|
|
|
|
|
|
by tekacs
72 days ago
|
|
|
You do realize that I called out in my post they are absolutely not a monopoly by the law, right? I know all-too-well what the definition is. We have a similar situation in mobile where Apple may not be considered a monopoly, but people have walked around for a decade with a supercomputer in their pocket that is wildly underused. Things have gotten faster; things are different than they were decades ago when a lot of this was devised. The reality of the matter is that some of us just want to see innovation actually happen apace, and not see 5, 10, or 30 years of slowdown while we litigate whether or not such a company is holding all the cards, while everyone is collectively waiting at the spigot for a company to get its shit together because we're not allowed to fix the situation. For what it's worth, I'm hopeful that the other model providers will catch up and put us in a situation where this conversation is irrelevant. What I'm afraid of is a situation where we see continued divergence, and we end up with another Apple situation. |
|
|
That is not calling out that they are “absolutely not a monopoly by the law” in any way, shape, or form. You’re framing it as though they aren’t by a technicality, when they aren’t anywhere near discussion by even the most extreme of legal theories. You won’t find Lina Khan or Margarethe Vestager, both ousted for going too far, complaining about Anthropic.
> “We have a similar situation in mobile where Apple may not be considered a monopoly, but people have walked around for a decade with a supercomputer in their pocket that is wildly underused.”
In that we can’t run a Torrent client to download illegally redistributed media 99% of the time? Otherwise, in what way, are they underused? For the degrees of public addiction, a more underutilized phone would be a social benefit.