Well, there should be good rules guiding competition for the competition to be fair/good. You can simply tell the companies to give everyone the opportunity to participate but only recommend or rank them up based on their merits... Merits being how they have been able to solve the most important problems they seek to solve without creating much problems for people/society. We could consider problems here as "lowering of product/service quality that it becomes harmful or a problem to people/society. Usefulness, safety, speed of solving problems, the ease of use, affordability, efficiency, effectiveness etc, of your products can be part of the quality a ranking algorithm (for example) could consider before recommending or ranking them up. This ranking method could be applied globally and no one who likes good thing would reject it and the companies won't use the threats of moving to other countries on governments that insist on the right rules. This should encourage people to create products that achieve the right quality to have them ranked up and/or recommended accordingly to others... Highest quality should ranked top, followed by higher to high, and then low quality could be hidden. Ranking system can move as some sort automatic conveyor belt to different rankers (who can be anonymous) to test and "tick/check" the quality part(like safety, efficiency, etc) they are trying to rank.
Governments and companies should encourage a Fair Competition bounded by good rules specified above to sure that the right products are available to people/society. It's the right thing to do.
Topic: Congress' push to regulate Big Tech is fizzling out (Read 96 times)
I read the article as: govt's antitrust effort is not being done seriously. Else there would be no deadlock.
Regarding Flash, well, it's crap, so Adobe had that coming from all corps, not just Apple.
The DirectX stuff was an attempt to stiffle Linux adoption back in the early 2000's. They saw it as a serious threat to their own market share back then, I think they treat the "Linux desktop" as a joke today despite all their Linux initiatives.
If this is true, then that means at least he still saw the situations clearly back then. In the years after he stepped down, he seemed to have lost touch with reality (just look at all the ridiculous startups he's making/backing and you will get my point).
Apple discontinued support for adobe flash. Microsoft in past years sabotaged openGL to run slower on windows. To give its own Direct X technology a distinct advantage. We have certainly enjoyed no shortage of brand name tech giving its platform advantages over competition.
Regarding Flash, well, it's crap, so Adobe had that coming from all corps, not just Apple.
The DirectX stuff was an attempt to stiffle Linux adoption back in the early 2000's. They saw it as a serious threat to their own market share back then, I think they treat the "Linux desktop" as a joke today despite all their Linux initiatives.
Quote
When Bill Gates was still acting CEO of microsoft, the US government proceeded with plans to break microsoft up into smaller corporations on grounds of anti trust. Bill Gates threatened to move microsoft operations to canada to avoid the anti trust break up. And the US government relaxed its break up proposals.
If this is true, then that means at least he still saw the situations clearly back then. In the years after he stepped down, he seemed to have lost touch with reality (just look at all the ridiculous startups he's making/backing and you will get my point).
Does anyone smell jealousy here amongst the big corporations and even down to the international governments? The composition of article stating how big fintech are getting compromised just because they have out grown expectation of their own governments and now those corporations are trying to build up their own ecosystem, different softwares now and then, to overcome the integration of other companies into them.
Though there are many applications which always need open end source so that integrations of two program can be done without hassle, there are now monopolies where all in all solutions are being provided.
Just like Apple and Microsoft example in the article.
However, they forgetting one thing in the decision making: “We the end users”. We need all type payment solutions handy and every user is comfortable with something but not with everything. There needs multiple choice for sure.
Though there are many applications which always need open end source so that integrations of two program can be done without hassle, there are now monopolies where all in all solutions are being provided.
Just like Apple and Microsoft example in the article.
However, they forgetting one thing in the decision making: “We the end users”. We need all type payment solutions handy and every user is comfortable with something but not with everything. There needs multiple choice for sure.
The "free market" is typically used to refer to an economy with unrestricted competition and exclusively private exchanges between buyers and sellers. Any voluntary economic activity should be included in a broader definition, provided that it is not governed by coercive central authorities.
Free markets are not entirely unrestricted in any modern nation. That said, nations that emphasize private property, capitalism, and individual rights typically have the most open markets.
With some government control, the American economy is primarily a free market economy—a market where supply and demand determine prices. Although there is ongoing discussion among politicians and economists over how much government regulation is required for the U.S. economy, in a fully free market, buyers and sellers do their business without any interference from the government.
But let's look at The big question. Why does government get involved even in a free market economy? and the simple answer is to offer services for items that the market does not cover. What traits define a centrally planned economy one would ask, Each individual is given a task, all economic decisions are made by the federal government and all land and wealth are owned by the central government.
https://quizlet.com/46986801/economics-chp-2-flash-cards/
In general, consumer needs are not addressed. Employees lack the motivation to innovate. Individual liberties are given up to further societal objectives, and these are centrally controlled economy's weaknesses which make it necessary for the Government to step in.
An illustration of what the government offers the general public as a "safety net" is Welfare and social security benefits are provided for unemployment.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp
Free markets are not entirely unrestricted in any modern nation. That said, nations that emphasize private property, capitalism, and individual rights typically have the most open markets.
With some government control, the American economy is primarily a free market economy—a market where supply and demand determine prices. Although there is ongoing discussion among politicians and economists over how much government regulation is required for the U.S. economy, in a fully free market, buyers and sellers do their business without any interference from the government.
But let's look at The big question. Why does government get involved even in a free market economy? and the simple answer is to offer services for items that the market does not cover. What traits define a centrally planned economy one would ask, Each individual is given a task, all economic decisions are made by the federal government and all land and wealth are owned by the central government.
https://quizlet.com/46986801/economics-chp-2-flash-cards/
In general, consumer needs are not addressed. Employees lack the motivation to innovate. Individual liberties are given up to further societal objectives, and these are centrally controlled economy's weaknesses which make it necessary for the Government to step in.
An illustration of what the government offers the general public as a "safety net" is Welfare and social security benefits are provided for unemployment.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp
If other payment processors are able to make transactions through apple and Google (even if it's just the play store/appstore) it's possible some of those purchases could be done directly with bitcoin for a few payment processors (if revolut or PayPal allow direct transfers and one of them is offered as alternative payment means).
Also I guess this means they're running out of/envisaging using a lot of time to try to convince senators on the same sex marriage bills to try to pass ones for big tech.
I'm surprised more effort hasn't been put into trying to split up the largest of the tech firms that currently exist too (if Microsoft moved to Canada, I don't think they'd be able to stay whole, Disney have been blocked by the EU on acquiring certain companies there in the past from what I remember - from a few years ago).
Also I guess this means they're running out of/envisaging using a lot of time to try to convince senators on the same sex marriage bills to try to pass ones for big tech.
I'm surprised more effort hasn't been put into trying to split up the largest of the tech firms that currently exist too (if Microsoft moved to Canada, I don't think they'd be able to stay whole, Disney have been blocked by the EU on acquiring certain companies there in the past from what I remember - from a few years ago).
Quote
Hopes for a congressional vote this summer on a major tech antitrust bill have all but fizzled out as the August recess quickly approaches.
The big picture: It's more likely than ever that this Congress will push efforts to pass Big Tech competition rules into the fall, where they will face slim chances with lawmakers distracted by midterm elections.
Catch up quick: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would ban Big Tech companies from favoring their own services in an anticompetitive way.
Driving the news: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act has bipartisan support. But floor time is dwindling as a list of Democratic priorities, including budget reconciliation and protecting same-sex marriage, take precedence.
What they're saying: Supporters are grappling with the idea that their bill may not see floor time until after the August recess, per conversations with sources from advocacy groups and companies pushing for a vote.
Yes, but: Advocates tell Axios that if the bill hits the floor at any point before a new Congress is sworn in, it will pass with at least 60 yes votes.
Flashback: The House began this current antitrust legislative push in 2020, with a sweeping report charging the biggest U.S. tech companies, including Meta, Amazon, Apple and Google, with putting their own products and services ahead of competitors'.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/21/big-tech-antitrust-senate-fizzle
The big picture: It's more likely than ever that this Congress will push efforts to pass Big Tech competition rules into the fall, where they will face slim chances with lawmakers distracted by midterm elections.
- If an autumn push fails, competition regulation will have to wait for the new Congress — and if the GOP takes back congressional control, it's unlikely to be a top priority.
Catch up quick: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would ban Big Tech companies from favoring their own services in an anticompetitive way.
- For example, Apple would have to allow third party payment systems and Google could not surface its reviews over others in search results.
- The Senate bill is a companion to a similar House bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee last summer.
Driving the news: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act has bipartisan support. But floor time is dwindling as a list of Democratic priorities, including budget reconciliation and protecting same-sex marriage, take precedence.
- The Senate is only in session until Aug. 5 and Congress' main tech priority is to pass a narrow version of a chips bill meant to bolster American tech manufacturing.
- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he was aiming for a summer antitrust vote if the bill had 60 backers, Axios previously reported. A count from the Washington Post found that fewer than 60 senators publicly back the bill.
What they're saying: Supporters are grappling with the idea that their bill may not see floor time until after the August recess, per conversations with sources from advocacy groups and companies pushing for a vote.
- One Hill aide told Axios the bill's backers see the fall, often a dead zone for bipartisan legislation before midterm elections, as a "viable option" because of the legislation's range of support.
- "Chuck Schumer promised a vote. Klobuchar and Grassley have been consistent that they have 60 votes," a former Senate aide close to the conversations told Axios. "They're still pushing for this summer before the work period ends, but if not, you'll see a very consistent and concerted effort to try and get this done in the fall."
- "I am working with Sen. Klobuchar. I support these bills. I want to bring them to the floor. We have to see if we have 60 votes," Schumer said at a news conference Wednesday.
- "We have a strong bipartisan coalition in both the House and Senate pushing this bill forward... We continue to work towards having a floor vote on this legislation as quickly as possible," Klobuchar said in a statement to Axios.
Yes, but: Advocates tell Axios that if the bill hits the floor at any point before a new Congress is sworn in, it will pass with at least 60 yes votes.
- They say members of Congress are simply keeping their votes private until it's time to actually vote, fearing pressure and lobbying from Big Tech if they publicly support the policy.
Flashback: The House began this current antitrust legislative push in 2020, with a sweeping report charging the biggest U.S. tech companies, including Meta, Amazon, Apple and Google, with putting their own products and services ahead of competitors'.
- House members introduced five separate bills accompanying the report, most of which have not seen much movement.
- The lobbying battle has been intense, with Big Tech and its advocacy groups dropping millions on TV and online advertisements opposing the effort.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/21/big-tech-antitrust-senate-fizzle
....
Apple discontinued support for adobe flash. Microsoft in past years sabotaged openGL to run slower on windows. To give its own Direct X technology a distinct advantage. We have certainly enjoyed no shortage of brand name tech giving its platform advantages over competition.
But to resort to potentially antiquated ideology in global markets like anti trust laws. It is quite a leap to make in contrast to prior precedents set over the last few decades.
When Bill Gates was still acting CEO of microsoft, the US government proceeded with plans to break microsoft up into smaller corporations on grounds of anti trust. Bill Gates threatened to move microsoft operations to canada to avoid the anti trust break up. And the US government relaxed its break up proposals.
Now it seems the anti trust push has returned with EU nations imposing anti trust fines on american big tech. Here we have new regulation proposed. Regulation which could be many thousands of pages in length, containing stipulations consumers wouldn't expect.
On a positive note, it is possible that anti competition regulation might extend to bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. 3rd party payment and financial institutions might be limited in promoting their own platform over that of bitcoin and crypto alternatives. I'm not certain if this could extend that far. But it could make for an interesting discussion. As to whether or not free market regulation should make more of an effort to be objective and unbiased in the pursuit of excellence.
Jump to: