4 ms·

> All the talk of breakups and “big is bad” ignores the fact that vertical works better. That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in t

> All the talk of breakups and “big is bad” ignores the fact that vertical works better. That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? > It won’t however, emerge if we roll the clock back to the late 90’s by force. It might, but I can absolutely, guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we don't get a more democratic solution if we leave the current stakeholders in their current positions of immense power.

zepto 6y ago
> That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. It works better for making technology. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Every single one of the indicators you mentioned is better now than it was in the 90s. What you are calling for is more opportunity for all these people to build wealth. Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. Things that might: universal health care, student loan easing, increased investment in impoverished communities. Blaming things that work well and breaking them is silly. Making new things that work better is not.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > Yes. It works better for making technology. You haven't proven that at all. You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview (which clearly ignores the entire MS antitrust saga that took place a couple years before Jobs reinvented the company). > Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. You haven't proven that. When AT&T was broken up, it unlocked a host of new technologies (answering machines, modems) that Ma Bell was blocking to protect their existing revenue model.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview That’s not a reflection of my views. AT&T is not like Apple. They had a literal monopoly due to access rights. Apple can’t be compared to AT&T usefully. There is nothing they do that doesn’t have vigorous competition and there is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      Power is power, they have more in common than in difference. I'll stipulate that they arrived at power and maintain it slightly differently. > There is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy. How can you state this as a fact? Even a relatively high-level Apple executive wouldn't know that with any level of certainty. I don't really take issue with Apple compared to some of the others, but their vertically integrated position means that they don't have vigorous competition. There are only a handful of empire-scale companies that can compete with them at all. Smaller businesses are not vigorous competition, since Apple (or similar) could crush them at any time they want with their scale, as they recently did with Tile.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - zepto 6y ago
        > Power is power, they have more in common than in difference. Oddly, later in this same comment you become interested in facts and evidence. >> There is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy. > How can you state this as a fact? Even a relatively high-level Apple executive wouldn't know that with any level of certainty. If you had evidence to the contrary, you’d have presented it.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
anonuser123456 6y ago
> Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? yes. Factory work is better than subsistence farming. And big tech has done 100x more than anyone else in the consumer electronics supply chain to push for better working conditions in those factories. >Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Yes. Improved margins are what allow wages to rise. Inefficient businesses don’t have the money to pay employees more. Apple retail stores pay on average 18$/hr vs the 10.50 a mom and pop might be able to afford to pay someone. >Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. Software distributors used to pay 50% to retailers.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > Factory work is better than subsistence farming. Working in a 1900's Chicago meatpacking plant may have been better than subsistence farming too, but the alternative to working in bad conditions isn't going back to farming, it's improving the working conditions. Big tech has NOT done 100x more than anyone to push for better working conditions. If they really wanted to provide good, first-world working conditions in their factory, they could do so. Yes, their costs would go up, that's what happens when you stop subsidizing consumer products with labor abuse. > Yes. Improved margins are what allow wages to rise. Inefficient businesses don’t have the money to pay employees more. Apple retail stores pay on average 18$/hr vs the 10.50 a mom and pop might be able to afford to pay someone. Is the Apple store representative of all retail? And further, with Apple's massive stack of cash in the bank, shouldn't they be paying their workers even better? Are they not a big part of getting that premium margin for apple? Further, that doesn't seem like a better or more efficient deal for entrepreneurs. Should we be happy that most independent electronics stores have been replaced by branded stores and Best Buy? > Yes. Software distributors used to pay 50% to retailers. More bad faith arguments huh? I guess you mean before the internet, when they actually had to ship physical medium and deal with retailers? Keystone pricing is pretty standard in that setup, and at least you had a broad choice of distributors to pick from. There is no justification for the high fees or the lack of distribution options in 2021. It's almost pure profit for the landlords.

zepto 6y ago

> That's not even close to being universally true, and good/bad are in the eye of the beholder. Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. It works better for making technology. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Every single one of the indicators you mentioned is better now than it was in the 90s. What you are calling for is more opportunity for all these people to build wealth. Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. Things that might: universal health care, student loan easing, increased investment in impoverished communities. Blaming things that work well and breaking them is silly. Making new things that work better is not.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> Yes. It works better for making technology. You haven't proven that at all. You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview (which clearly ignores the entire MS antitrust saga that took place a couple years before Jobs reinvented the company). > Making existing industries work less well is not going to achieve that. You haven't proven that. When AT&T was broken up, it unlocked a host of new technologies (answering machines, modems) that Ma Bell was blocking to protect their existing revenue model.
- zepto 6y ago
  > You took one instance of Apple disrupting Microsoft's PC dominance and seem to have extended it to an entire worldview That’s not a reflection of my views. AT&T is not like Apple. They had a literal monopoly due to access rights. Apple can’t be compared to AT&T usefully. There is nothing they do that doesn’t have vigorous competition and there is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    Power is power, they have more in common than in difference. I'll stipulate that they arrived at power and maintain it slightly differently. > There is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy. How can you state this as a fact? Even a relatively high-level Apple executive wouldn't know that with any level of certainty. I don't really take issue with Apple compared to some of the others, but their vertically integrated position means that they don't have vigorous competition. There are only a handful of empire-scale companies that can compete with them at all. Smaller businesses are not vigorous competition, since Apple (or similar) could crush them at any time they want with their scale, as they recently did with Tile.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Power is power, they have more in common than in difference. Oddly, later in this same comment you become interested in facts and evidence. >> There is nothing that Apple has that others cannot buy. > How can you state this as a fact? Even a relatively high-level Apple executive wouldn't know that with any level of certainty. If you had evidence to the contrary, you’d have presented it.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

anonuser123456 6y ago

> Is it better or more efficient for the people who assemble the phones? yes. Factory work is better than subsistence farming. And big tech has done 100x more than anyone else in the consumer electronics supply chain to push for better working conditions in those factories. >Is it better or more efficient for the retail employees making minimum wage? Yes. Improved margins are what allow wages to rise. Inefficient businesses don’t have the money to pay employees more. Apple retail stores pay on average 18$/hr vs the 10.50 a mom and pop might be able to afford to pay someone. >Is it better or more efficient for app developers who lose 30% of their revenue to private taxation, or the businesses that never reached their potential because a BigTechCo launched a competing product at a loss? Yes. Software distributors used to pay 50% to retailers.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> Factory work is better than subsistence farming. Working in a 1900's Chicago meatpacking plant may have been better than subsistence farming too, but the alternative to working in bad conditions isn't going back to farming, it's improving the working conditions. Big tech has NOT done 100x more than anyone to push for better working conditions. If they really wanted to provide good, first-world working conditions in their factory, they could do so. Yes, their costs would go up, that's what happens when you stop subsidizing consumer products with labor abuse. > Yes. Improved margins are what allow wages to rise. Inefficient businesses don’t have the money to pay employees more. Apple retail stores pay on average 18$/hr vs the 10.50 a mom and pop might be able to afford to pay someone. Is the Apple store representative of all retail? And further, with Apple's massive stack of cash in the bank, shouldn't they be paying their workers even better? Are they not a big part of getting that premium margin for apple? Further, that doesn't seem like a better or more efficient deal for entrepreneurs. Should we be happy that most independent electronics stores have been replaced by branded stores and Best Buy? > Yes. Software distributors used to pay 50% to retailers. More bad faith arguments huh? I guess you mean before the internet, when they actually had to ship physical medium and deal with retailers? Keystone pricing is pretty standard in that setup, and at least you had a broad choice of distributors to pick from. There is no justification for the high fees or the lack of distribution options in 2021. It's almost pure profit for the landlords.