Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook should be broken up

[LD0506]

Interesting conversation to have but there's no way I am forming an opinion based on one guy's video. That's kind of an easy IQ test.

 

Sears, KMart, Macys, etc., are in the same type of decline that American auto makers were when oil prices spiked in the 70s and more efficient Japanese cars entered the market. I always love hearing how we need to turn companies loose, unshackle them and let the market decide, right up until the market decides your product is **** and stops buying it.

 

Amazon doesn't even twitch the needle on my Serious Issue Meter, some of the angst is reminiscent of "the Japanese are going to take over and buy the whole world!" hyperbole of years past.

[zoony]

18 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I'm a layman, not really his audience.  A lot of his arguments for breaking up the companies seemed to hinge on breakdowns of market capitalization percentages I didn't understand.  But the general anti-monopoly argument makes sense and I would support his plan to break them up.

 

Gee i didnt think so.  I watched the first 15 minutes seemed pretty straightforward

 

But this dovetails with what ive been saying in the tailgate for some time.  All the liberals on this board getting on their knees for Bezos hoping theyll be the city he blesses with his new HQ, meanwhile wal mart paid $65 billion in taxes while amazon avoided and paid $1 billion.

 

Start a thread on income inequality on this board and within 2 posts the conversation will be about how evil wal mart doesnt pay their employees enough.  You cant make this stuff up.

 

And dont get me started on the roll these `platforms` (not media companies lol) have played in the absolute hysteria on the left.  I would say the right too but the left is much more clearly on display on this forum.  Go back and read thru the russia trump thread LOL.  The terrifying irony is that they dont see it.

[Bozo the kKklown]

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Have these companies already gotten to the point of setting monopoly prices for advertising that anti-trust laws haven't been able to stop?  Google makes up 30% of online advertising in the world, highest share in the world.  That feels like taking a huge out of alphabet's revenue, I don't know how I feel about that.  Bell Systems from what I'm reading completely dominated telephone service in the US prior to being broken up, that's not where alphabet is yet with online advertising.

Just want to point this out:

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

 

97% of searches are done through google.

 

3 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Gee i didnt think so.  I watched the first 15 minutes seemed pretty straightforward

 

But this dovetails with what ive been saying in the tailgate for some time.  All the liberals on this board getting on their knees for Bezos hoping theyll be the city he blesses with his new HQ, meanwhile wal mart paid $65 billion in taxes while amazon avoided and paid $1 billion.

 

Start a thread on income inequality on this board and within 2 posts the conversation will be about how evil wal mart doesnt pay their employees enough.  You cant make this stuff up.

 

And dont get me started on the roll these `platforms` (not media companies lol) have played in the absolute hysteria on the left.  I would say the right too but the left is much more clearly on display.  Go back and read thru the russia trump thread LOL

A broken clock is right twice a day. I agree with you.

[tshile]

I find it interesting Amazon is taking heat for their AWS program.

 

I don't work in it myself, but i know a lot of people who do. While they all have various issues with the platform, they all unanimously agree it's the best available and it's not even close.

 

I don't know anything about Bezos in particular, but everyone I know who uses prime (pantry, subscribe and save, video, books) and everyone I know who uses AWS raves about how they love service (despite issues, it's the best available for what they're trying to do.)

 

They are not walmart. Their customers do not bemoan using them, but use them because there's little choice. Most of their users love their products, and they are successful because they do it better than everyone else. 

 

If they're taking over the cloud eco system it certainly seems it's because they offer the best solution. This "they're taking over" stuff seems like a load of nonsense from people who've never  shopped the alternatives, spent time writing scripts to spin up and spin down VM's based on bandwidth demand, and spent time with clock cycle calculators to determine cost.

 

IE: People who don't know what they're talking about.

[balki1867]

35 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Sears, KMart, Macys, etc., are in the same type of decline that American auto makers were when oil prices spiked in the 70s and more efficient Japanese cars entered the market. I always love hearing how we need to turn companies loose, unshackle them and let the market decide, right up until the market decides your product is **** and stops buying it.

 

 

Haha, I still remember getting an email from the CEO of Northwest Airlines in 2007 (via my frequent flyer account- i don't know the guy), about how much speculators were propping up the price of oil, hurting his business, and how I needed to call my congressman to start regulating the commodity markets.

 

Granted, the airline business was probably more profitable when it was regulated anyways, so maybe that's the one industry that likes regulation across the board.

[zoony]

6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

broken clock is right twice a day. 

 

You should hold your opinion in higher esteem

[LD0506]

Goddammit zoony, you are a constant source of disconnect for me here, the way you write intelligent insightful things at times but then have to tie 'em to a brick and throw it through the window

 

 

Don't ever change

[balki1867]

30 minutes ago, zoony said:

But this dovetails with what ive been saying in the tailgate for some time.  All the liberals on this board getting on their knees for Bezos hoping theyll be the city he blesses with his new HQ, meanwhile wal mart paid $65 billion in taxes while amazon avoided and paid $1 billion.

 

 

Interesting- I don't think local governments showering large businesses with tax breaks is confined to either party.  Scott Walker's taken a ton of heat for his Foxconn deal, not to mention a longer list of southern states that have made this a core component of their economies.

 

(For the record, I'm against it but I accept that its not going anywhere as long as states/cities are willing to race each other to the bottom)

Edited February 2, 2018 by balki1867

[No Excuses]

Broken up, no. 

 

The real danger of tech companies is their data on people and how they will choose to use it. The public should have oversight of this and rules should be in place.

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, balki1867 said:

 

Interesting- I don't think local governments showering large businesses with tax breaks is confined to either party.  Scott Walker's taken a ton of heat for his Foxconn deal, not to mention a longer list of southern states that have made this a core component of their economies.

 

(For the record, I'm against it.)

its not right at all.

 

I dont like it for either party. Its why I am strongly against public funding of sports stadiums. They don't do anything for the economy and it is giving rich people free real estate.

[tshile]

I also don't understand why Apple needs to be broken up.

 

They are a niche product company. They are single-digit market share for computers. They've already said they have no interest in entering the business eco system, in fact as someone who works with their products (reluctantly) in business environments they almost seem to go out of their way to make it a pain in the ass. 

 

They made it big with one thing - iOS. Phones and tablets. They've pretty much stuck to that. They charge a premium for all of their products, and the people who purchase them are willing to pay for them. 

 

They are the opposite of what we associate monopolies with - people who use existing power to enter new markets and undercut everyone with cheaper prices, hoping to take over and control the market down the road. They do none of that... they've stuck to their fields, they charge premiums, and despite all that they are widely successful.

 

I think there's a point with Google - I don't know that it's valid, but it's worth considering. Especially since the Google of 2018 is not the google of 2008. They are run be people with a completely different mindset. Again, not sure it's valid, but it's at least worth discussing.

 

The more I think about the others the more this all sounds like a bunch of bull**** from people who are just mad someone has money.

 

I don't really give a crap about facebook, if it shut down tomorrow i couldn't care less.

 

I also can't help but notice that the media, owned by companies that make their living buying the rights to content so they may sell it and/or collect ad fees, are the people being challenged by Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and google for those rights... All those companies are making bids and inroads into those fields.... coincidence? You might not see the attacks on them in the media the way I do, it seems subtle but there. I could also be exaggerating this point.

Edited February 2, 2018 by tshile

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Just want to point this out:

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

 

97% of searches are done through google.

 

That's even weirder when you consider that despite that they are still less then a third of online advertising.  Bing and Yahoo both put paid ads on search results, but google is where it is in traffic because its a superior search engine.  Breaking up that search engine into smaller search engines doesn't make sense to me (I'm not sure that's what your suggesting, but I'm also not sure what you are suggesting we do about it, if anything)

[PleaseBlitz]

Asking if a company could be successful if they started right now is a weird standard.  Perhaps the most important thing to a new successful company is their ability to innovate, meaning they get that huge competitive advantage because they had the idea first.  Would the iPhone be the dominant phone if it wasn't the first smartphone?  Not a chance.  But Apple was the company that figured out how to put that device, with all of that utility, in a pocket.  They got a head start because of their own efforts and creativity, which is exactly how it should work.  

 

And Amazon was always absolutely on a level playing field in terms of its investors.  Thousands and thousands are companies get huge capital investments from VC companies every year just like Amazon.  They are absolutely not exceptional in that regard.  

Edited February 2, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[zoony]

Youre really hoping amazon relocates to dc, arent you 

 

Dont worry i doubt theyre reading any of this. 

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, zoony said:

Youre really hoping amazon relocates to dc, arent you 

 

Dont worry i doubt theyre reading any of this. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I understand that you don't want to get into a discussion of corporate finance with the corporate finance attorney.  Because I like you, zoony, I'll let you off the hook, this time.  

[zoony]

10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I understand that you don't want to get into a discussion of corporate finance with the corporate finance attorney.  Because I like you, zoony, I'll let you off the hook, this time.  

 

I didnt think this was about corporate finance.  I thought it was anti trust

 

Good luck getting Bezos.  Maybe he will throw in a reach around 

 

(I still love you dont get all pissy please)

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

I didnt think this was about corporate finance.  I thought it was anti trust

 

 

How did you not think this was about corporate finance when you said this:

 

Quote

 

I think amazon is much the same.  The real problem i have with amazons rise is that they never did it on a level playing field.  While other companies were held to absurd standards like actually turning a profit for investors, amazon was able to hemorage cash and capital for decades while the investment community propped them up.

 

 

 

That, sir, is entirely about corporate finance.  

[zoony]

44 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

How did you not think this was about corporate finance when you said this:

 

 

That, sir, is entirely about corporate finance.  

 

Nothing i said wasnt true

 

The trend in business right now is for companies to start disrupting themselves, though they are having an incredibly hard time doing it.  The rub always lies in the ability to return shareholder dividends.  How can one be disruptive when held to the impossible standard of returning shareholder dividends?

 

For a startup, profit doesnt matter to investors.  They have cash pouring in from investors, so they can develop a business model intent on disruption instead of turning profits.  This only works at a moment in time in the infancy of a market.  

https://www.amazon.com/Exponential-Organizations-organizations-better-cheaper-ebook/dp/B00OO8ZGC6

(I hope the irony isnt lost that i just linked amazon)

 

So while amazon is running in the red  for decades and pouring capital into developing their business model, their competitors like wal mart, home depot, and target are tasked by wal street for a different purpose, to return shareholder value.

 

Now that amazon is on top and crushing the competition, others want to point at thd, wm, and tgt to say they are not good companies, otherwise they would compete.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Nothing i said wasnt true

 

The only thing you said was not true.  "While other companies were held to absurd standards like actually turning a profit for investors, amazon was able to hemorage cash and capital for decades while the investment community propped them up.

 

Amazon was (and is) held to exactly the same standards as everyone else.  Those standards are not as simple as you state them, which probably explains your confusion.  

 

Edit:  Also, net profit margin is not the same thing as ROI.  Please make a note of it.

Edited February 2, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[zoony]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The only thing you said was not true.  "While other companies were held to absurd standards like actually turning a profit for investors, amazon was able to hemorage cash and capital for decades while the investment community propped them up.

 

Amazon was (and is) held to exactly the same standards as everyone else.  Those standards are not as simple as you state them, which probably explains your confusion.  

 

Edit:  Also, net profit margin is not the same thing as ROI.  Please make a note of it.

 

Okay where did i confuse roi with net profit margin?  Roi doesnt show up anywhere on an income statement and i dont remember referencing it anywhere. Im confused why you think im confused

 

I dont think youre open to discussion on this or thinking about this in a different way, which is weird

[PleaseBlitz]

Quote

So while amazon is running in the red  for decades and pouring capital into developing their business model, their competitors like wal mart, home depot, and target are tasked by wal street for a different purpose, to return shareholder value.

 

Return shareholder value = ROI.  Yet, you posted two charts with the heading:

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[zoony]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Return shareholder value = ROI.  Yet, you posted two charts with the heading:

 

Roi is return on investment, which can mean a lot of things.  

 

Dividends paid to shareholders are calculated off net income (profit) - retained earnings / number of shares.

 

So profit expressed as a percentage are relevant here.  ROI is not.  If one wishes to pay a shareholder dividend, there must be a profit margin.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, zoony said:

 

Roi is return on investment, which can mean a lot of things.  

 

Dividends paid to shareholders are calculated off net income (profit) - retained earnings / number of shares.

 

So profit expressed as a percentage are relevant here.  ROI is not.  

 

 

So now you are saying that by "return [of] shareholder value" (your words) you meant something different that "return on investment"?  

 

Your calculation of dividends is correct, but retained earnings is whatever number the board decides to make it, so it's a nonsense calculation.

 

ROI is the only factor that matters to investors.  They don't necessarily give a **** how much a company is going to make THIS YEAR, unless that is their chosen timeline.  They care about how much a company will make eventually, how long it will get to that point, and if that is the best place they can put their money given all other options.  Most venture capitalists think, okay, this small company has a good idea, what will happen if I dump $100 million into it so they can vastly expand operations (and i get to keep 1/2 of the increase in market cap (not profits)).  Amazon is still in that phase for many of it's lines of business.  WalMart is not.  WalMart is what it is and isn't really going to change much.  The other 6 companies listed in the original OP are all in the next phase, which is decline because other companies came along and destroyed them. 

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And Amazon was always absolutely on a level playing field in terms of its investors.  Thousands and thousands are companies get huge capital investments from VC companies every year just like Amazon.  They are absolutely not exceptional in that regard.  

 

 

Something as dumb as raw water got millions in VC funding. 

 

And this isn’t much different:

 

Quote

Twitter (TWTR) had a strong public market debutin 2013 despite never having turned a profit before. Snap (SNAP), the parent company of Snapchat, is still trading above its IPO price after losing $2.2 billion in its first quarter as a public company. And Tesla (TSLA) recently became the most valuable carmaker in America despite needing to raise more and more capital as it loses money.

 

[zoony]

8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

now you are saying that by "return [of] shareholder value" (your words) you meant something different that "return on investment"?  

 

I edited my post to change value to dividends, guess i should have been more clear but never imagined anyone could possibly think i was referencing roi when speaking about a companies valuation, purpose, and profitability

9

Ask yourself what would happen to wal marts stock if they returned negative 50 percent profit margin.  It would tank.  Now ask yourself what would happen to amazons... it wou,d go thru the roof.

 

Yet you are insisting the investment communities treat them the same.  Ok, we will agree to disagree.