A Big Tech Breakup: Cui Bono?

[@farbodba]

30% rev share on the App Store is a heavy tax on the internet and invites disputes and regulators.

[@bernadettetreual]

Thank you for the informative explanation of your position on the big tech monopolies and legal actions against those. As a European, I found it interesting to also look at the benefits customers get from those monopolies. Yet, I'd like to clearly state a differerence between Apple and Google/Microsoft: With the former, if you want to build a competing product on their platform, you're often disadvantaged by not having access to the same functionality as Apple. In contrast, the latter usually offer you such programming interfaces to achieve the same, openly or sometimes on request. This is a purely artificial limitation by Apple which should IMO be changed by a court ruling, similar to rulings against Microsoft, to provide a level playing field on their respective platforms.

[@surani1948]

Once again fantastic breakdown &logical thinking of how these big tech companies operate. As they say ‘there is no free lunch”. However technology has greatly changed our lives. Productivity has been increased. Would be nice to have balance between regulations & ways companies operate. Thank you very much for this presentation which I will review again & again.🙏🙏🙏

[@azizpatel6826]

Thank you, Professor. So much appreciate!!

[@libshastra]

Slide 28: I think there's one more argument missing from the Unfairness Argument - i.e. providing extra privileges and advantages to in house products. For eg: Apple Maps is the only available default maps app in iOS, you cannot make a competing maps app a default in iOS. Google does similar things with Android - Google's own apps have privileged access to Android APIs that is not available to competing App developers. It is essentially the same issue as Netscape v. Internet Explorer but re-framed in a different context. Epic v. Apple kinda sidesteps the issue but I can see Epic make similar arguments should the current case fall apart.

[@yeetboi268]

so true bother

[@paolobernardi6835]

Unsure about this point. But you can have google map or other ones in their system? Their ecosystem is default but you can change it if you want. I do. And specific app maps are out there in iOS system from Foreflight to others...

[@JunaidHasan23]

Companies are free to use AOSP (Android Open Source Project) and develop the OS as they want. Particular examples are Amazon fireOS and Huawei OS.

[@سهلة-ض5ص]

This is quality education for free!!! Truly thanks

[@wm6549]

Thank you, Professor!

[@Oishiilicious]

Before I clicked the video, I already knew it's gonna be a "the market regulates itself" statement.

[@Pizza-gb1ch]

@28:00 "Free" shipping from Amazon? Oftentimes U pay more for the items essentially paying for shippping.

[@Pizza-gb1ch]

@38:00 Amazon did not earn its advantage. It expoited a loophole and didn't pay taxes. Its customets didn't pay local taxes for years. They effectively received tax subsidies. Amazon had a negative effect on local suppliers. Walmart, Lowes, Ace don't stock basic items now. Everything must be shipped now.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

Scale is good and the best outcomes would be achieved by having well regulated, large companies (easier said than done) The biggest barrier to innovation is because of infringement concerns, competitors have to reinvent the entire product just to implement a small improvement that the market leader refuses to consider. Perhaps data sharing shouldn't be free, but there has to be a way to fairly compensate the companies for their intellectual property without fully gating it from transformative use by 3rd parties.

[@AnitaCorbett]

A very clear and interesting discussion Thank you

[@jchong416]

Let's not forget that we're competing against international competitions.

[@Thekingdomhearts.]

that is a bit stupid to say if they are International Monopolys and not Only in the US

[@SimplyApollo]

@@Thekingdomhearts. international monopolies are still competing against aliens

[@mateusz3162]

what about applying the law if there is a law which generally really benefit all companies overall, cause in general you can't do business when and where institutions are weak?

[@vasilzhiliev6057]

Aswath Damodaran is a global treasure

[@paolobernardi6835]

Great video. I agree with your analysis. Another key factor imho to consider is HOW EASY is for the customer to get out and if there are really options out there. And there are. If I don't like Amazon (let's stay on one of these companies) I will buy something out of their marketplace and use shopify for example. Where actually I see a little of oligopoly in Amazon is in the cloud business to consumer. If you purchased music that you believe you own now they try to force a subscription and plaster you with ads - which to a me rings a bell about potential fragility of this giant. 100% with you about lawyers and business solutions. Lawyers understand law not business flows, but they think they do. In my profession here in the US I see them doing same mistakes over an over. Corollary to that: they are (very) bad at accounting reading.

[@clinttube]

Question on your first point: Who exactly are these other competitors again? Because Shopify is not an Amazon competitor from a customer perspective. Amazon owns the customers online, that's their business value. Shopify is a competitor on the marketplace services side for sure, but that's not the core business at hand - Amazon is delivering you millions of paid-in consumers and I would argue they have become belligerent in abusing that stranglehold on the consumer internet marketplace interface both with B2B and B2C. On the B2B side, that's part of their value proposition just like Walmart analyzes vendor costs and beats them into submission on sourcing - hard to argue with that in and of itself if they can get away with it as the consumers "benefit" from the lower pricing. On the consumer side though, I would argue they are not stupid enough to create a systematic cash exploit as evidence. The exploit is in all of the other areas where that dominant online purchasing interface allows them to exploit the consumers. Not sure if you've tried returning a product to Amazon lately - their interface is littered with cul-de-sacs that are clearly put their by design. Items they claim are eligible for return (and are), are ultimately unable to be returned without literally communicating directly with someone from the company. On top of that, I personally have only had this come up in the past year or two because of how ridiculous the quality/fulfillment has become. I've had to return literally almost 20% of the products (not counting for repeat orders - just variety-basis) I ordered because they were either A. not what I ordered B. were broken in their possession and patched up with Amazon tape or C. So low quality they failed during even Amazon's return period. I worry Amazon has gotten to dominant in that consumer market and so abusive in their enablement of counterfeit goods (mostly Chinese) that I not only can't buy the quality products I used to be able to, but that they actively obfuscate the quality issues by removing negative reviews/allowing blatant relistings (this is proven by the way). What really took it over the top for me was a company that the FDA itself had put a notice out on for selling fake N-95 respirators during COVID... Amazon was not only actively selling these, but even after complaining through nearly a dozen channels and literally talking to multiple people on the phone about it at Amazon, nothing was done. Government complaint? Yea, right - they appear impotent and captured - mine went nowhere. Could I have gone beyond the multiple hours I already devoted to trying to get that item removed and been succesful? I'd imagine so. But when an uninterested person will spend several hours with things that were supposedly a matter of life and death and get nowhere, there is a fundamental problem. They sell 2 amp fuses that don't blow until you put 10 amps through them and actively remove reviews that point this point with testing equipment. How that is allowed it beyond me, but I just do not think there are real alternatives. If there are - take my thousands of dollars per year in spending because I cancelled by Prime renewal looking for one.

[@paolobernardi6835]

@@clinttube your points are extremely valid and I concur to great extent. Per my personal experience I tend to shop more and more out of Amazon and the marketplace service is served via Shopify. So yes if Shopify takes away transactions from Amazon and is a competitor. Amazon core physical business will ultimately kill them. They must continuously grow and have a growing economy behind to function. And of the "Mag7" (which under the hood are very different businesses), it is one of the two most fragile imho.

[@filofteia1]

Amazing in-depth analysis

[@JunaidHasan23]

Great piece.

[@DK-3000]

European Union is doing great job in focusing on right things

[@GrandmaSledgehammer]

I think the conclusion relies too strongly on the companies not simply buying out potential disruptors and furthering stagnation. I'd also hesitate to call Microsoft's lifecycle short.

[@simon90879]

Thank you for all that you put out there. But you should re evaluate Stanton.. let’s go Yanks

[@DeviceX-Doodle]

I liked the conclusion made but were people not having normal life before Y2K? If yes then, we can slowly close the pandora's box and I am looking forward for it

[@josephlombardo1267]

I just wonder whether Google would have accelerated, as it did, the development of its AI if OpenAI didn't come up and sort of forced it to, i.e. if there weren't other disruptors, are we sure disruptors would not become complacent at least pace-wise? For full disclosure, I tend to lean in favor of the consumer when there is a conflictual benefit between businesses and consumers. However, I don't see why the policymakers would not be able to just step in and break things up if needed (conspiracy theories aside). The right question should be whether it would cost, i.e. have more impact, doing it now or later. Not sure the answer thus I'd lean towards the consumer.

[@saikiranbsbs]

Professor will u be my PhD guide

[@ng67432]

It's Jay Gould not Gold!

[@AugustoLucarelli]

Completely agree. Great analysis. Luna khan must go. She is driven by ideology and she is clueless about how business works.

[@magalengo]

With a little luck, Lina will be gone soon.