3 ms·

> 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 p

by 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]

by zepto 6y ago

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]