List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Huh.
So, intentionally bad faith arguing or seriously pathetic level of understanding, which one are you gonna admit to?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Sanders Says He Would Break Up 'Conglomerates' Like Disney/21st Century Fox
- Thread starter Poetic Injustice
- Start date
So, intentionally bad faith arguing or seriously pathetic level of understanding, which one are you gonna admit to?
Oh. See, and here I was thinking that Apple acquiring next computers, which provided the underpinning of OS X and thus iOS, which fueled Apple's meteoric rise to the first 1 trillion dollar company was an example of a company acquiring a competitor to gain marketshare. Silly me.
Ahh yes, famously massive competitor to Apple computers Next, who sold 50,000 units total. What a giant.
Were they a competitor that helped Apple gain marketshare, or not? (also, that was probably about the same amount of macs Apple sold at the time :)
It's a huge reach to conflate Apple's acquisition of NeXT with what would ultimately become iOS and modern macOS, much less the success of their business as a whole.
Everyone gets this, where we part is that you think that will be proper leverage required to get a major shifting like this done when he's president. You're underestimating how large a task this is. No, Bernie is not the only candidate with daggers out for corporations, Warren was doing this in the primaries before he did.
It's frustrating how people think just because Trump does things Bernie can copy him to the letter and getaway with it. No, that's not happening. You're not understanding the differences between the parties and how they expect their presidents to operate. All the victories the right has done under Trump won't be magically recreated by the left, if that were possible they'd be gaining far more victories in elections.
We care about reforming the status quo, we don't like the current status quo anymore than you do. Curious how you've left what vision America is suppose to be like completely blank, when your argument posits that it's supposedly the superior future for us all.
Everyone stans for corporation here.
You can't actually quantify that, that is purely your opinion.
Not. Buying a computer company that sold 50,000 units over its lifespan did not help the market share of the company that sold millions of Macs.
Go ahead and talk about Disney but the thread isn't only about Disney
This is not just a good idea, it's rather essential for society to continue functioning at all. The Media Class is rapidly accelerating the decay of politics (among other things) and it needs to be tossed into the sun.
If an increasingly insular number of individual organizations being in charge of all the media available to consume in the US doesn't seem like a problem to you then I think you should probably step away from some screens for a while and think about what you've just said
If an increasingly insular number of individual organizations being in charge of all the media available to consume in the US doesn't seem like a problem to you then I think you should probably step away from some screens for a while and think about what you've just said
Is it really a monopoly if the company in question has little physical assets in comparison to the market? Because I don't like people expanding the definition of monopoly to include digital or intellectual property.
Comcast (and the rest of its ilk) or regional monopolies at best because they have physical assets which makes it difficult for others to compete.
But Disney movies/tv shows/comics/toys? What prevents others from competing against Disney?
Or a more extreme case would be Facebook. Virtually all their assets are digital or non-tangible. A majority of the world uses Messenger/Instagram/Whatsapp. What prevents competitors from whipping up their own social app?
Comcast (and the rest of its ilk) or regional monopolies at best because they have physical assets which makes it difficult for others to compete.
But Disney movies/tv shows/comics/toys? What prevents others from competing against Disney?
Or a more extreme case would be Facebook. Virtually all their assets are digital or non-tangible. A majority of the world uses Messenger/Instagram/Whatsapp. What prevents competitors from whipping up their own social app?
And yet, anytime Sanders or someone else suggests something. You say no.
You're exactly the type of liberal that both Malcolm X and Dr King spoke about.
You (seem to) care more about order rather than justice.
Nah. That's not how this works. I can point out and agree with what's wrong, without having to prove what my personal vision is.
Though, i'd be happy with several of the proposals that senator Sanders is putting forth (such as this) So that can give you some idea of what i'd like to see.
If i was American. Out of all the candidates that are running, i'd vote for him.
And please don't use such a bullshit gotcha question on me in the future. It demeans us both.
And does that somehow make it ok, what's your point ?
This thread is confusing. This site is all about eatting the rich, but when a corporation is extensively rich and has a lot of influence it's then OK? I guess it is true: corporations aren't people thus exempt.
Because usually that's how it goes when he does things like this.
Insults, nice.
You won't get justice in this world by ignoring order. President Sanders isn't going to wave his hand and make this happen by himself.
Yes, that is how it works.
An idea? That's it? Why are you so afraid to admit your political beliefs?
I guessed.
You find it demeaning when someone asks you what your political vision is for the future, in a political thread? Really? It wasn't a gotcha question, either.
It means include your fellow leftists when people hold bad opinions, and on this they are in agreement. Don't frame it as though only liberals care about Disney on this forum.
I never said. Or think he's just would hand wave shit away.
What the fuck you talking about. I told, i'd be happy with of what Sanders wants to do, and even said i'd vote for him. Does that not give you an idea what my political beliefs are ?
I'm not fucking afraid to admit shit. And have done time and time again on this board.
I said people on this forum stand for corps. Not just liberals.
You assume to know what I think. What I actually think is that what he's proposing, combined with public support, can get a favorably compromised version of it turned into law. Not sure why you are mentioning Warren here, but I think she's a good candidate as well.
That was what you were implying. It serenely minimised the mountain of obstacles Bernie would have to face to get this through congress.
Your previous post was all about attacking me for daring to suggest the system isn't going to roll over for Bernie. The crux was that simply being right was all that was required to get justice in this world. So, what's the deal?
I was very direct with that post, there is no reason for you to be confused. All that tells me is that you're a socialist, which is super vague without more context.
Which is why it's so puzzling you're not doing this now, with your half an argument in prior posts. Not everyone knows the specifics about your beliefs, all I know is that you're a socialist - which tells me nothing about what you want the world to look like with President Bernie.
My mistake.
Ok.
No. That's not what i meant at all.
Even if he got do at least half of what he wants to do (as outlined in what what he's put out as a presidential candidate) then that would be a start, and would make me happy.
Does that answer your question ?
Np.
Fair enough, really. Empowering and re-funding the FTC in particular would be extremely beneficial, the GOP have spent years removing its teeth, and then thrusting responsibilities onto it that it can't nor should be able to handle (such as telcos, which should be the FCC's domain).
There are alternative methods that can be significantly more beneficial, such as encouraging a transition towards protocols rather than platforms, which would decentralize many aspects of the web and allow for significantly more competition based on features rather number of users, and if the protocols are properly designed, allow for significant interoperability and significantly more control users can have over their data, including being able to migrate to another service without losing stuff like their friends list or whatever.
No they don't. It's the people using and exploiting their platforms that are the problem, and moderation at scale is an extremely difficult problem. Corporate regulatory action will do fuck all to solve it. Seriously, think about it, how do you break up Facebook, for example?
There are alternative methods that can be significantly more beneficial, such as encouraging a transition towards protocols rather than platforms, which would decentralize many aspects of the web and allow for significantly more competition based on features rather number of users, and if the protocols are properly designed, allow for significant interoperability and significantly more control users can have over their data, including being able to migrate to another service without losing stuff like their friends list or whatever.
It's not just that. The algorithms they use play a role as well. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth
Yes, but that's not necessarily a result of the designers, but rather the priorities of the algorithm going awry. We don't know if there's any malicious intent at all involved, but it's probably just the company optimizing the algorithm to get the most profit out of its viewers, which has some nasty consequences.
Again, not a problem that can be necessarily solved by going after the corporations themselves, but rather regulating their services. Protocols over platforms would certainly help with providing services that utilize better algorithms, with the side-effect of also making it easier for new competitors to spring up against Youtube.
Disney is far from a monopoly. There's still many other studios and services who are throwing money out of windows to acquire content.
The ATT and Time Warner merger is a bigger problem
Sprint and TMobile merging is a bigger problem
Saying Apple needs to be broken up is completely bad faith arguing and conflating profits with monopoly
Google and FB owning huge internet markets and the biggest ad networks is a problem
The ATT and Time Warner merger is a bigger problem
Sprint and TMobile merging is a bigger problem
Saying Apple needs to be broken up is completely bad faith arguing and conflating profits with monopoly
Google and FB owning huge internet markets and the biggest ad networks is a problem
Tech companies are such an interesting case. Google does so much that doesn't turn a profit just because it can, breaking them up would mean an end to several cool things that just don't work on their own, Youtube wouldn't survive, probably not Google Maps(well it might survive, it probably wouldn't have been done in the first place though), it's a very hard thing to determine what's truly in the public's interest. Same with Facebook, they definitely have an oversized influence but what exactly would we break them up into? Oculus is irrelevant so I guess we could separate the data collection from the service, but that's not the issue people really have it's, again, all the misinformation and BS on Facebook and that'll be a problem for Facebook or whatever site took its place if we nerfed them. At least with Disney and Fox you can say x amount of jobs were eliminated due to redundancy, y amount of movies were cancelled or not made, makes sense, got it.
These are problems and society does need to think about them and address them but I'd be lying if I said I knew what to do.
These are problems and society does need to think about them and address them but I'd be lying if I said I knew what to do.
Last time I checked the Disney-Fox merger didn't kill anyone. How about breaking up utility monopolies first, Bernie?
ah yes, that's definitely something he's famously against