30 ms·

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

• travisoneill1 8y ago
  What is the alleged anti-competitive behavior? The article doesn't mention it. It sounds like she is calling for their breakup merely for being big and powerful, and if that were cause enough to break up an entity we would logically start with the government.
  • untog 8y ago
    The Medium article[1] mentions a couple - Google prioritizing their reviews above Yelp in search results, Amazon copying third party products that were successful on its marketplace. [1] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
    • axaxs 8y ago
      RE Amazon... how is this much different than say, store branded items from a grocery or WalMart, or quasi store brands(ie brands mainly only sold in WalMart, like Brahma boots or Ozark Trail)?
      • jhall1468 8y ago
        It's 100% the same thing which is why this entire argument is so weird to me. This has been going on for decades.
      • mywittyname 8y ago
        The difference comes down to market share. It's fine to sell store brands if you have 10% of the market because there's plenty of competition. Vendors who refuse to deal with you can do just fine by working with your competitors. Amazon is approaching 50% market share. They are close to becoming the place for online commerce. So when they compete with vendors by offering similar products, the vendors are effectively put out of business. Just like with MS and IE. The issue wasn't so much that MS offered IE with Windows so much as the fact that 95% of computers came with Windows, so bundling IE was putting other software providers out of business.
    • travisoneill1 8y ago
      A quick search for a local restaurant shows yelp as the top hit. Google shows a info box to the side with their own reviews. I don't see a problem with this, and I can't imagine it being illegal. Companies are allowed to cross-promote between their services. Changing this would go far beyond tech companies.
    • fatnoah 8y ago
      > Google prioritizing their reviews above Yelp in search results This is one reason I use Google. I can view all Google review w/out downloading an app. I'd classify Yelp reviews in browser search as nothing more than an ad.
  • jsutton 8y ago
    For starters, Amazon provided a marketplace platform for third parties to sell goods. They then gathered data on which items sold the best, created their own line of products based off this data, and crushed their customers-turned-competitors using their massive advantage in economies of scale.
    • nck4222 8y ago
      FWIW, while I agree this a problem, large box retailers (Whole Foods before the Amazon acquisition, Walmart, etc) are well known for doing this as well. So if that's the line you draw, it extends further than just tech giants.
      • sct202 8y ago
        It's a little bit different though, because Amazon has 2 streams of how they get products: Amazon can buy branded from vendor and control price and selection, or those same vendors could list directly on Amazon (as FBA) and the vendor controls price and selection. Pop sockets got in a fight recently with Amazon, because they wanted to stay FBA in order to have better control of selection and pricing, but Amazon was trying to force them into a more traditional vendor role.
        • jhall1468 8y ago
          Right, and Walmart only allows products in its store under their terms which is far more restrictive, so I'm failing to understand how this model is worse for competition than Walmart's. And what happened with PopSockets didn't quite work that way. They were already a vendor on Amazon, and they wanted to remove themselves as a direct vendor and designate a single reseller as their "approved" FBA on Amazon. So they wanted to change the terms of the agreement, Amazon said no, and that was that.
      • giarc 8y ago
        Perhaps grocery stores have done well to keep their brands on lower shelves and not end cap their own stuff. Amazon brands will often appear first in the list of results, which would be akin to putting Great Value products front and centre on all Walmart shelves.
  • andrit 8y ago
    well, the element that corrupts government should be removed and a govt for the people restored. Just breaking it up is as anti productive as just breaking up a company, if the company isnt breaking any laws. Govt is a different type of entity than a corporation and as enlightening as the comparison might be, a thought exercise is all that comparison should really be.
  • geofft 8y ago
    There's a difference, at least on paper, between the government and corporations: the government is big and powerful, but (in a republican society) is accountable in some way to the people and society as a whole. Corporations are also big and powerful, and (in a capitalist society) accountable only to a majority of their shareholders. So there's a reason to believe that you cannot have corporations serve the public interest without either breaking them up to limit their power or fundamentally redefining what it means to be a corporation, but you can have government serve the public interest while remaining big and powerful. If the federal government followed the views of the American public to the detriment of career politicians, we'd say, "Great, you're actually doing your job." If Amazon followed the views of the American public to the detriment of career managers, we'd be very confused. (That said, breaking up the government sounds like a fine plan too, I just don't think it needs to be first)
    • travisoneill1 8y ago
      In theory. But in fact it is the opposite. Companies are accountable to their customers above all else, and the government to its voters. If the IRS makes a mistake with your taxes and Amazon makes a mistake with your order, which of these would scare you more?
      • geofft 8y ago
        I'm talking about accountability to society. I'm only a customer of Amazon in very limited ways (I own a Kindle that I received as a gift, which I buy a book for once every few months, and I spend about $30/month on AWS of which $29/month is a VM I should really decommission), but that doesn't change the ways they impact my life - their influence on the book market, the literally-everything-else market, the cloud computing market, their purchase of Whole Foods, their presence as an employer in my city, etc. None of those worries are a worry about Amazon making a mistake with my order. So I'm a lot more worried about Amazon than the IRS - I feel the IRS is in fact accountable to me in a way which Amazon isn't.
  • shawn-butler 8y ago
    Perhaps not the government itself which exists within strict constitutional boundaries, but the same logic should apply to the major political parties with hard caps on the amount of incoming donations over which they have to "structurally separate" from the electoral process. Whatever that means.
  • clarkmoody 8y ago
    She's a politician. She doesn't need logic behind her statements. Rather, she's tapping into progressive sentiments and trying to ignite her base during primary season.
  • aluminussoma 8y ago
    The government is already being dis-intermediated. You could look at this as the government eliminating their competition. These companies have more revenue and cash on hand than many countries. Looking at the Bay Area, Google and Facebook are taking the lead on repairing and improving infrastructure because the government can't do it alone anymore.
• endofcapital 8y ago
  Here we go, buckle up. With the amount of power democrats are likely to consolidate in the next few elections there could be some serious movement on this if it becomes a priority for the party. I think the big three are way too powerful and need to be broken up, but doing so intelligently is a tricky problem that I don't have much faith in government tackling. Zuckerberg integrating all the services yesterday seems to be a transparent attempt to short circuit splitting the company along these service lines, he knows this is coming. I'll bet $100 he'll soon be talking about how it's impossible to split out insta from facebook because of database keys and integrated AI or whatever.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • sct202 8y ago
    I don't think it'll be a priority because I'm not really sure if this is a real thing that Warren believes or if she's just throwing this out there to see if it has legs.
    • keeganjw 8y ago
      If someone other than Warren gets elected, it could very well get put on the back burner. But this is defintely what Warren believes. When she was a professor at Harvard or the head of the CFPB, cracking down on very large, very powerful corporations was always her focus, whether via anti-trust or other means.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • JshWright 8y ago
    > if it becomes a priority for the party I think that's very unlikely. Maybe in the far future, but unless there is some significant campaign finance reform first, the big tech companies have more than enough cash to prevent the "worst" possible outcome (from their perspective).
  • Kephael 8y ago
• class4behavior 8y ago
  You shouldn't be resolving such issues after the fact. If the FTC or the DOJ AD weren't diminished into such seemingly titular existences, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
• 0815test 8y ago
  Enforcing the use of open, federated, interoperable standards when they're technically feasible would be a lot more productive than the crude approach of simply breaking up the companies. To the extent that there is a competition concern it's due to network effects, and open, interoperable standards would go a long way towards resolving these. Even for Amazon, it's only the "UX"-related company that needs to be broken away from the rest. That company would then face an incentive to interoperate will all sorts of suppliers on an equitable basis.
  • helen___keller 8y ago
    This would require a level of vision & planning we're not likely to see from political leaders, but I agree this is the best take here. If the goal of antitrust action is to keep the free market competitive, I think a better way to achieve this than enforcing a breakup of big companies is by legally requiring standards for open protocols that allow for competitors to interface with each other and compete on their service quality rather than their network size. How this would be done is a hard question without an easy answer. But breaking apart Facebook from Whatsapp isn't going to make it any easier for a new social network or a new messaging app to break into the space. Typically new social products can only enter a saturated market by targeting a niche and then expanding (e.g. Signal on a privacy/security focus or Discord on a gaming focus). Enforcing some level of open protocol makes it possible to try a new product without customers giving up because "oh but my friends aren't on here"
• thr_w 8y ago
  Is breaking them up really a priority? What benefit would that have that we couldn't achieve via properly taxing and regulating them in the first place?
  • rayvd 8y ago
    Taxing and regulation stifles innovation, risk taking and productivity. It also encourages cronyism. I prefer breaking up monopolies if the end result will be a healthier, consumer-focused and competition driven market. Given that this is an Elizabeth Warren idea, I'm suspicious that the motives are anything having to do with creating a vibrant market... :)
  • chadmhorner 8y ago
    I think the general theory is that if we allow them to continue getting bigger and swallowing up all potential competitors, we’re basically saying these four or five companies will run everything, forever.
    • sct202 8y ago
      Also they've been hoovering up all the talent available they can get with fat salaries and stock grants.
    • treis 8y ago
      I think that wildly overstates the influence these companies have. Amazon is trivial to avoid. Just don't shop there or at Whole Foods. Facebook is a bit trickier because you might be forced there by a social group and they have a huge web of trackers. Google is really the issue. They are dominant in search, browser, and maps, and they're half the mobile duopoly. It's very difficult to avoid using their products entirely and even if you did, their dominance allows them to dictate how the internet works, to a certain extent.
      • monetus 8y ago
        Avoiding Amazon would also mean avoiding all aws services, not letting your data hit their infrastructure.
• british_india 8y ago
  i. Amazon the retailer. ii.AWS Nice neat separation. Make Amazon pay retail rates for AWS, too.
• sct202 8y ago
  I think we should also consider that even if you do break up a large company like that, you'd need to make sure they don't pull an AT&T and start merging with each other to basically re-create their previous structure.
  • c0nducktr 8y ago
    Yeah, I'm still amazed that when AT&T was split up, there wasn't anything in the ruling preventing them from just joining the parts back together again.
    • ropeladder 8y ago
      Yeah it seems ridiculous in hindsight. I think what enabled the mergers though was less someone with a brilliant idea that they could just recombine, and more the drastic change in the government's conception and enforcement of antcompetitiveness laws. That is, they wouldn't have tried to merge back together if the they didn't think the government might let them. The government can and does does block mergers, still, and it makes sense that that they wouldn't just want to ban a specific company from a specific market share for all eternity.
      • elliekelly 8y ago
        This is the exact issue. The DOJ's Antitrust Criminal Enforcement Division breaks up the companies by making an argument that's then directly contradicted by the DOJ's Merger Enforcement Division's (very outdated) policy on approving mergers. From the Merger Enforcement Guidelines[1] (last updated in 1997): > By definition, non-horizontal mergers involve firms that do not operate in the same market. It necessarily follows that such mergers produce no immediate change in the level of concentration in any relevant market as defined in Section 2 of these Guidelines. The Merger Enforcement Division's assumption may have been true in 1997 but it's difficult to argue that simply because Google and Amazon don't operate in the "same market" as their primary businesses that their combination would "produce no immediate change in the level of concentration" of the market for both online advertising and computing services. Yet, under these guidelines, if a Google + Amazon merger were proposed it wouldn't present any immediate issue for the Antitrust Division to oppose it. [1]https://www.justice.gov/atr/non-horizontal-merger-guidelines https://www.justice.gov/atr/non-horizontal-merger-guidelines
• king_panic 8y ago
  Even if it were beneficial (argument in itself), Big Government is unequipped to handle the break-up of these companies in way that protects their value to consumers.
• mikefivedeuce 8y ago
  I don't have any insight into the rationale behind the HQ2 search beyond what was reported in the media, but I've long thought that planning for a potential government-forced break up was part of it. A preemptive segregation of business units will help their case if/when this gains some steam.
• vlangber 8y ago
  I think the most obvious candidate is to split Google and Youtube.
  • dekhn 8y ago
    which would be very interesting, as youtube is 100% dependent on Google infrastructure to work (everything from machine learning to data delivery).
    • wernercd 8y ago
      And Windows was dependent in Internet Explorer to operate. And that dependence was both created artificially and then abused. Why can't YouTube switch to, say, Azure? Or Oracle Cloud? or whatever other magic exists? Infrastructure exists outside of Google - as did the ability to decouple Internet Explorer from Windows.
      • dekhn 8y ago
        windows was never dependent on internet explorer to operate. MS put a simple DLL with HTML and other web tech in the OS, making it easier to serve up help and other content. What they did (IMHO) was completely reasonable in terms of OS integration. Look at ChromeOS today- it's the same idea, taken to its logical conclusion. People often misrepresent the MS trial.
      • donatj 8y ago
        > And Windows was dependent in Internet Explorer to operate. I mean it was and still is dependent on MSHTML for rendering things like the help system as well as rich text in many pre-XAML apps. You don’t want the icon on your desktop, fine, but it certainly is a core part of the OSs rendering system.
    • tobr 8y ago
      By definition, since it's owned by Google. You can apply the same logic to any proposed split.
• SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  I know that Facebook has instagram and whatsapp, but wouldn't breaking Facebook up leave the still monolithic but waning Facebook proper together? I'm not saying WhatsApp and Instagram aren't massive, but am I wrong in assuming that Facebook is still a monolith regardless if it loses it subsidiaries?
  • seaborn63 8y ago
    Just off the top of my head, maybe FB Markeplace and Messenger get split out into their own companies? Maybe their Live feature get's split off into it's own thing too. That makes me think that Amazon might have to give up Twitch too
• untog 8y ago
  Comparisons will be made to Microsoft and Internet Explorer but to me the really crucial part of this isn't market dominance in the "what app are you using" sense, it's data. Facebook, Google and Amazon really do have an unprecedented amount of data on us. And keep vacuuming up more and more of it. Facebook should never have been allowed to buy WhatsApp (and maybe not Instagram though I'm less concerned about that one). Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick. Question is how you'd effectively roll that back now. I'm concerned that the government doesn't have enough people with the technical knowledge to really tackle the data question, but I'm still glad Warren is starting the conversation. And she's got some interesting ideas: > Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.” > These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
  • crowbahr 8y ago
    Gut reaction: I feel like Android would not survive Google being forced to remove all their apps from the Google play store.
    • untog 8y ago
      Android is perhaps the closest in comparison to Microsoft/Internet Explorer. Spin off Android into its own company, including the Play Store. There would be nothing stopping Google from keeping their apps in the Play Store, but they would sit on the same level as competing mapping and search apps, and users would choose which one to use instead of have it preinstalled.
      • robbick 8y ago
        And tbh - most people would still probably download google chrome, google maps, google docs etc - it would just level the playing field
• sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  To what end? "illegally undermine competition?" She is inferring that Google/Amazon/Facebook are committing anti-trust crimes? What proof does she have? >Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users’ data with third parties. That can be done without breaking them up. I don't think she realizes that splitting up amazon and amazon basics will do little to nothing. There are other things that can be done. You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example. However I suspect the democrats would never propose that because it would be bad for them.
  • kevinmchugh 8y ago
    > You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example. What does this mean? Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, et al already have their constitutionally protected speech, except for where their roles as executives at public companies restrict them. If they find those restrictions onerous they can leave their roles.
    • dEnigma 8y ago
      I think they meant requiring industry-leading companies to apply freedom of speech on their platforms. That is, no censoring of comments, videos, reviews, etc. as long as they don't violate the law.
      • kevinmchugh 8y ago
        So the idea is to "require freedom of speech to apply" by prohibiting corporations from setting their own terms of service, spam policies, etc? That sounds like a very serious restraint of speech.
      • apcragg 8y ago
        The government cannot compel speech. I don't think that using the power of the government to require some types of speech against the wishes of private entities solves the problem you think it's solving...
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• KorematsuFred 8y ago
  If you did not build it, you gont get to break it. How about we split Pentagon into 5 pieces instead ?
  • noblethrasher 8y ago
    Conversely, if you didn't build the Internet, you don't get to break it.
• DSingularity 8y ago
  I like Warren. Also, I believe something needs to be done about these tech companies enormous influence over information flow. I don't think the solution is breaking them up.
• Kephael 8y ago
  These complaints are absurd and antibusiness. Every serious retailer sells their own brand of products. For instance, Walmart sells their own products under the "Great Value" label. Every FAANG caliber employee would have to look at relocating to work for a Chinese internet giant to make actual money or move to a proprietary trading firm. edit: To the people down voting me, I am sorry that you cannot LeetCode.
  • 0815test 8y ago
    Walmart sell their own products, but they don't restrain their dealings with other suppliers in order to promote their own product lines. This is a key difference wrt. what Amazon is doing. In a world of fair competition, "Amazon Marketplace" would be the main Amazon Website, and you would additionally be able to restrict your view to products from the suppliers you trust, be they Amazon-the-supplier, Walmart or whoever.
    • Kephael 8y ago
      Best Buy, Sears, K-Mart, and Jet (Walmart) have or had the same functionality.
• markharper 8y ago
  The only news here is that Elizabeth Warren voiced support for such policies. There have been very reasonable arguments for breaking up Amazon and Google on anticompetitive grounds for years now. Breaking up Facebook from WhatsApp is less about anticompetitive behavior is more about privacy.
• wybiral 8y ago
  Google/Facebook/Amazon have the power to push any startup competition out of the market in ways that are hard to even enumerate. Think about all of the services, devices, and standards that they control. Watching the fanboys defend their favorite tech giant is incredible. These companies are not behaving in the markets or people's best interest and they are way too big, at a scale that dwarfs most of the worlds organizations.
  • eanzenberg 8y ago
    As long as those services are profitable and they can outcompete startups then there’s nothing illegal or wrong about that. There’s no right that startups need to survive or have bias to succeed.
    • wybiral 8y ago
      That really depends on how you interpret the nuance of antitrust law. In the past we've taken a harder stance on giants like this and as a matter of precedence we can do it again.
    • piaste 8y ago
      There's no right that tech giants need to be allowed to exist in their current form, either. If a person doesn't break any pre-existing laws, then they must not suffer any legal consequences, sure. And nobody is suggesting that Page and Brin should spend a minute in court or pay a cent in fines. But a corporation isn't a person, it's a business instrument, and if the United States were to judge that the existence of that instrument is detrimental to the greater security / stability / welfare of the nation as a whole, they would have every right to write a new law to ban usage of that instrument, i.e. ban the existence of Google in its current form, as they once wrote a new law to ban the existence of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation.
      • eanzenberg 8y ago
        In that case, I’d rather err to less govt intervention than more. Govt should be built to write and execute laws, not pick winners.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• geofft 8y ago
  This is an excellent goal, and Paul Graham has articulated the reasoning pretty clearly: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/886953410356011008 > Here's how to explain to people the distinction between fighting poverty and fighting economic inequality. If you're fighting poverty, you might say "Let's have universal health care." If you're fighting economic inequality, you have to say "Let's have universal health care. And Larry, please don't start Google." Otherwise Larry's going to mess up your numbers big time. Since reading that, I've realized that a major part of my political beliefs is that future Larrys should be unable to start future Googles in their current form, and in particular that I don't believe it's a just use of the powers of government to enable the creation of future Googles.
  • all2 8y ago
    But that also means conglomerates like GE, or Raytheon, or Lockheed Martin... There is a place in the world for massive technologically focused organizations.
    • geofft 8y ago
      Er, what is the place in the world for them? Defense contractors should be ground to bits.
      • throwawaymath 8y ago
        Well, the device I'm typing this on was sold by a massive, vertically integrated technology company. So I guess that's one helpful usecase.
      • rayiner 8y ago
        This view misunderstands the nature of modern science and R&D. Interesting R&D is shockingly expensive, and you need mega-corps to do it. The cost of a new fab is $10 billion now, and it's been increasing exponentially. The 747 cost $7.5 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars to develop. The 787 cost almost $30 billion. The future of science and technology is not Edison inventing the lightbulb in his private lab. It's mega-corps doing mega-R&D. This used to be less true in CS, but that's changing due to machine learning. Google has a huge leg-up in self-driving-car R&D because of the enormous amount of data it has from Google services. In "hard" R&D, even "startups" are spending the kind of capital that previously used to only be in the province of established conglomerates.
• sgjohnson 8y ago
  While I agree that we should break apart giant companies (and not just Amazon, telecoms too), the first large entity that we should break apart, is the government. The only way to stop monopolies from forming is by getting rid of legislation that heavily benefits large businesses.
  • all2 8y ago
    > ... the first large entity that we should break apart, is the government. If you're talking about the United States of America, it is already broken apart. By design we have three distinct branches, due process, and free speech/press.
    • occamrazor 8y ago
      Not to mention 50 constituent states, each of which has in turn legislative, executive, and judiciary branches.
  • untog 8y ago
    I'd argue that the government is already broken apart and is in fact a cautionary tale of how doing so can lead to waste and paralyzed decision making. With the House having a Democratic majority, and the Senate and Presidency being Republican, no-one realistically expects anything is going to get done. Add to that mix the layers of state and local government before it gets to the road outside your house that's in need of paving... I think that government is broken up more than enough already.
• partingshots 8y ago
  To my knowledge, American monopoly laws focus more on the welfare of the consumer and whether customers are being negatively affected rather than the companies themselves. There’s nothing wrong with having a monopoly, but where issues arise is when consumers start to be hurt. In this context, how do Elizabeth Warren’s comments mesh out?
  • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Monopolies are inherently harmful to consumers, as reduced competition means less parties can compete for the best offering, or push to create a better product. The myth that a monopoly "isn't hurting anyone" is nonsense. It's existence is enough, and yes, impacting other competitors negatively directly harms consumers. There has been an outdated focus on price specifically, which is why many free services have evaded the law for so long. That being said, Warren directly states something tech companies should be competing on: Privacy. An issue with direct consumer impact, that due to monopoly status, these companies have largely not set as a priority.
  • decebalus1 8y ago
    I recommend listening to Planet money's series on antitrust. You'll see why your statement was indeed the rationale behind not enforcing the monopoly regulations. Spoiler: it wasn't the care for the welfare of the consumer. https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=697060225 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...
• CivBase 8y ago
  You might be able to divide Amazon into two distinct pieces (retail and cloud services), but I don't know how you'd even start with a company like Google or Facebook. Most of the services offered by those two are only justified by the amount of data they provide for ad targeting. You can't take away those services without ruining their ad-revenue model.
• mabbo 8y ago
  There's precedent to this in the USA. The US Government once passed regulations that caused one of the largest companies in America to break up into three smaller companies. Today those, three companies are entirely independent, employ over 400,000 people combined, and have a combined net work of over $400B. Those companies are Boeing Aircraft (153k employees, $244B market value), United Technologies (202k employees, $148B market value), and United Airlines (88k employees, $33B market value).[0] What most people perceive as a threat to the market is when one company takes over an entire single market. And that is a problem, no doubt. But in the case of Boeing, the problem was that one company had such an advantage vertically- lose money on planes in order to make money on shipping, or vice versa, as needed. It meant it could win in whichever market it wanted to and slowly come to dominate all of those markets. The synergies of doing it all internally meant it could win at everything. If one uses that situation as a precedent, one can start to see the parallels in many of the FAANG companies today. [0] "The Air Mail Act of 1934 prohibited airlines and manufacturers from being under the same corporate umbrella, so the company split into three smaller companies – Boeing Airplane Company, United Airlines, and United Aircraft Corporation, the precursor to United Technologies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing
  • bjourne 8y ago
    But the companies will all still have the same owners. So one wonders if splitting them actually helps with anything?
    • jacobn 8y ago
      I don’t know about “help”, but it will still change something - over time the different management teams will diverge (in some sense), even if the shareholders stay mostly the same.
    • r00fus 8y ago
      Per Das Wiki [1]: "The government had little choice but to return service to the commercial airlines, but did so with several new conditions. The Air Mail Act of June 12, 1934, drafted at the height of the crisis by Black (and known as the "Black-McKellar bill"), restored competitive bidding, closely regulated airmail labor operations,[n 28] dissolved the holding companies that brought together airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and prevented companies that held the old contracts from obtaining new ones." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mail_scandal#Effects_on_the_airline_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mail_scandal#Effects_on_th...
• hugh4life 8y ago
  The tech giants are too big, but there are geopolitical consequences for breaking them up. Countries like Russia and China can target smaller companies much easier than the Goliaths.
• deegles 8y ago
  I used to work at Amazon and the idea of spinning out Marketplace just seems unworkable. It's like saying that Microsoft should spin out Xbox... they are 100% dependent on each other.
  • giarc 8y ago
    The easiest target would be for Amazon to spin out AWS.
    • twoodfin 8y ago
      If it were up to Bezos I bet he’d spin off the retail aspect of Amazon but keep AWS, the inventory/shipping logistics, and all the other infrastructure.
    • deegles 8y ago
      That's... even less workable.
• EGreg 8y ago
  Why do we need the government’s help to break up Amazon? We need open source alternatives, line OpenStreetMap to break up Google Maps monopoly.
• rubinelli 8y ago
  Planet Money looks prescient again, with a three-part series on how antitrust rules evolved in the US, and how they are changing in response to Big Tech: * https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/antitrust-1-standard-oil https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695131832/anti... * https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/20/696342011/antitrust-2-the-paradox https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/20/696342011/anti... * https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/antitrust-3-big-tech https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/22/697170790/anti...
• amalrik_maia 8y ago
  This article is pure socialist trash. Who is John Galt?
  • dang 8y ago
    Please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• buboard 8y ago
  if they are going to break up amazon why dont spin out AWS?
• cm2012 8y ago
  She's lost my support with this - too far off the rails.
• andrewla 8y ago
  Posted below, but this just paywallspam for Elizabeth Warren's own blog post on the subject: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/9ad9e0da324c
• shereadsthenews 8y ago
  Anyone who thinks Google is out there demoting Yelp results is a moron. The much simpler explanation that Yelp is a cancer that everyone hates is more likely. It's sad that Warren falls for FUD like this and we shouldn't forget that these memes originate from Microsoft-funded AstroTurf campaigns designed to mislead European regulators, which worked because eurocrats are gullible. The last thing we need in this election are people without the critical thinking skills needed to see through a disinformation campaign. We need a candidate who can clearly see that Google owning a small thermostat maker is not one of the country's main issues.
• EGreg 8y ago
  This is 2019. We have come up with so many correct tech solutions to problems, like inventing the Internet Protocol Suite and so on, where we once needed government. We have email instead of the post office. Desktop printing instead of the printing press. Xerox copiers were a game changer back in the day. Why do we need government’s help to break up these monopolies? When AOL literally was the place everyone went to just be ONLINE, it semed unstoppable. Then came the Web, with its permissionless nature, and over time it completely took over, and led to trillions of dollars of new value. The Web is the plarform on which Google, Amazon, Facebook, built their businesses, companies that would never get permission do that on top of AOL. Now we need something similar to disrupt Google, Facebook, Amazon. I believe Wordpress was an early start, and indeed powers 30% of all websites today. But you need four things: 1) Open source and permissionless platform 2) A unified Social Operating System with well designed components for user accounts, permissions, realtime notifications, payments etc. like the graphical OSes had windows, menus and so on. A well-designed cathedral architecture like BSD. 3) A permissionless plugin system and marketplace where anyone could develop their own components and package them into plugins and apps, and sell them to communities. 4) A layer where you could go between many different domains and have a seamless social experience. This is key. I am really passionate about this. I have put my money where my mouth is - my company Qbix has reinvested half a million dollars over the last seven years to build a platform to do just that. What I said is just the surface. Please watch this video to understand in depthwhat I mean: https://youtu.be/OzXnVSZbvAw https://youtu.be/OzXnVSZbvAw Would love to hear your thoughts.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• andrewla 8y ago
  From Warren's blog post: > ... Google’s ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well. I think maybe her team needs to do a little more research on what Google's business is. Splitting off Android/Play or GCP at least creates potentially viable businesses. Splitting up search and ads creates two non-viable businesses.
  • tantalor 8y ago
    > two non-viable businesses 1. Search company earns money by selling ad spots to ads company. 2. Ads company earns money by selling ads to merchants.
    • andrewla 8y ago
      The problem is that 1. is better known as "Search + ads". To put it differently, how does GSearch decide what and whether to show ads for a given search? Well, they could sell keywords by auction to parties interested in placing ads, and then use clicks and other user feedback to decide how relevant they are (that is, how much UX is lost by placing ads nobody clicks on top of results that users want). Whether they're selling to GAd or directly to merchants, or to SEM companies that act as middlemen in the current world does not seem like the important issue. You could in theory separate search engine ads from site ads, but I don't think anyone is really complaining about the fact that Google owns so much of that business.
• BurningFrog 8y ago
  If we're worried about concentration of power, invasions of privacy, and collection of private data, the by far biggest problem is Warren's own employer. Once we've broken up the federal government, we can start worrying about these much smaller and less powerful entities!
• JabavuAdams 8y ago
  Whoops. Guess she won't be winning then...
  • neuronic 8y ago
    If, as usual, people are voting heavily against their own interests and more according to the lobbyist propaganda fed by economics 101 professors, then you are likely on point.
    • sj3k 8y ago
      what lobbyists are lobbying to break up big tech companies? Not everything is propaganda.
      • moate 8y ago
        Also possible he was saying that people will vote in favor of keeping these companies together and not bringing anti-trust issues to court because lobbyists push hard to feed a "capitalism shouldn't be touched by the government" view which is against the consumers best interests. That would drive them to vote against Warren and her politics. Also, do you expect people to name names of lobbyists? I think it's pretty safe to assume there are groups who feel that the FAANG companies are too powerful and need to go the way of Bell labs. And many people (wrongly? rightly?) label anything they feel is politically motivated speech as "propaganda".
      • jklinger410 8y ago
        Telco, Walmart, any company that would rather have a big brand with name association on the hot seat instead of them.
    • jhall1468 8y ago
      Maybe we can just assume people are allowed to have different opinions, rather than implying anyone that disagrees with you is one of the "sheeple" huh? I don't think we need to break up any of these companies. Particularly when an industry like Cable/ISP's exist, which are allowed to have an actual regional monopoly and artificially inflate prices in order to force you to use their other services. None of these three do anything of the sort. And Amazon, really?
• fowkswe 8y ago
  If there has ever been a monopoly, those 3 companies are it. I wont speak for social media and search, but Amazon has a complete stranglehold on retail in the United States. People keep saying 'retail is dead', thats bullshit, Amazon has a monopolistic stranglehold on the selling of all goods. If that weren't the case, small shop brick and mortar shopping would still be a thing.
  • throwaway082729 8y ago
    Walmart did too, for a long time. They have had a stranglehold on vendors for vendors and were the first to kill small brick and mortar shopping.
    • fowkswe 8y ago
      Walmart was contained to its brick and mortar footprint (no one in NYC for instance could use it). Amazon available to the entire population.
  • craftyguy 8y ago
    Apparently no one around here has ever heard of Standard Oil.
    • your-nanny 8y ago
      a study of Standard Oil is really instructive. It is not a matter of there being no competition, it's a matter of having such market power that you can dictate rates for your competitors. Standard Oil got paid every time a railroad shipped a competitors oil!
      • craftyguy 8y ago
        > a study of Standard Oil is really instructive Judging by the downvotes I got for mentioning it, you and I must be the only ones on HN that think so.
  • systematical 8y ago
• Proven 8y ago
  Typical statist: can't build anything, only wants to tax and break what others have built
• MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  Microsoft is now worth more than Apple, and it used to be in the target of government regulators. What has it done right?
  • peeters 8y ago
    I'm not sure Apple can claim a monopoly the same way those other three can. How would you "break up" Apple when their business is largely focused to one market that has strong competition?
    • peeters 8y ago
      Unless I'm crazy, or HN is messing up, GP completely changed message so this makes no sense now. It used to say something about Apple hiring Al Gore to buy off democrats, and that Google, Amazon, and Facebook should be doing the same.
    • panda88888 8y ago
      I would argue that the iOS platform (HW/SW and app store) certainly meets the >25 billion annual revenue specified by Warren and should be split from other Apple services, such as Apple Music and rumored upcoming Apple streaming service. For example, Spotify would have to pay 15-30% of its monthly subscription fee if user paid it through the IAP (which is why Spotify doesn't offer that option), whereas Apple music can do so without the 15-30% fee. Also, Spotify is not allowed to include a link to its website to pay for subscription, because it's against the Apple app store rules. The same applies to Netflix and other digital content/service providers. Apple either gets the 15-30% price advantage, or it gets the added convenience of In-App purchase for the service.
  • bgilroy26 8y ago
    Google Android phones and computers running MS Windows provide ample competition for Apple's devices
• chmielewski 8y ago
  I choose not to use Amazon. I choose not to use Facebook. Very difficult to not interact with Google... I choose not to use Verizon... however COMCAST is TERRRIBLE and along with Verizon, they have shut down every mom-and-pop ISP and are responsible for the wholesale elimination of robust, in-place copper from the consumer and business markets. Senator Warren, please add Comcast\Verizon to this list. That would get my vote... either that or slapping Ajit Pai for me next time you see him. Thanks.
  • 908087 8y ago
    Do you somehow choose to avoid everything hosted on AWS? How do you avoid the wider societal effects of Facebook, and how do you avoid their collection of data on you via third parties?
    • chmielewski 8y ago
      No I don't (can't) avoid everything hosted on AWS. That's RMS-level commitment. I just don't use them in my work or for projects, and I don't use their marketplace. I don't avoid the "societal effects" of facebook, I just don't/won't/haven't had a profile. It's not like I would boycott an event if their only RSVP/invite/info page is on facebook, more like voting with my feet when it comes to signing up for and/or utilizing their platform.
• BryantD 8y ago
  This is a really interesting conversation but I really want to read the full proposal. As many have noted, what about AWS? Does Apple's App Store count as a platform? What does the data clause mean? Etc.
• yaacov 8y ago
  Nitpicking here, but in Warren’s post she writes: > Google couldn’t smother competitors by demoting their products on Google Search. Isn’t this already illegal?
  • sigzero 8y ago
    Yes, yes it is.
  • acdha 8y ago
    What about AMP, where failure to publish your content using their proprietary toolkit meant that you wouldn’t be featured at the top of the search results?
  • nappy-doo 8y ago
    it might be in different countries, I don't know. From my experience, the engineers in search are very aware they could do monopolistic things, and really try their hardest not to.
  • djrogers 8y ago
    What US law would dictate that? Google isn't a common carrier, and there are no laws dictating that a privately created platform must give equal weight and promotion to everyone...
• ChrisAntaki 8y ago
  > The key components of the Warren plan include passing legislation that would designate companies with annual global revenue above $25 billion that provide marketplace, exchange, or third-party connectivity as “platform utilities” and prohibit those companies from owning participants on their platforms. As a Googler, speaking for myself, this seems like an interesting idea that could positively impact the tech scene.
  • devoply 8y ago
    I also see Elizabeth Warren has created a set of powerful enemies way too early that will do much to stop her from becoming America's first woman president. If you wanna do something like this wait until you are in office. These are not issues that your average American cares about.
    • ascendantlogic 8y ago
      Unfortunately I agree. Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily this is the sort of thing you sit on until much later in the process. I personally feel that Google, Facebook, et al are too big and powerful now, this is going to immediately set those companies against her so she's kneecapping her campaign before it even gets started.
      • harrumph 8y ago
        > Since Silicon Valley leans left so heavily I really believe it doesn't. No serious concentration of wealth ever does. Yes, personal attitudes in SV are often liberal, but the economic outlook most common in the place is akin to Andrew Carnegie with a git repo. It's this economic outlook where her proposal targets.
    • enraged_camel 8y ago
      With all due respect, I don’t think you speak for the average American. edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted, since I basically stated the truth: the parent poster doesn't speak for the average American.
    • 8y ago
• Permit 8y ago
  > The parallel she uses to make her case is the breakup of Microsoft, which she weirdly calls “the tech giant of its time” (Microsoft is still a tech giant), and holds as perhaps the last example when government went toe to toe with the technology industry. > “The government’s antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge,” Warren writes. In what way was Microsoft 'broken up'? The outcome[1] from that antitrust case seems to be that Microsoft had to publicly expose all of Windows' APIs to developers (no secret APIs). If anything, the outcome of the Microsoft case seems to support non-intervention as AppGoogBook all flourished despite no serious breakup of Microsoft. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
  • e1ven 8y ago
    Microsoft was going to be broken up, until the political landscape changed. Even without the breakup, Microsoft was under heavy scrutiny and regulation as a result of the court case, which insiders say dramatically changed the company culture (for good or ill.)
  • CoolestBeans 8y ago
    Sure, but Microsoft after the lawsuit was not the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" powerhouse from the 90s it used to be. They couldn't be, they couldn't risk another antitrust suit that might have real consequences. I think one could argue that Microsoft not being in full on domination mode created the opening that enabled all these other companies to thrive since they no longer had to deal with the extended existential threat of Microsoft.
  • pradn 8y ago
    It's funny how Microsoft isn't mentioned in the same breath as FAANG companies. It's in the top 3 companies by market cap, has a dozen billion-dollar businesses, does really well in enterprise, is aggressive in the cloud and hardware, has a large seat at the open-source table these days, and has a large set of older products that keep generating billions. If Apple is in there, why not Microsoft? Both are heavily concentrated in one area, pay similarly, have similar prestige. Is it simply because we don't know where to put the M in FAANG? Or is it because they aren't as big in the consumer space?
• SCAQTony 8y ago
  Of the three I would say Facebook is the most destructive. I don't see articles on Live Science or Science Daily decrying the mental health effects of Amazon or Google, just unfair monopoly implications at Bloomberg and other business sites.
  • 908087 8y ago
    Youtube is Google.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• the_trapper 8y ago
  I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. I can't think of a single market segment where Google and Amazon lack effective competition. Facebook is already bleeding users, and how would you break up a social media company in an impactful way anyhow? Facebook's ventures outside of social media aren't even close to being monopolies.
  • swarnie_ 8y ago
    > I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. While i agree with you wholeheartedly i don't know anyone who has ever got elected by attacking the media and big business.
    • moate 8y ago
      Do you mean both at the same time? If not, Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump would like to speak to you about their campaigns.
  • sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Yeah, they are not monopolies in the classical sense, so the regulatory position has to be much more nuanced. But there are issues: + Amazon uses profits from AWS to dump in other sectors, selling goods and services below market value. The weird situation could mean Amazon pumps many billion dollars a year into pushing major grocers (who operate on thin margins) out of business. This is not good for anyone - but it's not a case of 'monopoly' so much. + Google is dumping in adjacent areas of tech - giving away Android for free, for example. There should be some regulatory tweaks here, but it's going to be tricky. As you point out - a much easier win would be to break up value chain consolidation over all. Carriers, tech providers, content creators, content distributors - might benefit from being separate entities. I don't think there are any net benefits to society from these entities being consolidated. There are no economies of scale, no proper synergies. There are however, huge incentives for investors to have AT&T own content creation and distribution obviously, so they can subsidize their own assets and not others. There's no long win for consumers so it makes sense to keep them separate. Finally - there might be an opportunity on platforms. I think that the Apple store may be an anti-competitive issue - the notion that you don't control/own the $1K device you just bought is getting ridiculous. I would require platform makers to at allow open access to the platform. Same would apply to mobile phones being 'locked' onto a network - that should just not happen.
• eanzenberg 8y ago
  The US govt has some of the biggest waste I’ve ever seen. Tens to hundreds of millions on failed research thrusts that were extreme long-shots from the beginning. Govt employees that “rest and vest” to extremes, working 20 actual hrs a week at a FTE position and getting pension at 55. It puts to shame actual hardworking Americans who are outside the elitist bubble. It’s hard to argue when the same side benefitting from big govt wants to print money to “solve” all their problems and shut down opposing virwpoints with such vitrol. One side is actively extatic by shutting down tens of thousands of prospective jobs while not getting that funding and revenue of their projects comes from those jobs.
• fxfan 8y ago
  I don't exactly like her but this is a very valid point. Not like she will get the necessary support in a bought out congress (both sides)
• thatgerhard 8y ago
  if you're going to break them up, it's going to be a lot tougher to keep track of their "anti consumer" behaviour
• psadauskas 8y ago
  How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for things that will make my use of the internet objectively worse (NN, SOPA, etc...). But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google, because they’re better at playing that game.
  • the_trapper 8y ago
    Don't forget Spectrum (the result of the Charter and TWC merger) as well.
  • jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Can you avoid using services that run on AWS, though? Or avoid sites that advertise and get analytics from Google? These companies are so dangerous not only because of their consumer-facing services, but the fact that they've made themselves an integral part of our online infrastructure.
    • basch 8y ago
      Sure it might be hard to avoid AWS but 1) Azure is coming for it fast and 2) from a customer standpoint using AWS is pretty independent of selling products on Amazon. If amazon were deranking products whos owners had switched from aws to azure, i might have a different opinion.
    • wolco 8y ago
      When visiting a site you have the choice to visit or not. Site owners have the choice of what to put up and how to host it. That's like asking the government to break up the react framework because more sites are using it and you have no jquery option.
      • jakelazaroff 8y ago
• jcriddle4 8y ago
  Preventing those companies from buying out others and using their incredible size and resources to quashing competition I can support. Splitting into pieces can make sense as well. It looks like Warren's definition of "Fair Use" is more in the context of selling widgets and does not appear to be tied to free speech issues. I guess that Elizabeth Warren isn't supporting a definition of "fair use" of these platforms that matches the United States Supreme court definition of free speech.
• alexandernst 8y ago
  Just my 2 cents: Apple currently offers a great user experience in terms of app quality, stability, design, etc... That's because they have a total control over what can and what can't be uploaded to their app store. They run extensive analysis over each one of the apps that are being submitted to the app store and they reserve their right to reject an app even if the slightest bug occurs. That, at the end of the day, turns into a very positive user experience. My question is: Would it be actually good for the end user if Apple is forced to lose control over the app store?
• notjesse 8y ago
  I’m curious what people think this would mean for hiring? If all of a sudden there a 8 or 9 smaller, but still quite large, giants competing for talent, I could imagine competing for talent would hit fever pitch.
• Bhilai 8y ago
  > "as well as legislation that would prohibit platforms from both offering a marketplace for commerce and participating in that marketplace." This sounds very fair to me, India has passed a similar law recently - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/technology/india-amazon-walmart-online-retail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/technology/india-amazon-w...
• wtmt 8y ago
  Will there be enough political will to get this done even if she becomes president? It seems unlikely that such severe measures would be able to pass unless the named companies help dig themselves deeper by not caring about the distrust and deep disappointment in them (Facebook for one doesn’t seem to care in the sense of really doing something better). > He (Szabo) added that he also felt Ms. Warren is “wrong in her assertion that tech markets lack competition.” That’s got to be one of those jokes that go viral. Most of the consumer facing services are heavily concentrated among less than a handful (considering specific areas, and not in general). It’s time at least some of what she calls for gets done!
• throwaway-1283 8y ago
  I'd have to see the details, but I'm pro something like breaks up the talent monopoly that FAANGs have, especially in the Bay Area. Early stage startups can't compete for talent in the Bay Area. If breaking up giants creates more competition for talent, then I'm supportive.
• mindcrime 8y ago
  Just say "no" to more government manipulation of the market. In fact, we need to rollback a lot of the ways government distorts markets today. See, for example: regulatory capture[1] and patent evergreening[2]. Too often it's government intervention which creates the very "problems" that they then turn around and claim to be trying to solve. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening
• pooya13 8y ago
  Most people are on the same page about ISPs so I will skip that. Social networks should be public utility companies or else heavily regulated and treansparent to avoid censorship or what is referred to as surveillance capitalism. Networks should be open for third parties in a regulated manner after a certain size threshold. This would for example prevent Amazon from creating a massive delivery network in a competition free environment and then use it to squash any new competition for decades and decades. People might have a choice now to use Amazon or not but as delivery prices decline the options shrink to the point that you might not have any realistic alternative depivery channel. However with current US political system that has money interest and regulations tied in a biased way towards concentrated capital these will likely not happen.
• Bhilai 8y ago
  What about closing Tax loopholes, such that Apple and Amazon pay their fair share and Netflix does not pay zero tax ?
  • e1ven 8y ago
    There are a million other things which should also be done. Saying "What about these other things?" isn't particularly constructive to the discussion of this proposal. There's nothing in it which precludes changes to the tax structure as a separate proposal.
    • Bhilai 8y ago
      To clarify, what I mean here is that there may be other things that should probably be prioritized over splitting tech giants. There is usually limited political capital a POTUS has and if Warren had the votes, in my opinion fixing tax structure should higher on her list.
  • carlosdp 8y ago
    Netflix paying zero tax wasn't actually a loophole, afaik, it was because revenues were re-invested in growth, which includes hiring more people and paying more for infrastructure and such, which is something we want American companies to definitely do.
• matthewfelgate 8y ago
  Why is Microsoft never mentioned?!
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  She complains that the problem is lax enforcement of existing antitrust laws and her solution is, instead of enforcement of existing antitrust laws, radical new antitrust laws that do not focus on conduct or evidence of consumer harm? Not only do I think the particular policy is ill-conceived, but the preference for legislation when the entire premise is an assessment that existing law is unenforced rather than defective is even more worrying. And I say that as someone who has up to this point seen Warren as probably the strongest 2020 candidate.
• bko 8y ago
  > The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive — which pushes everyone in the marketplace to offer better products and services. Aren’t we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing? It's dishonest to suggest that the outcome of the US vs Microsoft somehow paved the way for Google. I would argue it was pretty non-consequential but looms in the public conscious. From wikipedia: > On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[29] However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future ... > Law professor Eben Moglen noted that the way Microsoft was required to disclose its APIs and protocols was useful only for “interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product”, not for implementing support of those APIs and protocols in any competing operating system.
  • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    It's been discussed in multiple articles that Microsoft had considered moves it could make to kill Google, but didn't because of it's recent antitrust settlement. > As the government sued, Microsoft executives became so anxious and gun-shy that they essentially undermined their own monopoly out of terror they might be pilloried again. It wasn’t the consent decrees or court decisions that made the difference, according to multiple current and former Microsoft employees. It was “the constant scrutiny and being in the newspaper all the time,” said Gene Burrus, a former Microsoft lawyer. “People started second-guessing themselves. No one wanted to test the regulators anymore.” > There had been informal conjectures about reprogramming Microsoft’s web browser, the popular Internet Explorer, so that anytime people typed in “Google,” they would be redirected to MSN Search, according to company insiders. > Microsoft was so powerful, and Google so new, that the young search engine could have been killed off, some insiders at both companies believe. “But there was a new culture of compliance, and we didn’t want to get in trouble again, so nothing happened,” Burrus said. The myth that Google humbled Microsoft on its own is wrong. The government’s antitrust lawsuit is one reason that Google was eventually able to break Microsoft’s monopoly. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against... http://archive.is/abGMG http://archive.is/abGMG
• drallison 8y ago
  “Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy,” Warren said in a statement. “They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else.” True. On the other hand, big tech companies are the only agencies that are taking on big problems, social and technical. Break up big tech and many things won't get done. No ubiquitous high speed networks, no practical general purpose artificial intelligence, no indexed access to the world's knowledge, no voice interface minions, and so forth. Government seems unable and unwilling to do the sort of things Big Tech does. Breaking up big tech seems to be the wrong approach and is likely to be more difficult and more destructive than it would appear at first glance. Better to enlist big tech to cooperate and make the world a better place.
• quantummkv 8y ago
  The real problem here is the culture that the current crop of entrepreneurs grew up in. No one one wan't to take time to build and grow a company anymore as it is unglamorous. Most of them are just looking to generate hype and sell to any Big Tech corp that throws cash at them as soon as possible. As long as this culture remains in place, breaking big tech companies won't work. New ones will crop up and everything will continue.
• sempron64 8y ago
  I'm on the fence about antitrust action in general, but here's an assertion from the article that I think is completely untrue: "Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because it’s so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business." The possibility of being "snapped up" is very good money for venture capitalists instead of waiting a decade for an IPO. So regulating acquisitions by the big players may have a chilling effect on capital and, thereby, tech innovation. In addition, the first mover effect is very powerful and should not be discounted. For example, the competition between Snapchat and Facebook was not as skewed as the outcome would have you believe. Snapchat had and has a large userbase, and is losing because of mistakes (including not agreeing to very good acquisition offers). I can't personally think of too many other examples of megatitans successfully squashing innovative smaller companies with an equivalent product.
• dznodes 8y ago
  2008, Financial Collapse, Too Big To Fail, Banks Got Bigger 2018, Facebook Helps Trump, Too Influential, Break Up Facebook?
• mal10c 8y ago
  I ran across two quotes by Warren that caught my attention: > "unwind tech mergers that illegally undermine competition" > "I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules" The word "illegally" in the first quote really set off my alarm bells. What have large companies like Amazon, Google, FB, etc. done that is considered illegal in this regard? The "by the rules" in the second quote is confusing too. What does that mean? Which rules are being broken? The way I see it: Isn't it the goal of entrepreneurs to be as successful as possible? Let's say I found a way to grow a business to that of the size of some of the bigger ones (which would be awesome). To grow a business that big, consumers obviously like what I'm selling/producing. I get the impression that Warren is saying she doesn't like big businesses because they snuff out the little ones. And maybe that's true, but why is that a concern of the government? There's nothing stopping a smaller company (or even an individual) from coming up with a really good idea and trying that idea out in something like his garage, and then reshaping the next generation... kinda like Amazon did in comparison to Sears. Or Microsoft did with IBM. I'm sure there's going to be plenty of disagreements on my stance, but I guess I'm just not seeing this problem in the same light as Warren.
  • cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
    You're high if you think someone can compete with Amazon out of their garage now. Hell, you can't even sell a product on Amazon without a good chance that Amazon will just slap their Amazon Basics logo on it and undercut you to death. Similar to Wal-Mart many of their competitors are dead because they optimized their supply chain. No one gets that kind of access out of their garage.
    • ztratar 8y ago
      And if Amazon is broken up, whoever thinks the US will still win the global E-commerce market against Alibaba is also quite high. The rules are changing. We need to think about the geopolitics here as well. We need US companies to win global markets in an era of increased competition.
      • 8y ago
• zer0faith 8y ago
  The problem isn't the tech giants but how we are seen as cash cows of information and not as people.
• ryanmarsh 8y ago
  Honest question, not trying to make a statement... Is this really a left/liberal/progressive/dem position and if so why? I'm mainly on the right and so I don't have a lot of insight into why Sen. Warren would be taking this position. To be frank I kinda would have expected something like this from Trump, not from her. Tech companies like Amazon seem to be left leaning (just looking at Bezos and his investment in WaPo). Wouldn't Warren want strong left leaning tech companies? Why would she want to go up against them? Again I'm not trying to trigger anyone or make any political assertions. I generally don't understand and would love the input of others for familiar with Sen. Warren's platform.
• cowl 8y ago
  So Democrats are sticking to their guns with their belief that their problem was not going Left enough instead of realising to be more pragmatic and listen to people instead of ideologies.
  • pickle-wizard 8y ago
    Yep, she just lost my vote.
• gremlinsinc 8y ago
  This is one reason I still support Bernie over Warren, his ideas are more sound, and he has a purpose. I feel like Warren can come off fringe on a lot of things, and is really just trying to make herself appear progressive, she tosses out ideas into the progressive ether to see which ones will 'stick' per se and drops others. Some days she sounds on point and very intelligent, and some days she does shit like this and feels completely out of touch. She's also very self-serving and has no sense of loyalty to other left-leaning politicians - else she might've backed Bernie from day one in 2016, instead of play things 'safe'. Her playing safe hurt her career more than anything else ever will in my opinion. That aside, I don't think breaking up google, fb, amazon will do much...if I were to break them up, I think the only thing I'd do is perhaps have them split their cloud services from their other offerings, and maybe media services -- youtube | amazon prime video, but it's small potatoes. I think a MUCH bigger issue is media consolodation -- when 1-2 CEO's control 80% of the media and thus the 'message' that people see, that's a much scarier proposition. For example Sinclair Broadcasting I think owns something like 90% of local broadcasting stations now - and they send talking points and control what newscasters say in order to get political messages out - it's basically propaganda that they control, and it's very powerful esp in the wrong hands. Comcast/nbc/hulu, att/time warner, disney/fox/espn/etc are all companies that probably are more dangerous than google/fb/amazon (w/ the exception that FB really needs to get it's privacy shit together or just die...), and if you're going after big tech why not Apple/Microsoft, Microsoft is as big if not bigger than it was when they had their antitrust case, Apple is the biggest company in the world ? Maybe we should also have a 25BN = auto-breakup for banks, since banks caused the last great recession, and are obviously dangerous when they get too big to fail. Or maybe instead of breaking up companies we just figure out ways to tax them better -- esp. on speculation and at the investment layer, so that the money they make that 'you - the politician' feel they shouldn't be making is used for the benefit of society as well as enrichment of the CEO and their ilk.
• plandis 8y ago
  What monopoly do these companies have? What customer harm is resultant from their monopolies?
• andrewla 8y ago
  Does anyone actually believe that the US government's interventions against Microsoft made the slightest bit of difference, as opposed to huge shifts in the internet and mobile landscape? You could argue that the emergence of Firefox and Chrome was only made possible by the ability to assign a "default" non-IE browser in Windows, but that ability pre-dated any of the anti-trust stuff anyway; all you got out of that was a mandatory pop-up when you installed Windows asking you if you wanted to use a different browser. The emergence of Firefox was by itself a huge shift, and Chrome another one, against Microsoft's browser monopoly. Its OS monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of the rise of mobile and Apples re-emergence as a viable platform. Its office application monopoly got broken (insofar as it is broken) by a combination of online email systems (especially gmail) and the increased availability of online alternatives. All the justice department did was waste their time; they could have just sat by the river and waited for the body of their enemy to float by instead.
  • e1ven 8y ago
    I apolgoize that I don't have any references available at the moment, but I've read in several books that Microsoft insiders said it made an enormous difference. Having the government essentially watching their every move caused them to moderate their actions, and make sure they were on the right side of the law. They were much more conservative than they otherwise would have been. It was described as a large cultural shift in the company and their way of thinking.
    • bhl 8y ago
      Here’s an alternative source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against... “Anyone who said that the 1990s prosecution of Microsoft didn’t accomplish anything — that it was companies like Google, rather than government lawyers, that humbled Microsoft — didn’t know what they were talking about, Reback said. In fact, he argued, the opposite was true: The antitrust attacks on Microsoft made all the difference. Condemning Microsoft as a monopoly is why Google exists today, he said.”
  • jonahb 8y ago
• ratling 8y ago
  This will go exactly nowhere. I want Cheeto out as much as anyone else but if the democrats put up Warren in 2020 I'm not going to be happy.
• nutellalover 8y ago
  Does legislature like this actually have a chance at passing? Or is this just bombastic liberal rhetoric to ignite the campaign trail?
• elamje 8y ago
  I don’t see how Amazon is such an threat to consumers? Genuine question, can someone explain how they are bad? I might give pushback to help get to understanding other people, but I’m not trying to start a war on here:)
• dahdum 8y ago
  Seems like Democratic candidates are clamoring over each other to be further left, and I don't quite understand it. I supported Bernie in 2016, and even he is now too far left for my tastes. Democrats lost the centrist vote in 2016, not the left, and if they don't take a hard right turn after the nomination we'll have 4 more years of Trump.
  • danans 8y ago
    > Democrats lost the centrist vote in 2016, not the left They lost huge numbers of working class manufacturing industry workers in the Midwest, who perceived HC as a tool of Wall Street, and rightly or wrongly, instrumental in the secular economic decline of their jobs and communities. This was literally reflected in a schism of working class vs professional class counties in the midwest, with the former going for DJT and the latter going to HC [1] Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin didn't swing to DJT because centrist's didn't have a candidate that spoke to their concerns - that candidate was definitely HC. Even many centrist Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for DJT voted for her. Those states swung because DJT at least spoke to the working class' economic concerns in a way that at the time seemed authentic, while also invoking their repressed cultural anxieties about demographic and social changes. Democrats should stay the heck away from the racism and xenophobia that motivated part of his coalition, but they would be fools to ignore the economically-left sentiment that put him in office. And since DJT's actual economic policy has turned out to be the same Republican trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy approach, the Democrats have an opportunity to expose that and run against it. [1] https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2016/11/macomb_county_could_represent.html https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2016/11/macomb_county_cou... https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/09/trump-won-michigan/93551192/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/20...
    • petey283 8y ago
      This. There's great opportunity ahead and calls for the Dems to lead with anything other than bold policies don't make sense. Running on strengthening healthcare was primary among many reasons for their success in the Midterms.
• gjmacd 8y ago
  Breaking AWS away from Amazon might not be a bad thing.
• debatem1 8y ago
  The more I think about this the more I focus on the Amazon case. Amazon's core competency is logistics. They would not exist at anything like their current scale if they couldn't do 2-day delivery. That's what really gives them a leg up vs doing a Google search, finding a small e-commerce ship that sells what you want, and getting the product. Breaking that into an independent service-- if it's possible at all-- would have far more impact, and possibly more positive impact, than anything involving house brands or an ec2 split.
• tolstoy77 8y ago
  This gets me very excited. As a bay area resident, we've seen the income stratification from these companies ruin our way of life. It's just untenable. Warren has my vote.
• and-er-son 8y ago
  Why is Apple not part of this? The most valuable company!! What apple does with integration of software, hardware, dongle, accessory and walled garden is nothing but a monopoly! The killing of iMessage if you switch etc. Maybe Amazon, Google, FB didn't pay enough money to Warren's election fund.
• petey283 8y ago
  This is great because it starts a conversation about monopoly power that's long been needed. This I think is one of the understated values of primaries and presidential elections. Even if Warren is elected and unable to get legislation passed, she has moved this particular conversation forward.
• amelius 8y ago
  Reminds me of this post by Richard Stallman, [1]. > Amazon has so much market share that its sheer size distorts the market. > We should not allow a company to have a share over around 10% of any market. If in a certain field a single dominant company is beneficial for society, that means it is a natural monopoly, and should be served by a regulated utility. [1] https://stallman.org/amazon.html https://stallman.org/amazon.html
• abalone 8y ago
  What's interesting about this proposal is it goes after "proprietary marketplaces".[1] Anti-trust has historically focused on breaking up huge companies that have acquired/merged with their competition. She's recognizing that another lever of power in the world: owning the platform. Lots of tech "monopoly" power comes from network effects. Once you're Google or Amazon you don't necessarily need to buy up all the other search engines or ecommerce platforms. They can't even get off the ground. Also interesting: she doesn't mention Apple at all. Yet they run one of the biggest platforms, and their cut (which they call "service revenue") is one of the highest growth categories for them. [1] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
• eevilspock 8y ago
  Warren's original post, Here’s how we can break up Big Tech: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
• hello_tyler 8y ago
  This seems like a terrible thing to campaign on. There are plenty of other more important issues to deal with. Maybe not everyone, but most people I talk to absolutely love Amazon and the convenience it offers them. Definitely not going to win in the court of public opinion.
• darawk 8y ago
  > The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive — which pushes everyone in the marketplace to offer better products and services. Aren’t we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing? Erm. Should we tell her that Google came before Bing?
• ArtDev 8y ago
  Amazon is a "marketplace". Like "Google Play" or iTunes. This seems very different situation. As a progressive, I really want to support Warren but her policies need to solid. I am concerned the left is running off the rails with anti-vaxx, anti-GMO, anti-technology, extreme feminist wackadoodle ideas. Can't just Bernie just dye his hair and wear a proper suit that fits?
• jimmy1 8y ago
  I disagree with these proposals, and think the sights should be aimed at companies like Verizon and Comcast, but at least Warren's proposals tend to be coherent. Although, it isn't too hard to be a "policy pacesetter" on the democratic side these days -- they lack any semblance of unified vision, and so far we have been given 3 magical proposals for legislation for fixing all the worlds problem lacking any coherent way to pay for them other than a bunch of magic handwaving and "let's just tax millionaires and billionaires more" -- the most atrocious of them being the "New Green Deal", and the second most atrocious is the "Medicaid for all" Given recently how AOC and her cohorts were flat out embarrassed by the NY state budget director and given a lesson in basic financial literacy and economics, I think the freshman and sophomore democrats should probably lay low for a while and learn a thing or two from the adults in the room.
• chiefalchemist 8y ago
  I'd like to say this is just politics but I'm not even sure it's good politics. How many people are really concerned about the size of Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. If people are that concerned, why do so many people I know have Prime? The fossil fuel industry continues to run rampant. As does the Military Industrial Complex. The former is a key player in the degradation of the planet; the latter is a money sucking Hover that is sucking the life out of infrastructure, education, etc. The environment and peace are much bigger issues than taking down and busting up the tech giants. Editorial: I want to like Liz Warren. I can related to some of her ideals. Unfortunately, as a politician she too often comes off as inexperienced, out of touch and/or naive. This is another one of those times.
  • igravious 8y ago
    > I'd like to say this is just politics but I'm not even sure it's good politics. How many people are really concerned about the size of Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc Oh, lots and lots. > If people are that concerned, why do so many people I know have Prime? The reason so many of the people you know have Prime is because of Amazon's dominant market position. > The fossil fuel industry continues to run rampant. As does the Military Industrial Complex. The former is a key player in the degradation of the planet; the latter is a money sucking Hover that is sucking the life out of infrastructure, education, etc. > The environment and peace are much bigger issues than taking down and busting up the tech giants. Good points, but can we not do all three of these things? (1) Shrink the Defense budget and (2) Invest in renewables including nuclear tech, (3) Tackle Facebook and Google's dominance of net advertising and search and social media and Amazon's of e-commerce and so on … > Editorial: I want to like Liz Warren. I can related to some of her ideals. Unfortunately, as a politician she too often comes off as inexperienced, out of touch and/or naive. This is another one of those times. ? “Elizabeth Ann Warren (née Herring; born June 22, 1949) is an American politician and academic serving as the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts since 2013. Warren was formerly a prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law. A noted progressive leader, Warren has focused on consumer protection, economic opportunity, and the social safety net while in the Senate. Some commentators describe her position as left-wing populism.[2][3][4] Warren is a graduate of the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School. She taught law at several universities, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University. Warren's initial foray into public policy began in 1995 when she worked to oppose what eventually became a 2005 act restricting bankruptcy access for individuals. Her profile rose due to her forceful stances in favor of more stringent banking regulations following the 2007–2008 financial crisis. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for which she served as the first Special Advisor.”
• ilaksh 8y ago
  This topic is strongly connected with decentralization technologies since they are the most viable way that we will be able to replace the large networks of the technopolies.
• samlevine 8y ago
  There's zero net benefit in breaking up large companies that are driving innovation and improving consumer experiences. If you don't like the economic result, redistribute some of the growth. Walmart doesn't deserve to be saved by splitting up Amazon if they can't compete.
  • chillacy 8y ago
    I was gonna say, selling your winners and keeping your losers is exactly what you're _not_ supposed to do when investing.
  • jonahb 8y ago
    The thought, clearly expressed in Elizabeth Warren's post, is that Amazon et al are stifling innovation by discouraging entrants and using dominant positions in adjacent industries to crowd out competitors. This isn't a new idea—it's one of the pillars of antitrust.
    • samlevine 8y ago
      They're not stifling innovation. Their successes have had massive spillover effects helping other companies to innovate. The Golden Goose is still laying eggs. This isn't Standard Oil. It's not Ma Bell. When they stop innovating and start extracting rents we can have a reasonable conversation about breaking them up.
      • bhl 8y ago
        When does a company stop innovating and start becoming a rent seeker? Don’t most companies eventually become the latter?
      • jonahb 8y ago
        All I can say is that a lot of people disagree with you. If you're interested in that perspective, a good book is "World Without Mind" by Franklin Foer.
• blisterpeanuts 8y ago
  Companies do get spun off all the time, if it's determined to benefit shareholders. Why should the government take on this role? It's doubtful they would make decisions that are in the best fiduciary interest of the stock holders, the employees, and the customers. Generally it's best to let market forces play out. Amazon, Facebook & the Goog are pretty massive right now, but things change quickly. Ten years from now, there may be new behemoths that dwarf these companies even as these companies now dwarf former titans like Microsoft and IBM.
• throw2016 8y ago
  This thread defines 'whataboutism'. It's supposed to be about Warren's new 3 page tech regulation bill but has more than 600 comments rehashing telecom regulation issues discussed thousands of times, without engaging a single point raised by Warren. This looks like a derail. There are urgent issues with Google and monopoly, search, chrome, amp, android and youtube and once you combine that with Facebook a toxic predatory surveillance capitalism model based on harvesting and collating private data to build dossiers that is ominous for any free society. But for the tech community on the frontlines of this project the old issues of Comcast and Verizon unresolved inspite of decades of heated debate are more urgent. If anyone doubted Upton Sinclars famous insight here is the evidence.
• refurb 8y ago
  The $25B revenue cut off seems really arbitrary and ignore different types of businesses. Some business (like Walmart) have super high revenues, but relatively small profits. While others are smaller revenue, but super high profits. I know this proposal is just for tech companies, but it seems like it will create as many problems as it solves.
• ngcc_hk 8y ago
  Miss the whole point. The world largest is not American firm. Not even in IT. Break yours and let others do it.
• alligator_blood 8y ago
  GTFO This level of govt intervention in business sounds like a disaster
• skookumchuck 8y ago
  Big businesses are the drivers of the American economy. Breaking them up will imperil the economy.
• proxygeek 8y ago
  Just wondering how weird would it be if someone at the UN proposed to break up "monopolies" like China it the USA itself. And yet, I suppose a good parallel case can be built in support of this. NOTE: I'm not dissing the monopolies act and understand the dangers. This is just a thought pointing out different yardsticks for corporations and countries.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• simonebrunozzi 8y ago
  If you came here to read the HN comments about this topic, I very highly recommend listening to this podcast that I've enjoyed yesterday [0], it's economist Russell Roberts interviewing Michael Munger; the topic is "crony capitalism". [0]: http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism/ http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism/
• cromwellian 8y ago
  Amazon is eroding brick and mortar mom and pop stores, but it isn't doing that because it's a monopoly (it has 5% of retail sales), it's doing it because people prefer shopping online compared with physical stores. If you broke up Amazon into 5 competing e-commerce sites, strip malls across America would still be closing, and you'd just have 5 Bezos billionaires instead of 1. And it will do nothing to help the millions of American retail workers who are going to be out of a job, nor the logistics workers who are going to be automated out of jobs. This is populist demagoguery and scapegoating and not looking at real solutions, like strengthening the social safety net by increasing taxes on these businesses. At least Medical for All, Free College, or UBI have tangible, immediate benefits to people suffering. Or writing laws on Data Privacy can directly address that issue. But simply busting up companies? It won't address the underlying economic disruption happening, and if anything, it is likely to simply increase the amount of entities tracking you and risk of hacks.