@@undeadquixote79 I believe the involvement of politicians would make these agencies to handle the issue more urgently. The same way Theodore Roosevelt had his administration prosecute such cases, if a president wanted to do so today he would definitely have an impact as opposed to looking away.
The scope of this presentation is limited, if and when these companies are broken up. Will set a new legal precedence, since we have never faced organizations like these before.
Internet monoplies are a whole new beast. New generations who understand the power of internet and tech companies need to/will develop new laws to regulate them and protect our rights. Trust busting came about in part because the business environment changed from the simple jeffersonian idea of each yeoman family owning there own farm to one man owning an entire industry. Similarly with new industries, technologies and economic dynamics between producer and consumer there should be laws that fit that ever evolving dynamic to ensure our rights and prosperity as individuals
But if you destroy big companies, China will surpass the US and become the Global powew. Then the chinese will be the world model of life, with they communist dictatorship. Is that that you want? I guess no. To prevent this from happen, those companies need to be strong as ever. I'm not talking to you as an american. No. I am a brazilian who understands the need of preserve a democracy as a global power. Think this way, china only allowed its citizen to hold private propety in the 90's, and this was because they needed to grow economically to spread their revolution. But if the revolution consume the world, there is no need to allow the citizen to have privace, then, they can change the constitution, if they have one... The motive I am saying it to you, it's to that you maybe can change your mind and try to do the same as I did to you, convice other people which hold the same thought as you. Also, I hope that some lost soul comes by and see this text. Thank you for you attention.
@@akemap4 This is a comment with no basis which is talking about nothing. This is a useless generalistic comment. Please delete it and stop spreading stupid ideas which you too don't know anything about. Thanks! On the other hand Kevin, your comment was very good and I totally agree with you!
You can just use another service, they lose all they power if they start abusing consumers, if you let them abuse you then you are stupid (cof cof apple users cof cof)
@@akemap4 I appreciate you recognizing my country as the light of democracy in this world, but it's not big tech companies who keep that light on, it's the American Navy. It controls the world's sea lanes and can permit or deny trade to any major power in the world. In this, it can contain large authoritarian powers like China and ensure democracy worldwide
Unless you allow all video to be legal than they will need to be allowed to remove videos, because you know ISIS promotional video was on youtube before they start removing it.
These Tech companies won't be broken up under Anti-Trust, but likely turned into utilities, thus reducing their power, influence and market value. Over the last couple of years Congress has been debating if Facebook should be made into a utility and tightly regulated and controlled under the FCC.
@@jamesgaddis6189 First off I just want to say I am a democrat. However there are times when on my side of the aisle people can get a little silly. This is a prime example. An industry is designated a utility. Such as natural gas if that is the primary power source the state or city you live in. The water/sewer industry and the garbage industry because water and sewer are considered necessary for home owners and garbage pickup for homes and office buildings necessary for the public health. The whole industry is subject to regulation because of the necessity of the service provided. There is no such thing as saying we will not regulate the industry but we will call just one company a utility and regulate the single company like one.
@Abdullah Reagan "Quiet clear" is a deliciously ironic typo. What gingerbeargames wrote cannot possibly be a myth because it's an opinion. A call-to-action, even, surely nothing that is in the realm of fact or falsehood, truth or myth. What the "law says", regardless of whether it actually does or not, is precisely what such a statement would seek to change. Frankly, I'm in agreement gingerbeargames. I'd also demand that the press be required to report interviews they conduct in verbatim fashion: anything else is character assassination.
Platforms have to be editorialised. I think what you’re attempting poorly to express is the notion that platforms like RUclips and Facebook become legally culpable when they are publications and that they appear to be doing so by targeting opinions they dislike. But all platforms have to do that to some extent otherwise they would become filled with the vilest or content.
@@donkey7921 Idk, I think his point regarding the App Store is legit. Compare the Android app ecosystem to the Apple app ecosystem - Apple controls their market absolutely and their 30% commission seems like a clear abuse of their control.
@@donkey7921 on Android you can use one of dozens of app stores with no extra effort so consumers have options. On iOS you can only use the app store unless you jail break.
@@Someone-cd7yi ---- Exactly that's Satya Nadella from MS. Although our friend B Dutta says it's not a photoshop job. Hahahahhahaha, I have to assume he's joking.
@@jerry3790 Yeah it can't happen. Apple can do whatever the hell they want, but as far as other brands go, they primarily run android; there's competition. To this day, there are amazing phones for just about 500 dollars, and with arm processors becoming cheaper and cheaper, consumers have better options for less money. If a brand did what you suggested without having a very good reason for it(and considering that most tech standards are open for implementation, such as 4g), they'd go bankrupt. P.S.: None of this applies to apple lmao.
@@robosergTV that's not even what he was talking about. He's just saying that it would be funny if Apple releases a 5000 dollar iPhone, especially since it's obvious that the iSheep will buy the phone anyway
No, the problem is that people are using the population's hatred towards large companies like Google and Apple to undermine America's position in the world which will cause economic turmoil for decades to come. Finally completely an 80 year old plan... to destroy our nation.
Extremely misleading to mention the Standard Oil 90% market share fact and imply that it was bad without mentioning that their prices were lower than anyone else's AND they stayed low when they had the "monopoly." Or that Standard Oil was broken up years after it's peak, that it was already losing market share because other new competitors entered the market and innovated.
When companies become monopolies, they stop being innovative and are eventually lose market share to other companies. This would be the case if the market was 100% free.
More likely theyll prevent any competitors from rising up. This is when it ceases being capitaism and turns into pure monopoly. Only enriching itself while it feeds off the economy(not paying taxes for billions).
Excellent. Half of the video is dedicated to the framework of Antitrust, which makes everything that follows much more easier to grasp. Once again, great video on a very pertinent topic. The sum of the parts here is not even close to the whole.
Data....Data, data, data, data: Therein lies the basis for a consumer protection antitrust suit and civil liberties case. It is a paradox because nobody can jump in and compete with Google, Amazon's, or Apples hardware infrastructure and/or computing capacity, nor access the largest troves of consumer behavior data - which is also basis for antitrust as it makes them a monopolistic in that way- but they can compete with each other, marketize and retail their collected data (when and what doesn't hurt them of course) and aren't one company with a grip on an industry, but rather a hand full of companies, each with various (sometimes overlapping) specialties (products services) and vertically integrated subspecialties that represent an increasing dominance and control in 1) how, where, and what people consume 2) the share of total customers. The internet really has become like a web.
giant corporations should never be allowed to buy other giant corporations. they should never get so big that they need to be broken up in the first place, and it never happens without aquisitions and mergers. smaller individual companies promote competition and fairness.
Personally I don’t think the size of tech companies has become much of a problem yet and I don’t see how splitting them would help. If anything it would be inconvenient.
yeah, meddling with elections and politics around the world, shaping public opinion and controlling the flow of information, censoring people for having unapproved opinions and in some cases ruining their careers and livelihoods. Not much of a problem, right?
s0nnyburnett As far as I’m aware election meddling is done by those using the platforms, not the platforms themselves. Shaping public opinion is a result of the echo chamber that is the internet and will happen with any size of corporation. Censorship is dictated by advertisers and what type of content they want to be associated with. Also, there’s no need to be hostile. You can disagree and still be polite.
You have to corner the market if you want to jack prices as you see fit. None of these companies has a corner on the market, and none are efficient enough to undercut the competition and corner the market. Apple's "Walled garden" approach only gives them a monopoly over online sales of software for apple products, not all smartphone and desktop computer software. If you don't like it, you can always buy a PC or an Android phone.
Don't break them up, then. Limit their power and influence. Make them pay for every single ounce of power they gain. Whatever is in business, stays in business.
Another reason why they can't be broken up is bcoz there are lot of people working. If you break up a company, just imagine what would happen to all those people.
as a libertarian i do not believe that any legal action should be possible against Apple because, whatever they do, it should be their decision to make money how they want. I have never purchased any Apple product, this does not mean in any way that I believe other peoples' right to purchase Apple products should be restricted (which legal action against the company would cause)
Do a video on whether the government should break up Big Telecoms? Do we really have a lot of choice with the ISPs and are their predatory practices harmful to the consumer? Is the internet a utilty?
Lack of competition. Especially in long distance services. New technologies like microwave transmitters and fiber optics allowed companies like MCI and Sprint to provide products at a competitive price. The only way the consumer could get those new products was by ending Ma Bell's government enforced monopoly.
The “customers” of FB and Google are the advertisers, not the users. These advertisers are being charged high fees by monopolistic bullies. This is the reason these companies need to be broken up.
The Reagan policy does make sense in the case of Netflix. People don't want more competition there because that hurts consumers. It wouldn't hurt consumers if all content was available on all services kind of like music.
Media piracy was a problem for all media productions in the 2000s and 1st half of 2010s and Netflix solve that. The people want fair prices and good products/services not exactly competition, and that is what Netflix provided. The major entertainment productions became envious of it so they made their own. What happened next was people returned back to piracy instead.
Bit disappointed you didn't even mention the Microsoft anti-trust case around the 2000s, and the steps Microsoft took to avoid losing the case or it from happening ever again.
The big technology companies have branched into so many businesses that it is difficult to define them as monopolies in the traditional sense. None of them dominate only a single industry. What might make more sense is to force the tech giants to separate by division which would lead to the emergence of new companies that would still dominate specific areas of technology. For example, if Google was forced to spin off RUclips as separate company, RUclips would still dominate video sharing while the parent company would dominate online search. Both are simply the best at what they do.
I saw your video, and I understand what basis the anti-trust laws are now based on now, and the only thing I wanna say is, I'm still a big fan of separation of big power, regardless. Also, based on those anti-trust laws, are Google's business practices supposed to also involve extracurricular activities like social engineering like we say in the google leaks?
A big problem is, that for instance Amazon is selling server capacities and using that money to tamper prices. This is killing the competion, as they don't have the resources to compete
Man your usually so thorough. I was surprised you didnt go into the fact that large tech companies use entirely different business models to undercut and dominate markets that arent even in. Like how say Amazon can use their AWS profits to go undercut all competition in say grocery stores. Or how Apple can turn out so much profit to undercut spotify since they purpisfully sell it as a loss leader. The same strategy could be applied literally to any other business model killing all local competition. I think this is the main cause of the problem here. Theyre getting so large they can subsidize basically all competition who physically cannot afford to compete on their level.
Google's monopoly in internet searches actively hurts innovation because innovative products that compete with Google are often blacklisted by the search engine. This inevitably hurts consumers.
Have you tried buying Apple Music subscription with an Android phone? Or market through Facebook / Instagram? It's getting more expensive and inconvenient with every year. That's the whole point.
@@wursthans852 they didnt harm consumer in the sense that those industry didn't deliberately supresse competition and forbid new entry into the market. They are big simply because we use them as they are out cup of tea, this may change quickly.
@@Petethecoolguy they supress competition in many cases but in a sense of ill buy anything so im the only one i mean how can u avoid fakebook if they own insta and whatsapp? because of that and normies beeing normies everyone uses them
"Facebook deserves the most anti trust attention, bought its biggest competitor (instagram), could exploit its power by abusing privacy" "You should be focusing on your online privacy more than ever" At the end: "Make sure to follow me on instragram!" Oh that irony... They all have just the power that we give them. Why not choose some alternative? I think Facebook showed often enough that they don't care at all about privacy.
Amazon is so much more than just ecommerce. It's easy to forget of all the other services they own because of all the different names. Which is of course isn't neccissarily a violation of antitrust as mentioned at the end
Amazon is not an e-commerce company. Amazon is a software company. If you go to netflix you used amazon, you swipe your credit card anywhere amazon, you go to 60% of websites, amazon. E-commerce is a side gig
Aside from consumer protections, working conditions are a significantly viable area to be contended with. A glimpse at various farming businesses illustrates that salient point.
The problem is the horizontal integration: Google controls Chrome and Android, and they use the defaults in their favour, like having Google as the default browser in Chrome and in Android. People doesn't change the defaults
Breaking up these companies will only further solidify China's future dominance! By the way, how do you make those insane 3D pictures? Do you cut out and edit all of the pieces separately?
Health insurance companies and telecommunication companies should be broken up before tech companies. They are at the very least responsible for exploiting consumers with unchecked pricing power and limited competition. They aren't like tech companies that improve our standards of living. The way they use and handle our data is one thing, but nothing useful would come from breaking them up. Especially Amazon
But they ARE monopolies. If Google or Facebook were to triple their advertising price, people would still be forced to pay and advertise there. Regular users won't leave these platforms because nothing has changed for them, therefore advertisers will have to stay and pay whatever ridicolous price they are asking if they want their products to be shown where people are. This IS a monopoly. There is NO alternative to them.
these are good points, but i do think that consolidation has now become absurd. for instance, allowing comcast to merge with nbc-universal. i think the pendulum will always be swinging, and right now the relatively light touch the government has with major corporations has non-economic effects, such as the perception of corruption.
it doesn't mean they can lock people , people make them giants as they offer their good services . for example , remember when Nokia had the highest market shares in mobile phones before 10-12 years ago , and when they weren't able to offer a good or new products they fall immediately and people adopt their rivals products as they offer better products (or software) . same for these companies , at certain point when they not able to offer good things they will fall with all their what called Monopoly .
Your title is a clickbait and very misleading, what you're iterating and that may be true is that those companies won't fall apart due to anti trust laws at least as the laws are at the moment, HOWEVER claiming that those companies can't fall apart and dissolve just doesn't make any sense as I can count you over a dozen giant companies who disappeared just in the last 20 years since the beginning of the internet boom...
Amazon undercuts every competing price, even at a loss, until that adversary is gone or they can buy it for pennies. Then they raise the price to what they want and the consumer looses. So Amazon most certainly needs to be chopped to bits.
I guess the most damage will be done to Apple, because if the lose the Anti-Trust case, they will have to allow App Store competitors on iOS and they will also have to refund all developers because of the high fee they charge when publishing an app on the App Store
Manupati punith stfu Samsung was so big at some point that they needed to separate and create a conglomerate you have Samsung displays , Samsung semi conductors, Samsung electronics, Samsung civil engineering, Samsung insurance, Samsung heavy industries and the list goes on . Tell me which other company can compete with Samsung in this world!!?? Even apple, Audi, BMW mercedes, Huawei and many other companies relies on Samsung
Michael S ---- Because neither Samsung Electronics or Huawei are all that big. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft are all over 900 billion in market cap. Google is close to 800 billion. On the other hand Samsung is 250 billion and Huawei (which is private) I would estimate at about 100 billion. They're still pretty big companies, but are dwarfed by the other 4.
i'm no expert. i think these cases differ strongly from past cases because they control the sources of information, and they (eg, google, facebook) don't make their biggest money (i'm not sure) from the people who use them. neither the users nor the content creators pay them directly, and the ones that pay them are not the majority of users and creators. quite a different kind of business.
Let’s not forget that the biggest monopoly in tech was Microsoft. Yeah now the likes of Google have given them a run for their money but don’t tell me that massive market share of Internet Explorer was because it was a better product. It was shady business practices that kept out the competition for years.
People don’t understand how important those big tech companies are, if Microsoft were to be split entire developer teams all over the world would be incapable to keep working, lots of new comers wouldn’t be able to even try cause lots of new developers take advantage of the azure free stuff, it’s strange to think about it but if they split google, Microsoft and amazon, the world as we know it would change in really strange ways
In each correction of the US marketplace, there has been just one man driving it. From Sherman and Teddy to FDR, Truman and Reagan. America has various effective and fast means of changing legislation (by international standards). Congress, the supreme courts and the courts of the various states all play a part. The only two things we know for certain is that 1- the American Marketplace has changed every time it has been threatened and 2- it will do so again in the future. Expect big changes in the near future. Laws will change rapidly to accommodate these changes. Possibly these changes will happen sooner than we think.
Big tech shouldn't be broken up. Don't assume everyone shares the same goal as you. As long as they operate voluntarily, there's no reason to break them up. Government needs to get out of the way in order to allow competition. They're giving BILLIONS in subsides and tax breaks. Get government influence away from them and you'll see them naturally shape up or fall
You realize most of the companies funnel millions into suppressing or eliminating competition. The best example of that is ISPs the pretty much only focus on suppressing competition abd not innovation or customer satisfaction
In the past, big businesses got absorbed by government. The British East India Company, for example. Now, big companies overpower governments. Samsung in South Korea. While in the UK and the USA, it's big arms manufacture and tech companies such as BAE, Boeing, and the obvious likes of Apple, Google, etc. Because the American government is all about capitalism and lobbying, all you need to worry about is that the tech giants such as Google and Apple need to be competing against each other rather than consolidating, because that would be when the shit hits the fan, with mass layoffs, like when big banks merge. Look at how many layoffs are going to happen when Disney's acquisition of Fox goes through...
At 4:20, the comment about anti-trust actions being like socialism is complete nonsense. I don't know whether the author of the video is responsible or whether this is an accurate paraphrase of Robert Bork. But the point is not who is wrong, but why they are wrong. Regardless, it's the complete opposite of the truth. Socialism concentrates power in massive enterprises. This has happened in every society that has ever practiced socialism, whether we are talking about the Soviet Union or China under Mao or Nazi Germany. In each and every case the bureaucrats massively favored a system of very large enterprises. If you think about what is that motivates the socialists and how they think, it is inevitable that this would be the case. In Adam Smith's time, that man who first wrote down the moral and economic case for capitalism and began a worldwide transformation, a good part of his argument was about the economic harm created by concentrating too much power in the hands of too few people. In his time they weren't called 'trusts,' they were called monopolies. Monopolies sold by the government to the politically powerful. It's a funny thing about capitalism, but there is more than one way to do it, and the consequences of the different ways of doing it are profound. It's also odd, or maybe when we think about it, it shouldn't be, about how many people that have been successful as capitalists, are anti-capitalist in their attitudes and political beliefs. But then belief in capitalism is not a requirement for being successful in it. It could be that this is just more evidence, as if there weren't enough already, of how profoundly counter-intuitive capitalism actually is.
@@kayjd2295 Wow! This is from so long back that I don't remember writing it. But I don't see anything wrong with it. Of course I'm for capitalism. It's one heck of a lot better than slavery or feudalism or some of the other isms that are around. But different people mean different things when they say "capitalism." Some of these versions of capitalism I'm not so happy about it. It all depends on what someone actually means when they say "capitalism."
Hello mr Jordan. I'd like to know if you will upload on skillshare lessons about commodities and forex market. i really liked your lessons on the platform and, since i have interest in those subjects, i'd like to know if you plan on doing that. thank you for your attention and stay smart
With the current lobbying system, no politician will be willing to act on these large companies.
@@undeadquixote79 I believe the involvement of politicians would make these agencies to handle the issue more urgently. The same way Theodore Roosevelt had his administration prosecute such cases, if a president wanted to do so today he would definitely have an impact as opposed to looking away.
@@undeadquixote79 well said.
then change your lobbying system...
This didn't age well
The scope of this presentation is limited, if and when these companies are broken up. Will set a new legal precedence, since we have never faced organizations like these before.
the background music makes everything sound epic lol
yea, the music track is awesome
@Crebs Park Real effective argument and discussion skills here. I bet you're invited to every family gathering.
Robert Thallium HAHAHA
That in combination with those glorious slow-pan graphics
Internet monoplies are a whole new beast. New generations who understand the power of internet and tech companies need to/will develop new laws to regulate them and protect our rights.
Trust busting came about in part because the business environment changed from the simple jeffersonian idea of each yeoman family owning there own farm to one man owning an entire industry.
Similarly with new industries, technologies and economic dynamics between producer and consumer there should be laws that fit that ever evolving dynamic to ensure our rights and prosperity as individuals
But if you destroy big companies, China will surpass the US and become the Global powew. Then the chinese will be the world model of life, with they communist dictatorship. Is that that you want? I guess no. To prevent this from happen, those companies need to be strong as ever.
I'm not talking to you as an american. No. I am a brazilian who understands the need of preserve a democracy as a global power. Think this way, china only allowed its citizen to hold private propety in the 90's, and this was because they needed to grow economically to spread their revolution. But if the revolution consume the world, there is no need to allow the citizen to have privace, then, they can change the constitution, if they have one...
The motive I am saying it to you, it's to that you maybe can change your mind and try to do the same as I did to you, convice other people which hold the same thought as you. Also, I hope that some lost soul comes by and see this text.
Thank you for you attention.
@@akemap4 This is a comment with no basis which is talking about nothing. This is a useless generalistic comment. Please delete it and stop spreading stupid ideas which you too don't know anything about. Thanks! On the other hand Kevin, your comment was very good and I totally agree with you!
You can just use another service, they lose all they power if they start abusing consumers, if you let them abuse you then you are stupid (cof cof apple users cof cof)
@@akemap4 I appreciate you recognizing my country as the light of democracy in this world, but it's not big tech companies who keep that light on, it's the American Navy. It controls the world's sea lanes and can permit or deny trade to any major power in the world. In this, it can contain large authoritarian powers like China and ensure democracy worldwide
Yea , right , their not greedy. They make the laws. Your not thinking this through.
we don't even need anti-trust, we just need to stop allowing them to claim to be platforms while acting as editors.
Unless you allow all video to be legal than they will need to be allowed to remove videos, because you know ISIS promotional video was on youtube before they start removing it.
These Tech companies won't be broken up under Anti-Trust, but likely turned into utilities, thus reducing their power, influence and market value.
Over the last couple of years Congress has been debating if Facebook should be made into a utility and tightly regulated and controlled under the FCC.
@@jamesgaddis6189 First off I just want to say I am a democrat. However there are times when on my side of the aisle people can get a little silly. This is a prime example. An industry is designated a utility. Such as natural gas if that is the primary power source the state or city you live in. The water/sewer industry and the garbage industry because water and sewer are considered necessary for home owners and garbage pickup for homes and office buildings necessary for the public health. The whole industry is subject to regulation because of the necessity of the service provided. There is no such thing as saying we will not regulate the industry but we will call just one company a utility and regulate the single company like one.
@Abdullah Reagan "Quiet clear" is a deliciously ironic typo.
What gingerbeargames wrote cannot possibly be a myth because it's an opinion. A call-to-action, even, surely nothing that is in the realm of fact or falsehood, truth or myth. What the "law says", regardless of whether it actually does or not, is precisely what such a statement would seek to change. Frankly, I'm in agreement gingerbeargames. I'd also demand that the press be required to report interviews they conduct in verbatim fashion: anything else is character assassination.
Platforms have to be editorialised. I think what you’re attempting poorly to express is the notion that platforms like RUclips and Facebook become legally culpable when they are publications and that they appear to be doing so by targeting opinions they dislike. But all platforms have to do that to some extent otherwise they would become filled with the vilest or content.
Why assume that Bork's 45-year-old opinions will rule forever? The nature of anti-trust changed with Bork and Reagan, it can change again.
@@donkey7921 Idk, I think his point regarding the App Store is legit. Compare the Android app ecosystem to the Apple app ecosystem - Apple controls their market absolutely and their 30% commission seems like a clear abuse of their control.
Artful Dodger But its like steam, if the app is more popular apple takes a lower percentage
Bork was a cancer to anti-trust
He's a good boi
@@donkey7921 on Android you can use one of dozens of app stores with no extra effort so consumers have options. On iOS you can only use the app store unless you jail break.
8:37 I was a bit confused when I saw Bezos sitting next to Reagan
Evilsamar ---- That photo was from a meeting that Trump had with tech CEOs. They simply photoshopped Reagan into the place of Trump.
And Tim Cook lol
Wasn't the other guy in the picture from Microsoft.
@@bruxi78230 no you are wrong, its not photoshopped
@@Someone-cd7yi ---- Exactly that's Satya Nadella from MS. Although our friend B Dutta says it's not a photoshop job. Hahahahhahaha, I have to assume he's joking.
One thing about standard oil, they actually brought down the price of oil by a ton for consumers.
I can't wait till apple comes out with a $3000 iphone. my laughing won't ever be contained
Let’s just hope other brands don’t follow their example. *cough* headphone jack
Well with constant inflation it could happen before you know it.
Samsung have a $2000 dollar phone already
@@jerry3790 Yeah it can't happen. Apple can do whatever the hell they want, but as far as other brands go, they primarily run android; there's competition. To this day, there are amazing phones for just about 500 dollars, and with arm processors becoming cheaper and cheaper, consumers have better options for less money. If a brand did what you suggested without having a very good reason for it(and considering that most tech standards are open for implementation, such as 4g), they'd go bankrupt.
P.S.: None of this applies to apple lmao.
you are laughing by them making net billions? You are weird. Dont be salty, because they are making money and you dont
@@robosergTV that's not even what he was talking about. He's just saying that it would be funny if Apple releases a 5000 dollar iPhone, especially since it's obvious that the iSheep will buy the phone anyway
Issue is with economic power you get political power. Market with to big companies isn't free market.
No market with too big government isn t free market
@@epicgamer8938 the whole point of government is checks and balances and its long overdue.
@@blahblah60 yep
No, the problem is that people are using the population's hatred towards large companies like Google and Apple to undermine America's position in the world which will cause economic turmoil for decades to come. Finally completely an 80 year old plan... to destroy our nation.
checks and balances are must, big government isn't good but big companies are even worse..
Extremely misleading to mention the Standard Oil 90% market share fact and imply that it was bad without mentioning that their prices were lower than anyone else's AND they stayed low when they had the "monopoly." Or that Standard Oil was broken up years after it's peak, that it was already losing market share because other new competitors entered the market and innovated.
Monopoly is bad by any definition, ask the Nazis with the Volkswagen and the Soviets with their state sponsored vodka
Rockefellers wealth actually increased during the breakup lol
The problem simply is your failure at evaluating when consumers are loosing trough a business or not.
They can be broken up by innovation made by the competitiors
Networking effect is too strong. And what is there to be innovated, despite losing so much practicality of using big tech?
@@someonesomewhere3817 time travel
@@اطلبالحقوالرحمة Did you see Hackerman's guide? You know its illegal right?!
@@someonesomewhere3817 thats legal in my country
They have more resources in the form of data centers and near-monopoly access to internet users so they eat up the smaller companies for lunch.
Why didn't you talk about political power/ideological driven search engine ?
Bill Because it was not the point? The point of this video is why laws against monopoly doesnt apply to these tech giant.
@@paramutjeasakul5537 it exactly the point, it can certainly be look into
When companies become monopolies, they stop being innovative and are eventually lose market share to other companies. This would be the case if the market was 100% free.
Yeah... does't seem to be the case with google any time soon
Any sources to back that up?
More likely theyll prevent any competitors from rising up. This is when it ceases being capitaism and turns into pure monopoly. Only enriching itself while it feeds off the economy(not paying taxes for billions).
@@ElucarioYEAH Probably an economics textbook
Why couldn't a monopoly be more innovative than a small company? They'd have billions more to devote to R&D.
Excellent. Half of the video is dedicated to the framework of Antitrust, which makes everything that follows much more easier to grasp. Once again, great video on a very pertinent topic. The sum of the parts here is not even close to the whole.
Data....Data, data, data, data: Therein lies the basis for a consumer protection antitrust suit and civil liberties case. It is a paradox because nobody can jump in and compete with Google, Amazon's, or Apples hardware infrastructure and/or computing capacity, nor access the largest troves of consumer behavior data - which is also basis for antitrust as it makes them a monopolistic in that way- but they can compete with each other, marketize and retail their collected data (when and what doesn't hurt them of course) and aren't one company with a grip on an industry, but rather a hand full of companies, each with various (sometimes overlapping) specialties (products services) and vertically integrated subspecialties that represent an increasing dominance and control in 1) how, where, and what people consume 2) the share of total customers.
The internet really has become like a web.
giant corporations should never be allowed to buy other giant corporations. they should never get so big that they need to be broken up in the first place, and it never happens without aquisitions and mergers. smaller individual companies promote competition and fairness.
Personally I don’t think the size of tech companies has become much of a problem yet and I don’t see how splitting them would help. If anything it would be inconvenient.
yeah, meddling with elections and politics around the world, shaping public opinion and controlling the flow of information, censoring people for having unapproved opinions and in some cases ruining their careers and livelihoods. Not much of a problem, right?
s0nnyburnett As far as I’m aware election meddling is done by those using the platforms, not the platforms
themselves.
Shaping public opinion is a result of the echo chamber that is the internet and will happen with any size of corporation.
Censorship is dictated by advertisers and what type of content they want to be associated with.
Also, there’s no need to be hostile. You can disagree and still be polite.
You have to corner the market if you want to jack prices as you see fit. None of these companies has a corner on the market, and none are efficient enough to undercut the competition and corner the market. Apple's "Walled garden" approach only gives them a monopoly over online sales of software for apple products, not all smartphone and desktop computer software. If you don't like it, you can always buy a PC or an Android phone.
The article Amazon Antitrust Paradox is a pretty interesting read
I am amazed this video failed to mention AWS and how it maybe could and should be broken off the retail division of Amazon.
Your ads always insert perfectly
Don't break them up, then. Limit their power and influence. Make them pay for every single ounce of power they gain. Whatever is in business, stays in business.
Dont be so sure - nothing lasts forever
100 years before - Someone probably saying you can't break up Big Oil Companies .
I call bullshit , everything goes down , so will big tech one day
Another reason why they can't be broken up is bcoz there are lot of people working. If you break up a company, just imagine what would happen to all those people.
as a libertarian i do not believe that any legal action should be possible against Apple because, whatever they do, it should be their decision to make money how they want. I have never purchased any Apple product, this does not mean in any way that I believe other peoples' right to purchase Apple products should be restricted (which legal action against the company would cause)
Do a video on whether the government should break up Big Telecoms? Do we really have a lot of choice with the ISPs and are their predatory practices harmful to the consumer? Is the internet a utilty?
Nothing about how AT&T, the bell system, was broke up, when there wasn't really a reason to break it up?
Lack of competition. Especially in long distance services. New technologies like microwave transmitters and fiber optics allowed companies like MCI and Sprint to provide products at a competitive price. The only way the consumer could get those new products was by ending Ma Bell's government enforced monopoly.
The “customers” of FB and Google are the advertisers, not the users. These advertisers are being charged high fees by monopolistic bullies. This is the reason these companies need to be broken up.
The Reagan policy does make sense in the case of Netflix. People don't want more competition there because that hurts consumers. It wouldn't hurt consumers if all content was available on all services kind of like music.
We need to break apart content creation and content delivery. Whether I pay Netflix or Amazon, I should be able to watch all the shows.
Media piracy was a problem for all media productions in the 2000s and 1st half of 2010s and Netflix solve that. The people want fair prices and good products/services not exactly competition, and that is what Netflix provided. The major entertainment productions became envious of it so they made their own. What happened next was people returned back to piracy instead.
Bit disappointed you didn't even mention the Microsoft anti-trust case around the 2000s, and the steps Microsoft took to avoid losing the case or it from happening ever again.
The big technology companies have branched into so many businesses that it is difficult to define them as monopolies in the traditional sense. None of them dominate only a single industry.
What might make more sense is to force the tech giants to separate by division which would lead to the emergence of new companies that would still dominate specific areas of technology. For example, if Google was forced to spin off RUclips as separate company, RUclips would still dominate video sharing while the parent company would dominate online search. Both are simply the best at what they do.
I actually can see just Facebook being broken up. The rest not really
I love this channel. Thanks for the very informative videos
Apple is fine.
There's a reason Samsung is such a worthy competitor. Their phones are more open; its the reason my entire family owns one.
I saw your video, and I understand what basis the anti-trust laws are now based on now, and the only thing I wanna say is, I'm still a big fan of separation of big power, regardless. Also, based on those anti-trust laws, are Google's business practices supposed to also involve extracurricular activities like social engineering like we say in the google leaks?
A big problem is, that for instance Amazon is selling server capacities and using that money to tamper prices. This is killing the competion, as they don't have the resources to compete
You put so much effort in your videos I just love it
Sigh! I used to know - and talk to - SO many people.
Now I can't even get them to LOOK UP.
Didn't see that coming in 1970...1980...1990.
Man your usually so thorough. I was surprised you didnt go into the fact that large tech companies use entirely different business models to undercut and dominate markets that arent even in. Like how say Amazon can use their AWS profits to go undercut all competition in say grocery stores. Or how Apple can turn out so much profit to undercut spotify since they purpisfully sell it as a loss leader. The same strategy could be applied literally to any other business model killing all local competition. I think this is the main cause of the problem here. Theyre getting so large they can subsidize basically all competition who physically cannot afford to compete on their level.
Google's monopoly in internet searches actively hurts innovation because innovative products that compete with Google are often blacklisted by the search engine. This inevitably hurts consumers.
Tf2 Man Co was the largest monopoly hands down.
Only if someone breaks up Luxottica soon...
Have you tried buying Apple Music subscription with an Android phone? Or market through Facebook / Instagram? It's getting more expensive and inconvenient with every year. That's the whole point.
Business Casual and Polymatter again?
what is the music in the background?
The video quality is superb! Nice job
We don't need to break up big tech. We just need to enforce a more stringent privacy protection law.
why not both?
@@wursthans852 they didnt harm consumer in the sense that those industry didn't deliberately supresse competition and forbid new entry into the market. They are big simply because we use them as they are out cup of tea, this may change quickly.
@@Petethecoolguy they supress competition in many cases but in a sense of ill buy anything so im the only one i mean how can u avoid fakebook if they own insta and whatsapp? because of that and normies beeing normies everyone uses them
"Facebook deserves the most anti trust attention, bought its biggest competitor (instagram), could exploit its power by abusing privacy"
"You should be focusing on your online privacy more than ever"
At the end: "Make sure to follow me on instragram!"
Oh that irony... They all have just the power that we give them. Why not choose some alternative?
I think Facebook showed often enough that they don't care at all about privacy.
Tech companies are here only for 2 decades so there is no guarantee for big tech to survive for 100 + years
how can you say that
You didnt described MS and Oracle inc.
8:43 ........the photoshopping skills are amazing.
Loving the flow of your video!
Amazon is so much more than just ecommerce. It's easy to forget of all the other services they own because of all the different names. Which is of course isn't neccissarily a violation of antitrust as mentioned at the end
Amazon is not an e-commerce company. Amazon is a software company. If you go to netflix you used amazon, you swipe your credit card anywhere amazon, you go to 60% of websites, amazon. E-commerce is a side gig
Aside from consumer protections, working conditions are a significantly viable area to be contended with. A glimpse at various farming businesses illustrates that salient point.
The problem is the horizontal integration: Google controls Chrome and Android, and they use the defaults in their favour, like having Google as the default browser in Chrome and in Android. People doesn't change the defaults
Breaking up these companies will only further solidify China's future dominance! By the way, how do you make those insane 3D pictures? Do you cut out and edit all of the pieces separately?
6:05 Amazon's entire ecommerce business operates on a loss because it's subsidized by their cloud work (the REAL money maker)
Health insurance companies and telecommunication companies should be broken up before tech companies. They are at the very least responsible for exploiting consumers with unchecked pricing power and limited competition. They aren't like tech companies that improve our standards of living. The way they use and handle our data is one thing, but nothing useful would come from breaking them up. Especially Amazon
But they ARE monopolies. If Google or Facebook were to triple their advertising price, people would still be forced to pay and advertise there. Regular users won't leave these platforms because nothing has changed for them, therefore advertisers will have to stay and pay whatever ridicolous price they are asking if they want their products to be shown where people are. This IS a monopoly. There is NO alternative to them.
these are good points, but i do think that consolidation has now become absurd. for instance, allowing comcast to merge with nbc-universal. i think the pendulum will always be swinging, and right now the relatively light touch the government has with major corporations has non-economic effects, such as the perception of corruption.
Insightful video...as always by Business Casual. Good start to the day and came away feeling I learned something new.
it doesn't mean they can lock people , people make them giants as they offer their good services . for example , remember when Nokia had the highest market shares in mobile phones before 10-12 years ago , and when they weren't able to offer a good or new products they fall immediately and people adopt their rivals products as they offer better products (or software) . same for these companies , at certain point when they not able to offer good things they will fall with all their what called Monopoly .
Hey Vsauce, Michael here. The big tech companies will be broken up. Or will they? *Vsauce music starts playing*
you're trying too hard for likes...
@@Omar-em7rl I honestly don't care about likes. I just like the Vsauce template.
@@Omar-em7rl someone tried to make you smile,appriciate it
Nothing Reagan gave us is adequate, Jesus.
Your title is a clickbait and very misleading, what you're iterating and that may be true is that those companies won't fall apart due to anti trust laws at least as the laws are at the moment, HOWEVER claiming that those companies can't fall apart and dissolve just doesn't make any sense as I can count you over a dozen giant companies who disappeared just in the last 20 years since the beginning of the internet boom...
Amazon undercuts every competing price, even at a loss, until that adversary is gone or they can buy it for pennies.
Then they raise the price to what they want and the consumer looses.
So Amazon most certainly needs to be chopped to bits.
I guess the most damage will be done to Apple, because if the lose the Anti-Trust case, they will have to allow App Store competitors on iOS and they will also have to refund all developers because of the high fee they charge when publishing an app on the App Store
Why aren’t Huawei or Samsung considered ‘big tech’?
Manupati punith stfu Samsung was so big at some point that they needed to separate and create a conglomerate you have Samsung displays , Samsung semi conductors, Samsung electronics, Samsung civil engineering, Samsung insurance, Samsung heavy industries and the list goes on . Tell me which other company can compete with Samsung in this world!!?? Even apple, Audi, BMW mercedes, Huawei and many other companies relies on Samsung
Michael S ---- Because neither Samsung Electronics or Huawei are all that big. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft are all over 900 billion in market cap. Google is close to 800 billion.
On the other hand Samsung is 250 billion and Huawei (which is private) I would estimate at about 100 billion. They're still pretty big companies, but are dwarfed by the other 4.
i'm no expert. i think these cases differ strongly from past cases because they control the sources of information, and they (eg, google, facebook) don't make their biggest money (i'm not sure) from the people who use them. neither the users nor the content creators pay them directly, and the ones that pay them are not the majority of users and creators. quite a different kind of business.
Let’s not forget that the biggest monopoly in tech was Microsoft. Yeah now the likes of Google have given them a run for their money but don’t tell me that massive market share of Internet Explorer was because it was a better product. It was shady business practices that kept out the competition for years.
This is honestly a great video
7:40 I see you have the felix app installed too
Should have included Microsoft
Is it just me or the quality of the video have significantly gone up?
It's just you
@@ryanfgrantjr3009 nah I don't think so
@@prathamrawal5757 I think you are correct, I finally saw some older videos, this one did have better qual
People don’t understand how important those big tech companies are, if Microsoft were to be split entire developer teams all over the world would be incapable to keep working, lots of new comers wouldn’t be able to even try cause lots of new developers take advantage of the azure free stuff, it’s strange to think about it but if they split google, Microsoft and amazon, the world as we know it would change in really strange ways
We agree thats why amzn, goog and FB r among the top 3 holdings in our RUclips portfolio
Felix at 7:42
Oil rules the word, the biggest trust.
They won't be broken up but that can be disrupted by decentralized autonomous organizations built on blockchain technology.
Columbus Ohio is really the heart of it all, really.
In each correction of the US marketplace, there has been just one man driving it. From Sherman and Teddy to FDR, Truman and Reagan.
America has various effective and fast means of changing legislation (by international standards). Congress, the supreme courts and the courts of the various states all play a part.
The only two things we know for certain is that 1- the American Marketplace has changed every time it has been threatened and 2- it will do so again in the future. Expect big changes in the near future. Laws will change rapidly to accommodate these changes. Possibly these changes will happen sooner than we think.
never say never, companies like Google deserve to be punished for their actions.
Consumer welfare, when business people said it. That word just become very dubious
meanwhile in s. korea naver, kakao talk and daum are dominating everthing lol
Brilliant theatrical business historical case, thank you for reminding me of the business model using trusts. Great work!
Big tech shouldn't be broken up. Don't assume everyone shares the same goal as you. As long as they operate voluntarily, there's no reason to break them up. Government needs to get out of the way in order to allow competition. They're giving BILLIONS in subsides and tax breaks. Get government influence away from them and you'll see them naturally shape up or fall
You realize most of the companies funnel millions into suppressing or eliminating competition. The best example of that is ISPs the pretty much only focus on suppressing competition abd not innovation or customer satisfaction
Apple is not a monopoly. You can get apps outside the App Store such as tweakbox.
i don't understand how i have watched this 5 times already🤯
Yeah, none of us understand how or why you did that, either.
@@ryanfgrantjr3009 oh thanks now it's 6👍🏾
@@keemshakes lol......likedyour funny comment, keem......haha :)
Very informative, thanks
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, Dagg!
The Grammer of Hindi caption is not totally correct
Please correct it
How do you do your animations with the moving photos?!
In the past, big businesses got absorbed by government. The British East India Company, for example.
Now, big companies overpower governments. Samsung in South Korea. While in the UK and the USA, it's big arms manufacture and tech companies such as BAE, Boeing, and the obvious likes of Apple, Google, etc.
Because the American government is all about capitalism and lobbying, all you need to worry about is that the tech giants such as Google and Apple need to be competing against each other rather than consolidating, because that would be when the shit hits the fan, with mass layoffs, like when big banks merge. Look at how many layoffs are going to happen when Disney's acquisition of Fox goes through...
Surely, the main point is will they ever pay their tax?
Diamonds are forever, Big Tech is forever.
At 4:20, the comment about anti-trust actions being like socialism is complete nonsense. I don't know whether the author of the video is responsible or whether this is an accurate paraphrase of Robert Bork. But the point is not who is wrong, but why they are wrong.
Regardless, it's the complete opposite of the truth. Socialism concentrates power in massive enterprises. This has happened in every society that has ever practiced socialism, whether we are talking about the Soviet Union or China under Mao or Nazi Germany.
In each and every case the bureaucrats massively favored a system of very large enterprises. If you think about what is that motivates the socialists and how they think, it is inevitable that this would be the case.
In Adam Smith's time, that man who first wrote down the moral and economic case for capitalism and began a worldwide transformation, a good part of his argument was about the economic harm created by concentrating too much power in the hands of too few people. In his time they weren't called 'trusts,' they were called monopolies. Monopolies sold by the government to the politically powerful.
It's a funny thing about capitalism, but there is more than one way to do it, and the consequences of the different ways of doing it are profound. It's also odd, or maybe when we think about it, it shouldn't be, about how many people that have been successful as capitalists, are anti-capitalist in their attitudes and political beliefs. But then belief in capitalism is not a requirement for being successful in it.
It could be that this is just more evidence, as if there weren't enough already, of how profoundly counter-intuitive capitalism actually is.
@@kayjd2295 Wow! This is from so long back that I don't remember writing it.
But I don't see anything wrong with it.
Of course I'm for capitalism. It's one heck of a lot better than slavery or feudalism or some of the other isms that are around. But different people mean different things when they say "capitalism." Some of these versions of capitalism I'm not so happy about it. It all depends on what someone actually means when they say "capitalism."
What ever goes up must come down.
This is basic statistics.
Kingdoms lasted 100s of years, but it came down.
Hello mr Jordan. I'd like to know if you will upload on skillshare lessons about commodities and forex market. i really liked your lessons on the platform and, since i have interest in those subjects, i'd like to know if you plan on doing that. thank you for your attention and stay smart
Please make some videos on some just started company - maybe just like your friends who started internxt...