8 ms·

Hopefully this is won and followed by similar for all other tech monopolies: Amazon, apple, meta, Microsoft, etc.

jitl 3y ago
Google has 95% of search market, but none of the other examples have 95% of anything. What are Amazon, Apple, Microsoft’s monopolies? They all have substantial competitors across their various verticals. Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Microsoft: Apple (OS), Google, Amazon (enterprise compute) Apple: Microsoft (O, services), Samsung (mobile), Google (mobile, services), Netflix (media)
- p_j_w 3y ago
  Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software markets. It’s impossible to come up with a reasonable definition of monopoly that doesn’t include them in those markets.
  - prepend 3y ago
    They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
    - Retric 3y ago
      Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe because this is the win condition for the board game Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.
      - prepend 3y ago
        When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they were broken up they were down to 64%, but that’s because the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%. But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
        Retric 3y ago
        Which is why I said down to, they didn’t get to say we’re below the magic X% number can you please leave us alone. But presumably if their market share had fallen to 10% that would have happened. As to when the case started, it’s impossible to know what the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push at the time.
    - wak90 3y ago
      >Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.
      - prepend 3y ago
        The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn’t a reason to break up a company, even though it might make it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires some consumer harm, so it’s the abuse of monopoly power that’s the crux, not just having it. And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Basically all of this is false. The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly. And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.
        wak90 3y ago
        I am aware of the legal duty. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value but not explicitly break the law. What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.
        3y ago
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    It isn't about market share, but about anti-competitive practices. Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market?
    - gmerc 3y ago
      laughs in constant bing, onedrive, fucking edge, teams upsells on my paid version of windows. Laughs in edge ignoring browser preferences screwing over firefox laughs in constantly returning widgets, Microsoft reward currency on the start menu, forced telemetry. Laughs in teams bundling. Laughs in the coming super monopoly of cross domain AI finetuning in teams. Lol, by the standards of the last century, they are worse than what did them in in the 90s
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        [flagged]
        yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        You asked, > Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market? and they replied with a list of places MS uses their position to try and push their offerings over competitors.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        >You asked No, I did not. I stated the question which would need to be answered if you wanted to figure out if Microsoft should face an anti-trust.
        lolinder 3y ago
        That's not at all how your initial comment reads. You didn't frame the question as a question other people would have to ask, you framed it in a way that clearly invited a response. You might not have liked the way they replied, but your follow-up was super dismissive given that you asked a question.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    But you can have them for free so it doesn't count
    - lolinder 3y ago
      You can't have them for free—you pay for Windows in the form of a higher OEM cost for your computer. EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.
      - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
        Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you take the time to assemble the components yourself. And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.
        lolinder 3y ago
        If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost on the Dell XPS 13 by switching between Linux and Windows: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-developer-edition/spd/xps-13-9320-laptop/usexcucto9320rpl01 https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-dev... Computers that don't offer a Linux option just all come with that $149 surcharge baked in.
        JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
        > > If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users for piracy > > Dell XPS 13 And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you can get Microsoft products for free if you are a wise guy. And Microsoft tolerates it.
  - delfinom 3y ago
    >Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software markets. Their market has been shrinking due to the rise of tablets and smartphones (so a majority of the population doesn't need PCs at home beyond certain professionals, gamers and hobbyists) They do have a large business market share, but that is also shrinking as many "modern" businesses diversify with Apple computers due to employees growing up with them. Depending on stats, it has fallen from 90% to 75% in a decade and will most likely continue to fall. This is part of the business case for Microsoft to make their software work cross-platform in order to diversify. Otherwise their position is a natural monopoly. Companies opted to all use Windows because there are certain economies of scale that occur when you all standardize on the same software, including, and this is the biggest one, your employees not needing to relearn whatever ridiculous snowflake UI scheme came up by each different linux distro. It's why Windows and macOS will continue to remain dominant in the PC space. The same goes for Office 365. Sure there are certain elements of it that are a bit _too pushy. But companies buy into it because it's one standardized and integrated system. Going elsewhere has overhead of increased training costs for end users and even the IT admin side.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Platforms are ecosystems with a monopoly intentionally created by copyright. But the copyright monopoly is supposed to be for the copyrighted work. You shouldn't be able to anti-competitively leverage it into a monopoly over everything else it touches, from hardware to app distribution to services. And there is no inherent reason it has to be that way. Microsoft doesn't have any kind of a monopoly on app distribution for Windows, for example. POSIX applications aren't tied to any specific vendor's proprietary Unix. You don't have to run Windows on most PCs even if that's what it comes with, and the same has been true of many Macs, but not iPhones. Taking a monopoly you have legitimately and leveraging it into control over some other market is called tying.
- tomComb 3y ago
  Google’s search monopoly is the easiest to escape: the moment I decide Bing or chatGPT are better I can switch with ease. And chatGPT is already replacing many Google searches. So, it will take care of itself, and I think there are many other competition issues that need government intervention.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    There's a network effect too in that by being the search monopoly gives Google several advantages: 1) They have free data about what most users want (i.e. click on) 2) Websites fight for being indexed by Google, but crawlers other than Google basically have to fight to access websites
  - skinkestek 3y ago
    Google is bigger than that: IMO Chrome needs to be split out too as does Android.
- LorenzoGood 3y ago
  Apple has over 75% of 18-24 year olds with their phone in their pocket.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    But how is this the result of Apple engaging in anti-competitive practices? 75% of people choosing your product can not be grounds to breakup a company and the fact that it looks different for other age groups is just further evidence that Apple is engaging in fair competition.
    - ewoodrich 3y ago
      You could make an argument that number would be smaller if Apple was forced to make iMessage interoperable with Android devices.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        It is interoperable already using SMS.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        Seems like a very weak argument. Practically irrelevant for an anti-trust case I would say.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices and generally making Apple stuff only work with other Apple stuff, not to mention their 30% fees on their app store while also not allowing other app stores, are all anticompetitive practices, which the EU is well regulating soon.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        Some of those may be reason to bring legal action, but breaking up Apple over this seems insane.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  Many have made cases against Amazon, e.g. https://doctorow.medium.com/californias-antitrust-case-against-amazon-82b8e4177fb7 https://doctorow.medium.com/californias-antitrust-case-again...
- barnabee 3y ago
  I realise its not how current laws work, but I think the threshold for any large/mature market for anti-trust should be more like 33% than near 100%. There's no need for companies supplying a product en masse to be anywhere near that large.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place. The direct competitors to Amazon are Ebay, Baidu, Etsy, Temu and others, all of which are much smaller in the US (but some are huge elsewhere). You say that Facebook is a Google competitor because it offers eyeballs and because people sometimes go there to get stuff and it uses it's info for ads providing. The actual situation imo is that online enterprises compete via monopolistic competition [1]. No large high tech company wants to offer exactly the same thing as it's because at best neither will make a lot of money - instead, any company entering a crowded marketplace will come up with something guaranteeing them more engagement, higher profits and so-forth (thus something even worse from the consumer's view). See Meta's Threads. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition
  - jitl 3y ago
    I go to Walmart a bit less frequently than I go to Amazon in person (Fresh or Whole Foods), but I order from Walmart quite frequently. Their online delivery services are very competitive and comparable to Amazon's. If Amazon is out of stock on an item or showing long delivery time, I'll order from Walmart instead. Most recently I ordered a Synology RT6600AX Wifi router/media server because Amazon had 2 week delivery time, and Walmart had 2 day.
  - tzs 3y ago
    > Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place Walmart is also an online market place. Walmart.com includes third party reseller products with many significant similarities to Amazon. They've got fulfilled by Walmart, free shipping, and if you join Walmart+ it includes Paramount+ video streaming (also free grocery delivery).
dantheman 3y ago
Hopefully the government loses.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  I would rather give my data to one entity, than thousands of fragmented ones. Some things can only be accomplished at scale, and also risk getting into the wrong hands (re Twitter)
  - jart 3y ago
    If Google gets broken up, Gmail will end up like the PSTN. Anyone can monitor your location. Anyone can read your messages. Anyone can spoof your address.
    - waithuh 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - growingentropy 3y ago
    If you only want one entity having your data, you're better off being abused by Apple. Google invites all his friends over to run a train on you.
    - waithuh 3y ago
      Why do you think that Apple doesnt do that?
      - growingentropy 3y ago
        https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/ https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/ "Now that we’ve established that Apple collects and uses your data to serve ads, does it sell your data too? Turns out the answer is No, Apple doesn’t sell your data to third-party advertisers. The Cupertino giant possesses the exclusive rights of showing you ads on the App Store and other apps."

jitl 3y ago

Google has 95% of search market, but none of the other examples have 95% of anything. What are Amazon, Apple, Microsoft’s monopolies? They all have substantial competitors across their various verticals. Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Microsoft: Apple (OS), Google, Amazon (enterprise compute) Apple: Microsoft (O, services), Samsung (mobile), Google (mobile, services), Netflix (media)

p_j_w 3y ago
Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software markets. It’s impossible to come up with a reasonable definition of monopoly that doesn’t include them in those markets.
- prepend 3y ago
  They don’t have 90% [0]. They have about 70% of just desktop, but there’s lots of competition with devices since desktops have replacements with tablets and phones and other devices. Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Back in the 90s, Microsoft was found to harm other browsers. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
  - Retric 3y ago
    Read up on past monopoly busts, you don’t need an overwhelming market share to be broken up. Standard oil was down to 64% and that didn’t save it.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      People have this "folk" definition of monopoly saying that a monopoly is 100% total market domination. Maybe because this is the win condition for the board game Monopoly? I think this idea is a serious impediment to addressing anti-competitive behavior in America.
    - prepend 3y ago
      When antitrust proceedings starts against Standard Oil in 1904, they had 91% market share [0]. By 1911 when they were broken up they were down to 64%, but that’s because the case progressed. And after the breakup they had 0%. But I think if Standard had 64% in the beginning and there was a competitive market, they would not have been broken up. [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oil/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-evolution-standard-oi...
      - Retric 3y ago
        Which is why I said down to, they didn’t get to say we’re below the magic X% number can you please leave us alone. But presumably if their market share had fallen to 10% that would have happened. As to when the case started, it’s impossible to know what the minimum threshold was. It could just as easily been well below 64% as people where in monopoly busting push at the time.
  - wak90 3y ago
    >Also, as the 90s Microsoft case showed, just having a monopoly isn’t bad. It’s the harm caused by having the monopoly. Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.
    - prepend 3y ago
      The issue is that having a monopoly in the US isn’t a reason to break up a company, even though it might make it possible to abuse. Antitrust law in the US requires some consumer harm, so it’s the abuse of monopoly power that’s the crux, not just having it. And duty to shareholders would actually mean that management would not abuse their monopoly power because of the risk of breakup.
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      Basically all of this is false. The legal duty to shareholders doesn't mean that companies need to violate the law. In reality, saying " we don't abuse our market position to avoid regulatory scrutiny" is acting in the interests of shareholders, and a lawsuit wouldn't go further. Otherwise you'd be saying that companies had a duty to break all laws in pursuit of shareholder value, which is obviously silly. And yeah under us law you have to prove consumer harm or anticompetitive practice, not just having a significant market majority.
      - wak90 3y ago
        I am aware of the legal duty. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value but not explicitly break the law. What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.
        3y ago
- constantcrying 3y ago
  It isn't about market share, but about anti-competitive practices. Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market?
  - gmerc 3y ago
    laughs in constant bing, onedrive, fucking edge, teams upsells on my paid version of windows. Laughs in edge ignoring browser preferences screwing over firefox laughs in constantly returning widgets, Microsoft reward currency on the start menu, forced telemetry. Laughs in teams bundling. Laughs in the coming super monopoly of cross domain AI finetuning in teams. Lol, by the standards of the last century, they are worse than what did them in in the 90s
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        You asked, > Is Microsoft abusing their market position to keep competitors out of the market? and they replied with a list of places MS uses their position to try and push their offerings over competitors.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        >You asked No, I did not. I stated the question which would need to be answered if you wanted to figure out if Microsoft should face an anti-trust.
        lolinder 3y ago
        That's not at all how your initial comment reads. You didn't frame the question as a question other people would have to ask, you framed it in a way that clearly invited a response. You might not have liked the way they replied, but your follow-up was super dismissive given that you asked a question.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  But you can have them for free so it doesn't count
  - lolinder 3y ago
    You can't have them for free—you pay for Windows in the form of a higher OEM cost for your computer. EDIT: OP eventually clarified in the thread that they're talking about piracy. So apparently the argument is that because Microsoft products can be pirated, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Make of that what you will.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
      Only if you buy an already assembled computer, not if you take the time to assemble the components yourself. And also as a small fish the higher OEM price is being subsidised by the Fortune 500 companies which buy millions of dollars worth of products from Dell etc.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. Edit: The idea that OEMs only tack on the extra cost to big companies is demonstrably false. For one thing, margins per-item are always lower on bulk purchases, not higher—Fortune 500 do not pay list price on anything. For another, you can see the difference in cost on the Dell XPS 13 by switching between Linux and Windows: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-developer-edition/spd/xps-13-9320-laptop/usexcucto9320rpl01 https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-plus-dev... Computers that don't offer a Linux option just all come with that $149 surcharge baked in.
        JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
        > > If you assemble the components yourself, you still don't get Windows for free, you just get out of paying the Windows tax if you intend to install Linux. You get Windows for free from the combo of self-assemble + torrenting + Microsoft not pursuing individual users for piracy > > Dell XPS 13 And that is what I said, if you don't assemble the thing yourself buy the cheapest option from an OEM and then you can get Microsoft products for free if you are a wise guy. And Microsoft tolerates it.
- delfinom 3y ago
  >Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS and Office software markets. Their market has been shrinking due to the rise of tablets and smartphones (so a majority of the population doesn't need PCs at home beyond certain professionals, gamers and hobbyists) They do have a large business market share, but that is also shrinking as many "modern" businesses diversify with Apple computers due to employees growing up with them. Depending on stats, it has fallen from 90% to 75% in a decade and will most likely continue to fall. This is part of the business case for Microsoft to make their software work cross-platform in order to diversify. Otherwise their position is a natural monopoly. Companies opted to all use Windows because there are certain economies of scale that occur when you all standardize on the same software, including, and this is the biggest one, your employees not needing to relearn whatever ridiculous snowflake UI scheme came up by each different linux distro. It's why Windows and macOS will continue to remain dominant in the PC space. The same goes for Office 365. Sure there are certain elements of it that are a bit _too pushy. But companies buy into it because it's one standardized and integrated system. Going elsewhere has overhead of increased training costs for end users and even the IT admin side.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Platforms are ecosystems with a monopoly intentionally created by copyright. But the copyright monopoly is supposed to be for the copyrighted work. You shouldn't be able to anti-competitively leverage it into a monopoly over everything else it touches, from hardware to app distribution to services. And there is no inherent reason it has to be that way. Microsoft doesn't have any kind of a monopoly on app distribution for Windows, for example. POSIX applications aren't tied to any specific vendor's proprietary Unix. You don't have to run Windows on most PCs even if that's what it comes with, and the same has been true of many Macs, but not iPhones. Taking a monopoly you have legitimately and leveraging it into control over some other market is called tying.
tomComb 3y ago
Google’s search monopoly is the easiest to escape: the moment I decide Bing or chatGPT are better I can switch with ease. And chatGPT is already replacing many Google searches. So, it will take care of itself, and I think there are many other competition issues that need government intervention.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  There's a network effect too in that by being the search monopoly gives Google several advantages: 1) They have free data about what most users want (i.e. click on) 2) Websites fight for being indexed by Google, but crawlers other than Google basically have to fight to access websites
- skinkestek 3y ago
  Google is bigger than that: IMO Chrome needs to be split out too as does Android.
LorenzoGood 3y ago
Apple has over 75% of 18-24 year olds with their phone in their pocket.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  But how is this the result of Apple engaging in anti-competitive practices? 75% of people choosing your product can not be grounds to breakup a company and the fact that it looks different for other age groups is just further evidence that Apple is engaging in fair competition.
  - ewoodrich 3y ago
    You could make an argument that number would be smaller if Apple was forced to make iMessage interoperable with Android devices.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      It is interoperable already using SMS.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      Seems like a very weak argument. Practically irrelevant for an anti-trust case I would say.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Blocking iMessage on non Apple devices and generally making Apple stuff only work with other Apple stuff, not to mention their 30% fees on their app store while also not allowing other app stores, are all anticompetitive practices, which the EU is well regulating soon.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      Some of those may be reason to bring legal action, but breaking up Apple over this seems insane.
barbazoo 3y ago
Many have made cases against Amazon, e.g. https://doctorow.medium.com/californias-antitrust-case-against-amazon-82b8e4177fb7 https://doctorow.medium.com/californias-antitrust-case-again...
barnabee 3y ago
I realise its not how current laws work, but I think the threshold for any large/mature market for anti-trust should be more like 33% than near 100%. There's no need for companies supplying a product en masse to be anywhere near that large.
joe_the_user 3y ago
Amazon: Walmart (goods), Netflix (media) Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place. The direct competitors to Amazon are Ebay, Baidu, Etsy, Temu and others, all of which are much smaller in the US (but some are huge elsewhere). You say that Facebook is a Google competitor because it offers eyeballs and because people sometimes go there to get stuff and it uses it's info for ads providing. The actual situation imo is that online enterprises compete via monopolistic competition [1]. No large high tech company wants to offer exactly the same thing as it's because at best neither will make a lot of money - instead, any company entering a crowded marketplace will come up with something guaranteeing them more engagement, higher profits and so-forth (thus something even worse from the consumer's view). See Meta's Threads. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition
- jitl 3y ago
  I go to Walmart a bit less frequently than I go to Amazon in person (Fresh or Whole Foods), but I order from Walmart quite frequently. Their online delivery services are very competitive and comparable to Amazon's. If Amazon is out of stock on an item or showing long delivery time, I'll order from Walmart instead. Most recently I ordered a Synology RT6600AX Wifi router/media server because Amazon had 2 week delivery time, and Walmart had 2 day.
- tzs 3y ago
  > Walmart and Amazon are both huge but it seems just wrong to say a brick-and-mortar store as equivalent to an online market place Walmart is also an online market place. Walmart.com includes third party reseller products with many significant similarities to Amazon. They've got fulfilled by Walmart, free shipping, and if you join Walmart+ it includes Paramount+ video streaming (also free grocery delivery).

dantheman 3y ago

Hopefully the government loses.

hackernewds 3y ago
I would rather give my data to one entity, than thousands of fragmented ones. Some things can only be accomplished at scale, and also risk getting into the wrong hands (re Twitter)
- jart 3y ago
  If Google gets broken up, Gmail will end up like the PSTN. Anyone can monitor your location. Anyone can read your messages. Anyone can spoof your address.
  - waithuh 3y ago
    [flagged]
- growingentropy 3y ago
  If you only want one entity having your data, you're better off being abused by Apple. Google invites all his friends over to run a train on you.
  - waithuh 3y ago
    Why do you think that Apple doesnt do that?
    - growingentropy 3y ago
      https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/ https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/ "Now that we’ve established that Apple collects and uses your data to serve ads, does it sell your data too? Turns out the answer is No, Apple doesn’t sell your data to third-party advertisers. The Cupertino giant possesses the exclusive rights of showing you ads on the App Store and other apps."