Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
It’s time to free ourselves from ‘Big Tech’ monopoly (azcapitoltimes.com)
70 points by theBashShell 11 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 89 comments





Big tech? How about big information, 6 companies control almost all media in the U.S.

The U.S. keeps consolidating, the "spin" is that it's all about lower costs to the consumer by allowing "scale", when it reality it's just about monopoly power and the ultra rich getting richer and more powerful.

A two party government.

It's all an illusion of choice.


> The U.S. keeps consolidating, the "spin" is that it's all about lower costs to the consumer by allowing "scale", when it reality it's just about monopoly power and the ultra rich getting richer and more powerful.

This is happen all over the world, it's not an American thing.

> A two party government.

Doesn't matter if the number of parties is 2 or 20. The problem is: the government doesn't have limits.

Two things we urgently need, IMO: - An improved and very aggressive antitrust law. - Dramatically reduce what a government can or can't do.

Without those two things, I don't hold too much hope of living in a free world.


> An improved and very aggressive antitrust law. - Dramatically reduce what a government can or can't do.

Those two things are sort of incompatible?


Maybe it's either-or. Or, the "what a government can do" could be limited in such a way that it also includes imposing aggressive antitrust law.

Indeed, that's contradiction in terms worthy of textbooks.

Not at all. A small government can be strong while applying the laws.

so we have not 1 monopoly, but 3. Should that prevent anyone from working on one of them?

It's the feature of the system, at least that's how I view OP's comment. And I agree with that. There's not much to do (unless you think regulations is a good idea or you want to overthrow the current system).

Is it really due to a particular media corporate hub/gang ? not to sound victim blaming, but I think humans on average likes to babble in front of medias / rumors or similar too much. The medias are born in it and simply reinforce the bubble.. using our own validation bias.

It's hard to be aware, hard to criticize, hard to know and integrate all..


Big tech? How about big information

Why not both?


Two parties are both controlled by the same establishment elite cabal. They also control Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, Big Tech, etc. It’s all in the open and there’s no question about it anymore.

pretending the democratic party and republican party are identical or even "mostly similar" is a willfully naive reading of politics

Are you serious? How long have you been following politics for? If you didn't notice, there was almost no difference between George W. Bush and Obama on foreign or domestic policy. The establishment politicians that have been in power for decades simply play to the base during primaries, all the while rigging the primary process against reform candidates and then move right back to the elite consensus after the election.

there's been a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy for most of the past 20 years; but saying the same thing for Healthcare, immigration, tax policy, or whatever is not true

I disagree. The leaders in those parties are a lot more similar to each other than they are to their base. For the most part they have the share the same neoliberal beliefs. Even though democrats like to pretend they don't, their actions say otherwise.

Calling fees taxes is just bullshit. This is just dishonest politics.

By this logic, there is a Grocery ‘tax’, and a haircutting ‘tax’.

Spotify ‘Taxes’ you. Netflix ‘Taxes’ you. The New York Times ‘taxes’ you.

It’s also a lie to say that Apple charges 30%.

It’s 15% for almost all developers except for a tiny percentage of themselves extremely wealthy corporations.

Perhaps these are the people who are behind these moves. They are the only ones who will gain.

The the idea that paying, 10% less to small app developers will do anything to make Arizonans better off is utterly stupid.

There may be good reasons for tech legislation - e.g. forcing Boot Camp style installation of alternate operating systems on hardware.

But it’s fairly obvious that all this talk about the App Store is just the result of other middlemen lobbying for a part of the action.


> It’s also a lie to say that Apple charges 30%.

> It’s 15% for almost all developers except for a tiny percentage of themselves extremely wealthy corporations.

Remember dealing with distributors and middlemen before the App Store?

I recall high schoolers getting their app on the App Store (and making money out of it) not that long after the Store launched. That was unthinkable a few years before that.


> Remember dealing with distributors and middlemen before the App Store?

Uhhh.. remember hosting fees, payment processors, ad networks?


Yeah - it was vastly more difficult to deal with that patchwork than just uploading to the App Store, and the friction for consumers meant much worse sales performance.

This is false, and tons of software providers do it already today.

For smaller shops in an open market, they'll be a ton of vendors willing to do the 'full stack' checkout experience for a fraction of what Apple/Google charge.

For one, Shopify will open up a 'Software Goods' version of their front end to manage digital inventory and that's that.

$20/month.


> For smaller shops in an open market, they'll be a ton of vendors willing to do the 'full stack' checkout experience for a fraction of what Apple/Google charge.

I suppose they also provide the ecosystem of devices and the extremely valuable higher-income market segment Apple targets.


This is not false.

Presumably Shopify will do nothing to scan the software for malware, build a privacy framework, deal with incremental downloading of content, etc. etc.

The App Store is not just a bunch of urls with a paywall in front of it.


> Calling fees taxes is just bullshit.

General “fees”, probably; there's a sense in which monopoly rents are tax-like, though.


I’m fine with calling them ‘monopoly rents’.

Then we can have a meaningful conversation about what to do about them, if that’s indeed what they are.

Tax-like, is not the same as Tax. Even saying ‘tax like’ would be better.

It’s still a dishonest politicization to call them taxes.

If we call App Store fees ‘taxes’, why don’t we also call healthcare premiums, or bank charges, ‘taxes’?


And monopoly rents, being not impossible but still difficult to avoid are a lot like _____ ?

It seems more honest than dishonest to me.


Yes that would be honest.

But it’s not what they are doing. They are not saying it’s ‘a lot like’ a tax, the way you are. They are saying it is a tax.

What they are doing is dishonest.


It's called a metaphor; most people learn about them in primary school, I believe, certainly before getting out of grade school.

One of the things we learn later, is that metaphors can be used dishonestly.

Still don't understand why this is an example of a dishonestly used metaphor.

But not in this case, since you think "tax-like" is better.

You think tax-like is also dishonest?

Will police come arrest me if I don't pay? No? Then it's not a tax. I was never ever stressed out because of a company's fees - I simply cancelled the service. I can't do that with taxes. Comparing these absolutely different experiences totally seems dishonest.

No, actually - in pure economic terms, 'Tax' is actually a reasonable term to use.

Fees which can be perceived as arbitrary capture of a piece of economic activity (and monopoly pricing could be considered that in part) acts just like a tax.

You can actually demonstrated the 'economic loss' (deadweight) from a tax with the supply and demand curve. The loss is usually more than that, but at least the direct math is there. [1]

And this: "talk about the App Store is just the result of other middlemen lobbying for a part of the action." is just completely false. There are no 'middle men' to lobby.

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...


> No, actually - in pure economic terms, 'Tax' is actually a reasonable term to use. Fees which can be perceived as arbitrary capture of a piece of economic activity (and monopoly pricing could be considered that in part) acts just like a tax.

Whether something is a tax or not has nothing to do with perception.

Also these fees don’t act ‘just like a tax’.

They are not taxes. They don’t act like taxes. It’s dishonest to call them taxes.

It’s reasonable to compare them to taxes. It’s false to call them taxes.

> There are no 'middle men' to lobby.

This makes no sense.

Epic is lobbying and want to be a middleman.

Facebook is lobbying and wants to be a middleman.

Your link is about taxes, but does nothing to support the argument that App Store fees are taxes.

Edit: Here is proof that Epic is lobbying:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/16/epic-games-behind...


You're missing some key points, and your comment is not a rebuttal it's just a 'refusal'.

Apple, were it not a 'kind of monopoly' would have considerably different pricing structure. The difference between that 'free market price' and 'Apple's current price' - is the the part that has similar effects to a 'Tax'.

Apple's fee is like a tax for exactly the reasons I highlighted - it creates 'dead-weight' in the market.

This is bad for everyone, even Apple in the long run - just as carriers like AT&T and Verizon wanted to charge 10 cents per 'WAP' page back in 2002, which a price they can dictate because they had the power to, but was obviously completely stupid because it would have restricted the market.

...

'Epic' is not a 'middleman'.

'Epic' is a vendor, they are on the other side of the value chain. They are effectively having to pay a 30% tax on their business and it has nothing to do with 'middlemen'.

It's unlikely Facebook wants to be a 'middleman' because they could already be doing that for Google Play - and they are not.

Once we see true, independent app stores and software that supports smaller vendors - which will happen when other app stores can be on equal footing - we'll see what the 'true' free market competitive pricing for those services will be.

My guess is that it's well under 10%, probably in the range of 4-8% depending on services provided. 3.5% of that will be processing fees to VISA and the networks etc..


> Epic' is not a 'middleman'

Completely false. Epic proposes to run their own App Store. They are a middleman. You would know this if you had been following their cases.

The Google play analogy is absurd for obvious reasons. By that logic, anyone who would be interested in opening a store on iOS would already be running one on Android, which is clearly not the case.

If Apple is charging too much, the solution is for competitors to build their own platform. They can easily afford to do so, and that would create jobs, innovation, consumer choice, and pricing pressure.

Forcing Apple to provide a platform for them is the opposite of market dynamics.

Epic and others are trying to avoid making real investments in the future because lawsuits and lobbying are cheaper than building platforms.


high cost of food or a high cost of a hair cut is absolutely a tax on life costs.

it might not be a tax that goes straight to the government but what are you going to do, not eat? how will people treat you if you stop maintaining your hygiene and look like a caveperson? its a tax because it is a necessity.


Saying something is a cost doesn’t make it a tax.

For what it’s worth, I know people who haven’t cut their hair in decades, without any serious consequences.


That first sentence is amazing: it makes me a criminal because I don't pay all my taxes! I have an electric hair cutting machine, so I pay no tax on life to cut hair - does this make sense at all? Not to me.

Well, your "hair cutting machine" presumably wasn't free, so it's more like you pay a very low tax rate. How regressive of you to dodge your taxes like that.

This accusation of dishonesty is bullshit - we know exactly what is being talked about, no-one is confused or deceived that Apple is a government organisation collecting 'traditional' taxes.

For the same reason if I sell 'magic makeup' it's not dishonesty because anyone with a brain knows it's not literal.


Capitalism needs competition, yet capitalists hate it. There is an ongoing shift to more and more resources being dedicated to protecting the returns on existing assets instead of creating new assets. When there is no longer a realistic choice of whether or not to pay a fee, it starts to look very similar to a tax.

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion.

It’s fairly obvious that Apple invests heavily in the development of iOS, the Mac and the iPad and iPhone.

The people whose assets are being protected are the people sitting on large amounts of capital that they could invest in creating alternative platforms.

What would it cost to build an alternative?

$1BN? $2BN

Epic alone has vastly more than that available to invest, and there are many others who do too.

There is no reason that we shouldn’t have a third or fourth alternative given the 100s of billions of dollars sloshing around in these companies and in VCs.

That would create more jobs, and would put real competitive pressure on Apple and Google.

Letting a few middlemen siphon a few percent out of the App Store while degrading user experience will not.

Just consider for a moment what it would take to make an actually free Linux into a viable smartphone platform (as librem and pine are trying to do).

The answer is, very little for companies whose revenues are in the billions.

That would create the free market they claim to want.

There is no reason at all for companies and investors who think an open ecosystem would be good for them not to put $2BN into a joint venture to build an open Linux for mobile.

Except that they don’t want an open platform.

They just want a cut.


MBA and business students are taught the rule of three:

"The Rule of Three applies wherever competitive market forces are allowed to determine market structure with only minor regulatory and technological impediments."

https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/competitive-mark... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(economics)

The costs here of developing the platform and substitute services / features is high and all investors want some return on the investment. Third place companies are often stuck in the ditch going nowhere. Microsoft has deep pockets and years of experience, but ultimately bailed on Windows Phone because #3 is not a good place to be.


MBA’s also completely failed to understand low-end disruption for many years. I’m not about to accept an argument for authority from ‘what MBAs are taught’, which is usually based on analysis of past business cases. Neither should anyone else.

However I agree with you about Windows phone. There is no room for a 3rd place closed ecosystem like iOS or Android, where the goal is to monetize the app distribution platform.

However, there is absolutely room for an open platform where the profit comes from competitive apps that are able to do things that are not allowed under iOS and Android and can be developed by more parties.

The fact that a truly open platform would get leverage the from community, only strengthens the case.

If you want some MBA buzzwords as a lens, this would be called commoditizing your complement.

It is in the interests of people who don’t own closed stores, for the stores to be a commodity priced at as close to cost as possible.

That group has an interest in investing in such a platform. Not because of the direct ROI from platform fees, but because of the reduced costs to them, and frankly the reduction in power of companies like Apple.

It’s appears that it is cheaper for them to attempt to lobby for legislation to force other people’s App stores into being a commodity (or more likely force access for a limited group), than to actually build one, or at least it’s cheaper to try that first.

You can also look at low-end disruption theory.


The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden.

From a mathematical perspective alone, these companies have soaked up immense wealth.

There’s little to go around for infrastructure projects while it’s locked up in private vaults.

Many communities did not have much say in how decimated the local economy would become by the last few decades of neoliberalism. It’s placed a heavy burden on many lives.


> The value of the word tax is not limited to government obligations. Not colloquially anyway; a tax is a burden.

This is true. Such a colloquial definition does exist.

However using that definition in a discussion about government and economic policy is a form of dissembling.

> From a mathematical perspective alone, these companies have soaked up immense wealth.

This makes no sense. The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization. It cannot be a mathematical perspective.

> There’s little to go around for infrastructure projects while it’s locked up in private vaults.

What are you talking about when you talk about infrastructure? Is this point about taxing corporations so you can build schools?

If so, that’s nothing to do with what the article (written by Republican politicans) support.

A generalized attack on neoliberalism has nothing to do with the points being made here.

For example, I support the idea of forcing something like bootcamp to be made available for all general purpose computers.


"The concept of ‘soaking up wealth’ is a completely subjective political characterization."

It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens. It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade.

If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther.


> It an ironclad economic reality that Apple has $200 billion literally sitting in offshore tax heavens.

It’s not actual banknotes. It’s in investment vehicles.

Generally that means it’s invested in things like stocks commodities etc.

We can debate whether Apple is investing their money in productive vehicles or not.

But it’s not literally sitting anywhere.

> It has failed to effectively invest or spend it for the past decade.

Has it? You may be right.

You are certainly right that they have this much capital offshore.

To claim that it hasn’t been invested effectively isn’t something you can say without qualification.

> If you deny that this is unproductive, then you have left the realm of reasonable discourse and it's like debating Nasa's research with a flat-earther.

If you say so.

One reason businesses keep large amounts of securities on hand, is to mitigate risk.

I’d say Apple faces some of the largest risks of any company in the world.

It is dependent on China for most of its manufacturing, and Taiwan for all of almost all of it’s silicon.

It’s not at all unreasonable for them to consider a future where one or both of these are the subject of political instability.

The government can certainly precipitate disaster for Apple in China or Taiwan, or fail to protect Apple’s interests.

What it cannot do is rebuild its supply chain or silicon vendor in such an event. For that Apple would need a large reserve in the order of 100’s of billions of dollars.

Do you deny that?


You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investment vehicles?

Which is ultimately my point. None of us have to view Apple as “valuable”.

It’s simply a political routine built upon exposure to previous political routine. Time series of the brain.

There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority.

We’re under no political obligation to enable or protect that, no matter how much economic theory you copy-paste.

Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power.

One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that.


> You’re presuming a society owes acknowledgment of the value stored in their investments?

Not really. Also I’m not copying and pasting anything here.

Notice that the person I am replying to is the one who is talking about ‘iron clad economic realities’.

You’re welcome to deny the value of anything you like, or the existence of it for that matter.

Nobody is obliging you to accept any reality you don’t like.

> There’s a tax on our agency to keep propping up systems that are devaluing our agency to the benefit of a moneyed minority.

Why are you propping them up then?

> Imo the free market is not Apple and Dell computers, or Ford and Chevy cars. It’s between public and private power. One has cost us reliability and resiliency for fiscal efficiency. We do not have to politically accept that.

It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain?

What do you mean by a ‘free market between public and private power’?


To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior.

I talk trash about big tech constantly, I’m hardly propping them up. They have no information advantage, just a political capital one.

The authors are using their political insight, based on the last generation or so of political rhetoric to emotionally minimize others value of Big Tech, suggesting that to be of local economic benefit.

> It’s not clear what you are trying to say here. Can you explain.

Our economy is predicated on a post hoc conclusion based upon information manipulation.

We denigrate humans spending time economy on public solutions to problems, and celebrate deference to privatization.

This creates a neurological preference for the latter over the former. We circularly continue to justify storing more value in these organizations ultimately based upon the initial post hoc observation; this is what happened so it must keep happening!

Never mind that ultimately it’s human agency being co-opted into propping up the value of others and undermining themselves.

Politics needs to consider the time dimension for the masses. If it’s going to take someone their life to pay off a debt because society told them that’s just how it works, that’s hardly freedom. Politics largely just concerns itself with space; ownership of property. Not the tax on our time for things other than making sure Bezos and Musk are still rich.


> To me you are copy-pasting emotional information I’ve already heard over and over. It’s a metaphor, not a prescription of literal behavior.

I don’t see what this adds except a vaguely insulting innuendo which applies equally to you and lowers trust. Also, it seems odd to me that you are reading emotion into what you call copy pasted economic theory.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, except that I don’t think it reduces purely to information manipulation, and to a certain extent, that claim can result in a facile justification for one’s own attempts at manipulation.

It’s also just not clear how any of this is relevant to the topics at hand.

Isn’t your comment just a generic ‘the system is bad’ and ‘politics needs to change’ (agreed), and ‘it’s all a scam to keep the rich in power’ (partially agreed), we need to think differently (agreed). But with no additional content?


This is just arguing semantics. Whether you call it a tax or a fee, or whatever else, the fact remains that it's a form rent-seeking, which is clearly the point of the piece.

"Big Tech" has become an umbrella term which can mean any of the following:

* Big Tech monopolies controlling news and information: Twitter, Facebook, Google

* Big Tech monopolies on Advertising/Marketing: Facebook and Google

* Big Tech monopolies on Multimedia content: Netflix and Spotify

* Big Tech monopolies on Cloud Technology Infrastructure: Amazon, Google, Microsoft

* Big Tech monopolies on Mobile: Apple and Google

* Big Tech monopolies on eCommerce: Amazon

We could be talking about "Breaking up Big Tech" for 50 years trying to break all of these up. It's kind of insane.


> Big Tech monopolies controlling news and information: Twitter, Facebook, Google

I think you mean NYT, Wapo, Fox, CBS, Zeit, Asahi "control" the news...except there sure are a lot of them.


All members of the AP aren't they? Most of what you see in the news is just parroted from AP feeds.

> * Big Tech monopolies controlling news and information: Twitter, Facebook, Google

If it's a traditional news article or op-ed, it's almost always a complaint about this iteration.


Disclaimer: Technically these are all oligopolies, but I'll stick to using the original term.

Don't forget the soon to come:

* Big Tech monopoly on space travel/mining: SpaceX, Blue Origin

* Big Tech monopoly in the car/taxi industry: Tesla, Boring Company, Apple, Google

* Big Tech monopoly over wearables/implants: Apple, Neuralink, Amazon, Google

* Big Tech monopoly over VR: FB, Apple, Valve

* Big Tech monopoly over restaurants: Uber, Apple, ???

* Big Tech monopoly over banking: Chase, Apple, Intuit, Amazon


> We could be talking about "Breaking up Big Tech" for 50 years trying to break all of these up. It's kind of insane.

Big Tech is likely a misnomer. The reality is over the last 50 years we have only really had 10-20 companies that we truly consider innovative. Technology is a new modus-operandi for companies.

Its like this: The first shops just used spoken language only. When some shops started to use literacy as a way to write down a menu or track receipts, calling those businesses "Big Literacy" would help, but really the best help is to get every business to change their mental models and operate under the newest winning modus operandi. Similar story with businesses that normalized leveraging Math and/or Economic theory as a winning modus operandi.

What we need is every company in the S&P 500 to adopt the winning strategies (long term thinking, leadership principles, software as a product rather than a cost center, vertical integration, etc) from FAANG companies, until then we will be left with only the S&P 5 or at-best 50. Or, we need to create regulation to stop those strategies from being the winning strategy (hopefully without stagnation).


yes you are absolutely right, these are more oligopolies not monopolies.

I think the oligopoly term hasn't really entered the North American vernacular. Even I think about Russian oil companies when I hear it.

And yes, we're still creating more of these every year as Big Tech expands to eat the world.


This is logical and nothing new. As a country we faced the same issue in the start of the 1900s when the railroads abused their monopoly access power and created the concept of the "common carrier" to level the playing field. Let's stop pretending tech monopolies are something new or unique. We have dealt with them before (AT&T) and should use the same tools. These companies are now utilities, should be subject to FTC and other rules on common carriers and have their returns subject to regulatory oversight. Just like 90% of the rest of the economy. Time to level the playing field, and be fair to all. Tech companies wanting special exemption from rules is not right.

Remind me again how well the judge driven breakup of AT&T worked.

You would also have to remove the ability any state or city to carve out exceptions


Remind me again how well the judge driven breakup of AT&T worked.

Judge-driven? My memory is that AT&T asked to be broken up so it could get into the personal computer business.


This appears to be the bill in question, if anyone would like to read it.

https://legiscan.com/AZ/amendment/HB2005/id/89532

I'm not sure why it was introduced as an amendment for a bill about distributing federal education funds, but I'm sure there's some justification in the legislative process.

Anyway, this is very clearly tailored towards the current Epic vs Apple/Google fight, right down to disallowing "retaliation" from platform providers.


I have to ask why "Big Tech" is a monopoly worth freeing ourselves from now, if we didn't free ourselves from Microsoft circa 2000. Microsoft had way more monopoly power back then (maybe even does now), and barriers to entry into the OS market are much higher. It's relatively easy to switch to duckduckgo.com for example.

Isn't this just grandstanding, based on letting Microsoft keep it's monopoly?


Microsoft didn't compete with news media for ad money. Nor do telcos/ISPs where consumers in many places actually have no choice.

So, yes, this is just grandstanding, and the law isn't being applied equally. Or is Microsoft also a target today?

I love this, but they don't really call it what it really is.

This is the Midwest aiming to break apart coastal software ecosystems and distribute them more evenly across the nation. Big tech firms don't just use their might to unfairly fight smaller competitors, they also use their might to recruit talent to certain geological regions. This causes salaries, cost of goods, among other things to stagnate and hurt their own economies. The real word for it is pushing back against state to state income inequality by attacking the powers and structures that reinforce them, which in this case is technological conglomerates. If you've ever wondered why you get paid $80k to be a software engineer in Oklahoma while someone doing the exact same job with the exact same requirements in Silicon Valley makes $200k+, state to state income inequality is most of the reason, while cost of living attributes a very small sliver of that calculation.


7 references in this article to Google. 0 references to Microsoft.

Stupid.


I have a Microsoft operating system on one computer (my desktop) and a Google operating system on another computer (my phone). One of those lets me install any bit of software I want (even make my own! Try that on a machine running android), the other has a monopoly on all software installation and charges a fee for any sales.

Im not even sure why you mention Microsoft? In what way are they a monopoly in any way? All of their products have alternatives, and they charge no extra fee when I install software on my Microsoft computer.


You can install any application on both (Android will not let you have root access, though). You can write your own software for Android and install it on your phone, but it is difficult to write software on your phone for your phone. Microsoft does have a huge app store and they do charge a percentage (although for non-games, it's just 5% which seems like a bargain).

> In what way are they a monopoly in any way?

They have more than 70% of the desktop OS market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

In Enterprise software (cloud or desktop) they have even larger share.

> All of their products have alternatives, and they charge no extra fee when I install software on my Microsoft computer.

And Google's products don't have alternatives? :) I would argue it's much more easy to type "bing.com" in your URL than it is to change the desktop operating system, even for a techie. So not only are there alternatives, they are easier to switch to.


Microsoft runs on about 95% of desktops.

Whats your definition of a monopoly?


Or the concentration of traditional media in the hands of a small number of individuals.

why should it mention microsoft

Microsoft is more of a monopoly and a bigger tech giant.

The article is about app store fees and how there are no real alternatives to them, how would that apply to Microsoft?

> The legislation would allow web developers to accept payments for their apps without going through Apple or Google’s app stores

Is the word "web" there instead of "app" just a mistake? Because web developers can accept payments for their apps without going through Apple or Google, even on mobile. It's one of the things I love most about the web.


Im not going to try to stop you, but if it was up to me setting priorities I'd focus on big consulting like EY, PWC, Capgemini, these companies employ each more then 100K engineers and I wouldn't know what they do with their billions.

two points: phones can be jailbroken, you don't have to go through the app store. Also, bashing dc just lowers the tone of the article. By doing so, the article automatically has to work harder to persuade me. I have not been successfully convinced that their proposals are a good idea.

"two points: phones can be jailbroken"

that's like arguing that housing market is not a problem because you can live in a cave or a tent.

Most people aren't going to do that, bank apps refuse to work on jailbroken phones, etc.


Maybe not giving big anything tax breaks or funding would help solve some of the problems.

Am I right in thinking this is a Democratic party website thinly disguised as a genuine news site?

It would be surprising, considering the opinion's authors are both Republican members of the Arizona House of Representatives.

You would do well to state up front why you think that. If it's because two AZ representatives wrote an opinion piece, I would suggest researching the difference between news and the editorial section of a newspaper. I know that's probably a bit condescending, but I have to make a lot of assumptions about how one would reach the conclusion that you did.

Not for nothing, but a push to regulate something doesn't typically from the right, so if his heuristic is as non-specific as, "Policy advocated for in article is liberal, therefore publisher is liberal." I could see how it'd match this article.

Not defending the heuristic, but I can see the (hasty) logic.


They're pretty unbiased according to Media Bias Fact Check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/arizona-capitol-times/

However, it's worth noting that this article is under the Opinion section.


No, the parent organization is not the Democratic Party.

https://bridgetowermedia.com/




Applications are open for YC Summer 2021

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: