Senate Judiciary Committee Clears Tech-Focused Antitrust Bill (bloomberg.com) 17
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved the antitrust bill aimed at Apple, Meta Platforms, Amazon and Alphabet's Google, bringing the measure one step closer to consideration by the full Senate. From a report: The bill, S. 2992, sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley, would prohibit companies from giving an advantage to their own products on their platforms. Smaller competitors have said these so-called gatekeeper companies use unfair business practices to maintain their dominance. The affected companies warn that the legislation would hurt U.S. innovation by giving an advantage to foreign competitors, would risk user privacy and security and would damage products enjoyed by consumers.
Wrong tech (Score:1)
They should be going after Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. They should regulate service provision, not content
Give us common carrier!
Re: Wrong tech (Score:2)
Not yet. CMCSA, T, VZ, etc etc are still in growth mode. Once they stop growing (maybe another decade or two) you will get your common carrier. Thereâ(TM)s too much money in competition right now and governments donâ(TM)t want to regulate that (free market and what not)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that even could apply to the "Apple Tax"?
Re: (Score:1)
They should be going after Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. They should regulate service provision, not content
You should read the bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
There's two ways to be a "covered platform", and only one of the two need apply.
One of those ways is the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice can deem any business a "covered platform" if they don't already meet the definition.
Otherwise:
Any company with 50m active users or 100k active business users,
and a market capitalization greater than $550 billion,
and is a critical trading partner for the sale or provision of any product or service
Re: (Score:2)
>Some will be bad, mainly the app stores that have to legally allow malware in, that can lift everything off your phone.
in case this bill becomes law, Apple will likely (be forced to) allow everything but introduce the "Apple approved" stamp and include "only allow to Apple approved stuff" checkbox in settings. it's actually not THAT bad if you think of it.
Re: (Score:1)
I remember printing out a giant sign that said
App Store Only
for a family member that I was providing Mac support to. All the other rules / guidance was just too much for them to follow, so we agreed to this one and only condition.
It never lasted. It takes one âoefreeâ version of something that is otherwise a paid app, one app claiming to offer to help keep the machine cl
Re: (Score:2)
I'd almost be happy with decoupling cell network build-out from access provisioning. We are spending an absolute shitload of money to build 3 parallel networks, which you can only access one of at a time without subscribing to more than one with a DSDS-capable phone, using 3x the spectrum to do so. Combine all three networks and make each retail provider an MVNO with a level playing field on the uber-network, operated as a common carrier utility, and give back redundant spectrum bands for repurposing by t
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely!
Oh, and now that you've outed yourself, how can I apply for whichever of those companies is paying you to spread this stuff?
While Good... (Score:4, Interesting)
I firmly believe that companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon need to be broken up... I think it would be a bigger bang for the buck to go after the likes of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, etc. They are bigger now than during 2008 when the whole "too big to fail" thing came into the collective consciousness.
They can circle back to the tech companies a little later.
A curious phrase... (Score:2)
A curious phrase made: "...would prohibit companies from giving an advantage to their own products..." that seems to go against the whole point of any company having a product on a platform. And what is "advantage" lower-prices? matching a competitor's feature? That's a vague term that will be decided by the courts, much like "life-time warranty."
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
A curious phrase made: "...would prohibit companies from giving an advantage to their own products..." that seems to go against the whole point of any company having a product on a platform. And what is "advantage" lower-prices? matching a competitor's feature? That's a vague term that will be decided by the courts, much like "life-time warranty."
JoshK.
Well, when you charge someone a fee to list their product on your website, and then fuck them by offering knock-offs of said product, or promoting your own product at their expense...
Simple solution.. Don't have 3rd party sellers on your site if you're gonna treat them like dogshit. Problem solved.
Re: A curious phrase... (Score:2)
I see your point, although to expect “fair play” is unrealistic, although it is unethical. Before the online platforms, Microsoft forced PC makers to bundle Internet Explorer to install the Windows platform. Or when Digital Research made DR-DOS, and the Microsoft modified Windows to detect and not run on DR-DOS.
A recent story about “advantage” is when Microsoft wined, dined, and screwed a developer using the open-source app and making it a platform app for Windows...
https://medium.co [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I’m sure someone could argue the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith will balance things.
People that believe in lassie faire capitalism are idiots. A very tiny percentage of idiots. But for some reason they are constantly dragged up as if any of their views or opinions matter a hill of beans. They don't account for enough of the population to affect any change in our course.
The US has taken a "guided" or "tended" approach to Capitalism since the turn of the last century. This country, right now, is less anti-trust than it EVER has been since then. That's why we're in the mess we're in. I d
Re: (Score:2)
You're response is more vitriolic polemic than discussion, so whatever dude. Also "you know this" unless you're telepathic, I don't think so. Again, whatever.
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
You're response is more vitriolic polemic than discussion, so whatever dude. Also "you know this" unless you're telepathic, I don't think so. Again, whatever.
JoshK.
If you found that to be vitriolic, then you're an overly sensitive snowflake. Typical leftist tactics. You drag up lassie faire capitalism as if that system has any following, beyond a few knuckheads, and then you drag up "profit at all costs". And yeah, you DO KNOW it's bullshit. There are all sorts of companies out there that operate morally and legally. Mostly small businesses, but that's the majority.
I didn't rant and rave and attack you personally. I took issue with the statement and I explain...
Meta Platforms?!?! (Score:2)
How about calling it by its name? Facebook.