4 ms·

This is deceiving competition: webkit/blink/geeko are financed (and steered) by the same people: blackrock/vanguard = apple = alphabet(=google) = microsoft = s

This is deceiving competition: webkit/blink/geeko are financed (and steered) by the same people: blackrock/vanguard = apple = alphabet(=google) = microsoft = starbucks = etc. Actually, their interest would be to trash one they have direct control on (ppl working on it would be "reallocated" or ...) for instance webkit, and keep only blink, and geeko (only there to dodge anti-trust since they don't have a direct way to steer it). What's need to be done actually is to save the web from them: restore noscript/basic (x)html on the bazillions of online services which could be provided in a good enough fashion, just need to add the <video> <audio> element with a standard way to seek into streamed video/audio via the URL (t=xxxxxx in milliseconds). I guess the only way is very strong technical regulation: the big must interoperate with the shmol.

strawpeople 4y ago
Are you seriously claiming that Google, Microsoft and Apple’s strategy are set by Blackrock and Vanguard? That seems highly unlikely to have any truth to it.
- sylware 4y ago
  Major owners of US companies basically choose the CEOs and have a say on everything they want to. For instance, msft CEO is on the board of directors of starbucks. And everything is like that in blackrock/vanguard galaxy. It is public info on internet, and you can start on wikipedia. Then it is more the other way around which is unlikely to have any truth to it: it would be hardly believable that actual owners of big tech companies do not have any say to big tech steering. There is some kind of exception: amazon, still mostly own my Mr Bezos, then driven by himself. Once he sells his shares, vanguard and blackrock will become the actual owners of amazon (they are right behind Bezos)... but I don't know what kind of relationship between him and vanguard/blackrock (you would have needed heavy investment to build amazon from somewhere and "be chosen" to get the money to be able to do that).
  - strawpeople 4y ago
    Blackrock and Vanguard didn’t choose Tim Cook, Jobs did. Sundar Pichai was chosen by Larry and Sergei, who still have control of the voting shares in Google. Even if they did have the power to fire one of these CEOs, that doesn’t give them any leverage at all over small details like browser strategy, because their only option would to replace the CEO with someone who understands much less about the company. I.e. they can really only do anything if the CEO is manifestly failing. Honestly your argument doesn’t work, and doesn’t reflect shareholder influence.
    - sylware 4y ago
      When I say those people are their own, I meant they do implement what the owners of the company want. It is actually your argument which does not work: no one would believe the actual owners have no saying about to where and how _theirs_ companies are steered. msft is using blink already, I would not be surprised to see apple align on that. But they have to care about anti-trust stuff, financing geeko may not be enough.
      - strawpeople 4y ago
        > I meant they do implement what the owners of the company want. This is circular. You are claiming this but haven’t shown any evidence. You ignore the fact that you’re just wrong about who chose the CEOs of Apple and Google. And, you don’t seem to know anything about who owns these companies either. What percentage of Apple do you imagine Blackrock owns?
        sylware 4y ago
        Actually, it is the other way around, you would have to give evidence that major owners of big techs companies (blackrock/vanguard) don't do anything at steering the companies... which they own... and one of the efficient ways is to push forward a CEO they "own". I am not the one on the unbelievable side here, mate. Why do you thing msft CEO is at starbucks board, and you can look deeper via internet public info and this habit of CEOs members of the board of the other companies which are owned by the same companies is kind of smelly and not an sole case. This behavior is not limited to blackrock/vanguard and the USA, you know the cumulative wages are very "motivational", but it gives good hints at who belongs a CEO. If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind, but the percentage is stable among most companies I did check, and in most cases (exception with amazon in which Mr Bezos has still control). But they are THE major owners in control and that almost EVERYWHERE. As I said, this is public info on internet, you can start on wikipedia but you have web sites (which work even without google blink/geeko or apple webkit, aka absurdely and grotesquely massive and complex web engines) which reference the same info (A quick search on google... lol). You can do easily your research (I wish EU companies were as "search-enabled" than the US companies). Another stinking stuff, hard to find, then it would require to get more verifications, would be some giga-fishy "debts" sucking out a company profits: one day I got a site with starbucks gigantic "debts" sucking out tons of money out via chronic interest rates: some of those debts were most in us currency, but some not (japanese yen as far as I can recall). I will keep that in mind for any further digging.

strawpeople 4y ago

Are you seriously claiming that Google, Microsoft and Apple’s strategy are set by Blackrock and Vanguard? That seems highly unlikely to have any truth to it.

sylware 4y ago
Major owners of US companies basically choose the CEOs and have a say on everything they want to. For instance, msft CEO is on the board of directors of starbucks. And everything is like that in blackrock/vanguard galaxy. It is public info on internet, and you can start on wikipedia. Then it is more the other way around which is unlikely to have any truth to it: it would be hardly believable that actual owners of big tech companies do not have any say to big tech steering. There is some kind of exception: amazon, still mostly own my Mr Bezos, then driven by himself. Once he sells his shares, vanguard and blackrock will become the actual owners of amazon (they are right behind Bezos)... but I don't know what kind of relationship between him and vanguard/blackrock (you would have needed heavy investment to build amazon from somewhere and "be chosen" to get the money to be able to do that).
- strawpeople 4y ago
  Blackrock and Vanguard didn’t choose Tim Cook, Jobs did. Sundar Pichai was chosen by Larry and Sergei, who still have control of the voting shares in Google. Even if they did have the power to fire one of these CEOs, that doesn’t give them any leverage at all over small details like browser strategy, because their only option would to replace the CEO with someone who understands much less about the company. I.e. they can really only do anything if the CEO is manifestly failing. Honestly your argument doesn’t work, and doesn’t reflect shareholder influence.
  - sylware 4y ago
    When I say those people are their own, I meant they do implement what the owners of the company want. It is actually your argument which does not work: no one would believe the actual owners have no saying about to where and how _theirs_ companies are steered. msft is using blink already, I would not be surprised to see apple align on that. But they have to care about anti-trust stuff, financing geeko may not be enough.
    - strawpeople 4y ago
      > I meant they do implement what the owners of the company want. This is circular. You are claiming this but haven’t shown any evidence. You ignore the fact that you’re just wrong about who chose the CEOs of Apple and Google. And, you don’t seem to know anything about who owns these companies either. What percentage of Apple do you imagine Blackrock owns?
      - sylware 4y ago
        Actually, it is the other way around, you would have to give evidence that major owners of big techs companies (blackrock/vanguard) don't do anything at steering the companies... which they own... and one of the efficient ways is to push forward a CEO they "own". I am not the one on the unbelievable side here, mate. Why do you thing msft CEO is at starbucks board, and you can look deeper via internet public info and this habit of CEOs members of the board of the other companies which are owned by the same companies is kind of smelly and not an sole case. This behavior is not limited to blackrock/vanguard and the USA, you know the cumulative wages are very "motivational", but it gives good hints at who belongs a CEO. If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind, but the percentage is stable among most companies I did check, and in most cases (exception with amazon in which Mr Bezos has still control). But they are THE major owners in control and that almost EVERYWHERE. As I said, this is public info on internet, you can start on wikipedia but you have web sites (which work even without google blink/geeko or apple webkit, aka absurdely and grotesquely massive and complex web engines) which reference the same info (A quick search on google... lol). You can do easily your research (I wish EU companies were as "search-enabled" than the US companies). Another stinking stuff, hard to find, then it would require to get more verifications, would be some giga-fishy "debts" sucking out a company profits: one day I got a site with starbucks gigantic "debts" sucking out tons of money out via chronic interest rates: some of those debts were most in us currency, but some not (japanese yen as far as I can recall). I will keep that in mind for any further digging.