"The emergency I want to talk about is the rise of a vigorous ethnic nationalism in Europe and America. This nationalism makes skillful use of online tools, tools that we believed inherently promoted freedom, to advance an authoritarian agenda. ...
There are five Internet companies — Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook. Together they have a market capitalization just under 3 trillion dollars.
And please regulate, regulate, regulate this industry, while you can."
The trouble for calling for regulation is that what you get is Theresa May's version.[1] Or the Great Firewall of China.
The trouble with not regulating is what we currently have, unfettered data collection and retention. There obviously need to be rules around all the digital gold these companies are amassing.
The Chinese and Theresa May want what currently the tech giants have which is unregulated access to data. Except instead of it being in the current sandboxes they want to build their own.
Both are equally incorrect and stem from unregulated data access and lack of rules around data aggregation and the ecosystems that the data props up.
How do we regulate in a way that limits the power of the big five without also hurting small businesses? Otherwise, the end result will almost certainly be to bolster Google and Facebook.
I honestly don't care if regulation that protects consumers ends up hurting small businesses.
Perhaps something else would also need to be done about Google and Facebook having too much power, but continuing to screw over everyone else to help small businesses isn't really on my personal radar.
By creating strong regulations to curb the worst practices of ad company tracking, then dismantling these monopolies the same way we did with Microsoft in the 90s.
1) Money from selling useful software that people buy
2) The web as an information source. Apps are actually software that is (paid for and) installed
3) The PC as hub for the user's digital Life"
That is not what got Microsoft where they were. Microsoft cut deals with monopoly and oligopoly providers to make their stuff defaults. They used all kinds of shady techniques to create network effects such as getting OEM's to use them by default instead of competition (consumers rarely switch). Then, their lockin due to obscure data formats and protocols made transitioning or interoperability very difficult. Like IBM and Oracle, they kept patenting things (artificial monopolies) to use to sue or force acquisitions of opponents. For open standards, they practiced "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." These kind of techniques created a situation where customers were essentially forced to stay on or acquire their products to be part of the ecosystem which was 90% of the market or something. This got them billions of dollars plus a lot of antitrust action.
"Instead, with help from the DOJ, Microsoft lost, and now we have the Google model"
Microsoft is still one of the richest companies in existence along with IBM and Apple. These still use the old models (licensing software and suing w/ patents) plus offer stuff with the new model. It didn't go away due to regulation. There's tons of proprietary apps out there.
"1) Software and services given away as enticement for user data which is then sold to advertisers.
2) Primacy of the web app over installed apps."
Web primacy wasn't due to antitrust or anything like that. Web apps have no installation, work across devices (in theory), and update automatically. The reason native apps didn't is because of greedy companies in private sector fighting with each other more than helping each other. A regulation making a standard might have actually helped just because there would be a deployment target. The ad-driven model came from market demand where they consistently and massively chose ad-funded sites over stuff they paid for. This combined with VC money, copyright/patent monopolies, and sometimes Wall St requirements post-IPO created with private sector bribes to politicians turned that into new oligopolies of companies that are dominating certain areas such as search, email, e-commerce, payment, and social media.
So, a combination of foolish demand by markets, choices by VC's, founders wanting to be rich, CEO's doing as much monopolistic practice as possible, companies fighting instead of working on common ground, and corrupt politicians collectively led to this situation. It was improved a little bit on a few occasions by regulation but overall its impact pales in comparison to other factors.
I'm not at all confident that the Microsoft antitrust moves really did much to erode their dominance on the desktop -- rather, the desktop becoming less relevant has done that.
If anyone won from those actions, it was Google...
Talking about the great firewall, didn't Bono of all people praise it as a demonstration that filtering the net was possible? His statement was in the context of unlicensed copying (aka piracy).
And frankly if they want to deal with the rise of nationalism, they need to have a long hard look at the financial market and their destructive behavior.
What is needed is for the big finance houses to fall, and for the Euro zone to drop the whole austerity insanity.
Until then the left have no proper counterpoint to the rising nationalism, as said nationalism is largely feeding off anti-austerity, and thus anti-EU, opinions.
There are five Internet companies — Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook. Together they have a market capitalization just under 3 trillion dollars.
And please regulate, regulate, regulate this industry, while you can."
The trouble for calling for regulation is that what you get is Theresa May's version.[1] Or the Great Firewall of China.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...