[HN Gopher] Alibaba breaks itself up in six
___________________________________________________________________
Alibaba breaks itself up in six
Author : ShaurAsar
Score : 295 points
Date : 2023-04-03 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| [deleted]
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35339668
| Equiet wrote:
| A missed opportunity to break it up into 40
| DesiLurker wrote:
| took me a sec to realize that this was not a serious remark.
| :-)
| mportela wrote:
| 42 is even better
| foolinaround wrote:
| https://archive.ph/VYxH4
| fidrelity wrote:
| Isn't this very similar to the plotline of Inception? Looks like
| the CPC has mastered multi-layered inception.
|
| /s
| hulitu wrote:
| At least some countries fight monopolies, not promote them. /s
| crop_rotation wrote:
| The CCP is not fighting monopolies, it is fighting companies
| that it doesn't like. Taobao/Tmall will still be a monopoly
| on online retail and will be a full part of Alibaba without
| taking external investment.
| Animatronio wrote:
| Why the /s though? It's obvious some countries actually
| promote monopolies, especially when they go global.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Like Huawei. China wants them to have a monopoly everywhere
| on earth.
|
| Alibaba had nothing to do with being a monopoly, it became
| a power base to rival the government so it had to be broken
| and scattered.
| Animatronio wrote:
| Huawei, Gazprom, Google, Facebook, probably each G7
| country has a champion it wants to rule the field.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Does any western government activity promote monopolies
| abroad and threaten consequences if such monopolies are
| fought against, all while accepting state-backed monopoly
| at home?
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-threatens-retaliation-
| aga...
|
| To recap, the Alibaba break up wasn't about a monopoly,
| it was about a rival power base to the CCP that couldn't
| be allowed to exist.
| Animatronio wrote:
| Well, how about Boeing vs Airbus?
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Jack Ma criticized the Chinese way of doing things, he had been
| planing to do an IPO for Ant group.
|
| That IPO was canceled by the CCP, the guy disappeared for months
| and now his stuff is being broken up.
|
| The message is clear: no matter who you are, criticize the party
| and you will get rekt.
| differentView wrote:
| How is this a breakup if Alibaba is just going to become a
| holding company owning those six new companies?
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Because it is not breakup, in the same way that the
| establishment of Alphabet Group was not a breakup.
|
| But as it has always been on the U.S.-dominated English-
| speaking Internet and media, facts and objectiveness do not
| matter when it comes to any topic related to China. Anyone can
| twist, spin, or literally invent anything to fit their own
| narrative about China and people will believe it without
| question as long as it leans on the antagonizing side.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > facts and objectiveness do not matter when it comes to any
| topic related to China
|
| Replace "China" with pretty much every topic, they do this
| with everything to draw attention from viewers.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| The strict law about what can and cannot Chinese say, share,
| and see online doesn't help this.
|
| Yes there are tons of nonsense online about China. But it is
| not helped by the total dragnet there is over there. And by
| the fact that some of the over-the-top stuff about China is
| indeed true.
|
| I mean Jack Ma really _was_ disappeared right after the
| speech.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai also step off the stage after
| finishing speeches. Does that mean they have been
| "disappeared"? They have a private life in case you aren't
| aware. Acknowledging the fact that the CCP is meddling with
| private sector businesses is not an excuse to spout
| misinfo.
| kkarakk wrote:
| jack ma disappeared from the entire world - not a single
| photo could be found by people legitimately asking where
| he was. not even a publicist "he's holidaying in this
| country at the moment" could be had. if he was a reticent
| person maybe it could be excused but he's been a jet
| setter for a decade now with tons of social appearances.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| He went missing for months
|
| Tim Cook stepped off Trump's board of CEOs and did not
| disappear. Jack Dorsey banned Trump from Twitter and
| didn't disappear. Elon Musk constantly goes after Biden
| for no reason. He has not disappeared.
| yabones wrote:
| Perhaps they're transitioning to the Korean "chaebol" model
| with complex structures of ownership to obscure the true
| organizational structure?
| re-thc wrote:
| The true structure is the government is now the holding
| entity.
| opentokix wrote:
| CCP breaks up Alibaba in six
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Love the use of the passive tense. "Company decides to become
| less of a threat to president for life".
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| Isn't seven the most powerfully magic number? Wouldn't it be
| better, make Alibaba stronger...to split the soul into seven
| pieces?
| rs999gti wrote:
| Even numbers are lucky in Chinese culture
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| 8 is a much luckier number and is associated with
| fortune/wealth. I think 7 is mainly a western thing.
|
| although the rule of threes seems to be a universal constant.
| Just something about it.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| It is a Harry Potter quote/reference.
| xwdv wrote:
| I always appreciate the CCP's twisted sense of symbolism. They
| chose 6 pieces to symbolize Jack Ma having his arms, legs and
| head cut off, and this is what remains. Chilling.
| eunos wrote:
| It's just your imagination thats too vivid
| ShaurAsar wrote:
| [flagged]
| web3-is-a-scam wrote:
| > The company's artificial-intelligence and cloud-computing
| operations will form a separate unit, led by Daniel Zhang, the
| current group chief executive.
|
| So it looks like Jack Ma's joke about AI meaning "Alibaba
| Intelligence" is coming to fruition.
| davidgerard wrote:
| https://archive.is/VYxH4
| xd1936 wrote:
| Error code: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP
| nightpool wrote:
| Strange, works fine for me. Maybe an enterprising ISP trying
| an HTTPS downgrade attack against a "blocked" site?
| tiffanyh wrote:
| The six separate units are:
|
| 1. Cloud Intelligence
|
| 2. Taobao Commerce
|
| 3. Local Services
|
| 4. Cainiao Smart Logistics
|
| 5. Global Digital Commerce
|
| 6. Digital Media and Entertainment Group
| duxup wrote:
| It's always hard for me to understand the why when it comes to
| China's government.
|
| "Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China's tech
| crackdown"
|
| If this is government action then why would this be the "end" of
| government involvement?
| alephnerd wrote:
| Because there is now an understanding of who the actual
| regulators are and what the legal process to operate a tech
| company within the PRC is.
|
| When we talk about anti-trust and tech industry policy in the
| US, we know by default that means that it's going to involve
| the FTC (M&A), SEC (Accounting/Financing Practices), and the
| House+Senate Judiciary Committee (review M&A, Financing, and
| Accounting Practices decided by FTC+SEC)
|
| The Chinese tech industry in the 2010s had a number of
| competing regulators - China Securities Regulatory Commission,
| China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, State
| Administration of Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Industry and
| Information Technology, Cyberspace Administration of China,
| State Administration for Market Regulation, People's Bank of
| China, etc.
|
| Because there are so many regulators/agencies stepping on each
| others toes, there was a lot of intrigue and bad practices in
| the Chinese tech industry from 2000-2020 (eg. Crypto companies
| like FTX and Binance bribing PBOC officials and AntPay arguing
| that as a FinTech it should be regulated as a tech company/by
| the MIIT and not financial regulators)
|
| During 2019-2022, there was a massive regulatory reform across
| the board that divvied up the roles of individual agencies and
| created the norms that startups and companies needed to follow.
|
| The resolution of Ant Group's whole saga is basically setting
| precedent on which agencies/regulators within the PRC do what,
| and now investors have an easier time understanding how to vet
| investment risks in the tech sector.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| It's usually just about maintaining and increasing power. And
| warning others by demonstrating it too.
| RedCondor wrote:
| Reading Xi Jinping is pretty interesting:
|
| Upon settling in the countryside, I saw firsthand the power of
| dripping water drilling through rock. That image, which
| captured the spirit of persistence, has stayed with me all
| these years. It has become a well-worn source for contemplating
| life and movement.
|
| Rock and water are two opposing elements that are used to
| symbolize dogged stubbornness and gentle fluidity. Yet despite
| being "gentle," water will drill through "solid" rock over
| time.
|
| As a metaphor for people, this is the embodiment of a certain
| moral character: it is the willingness to rise to fight each
| time one falls and the courage to sacrifice oneself. A single
| drop of water is small and insubstantial. It will die a cruel
| "death" in any battle with a rock. Yet in that brief moment of
| "sacrifice," even though it cannot see its own value and
| achievement, it is embodied within the countless drops of water
| that have already fallen, and the triumph of finally drilling
| through the rock. From the perspective of history or
| development of an economically disadvantaged area, we should
| not seek personal success and fame. Instead, we should strive
| to make steady progress one small step at a time and be willing
| to lay the groundwork for overall success. When everyone doing
| our work models themselves on a droplet that is ready to
| sacrifice for the greater good, we need not worry that our work
| is not important enough to make lasting change!
|
| As a metaphor for things, dripping water is a demonstration of
| dialectical principles that use softness to overcome hardness,
| and the weak to control the strong. I believe in the invaluable
| spirit of that drop of water, which bravely goes into the
| breach with no thought of retreat. Those of us who are involved
| in economic development will inevitably encounter complications
| in our work. We can either rise to the challenge or flinch and
| run away. It all depends on whether we have the courage to
| adhere to philosophical materialism. If we allow ourselves to
| be filled with trepidation, the kind of fear that comes from
| standing at the edge of an abyss or treading on thin ice, we
| will lack the courage to do anything. We will accomplish
| nothing. Nevertheless, courage alone is not enough.
|
| When dripping water takes aim at a rock, each droplet zeroes in
| on the same target and stays the course until its mission is
| complete. The drops of water fall day after day, year after
| year. This is the magic that enables dripping water to drill
| through rock! How can it be that our economic development work
| is any different? Just look at areas where the economy is
| lagging. Historical, environmental, and geographical factors
| have all played a part in holding back development. There are
| no shortcuts. Nothing can change overnight. Instead, we need to
| focus on the long haul by turning quantitative changes into
| qualitative changes. We need to be the dripping water that
| drills through rock. When talking about reform and opening up,
| we cannot assume that help will be coming from left and right,
| nor can we afford to wait until conditions are perfect enough
| to ensure success. Instead of building palaces in the air, we
| need to square our shoulders and get down to work. When talking
| about economic development, we cannot simply race to build
| high-rises and open up big factories, nor can we focus on
| dramatic results at the expense of necessary infrastructure.
| Otherwise, success will be elusive, and opportunities will be
| easily missed.
|
| Instead of daydreaming about overly ambitious or flashy
| projects, we need to have a firm footing in reality as we take
| concrete steps to reach long-term goals. Instead of "setting
| three fires" in the hope they will succeed, we need to work
| steadily and make solid progress. Our work calls for the
| tenacity to keep chipping away. Working by fits and starts will
| not get us anywhere.
|
| When I describe my awe upon seeing the power of droplets
| drilling through rock, I am praising those who have the
| willingness to rise each time one falls, and the moral
| character to sacrifice for overall success. I am expressing my
| admiration for those who develop a solid plan and then have the
| tenacity to see it through to the end.
|
| https://redsails.org/water-droplets-drilling-through-rock/
| jeron wrote:
| I think they mean the end of China's crackdown wrt alibaba
| duxup wrote:
| Oh, got it. That makes more sense. I don't know if it's true
| even from that angle... but I get it.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Just checking my understanding:
|
| They prefer individual businesses not to get to big,
| monopolistic or dominant across multiple sectors, as this
| would give the business undue influence over politics? And of
| course they're operating on the idea that the political
| sphere governs the market and not that the biggest businesses
| should be the most powerful lobbiests.
|
| So this is an end to it because it effectively neuters the
| one super company by making it into several more easily
| regulated companies?
| mikea1 wrote:
| > this would give the business undue influence over
| politics?
|
| It's about power. From the article:
|
| > Communist authorities dislike the idea of anything, let
| alone a large private business, outshining the party. And
| the country's leaders bristled at the high profile of
| Alibaba's founder, Jack Ma, an icon of Chinese enterprise
| who every now and again dared question their decisions.
| selimnairb wrote:
| It is my understanding that China has a long history
| (hundreds of years at least) of the government keeping
| merchant power in check, lest it lead to unrest due high
| levels of inequality. This is why China didn't see
| Capitalist primative accumulation in the early modern
| period.
| scythe wrote:
| China had a brief nearly capitalist period with the Song
| Dynasty, building on growth during the Tang Dynasty, but
| the Song royal line, an Achilles heel of any monarchic
| empire, started to break down in the early 13th century,
| which contributed to the Mongol conquest. The next three
| dynasties were highly corrupt: the Yuan was overtly
| colonial, treating natives as an underclass; the Ming got
| off to a strong start but by the mid-1400s were consumed
| by palace intrigue and repressed the study of algebra
| (which was available via Islamic Central Asia) due to
| xenophobia; the Qing were an ethnostate again with some
| early Han defectors classified as "honorary Manchu",
| which may have inspired the "honorary Marleyan" motif in
| _Attack on Titan_.
|
| So it is a little more complex than that.
| devsda wrote:
| Limiting a company's influence (by lobbying or otherwise)
| has been one of the arguments for breaking up big tech
| elsewhere too.
| ShaurAsar wrote:
| China's government has been cracking down on its tech industry
| for some time now, and this has created uncertainty for
| investors. However, recent moves by the government, such as the
| approval of new video game titles and the easing of regulations
| for foreign investors, have been seen as positive signals for
| the industry.
|
| It's important to note that the Chinese government is not
| monolithic, and different factions within it may have different
| goals and priorities. The recent actions that have been
| perceived as positive by investors may reflect a shift in
| priorities or strategy by certain government officials or
| agencies.
| devsda wrote:
| I guess the idea could be that with this the govt has chosen a
| company to set an example and with it the criteria for
| crackdown.
|
| So, there's no uncertainity regarding who will be picked next
| and why.
| lookACamel wrote:
| Ending a crackdown does not mean the end of involvement.
| Involvement can be neutral or positive, a crackdown is
| negative.
| infamia wrote:
| Either way, it means more levers of control by the CCP, which
| is not positive if you're trying to run a business. It
| introduces more uncertainty if nothing else, which is a
| negative.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Because Investors (capital I) are children with no long-term
| memory who think they're special. Or they have faith (misplaced
| IMO) that Xi will do the rational thing, which in their minds
| is "thing that makes money". Because China has no history of
| sacrificing its economy/peoples' quality of life for political
| reasons, or collapsing age demographics, nope it's all just one
| long glorious period of Deng Xiaoping-style openness (never-
| mind the man's direction was "hide your strength, bide your
| time") and over a billion potential consumers!!!
|
| Anyone putting money into a Chinese company is betting that Xi
| and the CCP will allow said company to do things that make them
| money, and won't sacrifice said company for political gain.
| Good luck with that! The beatings will continue until
| regulation stops US investment in China altogether, and then
| the Investors will whine about it to no end.
| sigzero wrote:
| It will not "end" any government involvement. That's just the
| spin.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They just multiplied the political officer headcount by six.
| Definitely a new beginning.
| geodel wrote:
| In terms of demographic Chinese population has now started
| declining. So China is no longer in need of aggressive,
| exploitative model of _capitalism_ they were following for last
| few decades because they needed job growth at any cost.
|
| To western eyes suddenly Alibaba seems to be kind of hero
| standing up to authoritarian government but from what I read
| what really got Alibaba in govt crosshairs was its predatory
| finance business. I don't think any country would have liked
| this type of business but many would've tolerated because "free
| enterprise / follow the law" thinking.
|
| So the way I see this is "law taking its course" Chinese way
| and proactively taking action against business which could be
| socially bad in future.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| I'm not an expert on this, but from what I gather this all
| leads back to a power struggle between Jack Ma and Xi Jinping.
| Ma was ready to go public with AliPay and in the build up to it
| made a speech that criticised the government regulation as
| being out of date. This was viewed as a challenge to the
| governments power. Over the next few months the government
| moved to tighten regulations on companies like AliPay and
| disappeared Jack Ma. The government since then has basically
| completely taken over his entire empire, and sliced it up into
| pieces. This is basically Xi sending the message that private
| business in China will always defer to the government. All of
| this has natural absolutely tanked the value of China's tech
| sector. So people are hoping that now the worst of it is done
| and they no longer have enormous tech giants, but a series of
| smaller companies, that the government will return to being
| more hands off and in turn those smaller companies can return
| to more natural valuations.
| freedomben wrote:
| Good analysis. Related:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/alibaba-founder-jack-
| ma-b...
| voisin wrote:
| > So people are hoping that now the worst of it is done
|
| What is the basis of this hope?
| [deleted]
| SilverBirch wrote:
| Well, the problem was that Jack Ma was getting so powerful
| by being in charge of a massive tech empire he was
| threatening the CCP's power. The remaining split up
| companies are no where near as big or powerful, are staffed
| largely by people who have been put in by the CCP, and now
| know what happens to people who criticise the government.
| They've made their point, so the question is... why not
| ease up a bit and let prosperity return. Look at the absurd
| hype around AI in the US right now, I'd imagine the CCP
| would be quite worried that they're going to lose a
| strategic position in this technology if they don't ease
| up.
|
| Also, they've just got to ease up at some point right?
| toss1 wrote:
| >>Also, they've just got to ease up at some point right?
|
| Nope. There is absolutely nothing (other than whatever
| good judgement they might have) that would prevent them
| from flying the entire craft straight into the ground.
|
| Agree that the problem for Jack Ma was he was becoming a
| threat to CCP power. He may have been able to pull it off
| and make a new countervailing power, but he spoke up too
| soon and CCP/Xi figured out the threat and took action.
| Maybe another player will be smart enough to stay below
| the radar for much longer, but it'll be years if not
| decades
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| I think on some level people implicitly believe that the
| Chinese govt will choose prosperity over power because
| that's what they imagine _they_ would do. I suspect that
| will never happen.
| toyg wrote:
| No, it's because that's what the previous generation of
| Chinese leaders did. Post-Mao, party elites have largely
| chosen wealth over power at critical junctures,
| maintaining an overall equilibrium. Xi Jinping broke that
| setup: there is no elite anymore, only himself; and he's
| made a point that wealth cannot be used as a shield from
| his power.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| It's interesting because the other contender for general
| secretary at the time, Bo Xilai, was even more outwardly
| Maoist. So I suppose something was bound to happen to
| that equilibrium.
| tpm wrote:
| And I suspect you are right as long as current leaders
| wield the power. Periodical purges in all ranks of power
| and society are a time-tested feature of communist
| regimes. Without them the party cadres grow stale and
| lose their revolutional vigor. I can imagine it's a bit
| similar to how the free market works, with companies
| going bankrupt or taken over all the time, only there
| it's the changing conditions and the 'invisible hand of
| the market', while in communist dictatorships it's always
| intentional and directed (and way more brutal), because
| the rigid system does not self-regulate, at least not the
| way the leaders would like.
| lanternfish wrote:
| Presumably because Alibaba - the challenger that started
| this crackdown - is now slain.
|
| On a political level, there are only so many Chinese
| companies with enough power to actually threaten the CCP,
| and Alibaba is probably enough of an example to keep them
| in line - further crackdowns are probably unnecessary.
| re-thc wrote:
| There's been lots of "crackdowns" before Alibaba. Maybe
| "slain" as well but no not the only victim.
| voisin wrote:
| Must be nice for international companies to know that
| Chinese companies will always be restrained from becoming
| too large. It's like they have to fight with one arm tied
| behind their back - get too big and your own government
| will cut you up.
| kkarakk wrote:
| xi jinping has been criticised for this but he's in his
| "my legacy lives on forever" phase of life. another
| decade and he's done - just consolidating power for his
| family at this point.
| ptx wrote:
| Wasn't there also something about Alibaba specifically
| working on a money lending scheme which circumvented banking
| regulations and which regulators feared would create vast
| amounts of unsecured debt and destabilize the economy?
| PutinPoopin wrote:
| [dead]
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Also, one of Ma's last public appearances was at an American
| conference, maybe TechCrunch but I'm not sure, where he said
| in an on stage interview something to the effect of, "I'm not
| afraid of the CCP", in relation to recent revelations he was
| a CCP member. Then he got disappeared shortly after. He was
| really clueless about what kind of org he was dealing with.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Given China's, (and to some extent, Asia's), obsession with
| face, his actions do all seem pretty clueless. I wonder,
| could it all be part of some performance?
|
| The fact that they let Ali "voluntarily" restructure, and
| save face from having it be enforced, is interesting on
| it's own. I'm not really sure what to make of it.
| twblalock wrote:
| We don't need to resort to cultural tropes like "face" to
| explain this.
|
| This is about power and control. The Communist party does
| not want any other centers of power or control to emerge
| which might challenge the party. Jack Ma, and the tech
| industry in general, was emerging as such a power. Now
| that problem has been taken care of.
| carschno wrote:
| Genuine question: is there any evidence that "Asia's
| obsession with face" has actual impact on daily business,
| or is it really just a cliche?
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| It's only a cliche, because westerners are often just as
| obsessed with face, though having a foot in two cultures
| there are a few big places where the difference is
| noticable:
|
| US (and by extension NATO, doctrinally) military is very
| unconcerned with face in the small. For (real example)
| anyone on the bridge of a US ship can report to the
| captain of a ship that the ship is out of position (for
| an exercise). A buddy almost got walloped on the bridge
| of a ROK ship for doing that. They didn't because he was
| American and that's what exchanges are for.
|
| _some_ cultures in the west _tend_ to value bluntness
| over face in the small.
| KerryJones wrote:
| Jack Ma is part of the evidence -- there are others who
| have said the same thing. There are many examples of less
| notoriety of people saying bad things about CCP and then
| "disappearing" (many government officials).
| hatsunearu wrote:
| Jack Ma truly is clueless in general. There was a talk
| involving him and Elon Musk and it somehow was Elon coming
| out as the eloquent one in that conversation.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| I don't think very highly of Jack Ma, but eloquence for
| non-native speakers should be judged very differently,
| especially for someone coming from a language very far
| away linguistically.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Exactly, Ma was kinda struggling to get a train of
| thought across linguistically and half the time when Musk
| interrupted him he was rather making fun of some poor
| choice of words and being like "lol whatever" than trying
| to actually engage in a conversation.
|
| And I guess now with the Twitter shitshow Musk doesn't
| exactly look like a genius either.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Pretty much impossible to defend Elon's Twitter tenure.
| Can't think of a single thing he did that made that
| company more valuable.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I always do wonder about the reverence shown to
| billionaires around here, given the quite frankly
| ludicrous purchase of Twitter ($44bn!!!) and what has
| happened afterwards I really am not convinced they aren't
| just as able as the rest of us.
| midasuni wrote:
| Americans tend to equate wealth with ability and set
| aside luck, everyone is a temporarily embarrassed
| millionaire.
|
| Musk certainly used to have decent business accuumin - he
| hit it big several times, that's not just luck. From all
| accounts he's a half decent engineer too, which is rare
| in many CEO levels.
|
| However his behaviour over the last 3 years has been very
| surprising. He seems to be less interested in the tech
| and more in the politics, which is a shame.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"less interested in the tech and more in the politics"
|
| Once you have x dollars and own companies government is
| aware of it comes as no surprise
| munificent wrote:
| _> he hit it big several times, that's not just luck._
|
| The odds of any given entrepreneur getting lucky several
| times in a row is very small.
|
| Given a large enough entrepreneurs, the odds of one of
| them getting lucky several times in a row gets very
| large. We just don't see all the ones who tried and
| failed, or succeeded once or twice and fizzled out.
|
| I don't doubt that Musk has some skills and appropriate
| personality traits as well, but luck is likely the
| dominating factor.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > However his behaviour over the last 3 years has been
| very surprising. He seems to be less interested in the
| tech and more in the politics, which is a shame.
|
| He's a narcissist. People used to worship him - and given
| just how hard Tesla kicked the butts of the ICE car
| industry or how SpaceX just completely obliterated
| Boeing/ULA, rightfully. But let's be honest, both are
| mainstream now and don't get as much attention as they
| once did... and then, his wife leaves him for Chelsea
| Manning and one of his children comes out as trans and
| sticks the finger to him.
|
| A bad enough combination of events for normal people to
| handle (getting dumped by a partner is one of the chief
| causes that sends people into depression and other mental
| health disaster loops), but for a narcissist with no real
| support structure to fall back on _and_ already on the
| edge? No surprise he blames everyone but himself and
| allies with those that are against those whom he feels
| "wronged" by: the far-right.
|
| Note, this doesn't excuse _any_ of his actions. He needs
| to come out of this rabbit hole either by himself or,
| when he finally hits rock bottom and commits something
| that he can 't just buy himself out of prison, by the
| government.
| flangola7 wrote:
| I seriously doubt his engineering abilities, but I'll
| ignore that.
|
| One thing he's demonstrated from the beginning is a stark
| undersupply of emotional intelligence. There are noises
| that come out of his mouth that my 15yr old would roll
| her eyes at for being too self-centered and immature.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| There's a fine line between lack of emotional
| intelligence and simply not caring to placate others.
|
| The two are not the same.
|
| It is like calling someone an idiot because they won't do
| what you want and ignoring what they want.
|
| You have to admit that it may not be a priority for Elon
| to maintain his reputation with you in your 15 year old
| philipov wrote:
| People thought he had some engineering skills, until he
| took over Twitter and started talking about all the
| idiotic engineering decisions he was making.
| robocat wrote:
| Musk could simultaneously be a numpty at Twitter and a
| superb engineer at SpaceX.
|
| You imply that skills are context-free black or white -
| that is a terrible way to think about people or the world
| IMHO. And you can't ignore changes over time either.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| > business accuumin
|
| I am guessing this couldn't have been just luck either.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| The Twitter purchase really just shows how rich and
| apathetic Elon Musk is. A Ferrari is a difficult to
| impossible purchase for almost all of us, but rappers buy
| them for no reason and then trash them all the time.
| Twitter is that on a much larger scale, and Musk is
| treating it the same way because he doesn't care.
|
| You don't build the first successful auto startup in 70
| years and revitalize the space industry by being a moron.
| Everything Elon Musk has ever done with Twitter
| (including the 2018 SEC debacle) has been the dumbest
| shit possible, however
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Both SpaceX and Tesla nearly went bankrupt multiple
| times, we could just as easily be talking about an Elon
| Musk who had every advantage (government contracts, huge
| tax breaks and a fantastically wealthy family) and still
| failed. Maybe this is a case of fortune favoring the bold
| and I admire his perseverance/grit/marketing ability a
| lot. I've never heard him explain anything technical in
| any interview he's ever given and instead just starts
| behaving autistic if he's asked any detail about things.
| When he does stray into technical subjects like Twitter
| code he seems to talk nonsense that any engineer who has
| worked at a Twitter scale company would laugh at.
| cmh89 wrote:
| He's really good at selling an image, which is what
| pushed Tesla ahead of other car makers. His whole 'Tony
| Stark' image is basically cat nip to tech bros and made
| Tesla cool and desirable.
|
| I think you are spot on. There are dozens of 'Elon Musks'
| out there we don't notice or talk about because they
| didn't win. Someone was going to win in the space, the
| government was heavily incentivizing electric car
| purchases. Musk was the best salesmen and here we are.
| That doesn't make him a tactical genius.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think characterizing it as Clueless make some overly
| broad assumptions on Ma's motivations.
|
| It could be as simple as he disagrees with the CCP policy.
|
| For example, we don't typically look at human rights or
| anti-war protesters and call them Clueless, even when
| governments Crackdown on them
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Clueless in understanding the consequences of disagreeing
| with CCP policy. He should have known what would happen.
| toyg wrote:
| One doesn't need to be clueless in order to lose a power
| struggle. He might have been betrayed, he might have
| overestimated the resources he could fully count on, he
| might have simply been backing a faction in the party that
| ended up losing. Xi Jinping went as far as kicking out of
| the public congress a previous president, which was
| unprecedented; who knows what else he's capable of.
| re-thc wrote:
| Correct, he is/was backed by a different faction.
|
| Most startups of that era are.
| esafak wrote:
| Which faction? I am curious.
| [deleted]
| rvnx wrote:
| The capitalists ?
|
| Seems like the arch-enemy of communists
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| From what I've both read and experienced on a brief trip
| to Shanghai, it seems there are two main factions - the
| Beijing faction and Shanghai faction. The latter is more
| capitalist and chill, the former more authoritarian. It's
| probably more complicated though, with multiple sub
| factions around different leaders in the CCP. Maybe
| someone with deeper knowledge can elaborate.
| viewtransform wrote:
| This writeup by a former CCP member now living in exile
| explains the current functioning of the CCP.
|
| The Weakness of Xi Jinping: How Hubris and Paranoia
| Threaten China's Future https://archive.is/d9OsU
| rfoo wrote:
| There's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuanpai and
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_clique. And of
| course a third one - Xi organized his own clan.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > One doesn't need to be clueless in order to lose a
| power struggle.
|
| But one has to be clueless in order to start a power
| struggle with Xi. He's not like the old school CCP head
| at all (not even Mao), he's much more of an all-powerful
| tyrant like Stalin was. Starting a power struggle against
| such a ruthless despot _is_ clueless.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| But that's the problem - the risk of losing a power
| struggle in a democracy with rule of law, separation of
| powers, an independent court system, and regular
| elections is vastly different from the risks of losing a
| power struggle in the CCP, which controls all branches of
| government, law enforcement, and the military and is
| accountable to no one.
|
| The former has a limited downside, the latter unlimited.
| Whatever the Central Committee decides happens to you is
| law with no recourse - execution, disappearing and re-
| education, etc. - and law enforcement and the courts are
| just there to justify it after the fact.
|
| It's clueless to publicly mouth off about the CCP if
| you're a high-profile influential Chinese billionaire and
| therefore a potential threat to the current ruling
| faction, or some future ruling faction when there's
| turnover. Discretion is definitely the better part of
| valor there.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I always figured that's why high-level power struggles
| were so constant and severely fought in totalitarian
| regimes.
|
| If the downside is unlimited then you do whatever it
| takes to win, always.
|
| And if there isn't currently a struggle then you prepare
| for the next one, constantly.
|
| Or in other words, you only spend a small portion of your
| total ability and time on the job, because you have to
| constantly expend effort on protecting your back.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| I have that impression too. Without having directly
| experienced it myself, it seems like a hellish system.
| Though it does at least seem like getting "purged" isn't
| always final, and that execution is the last choice.
|
| Xi Jinping himself got purged in his youth and spent that
| time living and working in the countryside and building
| his 'man of the common people' cred, then made it back
| into the CCP's favor later. Though Xi was a princeling,
| his father was one of Mao's inner circle, so he might
| have been untouchable and only at risk of exile and not
| actual execution for that reason, unlike most other CCP
| members and Chinese people.
|
| And to be fair, US politicians spend most of their time
| fundraising for their next campaign, so in terms of total
| ability and time spent on the job it's probably similar
| in both systems. But losing a power struggle in the US
| just means losing your election, and trying again in the
| next one. In the CCP there's a wider range of
| consequences.
| alimov wrote:
| Reuters reported on Jack Ma's return to China 7 days ago.
| The title is: Jack Ma returns to China as government tries
| to allay private sector fears
| [deleted]
| TobTobXX wrote:
| Completely OT:
|
| > Over the next few months the government [...] disappeared
| Jack Ma.
|
| Huh, I've never seen "disappear" being used as a transitive
| verb. I kinda like it and I think I'll put it in my language
| toolbox.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| It's quite common when talking about oppressive
| authoritarian regimes.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%22disappeared%22
| MengerSponge wrote:
| It's a powerful phrase, associated with oppressive regimes.
| It should be used with the same level of care as "pogrom"
| or "reeducation".
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah, it's informal but it used mostly for when a
| government illegally detains someone, often incommunicado
| --though historically in Latin American countries
| "disappearances" were a euphemism for government
| paramilitary forces (or revolutionary forces) taking
| someone behind the shed and extrajudicially executing them
| or in lesser cases locking them up in secret prisons. The
| choice of word probably stems from the stereotypical middle
| of the night night unwitnessed arrest. (so and so was
| supposed to come home at 8 but never came back)
| the_af wrote:
| In Argentina, one of the countries (along with Chile)
| where the term "desaparecido" (disappeared) was coined in
| the 70s, it means specifically:
|
| Government forces (not revolutionaries) which use either
| their official militaries/police (often) or their secret
| police (less often) to detain individuals without
| recourse to the law, then take them to illegal detention
| centers where they are tortured and eventually killed (in
| Argentina, some detainees were simply drugged and dropped
| alive to the Rio de la Plata river, where they drowned --
| our so called "flights of death" -- and others sometimes
| simply shot). The key thing that sets "disappeared"
| people aside from other ways of execution is that there
| is no official acknowledgement of their fate, and their
| friends and family are never truly sure of how they died
| unless their mortal remains are ever found by chance.
|
| If this sounds horrifying, always remember our militaries
| in Latin America were trained in these tactics by the US
| government, in things like the School of the Americas
| [1], under the guise of "learning how to fight
| insurgency".
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Inst
| itute_f...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| nice try to pin the blame on the USA - of course USA is
| guilty, but also, who chooses this path.. You cannot say
| that the people who do this themselves, to their own, are
| not responsible.
| officeplant wrote:
| We (The USA) are incredibly guilty of a lot of poor
| actions and choices in South America. Including active
| funding & training of multiple regime leaders over
| decades.
|
| It's hard to choose a good path if a major world power is
| making sure all the good ones get shut down.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| agree fully - that is why it is crucial that we have
| checks and balances on uniformed services, public process
| and the ability to speak out here. There were long and
| serious protests about the School of the Americas by US
| citizens in public. Here in this international
| discussion, it is not complete or wholly accurate IMHO to
| say "the USA did it" without knowing some context.
| the_af wrote:
| > _it is not complete or wholly accurate IMHO to say "the
| USA did it" without knowing some context_
|
| But this isn't what I said. I definitely didn't say "the
| USA did it". What I said was:
|
| > _always remember our militaries in Latin America were
| trained in these tactics by the US government_
|
| Which is both fair and accurate. The US was _definitely_
| involved one way or the other in most Latin American
| dictatorships of that era, enabling atrocities under the
| guise of fighting communism and insurgencies in their
| "back yard".
| mistrial9 wrote:
| >> We (The USA) are incredibly guilty of a lot of poor
| actions and choices in South America.
|
| > agree fully
|
| .. The US was definitely involved one way ..
|
| how are we not in agreement now?
| the_af wrote:
| So you basically understand the US is guilty, but somehow
| assumed I was saying the people on Latin America who used
| this training to murder their own people are innocent?
|
| Of course it requires two things: murderers and those
| willing to train and support them.
|
| PS: "nice try" my ass. This piece of history I'm telling
| you is widely acknowledged, this is not some kind of
| conspiracy theory.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I apologize if I offended you or others, it is an
| upsetting chapter in history yes.
| the_af wrote:
| Apology accepted.
|
| To be clear: I do consider our dictators and murderers as
| _worse_ people than those who trained them in the School
| of the Americas. Because, like you rightly put it, "who
| chooses this path?".
| CPLX wrote:
| To be even more specific the phrase is most associated
| with the dirty war and Argentina's military dictatorship
| and their habit of taking people they didn't like up in
| helicopters and pushing them out a few miles off shore
| into the ocean. They just vanished without a trace.
|
| They were called los desaparecidos ("the disappeared")
| and for years once a week their mothers would silently
| carry photos of them and walk in circles at the Plaza De
| Mayo in Buenos Aires.
| the_af wrote:
| The Madres de Plaza de Mayo still do their walk today.
| maxwell wrote:
| Great move. This will increase local competition and wages,
| diversify ideas and design, and make shareholders more money than
| as a single entity. As with Standard Oil and AT&T. The U.S.
| should continue investigating splitting up Alphabet, Apple, Meta,
| and Microsoft.
| ShaurAsar wrote:
| Some believe that breaking up these companies would promote
| healthy competition, while others argue it could harm
| innovation and limit consumer choice. It is up to policymakers
| and regulators to carefully consider the potential benefits and
| drawbacks before making any decisions.
| maxwell wrote:
| Who believes this could harm innovation and limit consumer
| choice?
| henry2023 wrote:
| Maybe 40 to 80 tech executives
| eunos wrote:
| Ironically isnt that this move just make Alibaba governance
| just follow Alphabet model?
| fumblebee wrote:
| Honest question: why was this downvoted? To me it seems totally
| reasonable that:
|
| > The U.S. should continue investigating splitting up Alphabet,
| Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.
| duxup wrote:
| To me the comment isn't relevant.
|
| It's not clear China's government actions are "really" for
| the purposes as that comment indicates...
|
| And frankly the list of companies is borderline nonsensical.
| wincy wrote:
| I disagree, and think it would be harmful. I think we'd be
| better off splitting up the US government into smaller pieces
| but everyone loses their mind when I suggest it.
| maxwell wrote:
| The way to do that in a manner that doesn't simply empower
| multinational corporations, is to uncap the House of
| Representatives by repealing the Reapportionment Act of
| 1929.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
|
| https://twitter.com/UncapTheHouse
| Spivak wrote:
| Because without also limiting the size and power of private
| entities you're just arguing for corporatism with extra
| steps.
|
| If you force government to be smaller and less powerful
| than corporations then corporations become government.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Like states or regions or cities? You are not the first to
| have this idea. It was a founding principle for the US
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Agreed, and local power tends to be much more responsive
| and accountable than the Feds. It's one of the best parts
| of the system (the Senate is the worst imo)
| FpUser wrote:
| The US government is already split. You want country ran by
| companies? As much as I do not like politicians I think
| companies running the country would do much worse.
| deeviant wrote:
| And this, is how tankies are born.
| [deleted]
| quonn wrote:
| How would you split Apple? How would you split Meta (would you
| start charging for WhatsApp)?
| bioemerl wrote:
| Apple into hardware and software.
|
| Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud.
|
| Amazon into cloud and web store(s).
|
| Google into ads and web software that serves ads.
| mongol wrote:
| Why not split Apple into hardware and hardware? Ideally two
| companies that start competing from equal starting point.
| vdfs wrote:
| Microsoft OS is too powerful, split it into Kernel and user
| space
| simion314 wrote:
| That would be a competitive OS, you get a good kernel
| with good hardware support and you can put a decent DE on
| top of it like KDE.
| quonn wrote:
| It doesn't make sense to split Apple into hardware and
| software since the integration and simplicity that comes
| from it is the very thing that makes Apple unique.
| pulse7 wrote:
| This is nothing new. IBM was required to sell software
| separate from their hardware...
| nindalf wrote:
| You asked for ideas. You never specified that they should
| be workable or logical.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Apple licensed it's MacOS back in the mid-90s to third-
| party hardware manufacturers. If it was forced to by the
| government, I imagine it could do so again.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It wasn't forced to by the government. The CEO at the
| time thought it was a good idea.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Unfortunately this is also the source of all their
| monopolistic behavior.
|
| Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great
| hardware for any operating system.
|
| Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many
| manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's
| demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement
| of batteries.
|
| Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to
| use it to be a bunch of monopolists, so your break them
| up like all the others.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Great hardware for any OS sounds good in theory but not
| gonna happen in practice. When 10 hardware providers are
| supplying hardware for an OS, the hardware becomes a
| commodity, and the focus tends to go to cheapest for a
| given spec. You can see the same phenomenon in Windows
| and android hardware. If you supply a premium hardware
| for a premium price in a commodity market, you will just
| not have any market share.
|
| People buy apple hardware for the integrated experience.
| e.g. I am not gonna buy a Dell running macOS or a Mac
| running Windows11.
| bioemerl wrote:
| There are lots of windows laptops with quality hardware.
|
| There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of
| choice.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Then why don't people buy those over apple products? If
| you change Apple into that, I would be sad because now
| you've taken away a choice I had before.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >Then why don't people buy those over apple products?
|
| But they do lil bro/sis
|
| Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook
| for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones,
| the top ones.
|
| etc
| kkarakk wrote:
| tbf none of those have maintained quality for as long as
| apple have. since iphone 1 apple has maintained a
| superlative quality of phone - nothing on android side
| comes anywhere close for the same amount of time.
|
| i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook"
| whenever i think what has quality rather than having to
| research options for 3 hours on what's the current state
| of the art in tech.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| There is a reason why https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
| exists.
|
| Ive seen plenty of people buy a current Mac just for
| Apple to relesase something new 2 weeks later.
|
| Also, for phones atleast, Samsung Galaxy has been pretty
| consistent in quality.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > rather than having to research options for 3 hours
|
| Right. Just buy a Macbook...
|
| Except, don't get the 12". _That_ one was an overheating
| flop, should have never made it to market (nor the i9 16
| " Pro). Also, avoid the 2016-2019 ones with the butterfly
| keyboard. While you're at it, don't get the 13" Pro
| either, since it's a bit of a scam for the touchbar that
| wasn't that big of a hit. For all of these machines
| you'll want to upgrade them from the base memory to 16gb
| to make them last longer, and if you don't upgrade the
| storage then there's a good chance you'll only get single
| module speeds, which is significantly limited.
|
| Simple!
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| it's an interesting question (whether Apple's
| monopolistic behavior has produced any good), but
| entirely orthogonal to the underlying question, whether
| Apple is behaving monopolistically (they are).
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Apple has a monopoly on Apple products, and even though
| there are plenty of non-Apple products to buy, they are
| behaving like a monopoly?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| yes, they are engaging in monopolistic behavior, which as
| mentioned above, does not require them to pass any
| particular threshold for being a monopoly
|
| society has decided that some behaviors are in and of
| themselves bad, whether or not said threshold of yours is
| surpassed (for example monopolistic behaviors)
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I just want to avoid going back to the time before Apple
| products were nice and relatively affordable, I hated
| buying a crappy Windows PC every other year and never
| being satisfied with it. Apple has transformed the entire
| industry twice in my lifetime, and I get really nervous
| when people say they should be forced to be just like
| another PC maker, and I should be forced to live again
| under a market that I absolutely loathed.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script
| if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry".
| The iPhone is an example of an industry-changer - actual
| industries changed here. Apple Silicon hasn't really
| changed the PC market - ARM is still a sideshow ISA for
| the Windows and Linux desktop alike. The market share
| hasn't changed dramatically. The line between people who
| want PCs and who want Macs is roughly the same as it was
| a decade ago.
|
| > I get really nervous when people say [...] I should be
| forced to live again under a market that I absolutely
| loathed.
|
| Well, that's the problem with walled gardens. If your
| platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money,
| society will probably eventually realize they're being
| scammed and demand fairer systems. A money-ocracy is not
| a solution to these problems, it's a clever guise to
| drain your wallet and make you think that life is
| improving because you spend money and buy products.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script
| if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry".
|
| Huh? I'm only referring to the Apple 2 (when Apple first
| changed the personal computing industry) and the 00s,
| when macs finally became fast and stable enough to be
| considered a decent value (one can argue it was the
| original iMac, but OS/X and then the first intel macbooks
| is when Macs really started making sense value wise).
| Apple silicon, a recent innovation, hasn't really changed
| the personal computing industry much.
|
| > If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to
| make money, society will probably eventually realize
| they're being scammed and demand fairer systems
|
| I don't think Apple is doing this. They are selling a
| decent product, which for some inexplicable reason other
| hardware/software producers can't seem to replicate. They
| seem to have a monopoly on "not sucking" but that's about
| it.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| it's an interesting topic (whether Apple's monopolistic
| behavior has produced any good), but again, entirely
| orthogonal to the underlying question, whether Apple is
| behaving monopolistically (they are).
|
| in the amount equal to how much you like any such
| benefits, other people dislike the downsides of
| monopolistic behavior, so we decided that it's bad even
| if maybe some good comes with the bad
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I just disagree that Apple is behaving monopolistically.
| Dictionary definition of monopolistic behavior:
|
| > having or trying to have complete control of something,
| especially an area of business, so that others have no
| share: She did not consider the fine a sufficient
| deterrent against monopolistic practices by big
| producers. The company is accused of monopolistic
| behavior.
|
| Apple has completely control over Apple products and
| services, but not of the entire market, since there are
| plenty of other choices available in every market
| category they operate in. People who say they dislike
| Apple for its monopolistic behavior tend to seem to
| dislike Apple in general, and would rather not anyone buy
| their products, rather than just making the personal
| choice to not buy their products (because they indeed
| have many other choices and so can avoid buying Apple
| products and services).
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| your post does a good job of explaining how Apple's
| behavior is monopolistic, by that very definition, even
| despite not controlling the entire market: the
| "something" need not be the entire market
|
| as for like vs dislike, the company isn't important
| enough for me to form such personal opinions about it,
| they're simply _a_ company engaging in monopolistic
| behavior just like any other company engaging in
| monopolistic behavior
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Again, the definition is clear. By the definition
| generalized in that way, any company building a
| proprietary system would be guilty of monopolistic
| behavior. If that's the case, then I guess it is a
| meaningless distinction anyways, and really not my worth
| much of my time to ponder either.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| There are but they do not compare to a mac. The point of
| choice for me is to be able to buy an integrated
| experience.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| > Unfortunately this is also the source of all their
| monopolistic behavior.
|
| How can you be showing "monopolistic behavior" when
| you're neither the only player in the game, nor the
| biggest?
| bioemerl wrote:
| If you want until they're the only player you're way way
| too late and huge damage has already been done.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| That both doesn't answer my question nor is it actually
| true.
|
| In fact, splits almost always happen _when it's actually
| a monopoly_ not some vague hand-wavy goal-shifting
| "monopolistic behaviors".
| bioemerl wrote:
| Splits in general rarely if ever happen at all, let alone
| when they should.
|
| Our antitrust over the last few years is crazy lacking.
|
| Wouldn't you want the burst of innovation and competition
| before the five to ten years of status quo monopoly if
| you wait to act?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Cute strawman.
|
| That would also extend to practically every company out
| there unless we can somehow accurately predict the
| future.
| namdnay wrote:
| Apple's phone amrket share is 20%, one point above
| Samsung. They're no way near a monopoly
| kelipso wrote:
| Apple's US phone market share is 50% and definitely way
| higher in the high end phone market share.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| monopolistic behavior doesn't require a monopoly
| maxwell wrote:
| They use that line of argument specifically to avoid
| antitrust scrutiny.
| paulcole wrote:
| Why not Apple into Products and Services?
|
| Products being - for example products being iPhone and iOS
| and services being iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I actually really like that. Would force a (semi?-)public
| compatibility layer that allows other competitors to
| enter the space. If you want to back your iPhone up to
| Google Drive, you do you.
|
| App Store would also likely end up in Services, which
| would also open up multi-app store compatibility. It's
| almost too good of a solution.
| drstewart wrote:
| This just feels like completely arbitrary divisions based
| on what sounds good as opposed to any guiding logic around
| defining a monopoly and breaking it down along systemic
| lines. Populism, basically.
| contravariant wrote:
| I'd say you could split Google into _at least_ , cloud,
| ads, search and workspace (including mail).
| maxwell wrote:
| Don't those all lose a lot of money, except ads?
| contravariant wrote:
| All except search are paid services so you wouldn't think
| so.
|
| And search would probably make more money if they could
| sell ad space to other companies. And by selling
| information on popular search terms for particular links.
| maxwell wrote:
| I probably wouldn't break up Apple myself, but would require
| lifting the ban on other web browser engines and app stores
| on all operating systems.
|
| For Alphabet and Meta, I would likely pursue criminal charges
| for conspiracy to fix prices in online ad auctions:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue
| georgeecollins wrote:
| How to split Meta: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp.
|
| Easy! Hard part: Who gets Occulus?
| izacus wrote:
| Apple Hardware, Apple Licensed OSes, Apple Online Services,
| Apple Financial Services (apple card & apple pay & co), Apple
| News Services, Apple Mapping Services.
|
| Think of everything that Apple (Meta, Google) do, think on
| which components would benefit from having startups replace
| and distrupt them and then break them up on those seams while
| forcing them to allow competition between their fragments
| (e.g. iPhone with Android OS, iOS on Microsoft phone
| platform, MacBook M1 with ARM Windows, iOS iPhone with Google
| Pay, etc. etc.).
| ginko wrote:
| Apple Hardware I'd split further into silicon business and
| device OEM. Also split out the headphone business.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Which of them will own apple.com?
|
| Which of them will own Apple trademark?
|
| Which of them will own Apple logo?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| For a point of reference here have a look at how many
| independent companies share the "Sparkasse" or
| "Raiffeisen" trademarks and Logos on Europe.
| izacus wrote:
| We can compromise and say "none" :P
| sct202 wrote:
| There will probably be trademark usage agreements, like
| with companies who split themselves like Motorola
| Solutions and Motorola Mobility (owned by Lenovo) both
| license the Motorola trademark from Motorola Trademark
| Holdings, LLC unclear who owns the holding company.
| toyg wrote:
| Trivialities that antitrust regulations already cover. It
| would not be the first time a company has been broken up.
| true_religion wrote:
| WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and Oculus all used to be
| separate companies. They can easily become so again.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| This is our problem as techies, we throw out this stuff with
| very little idea of the legal framework in place around
| antitrust. Even smaller ideas around precedent and the legal
| reasoning behind those precedents. I know everyone doesn't
| want to go to law school, but we have to at least understand
| that we can't go into a court and make stuff up.
|
| Who can reasonably be broken up? On what reasonable basis?
|
| Well,
|
| Perhaps Meta?
|
| _Maybe_ Microsoft?
|
| Alphabet _definitely_.
|
| Apple? They'll laugh us out of court.
|
| If we want these changes, we're going to have to advocate for
| changes in the fundamental ideas behind antitrust itself.
| Technology has outstripped the current regulatory
| environment's ability to keep it in order. And we don't seem
| to want to admit that. We just keep crying that the law won't
| act. Well, that's because no laws are being broken. And the
| politicians and the tech bigs are desperate to ensure that no
| one figures that out. They'll keep feeding us crumbs so that
| we don't do the dangerous thing and ask for changes in law.
| soperj wrote:
| WhatsApp used to charge, but really what they'd do is just
| charge facebook & whoever else for the data they're sharing.
| robopsychology wrote:
| Did they actually charge though? I remember hearing about
| that but it's been my sole method of messaging for years
| and I never remember setting up payments with them
| fnomnom wrote:
| yeah they did. 0,99EUR was the purchase of my whatsapp
| back then
| gorbypark wrote:
| IIRC it was 99 cents per year, and you could just keep
| "skipping" the payment. I don't think they ever cut
| anyone off from using it for not paying. A little bit
| like shareware (or nagware?).
| quonn wrote:
| I think they charged 1 Euro when you bought the app. I
| doubt that covers the costs to keep it running.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| The traditional definition of a monopoly is the government
| issuing a grant for a business to operate exclusively. These
| ought not to be allowed.
|
| If there is no subsidy or special grant, it's not a monopoly.
|
| Often these days there are subsidies or unfair grants given in
| some way, and the solution is to eliminate the subsidy or
| grant.
| kevinwang wrote:
| Never heard this before. Source?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Royal endorsements are a monopoly on services to the crown.
| re-thc wrote:
| No it won't. It will reduce competition. Are you going to now
| compete with the official government supported entity?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| crop_rotation wrote:
| The media and HN seem to be seeing this as a AT&T style breakup,
| which is not. It is starting with an Alphabet style
| restructuring, which sounds big in theory but nothing big might
| happen in practice. The biggest unit (Taobao/Tmall) will be fully
| owned by Alibaba and would not seek any external investment
| (Taobao/Tmall is responsible for >70% of their profits). The new
| Unit CEOs were not even invited to speak at the announcement.
| Even if all the new Units sell 10-20% stock to the market, would
| it really change too many things? It will all depend on how the
| CCP wants the breakup to play out.
| eloff wrote:
| Also the reason the stock jumped on the news is the company is
| potentially worth more this way, by breaking out higher margin
| / faster growth units from the big retail business. A lot of
| Amazon investors would love to see the same with AWS.
|
| It sounds silly since nothing really changes, but it has to do
| with the way investors calculate the value of public companies.
| ttobbaybbob wrote:
| a basket of options is more valuable than an option on a
| basket
|
| https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/decisions-decisions-or-
| why...
| crop_rotation wrote:
| This sounds good in theory but might not work in practice.
| None of them are profitable and depended on Tmall/Taobao for
| growth. Turning to the public markets would require
| sacrificing growth for profitability. There might be many
| other inter dependencies which might turn out costly to
| unwind.
|
| What you are saying might be how it turns out in the end, but
| it is not a given.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Endless growth of unprofitable services is what has given
| us crazy market distortions in the past. It's what gave us
| things like Groupon, Doordash, and Uber, too. Growth isn't
| always a good goal.
| eloff wrote:
| Yes, nothing is a given when it comes to the stock market.
| endisneigh wrote:
| It's interesting to contrast China's approach of not allowing
| business to operate within the plane of power in which the
| government does, vs. the United States, which has companies whose
| power is certainly on the level of many state governments.
| duxup wrote:
| To me the complicating factor is "why". I'm not sure why China
| as a government makes the calls it does.
|
| It's not clear to me that those aren't just as self serving as
| say a big company in the us operating freely and so on.
| re-thc wrote:
| China can't print money and go in infinite debt mode like the
| US does?
|
| The government needs to recover from COVID.
|
| Perspective:
|
| As leader the in control, I see there's a company that has
| the largest payment network in the country. Well that can't
| happen. I need a slice of it. So let's "regulate" it.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| China's public debt exceeds the US in several areas,
| private debt lags behind but is still substantial.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It isn't clear if SOE debt should be considered public or
| private debt. On the one hand, these are often publicly
| traded companies, in the other hand everyone assumes
| their debt is implicitly guaranteed by the government.
| Localities will often load up local SOEs with debt when
| they need to do something for public interest, like build
| a subway or road. So China's public debt situation is
| really murky.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _why_ can 't that happen?
|
| _why_ do you need a slice of it?
| SllX wrote:
| The PRC as a government makes the calls that it does because
| it is one of the vehicles of power by which the CCP operates.
| Remember that constitutionally the CCP is above the
| government, the law and the PLA and therefore the highest
| offices of power within mainland China are not any of the
| Executive offices of government but the political offices
| (General Secretary of the CCP, the Politburo and the members
| of the standing committee).
|
| The People's Liberation Army, People's Armed Police and
| Militia answer to the Central Military Commission which is
| subordinate directly to the Central Committee of the Chinese
| Communist Party.
|
| It isn't like the United States or Europe or even Japan or
| Korea. Your basic assumptions vis a vis how we work and
| therefore how they must work will never work when trying to
| serve as a proper lens for interpreting the PRC because the
| PRC is itself an institution subordinate to a Party which
| considers all aspects of Chinese society both public and
| private subordinate to the Party including State, Religion
| and the activities families and businesses of their subjects
| which in their eyes doesn't stop at the border if you are of
| Chinese descent.
|
| So if a business like Alibaba or a businessman like Jack Ma
| is challenging anything about that framework, or the laws of
| the PRC and policies of the CCP, they can't afford to let
| that stand because the most important thing to them is
| maintaining their internal cohesion and power. Everything
| else is secondary or tertiary.
| poszlem wrote:
| I came across a comment that resonated with me and seems
| relevant in this context, so I saved it. It says:
|
| "The arc of communism is long and it leans towards oppressing
| the fuck out of people. It's a tendency of all governmental
| systems. Communism rests most of its power in the hands of
| government without a moneyed elite to oppose them, so it tends
| to move to authoritarianism faster and with less resistance."
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Another quote: "wealth always consolidates at the top, you
| can choose private sector or government to do so."
| esafak wrote:
| Who, Piketty?
| sva_ wrote:
| > without a moneyed elite
|
| Contrast that with
|
| > China's parliament has about 100 billionaires
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/chinas-parliament-has-
| about-...
| rs999gti wrote:
| > China's parliament has about 100 billionaires
|
| Like all communist nations, there is a ruling elite.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| This is the idea of Republicanism: strengthen the nobility to
| oppose the king. It's not necessarily a bad idea, depending
| on who is oppressing you more at the moment. However, the
| nobility is always in love with it for self-serving reasons
| completely independent of the underlying facts so it's
| important to develop an independent opinion on the matter
| that is specific to your situation rather than jumping for
| every bit of self-serving speculation that (for example)
| single payer healthcare today will lead to gulags tomorrow,
| or that allowing companies to dump toxic chemicals or banks
| to take more risk etc will make you more free.
|
| I'm not accusing you of making those silly arguments, but
| those silly arguments are a frequent end of this line of
| reasoning, so they are worth watching out for.
| pfisherman wrote:
| Please excuse my naivete here, but communism is an economic
| system and not a form of government, no?
|
| My understanding is that economics and governance are largely
| - though not completely - orthogonal.
| livelielife wrote:
| [flagged]
| barrysteve wrote:
| Communism was a political and economic system. When
| stalin and hitler dipping their toes in
| faith/religion/belief it all went wrong and collapsed-in
| on itself.
|
| Ancient Rome had government and politics before religion.
|
| The last two thousand years had state religions at some
| points and the churches have their beliefs on governance,
| which they do internally and influence the world
| externally to some degree.
|
| They are separate concepts and communism never reached
| the level of an effective religion. It's not easy to wash
| away the distinction between concepts.
| fnovd wrote:
| Marxist theory says that the separation between economic
| and state power is illusory at best and intentionally
| deceptive at worst. So a communist isn't going to think it
| possible to separate economic and state power, whereas that
| concept of that separation of powers is a foundational
| component of modern liberalism. It's why the two camps have
| a such a hard time talking to each other; they really don't
| see things the same way.
| mongol wrote:
| I don't see how they can be kept separate. Governance is to
| a large degree the creation of policies for managing of
| resources, and managing resources is what economics is
| about.
| jihiggins wrote:
| Maybe from the perspective of the moneyed elite, but in what
| universe is China breaking up a monopoly an indicator of
| "authoritarianism"
| dmonitor wrote:
| I'd love to hear Jack Ma's opinion on it
| kansface wrote:
| The US breaks up companies when they abuse their position
| to unfairly advantage themselves in our market. China just
| disappeared its most successful businessperson and chopped
| up his business because he directly criticizing the
| government.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Because the way it breaks up, it doesn't feel like it is to
| fight against monopoly, more like the gov not wanting a
| business empire that becomes too influential.
|
| Since it breaks down by divisions, so for example taobao
| would still be the top e-commerce competitor. Not to
| mention, despite being huge, I can't say Alibaba has
| monopoly in any of their services.
| kobalsky wrote:
| the US senate blocks mergers left and right.
| eppp wrote:
| Not nearly enough of them especially in the tech sector. Look
| at all of the damage google did when buying youtube and
| facebook buying instagram. Competition and innovation are
| supposed to be good things.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| There's no bright, clear separation between governments and
| corporations in America.
|
| Corporate execs regularly get jobs in government, and often
| wind up "regulating" the very industries/companies they came
| from. It's also an open secret in Washington that when
| politicians retire they often get cushy, high paying jobs in
| the very companies they regulated or provided government
| contracts to.
|
| It's a revolving door between corporations and governments, and
| it's misleading to think the one is truly separate from the
| other.
|
| A better model is to look at the corporate-government
| interaction as competing elites vying with one another for
| money, power, and influence, and just as often collaborating
| with each other on shared interests.
| namdnay wrote:
| > and often wind up "regulating" the very
| industries/companies they came from
|
| the other way of seeing that is that if you want to regulate
| a domain you're going to want to have people who know the
| domain
|
| > when politicians retire they often get cushy jobs, high
| paying jobs in the very companies they regulated or provided
| government contracts to
|
| again, it makes sense for the company to buy the services
| (and the address book) of someone who knows everyone in the
| space.
|
| of course all this creates a big incentive to cosy up to
| those companies, but it's not as black as you are suggesting
| digging wrote:
| > the other way of seeing that is that if you want to
| regulate a domain you're going to want to have people who
| know the domain
|
| Sure, but not people who have a vested interest in
| minimizing regulation.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Hmm I don't follow. Governments and corporations are
| organizations of people. Just because people move between
| them doesn't mean they aren't different.
|
| The origin, abilities, aims, and accountability are
| different.
|
| > elementary and high school are the same its just different
| people moving between them competing for status.
|
| This doesn't seem persuasive to me. Describing what some
| people do while in an organization doesn't define the
| organization.
|
| Why not include universities in that list?
|
| Governments exists to manage violence and through law.
| Corporations exist because they outcompete individuals for
| subsistence.
| seydor wrote:
| It's 2 different takes on Power.
|
| The US ensures its continuation and longevity via the small
| group of Elite families and new wealth that is continuously
| being generated. They control the media and so many more, which
| keeps populism at bay. If democratic forces were left on their
| own, it would have reached the state of decline that happened
| to many e.g. social democratic states.
|
| China guards the power so that it stays with the Party, and
| imprisons Wealth when it becomes threatening
| megaman821 wrote:
| Your premise doesn't even hold for the short time period of
| 40 years. Who are the elite families that controlled the US
| in the early 80s and still control it now?
| 27fingies wrote:
| > The Communist authorities dislike the idea of anything, let
| alone a large private business, outshining the party.
|
| I have a hard time believing this is the reason the Communist
| party wants to control capitalist elements... because they
| "outshine the party"
| ManiAbod wrote:
| [dead]
| paxys wrote:
| > breaks itself
|
| The CCP has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-03 23:00 UTC)