This distinction is not terribly meaningful especially for bronze age manual laborers. One could argue that slavery might have been better than getting paid for this kind of work. A slave is at least a nominal investment. A worker is infinitely replaceable.

zzalpha 9y ago
Huh... can't say I ever anticipated running into someone who would seriously put forward the claim that slavery might be better than voluntarily working for pay...
- kakarot 9y ago
  Don't take it out of context, OP is saying that at one point in time in a particular place, slavery may have possibly been more "secure" or reliable as far as having food, water, and shelter. This is in no way excusing or apologizing for slavery or saying eh, it wasn't so bad.
- nickbauman 9y ago
  Slavery, which is to turn people into personal property, is an abomination. Even the ancients described slavery as "unnatural". In certain situations, however, it might be preferable. You don't deliberately leave your bike out in the rain. But you would if your bike was responsible for keeping itself out of the rain.