Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple is good for everyone rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Crane
United States
Orem
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


At Business Insider's IGNITION conference, Scott Galloway gave a blistering presentation on why "The Big Four" — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google — should be broken up. Galloway is a professor of marketing at the NYU Stern School of Business and the author of "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=6NyFRIgulPo

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about Comcast, News Corp, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.? Why these companies?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
CHA was my dump stat
badge
Snob of the People
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to get on the leading edge of a future trend: I will never, ever vote for Mark Zuckerberg.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't really see the Google, Apple, and Facebook market power lasting beyond another 20 years or so. Technology moves on, people move to different platforms, etc. Apple is already showing signs of fading market power. Kids think Facebook is the site their parents and other old people use. Google has nothing but search, which eventually will be displaced by AI agents that are vastly more intelligent / capable of finding information than a crappy search engine designed to figure out what you really want based on text entry into a search box. Amazon, on the other hand, will be extremely difficult to dislodge. Amazon isn't just a web site, they also have 1000s of warehouses, they have their own delivery business, they have EC2, and so on. Competing with that (directly) will take 10s to 100s of billions of dollars to build all that infrastructure and the technology to make it all work together.

That said, history shows that huge companies like Amazon, Walmart, IBM, GE, etc usually end up being so big that they cannot react to changing markets and technology. Maybe Amazon lasts 100 years or some such, which would be truly incredible, but eventually even it too will be displaced by smaller / more flexible companies and the cycle will continue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
Google has nothing but search, which eventually will be displaced by AI agents that are vastly more intelligent / capable of finding information than a crappy search engine designed to figure out what you really want based on text entry into a search box.


So Google cloud, youtube, Android, the biggest ad service on earth, all their AI plays, their self driving initiatives that they have under Alphabet.... are nothing?! Along with a war chest that is not precisley used on search.

You could use a dunce cap.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
How about Comcast, News Corp, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.? Why these companies?


Market share. Watch the video and he specifically addresses your question with the Time-Warner/AT&T merger.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
I don't really see the Google, Apple, and Facebook market power lasting beyond another 20 years or so. Technology moves on, people move to different platforms, etc. Apple is already showing signs of fading market power. Kids think Facebook is the site their parents and other old people use. Google has nothing but search, which eventually will be displaced by AI agents that are vastly more intelligent / capable of finding information than a crappy search engine designed to figure out what you really want based on text entry into a search box. Amazon, on the other hand, will be extremely difficult to dislodge. Amazon isn't just a web site, they also have 1000s of warehouses, they have their own delivery business, they have EC2, and so on. Competing with that (directly) will take 10s to 100s of billions of dollars to build all that infrastructure and the technology to make it all work together.

That said, history shows that huge companies like Amazon, Walmart, IBM, GE, etc usually end up being so big that they cannot react to changing markets and technology. Maybe Amazon lasts 100 years or some such, which would be truly incredible, but eventually even it too will be displaced by smaller / more flexible companies and the cycle will continue.


One of the examples he uses is that when Microsoft crushed Netscape, we went in and intervened. We made it so Microsoft could not so readily kill nascent companies in their early stages of existence. And if we hadn't done that... do you think Google would exist?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
How about Comcast, News Corp, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.? Why these companies?


Market share. Watch the video and he specifically addresses your question with the Time-Warner/AT&T merger.


Comcast? Sorry I've learned not to watch 95% of videos posted here, especially dump and run videos.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
I don't really see the Google, Apple, and Facebook market power lasting beyond another 20 years or so. Technology moves on, people move to different platforms, etc.


Well, that's certainly possible. The concern is more that the players in question are growing to a size where they can pretty much squash any competition either through some form of regulatory capture, patent infringement abuse, or simply buying out the competition and shutting them down or absorbing them.

Quote:
Apple is already showing signs of fading market power.


They are? Where?

Quote:
Kids think Facebook is the site their parents and other old people use.


Which is why Facebook is acquiring services the kids use, like Instagram.

Quote:
Google has nothing but search...


If you think this is accurate, then you really shouldn't be a part of this conversation. Google has the #2 cloud platform, the #1 advertising network, the #1 streaming video service, the #2 cloud productivity suite (#1 in the education world), the #1 mobile operating system, and a whole lot more.

Quote:
That said, history shows that huge companies like Amazon, Walmart, IBM, GE, etc usually end up being so big that they cannot react to changing markets and technology.


You do realize that your statement here includes only one company that failed to adapt to changing markets, right? IBM is the only one that fits that description.

I haven't watched the video so I don't understand the basis for his argument, though I'll bet I can guess (anti-competitive, monopolistic, and willing to abuse IP laws to further their ends). But there are some reasonable concerns that can be expressed.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
One of the examples he uses is that when Microsoft crushed Netscape, we went in and intervened. We made it so Microsoft could not so readily kill nascent companies in their early stages of existence. And if we hadn't done that... do you think Google would exist?


This isn't a great example, TBH. Yes, Google would have existed. For all the damage MS might have done to Netscape, Netscape's own silliness and stupidity did a whole lot more damage.

There are better examples elsewhere. If you wanted to introduce a new mobile operating system (and some have tried), the maze of patents you'd have to navigate would make you go try to sell macrame pot hangers. There's a patent for touching an icon on a screen to launch an app, for the love of Mike.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
sfox wrote:
Google has nothing but search, which eventually will be displaced by AI agents that are vastly more intelligent / capable of finding information than a crappy search engine designed to figure out what you really want based on text entry into a search box.


So Google cloud, youtube, Android, the biggest ad service on earth, all their AI plays, their self driving initiatives that they have under Alphabet.... are nothing?! Along with a war chest that is not precisley used on search.


Also check the diversity of their patent portfolio.

Alphabet (which owns Google) clearly has a lot of scope to grow (though whether as one monolith is another question). Amazon are growing in the AWS field. Apple have some wider interests, but like Microsoft they might have peaked, too soon to tell. Facebook I don't know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
How about Comcast, News Corp, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.? Why these companies?


Market share. Watch the video and he specifically addresses your question with the Time-Warner/AT&T merger.


This actually doesn't do much to respond to the question. It's arguably much easier to take market share away from Apple, Google, etc. than the companies Shadrach named.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
How about Comcast, News Corp, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.? Why these companies?


Market share. Watch the video and he specifically addresses your question with the Time-Warner/AT&T merger.


And it pulls very shitty numbers to do so.

I think those companies should be broken up in some fashion, and the same is true of separating network connection providers from ISPs/content companies, and yet, half the arguments he throws out there are disingenuous and weak. Comparing amazon with just a retailer is like saying that all of google is an ad company. He also talks about 'each dollar X company gets is one Y doesn't', which is so dumb I shouldn't have to explain why it's dumb.

The risk is vertical integration: Amazon the retailer? sure, they can retail all they want... but separate the cloud provider. Google, search and ad giant, shouldn't sell their own cloud either, or manage Android, or youtube. But the last time the US government broke something apart, it was a geographic distinction, and instead of one huge monopolist, we got a bunch of smaller monopolists that had pretty much the same power anyway, and eventually mostly merged.

The problem with that plan, however, is that the reason this companies have gotten so big is that a few sections of their business have 'money fountains': places where profits are incommensurate with the investment., and that will produce crazy amounts of money regardless. In practice, they are acting like hedge funds, trying to do something with all the money. Google has kind of accepted this already by creating Alphabet, but that's where the modern economy heads towards if we do nothing: A few umbrella companies that run a lot of smaller companies, and use their strength in one side to bolster another.

I don't think it's a catastrophe if we don't break them down: They will fall down the same way as a zaibatsu does, as the companies get comfortable and rot. You already see that when people say they join Google to coast until retirement. But decline like that is not good for anyone, as large behemoths chug along providing little value for decades until the decline kills them (go take a look at IBM)

This also happens in china, BTW: Compare any of the US giants with Tencent, it's the same thing, we just don't even know they exist because the barriers between the US and most of Asia are huge.

And let's not forget that those companies' political power is still quite weak compared to older companies that aren't growing. They spend a lot on lobbying, and yet, the FCC isn't ruling the way Google wants.

So, when the video is right, I think it's kind of by accident.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:


You do realize that your statement here includes only one company that failed to adapt to changing markets, right? IBM is the only one that fits that description.

IBM had sales of $80 billion last year.
They got out of hardware and became a software and services company. They have 380,000 employees. Perhaps they adapted better than you think.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Brown
United States
Okemos
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
You do realize that your statement here includes only one company that failed to adapt to changing markets, right? IBM is the only one that fits that description.


Curious, what are these areas IBM is focusing on which aren't part of changing markets?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just hate when people naked post videos (in this case not even embedding it) without any comment.

Huge RSP faux pas.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
IBM had sales of $80 billion last year.


Sure, but they were taking a pummeling and it took a dramatic overhaul to get there. They've definitely come back, but the had a good stretch where they were having significant issues.

Once they made drastic changes to leadership and marketing, things got better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
IBM had sales of $80 billion last year.


Sure, but they were taking a pummeling and it took a dramatic overhaul to get there. They've definitely come back, but the had a good stretch where they were having significant issues.

Once they made drastic changes to leadership and marketing, things got better.

So you're saying they successfully adapted to a changing market?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
So you're saying they successfully adapted to a changing market?


Not the hardware market, no. They bumped and struggled and stumbled and failed there for a couple of decades and nearly killed the company in the process. IBM succeeded in spite of themselves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
So you're saying they successfully adapted to a changing market?


Not the hardware market, no. They bumped and struggled and stumbled and failed there for a couple of decades and nearly killed the company in the process. IBM succeeded in spite of themselves.


Similar to Sega?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
I just hate when people naked post videos (in this case not even embedding it) without any comment.

Huge RSP faux pas.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
perfalbion wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
So you're saying they successfully adapted to a changing market?


Not the hardware market, no. They bumped and struggled and stumbled and failed there for a couple of decades and nearly killed the company in the process. IBM succeeded in spite of themselves.


Similar to Sega?


Pretty similar, actually. Both were married to the idea that they could produce proprietary hardware as part of a largely closed ecosystem. And got crushed as a result. And both ended up giving up and succeeding by doing software (though IBM makes a ton of money as an integrator).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Khalid Shabazz
United States
NYC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Hot take: Amazon should be nationalized.

I don't think online distribution should be practically in the hands of one company.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
Australia
flag msg tools
crescent_gamer wrote:
Hot take: Amazon should be nationalized.

I don't think online distribution should be practically in the hands of one company.


Monopsony (the thing Amazon is attempting to attain) is just as bad as monopoly.

Nationalised? Nah, can't see Amazon (or what it does) as an essential service. Broken up, though, absolutely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Khalid Shabazz
United States
NYC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
JasonJ0 wrote:
Monopsony (the thing Amazon is attempting to attain) is just as bad as monopoly.

Nationalised? Nah, can't see Amazon (or what it does) as an essential service. Broken up, though, absolutely.

The warehouses are basically extensions of shipping companies. In places where Amazon doesn't run its own shipping services, trucks from the various companies line up in front of the Amazon warehouse to get filled up and then transport the packages to their own hubs.

It could be argued that the ability to offer goods online on central website and store them in central warehouses for a low rate would be of great benefit to small businesses and new entrepreneurs.

I agree though the main problem would be one company having a monopoly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.