PleaseBlitz Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) I feel like there are a whole bunch of liberals in this thread that have thoroughly gutted the guy in the OP. Also, Goldman does make commercials with happy millennials. Edited February 4, 2018 by PleaseBlitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 On 2/2/2018 at 2:30 PM, tshile said: how do you definte smartphone? because by what i believe to be the definition, they weren't the first. or the second. or the third.... It was iTunes and the App Store that made the difference. The iPhone has typically been inferior even as a phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 3 hours ago, zoony said: If only Goldman Sachs ran commercials with frumpy unattractive hipsters singing along with smiley face emojis, maybe more libs would love them some big finance too. But in the meantime good to see consistency from the too big to fail crowd. "Hit me again zuckerburg, but this time put some STANK on it" I think in general you are confused with a basic principle: You can disagree with how a company/entire industry chooses to operate but still see the value they bring to society. In general, I find myself in favor of regulations that increase transparency and ensure strong consumer protection for most of the tech sector. The tech sector is going to be a challenge from an anti-trust standpoint, because trust busting isn't going to solve some of the major issues with how these companies handle data and provide services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 4 hours ago, zoony said: If only Goldman Sachs ran commercials with frumpy unattractive hipsters singing along with smiley face emojis, maybe more libs would love them some big finance too. But in the meantime good to see consistency from the too big to fail crowd. "Hit me again zuckerburg, but this time put some STANK on it" When did liberals become the 'too big to fail' crowd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Figure this fits in here as well. How about “Amazon Health”? https://stratechery.com/2018/amazon-health/ Quote Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase & Co. announced today that they are partnering on ways to address healthcare for their U.S. employees, with the aim of improving employee satisfaction and reducing costs. The three companies, which bring their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort, will pursue this objective through an independent company that is free from profit-making incentives and constraints. The initial focus of the new company will be on technology solutions that will provide U.S. employees and their families with simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost. Tackling the enormous challenges of healthcare and harnessing its full benefits are among the greatest issues facing society today. By bringing together three of the world’s leading organizations into this new and innovative construct, the group hopes to draw on its combined capabilities and resources to take a fresh approach to these critical matters… The effort announced today is in its early planning stages, with the initial formation of the company jointly spearheaded by Todd Combs, an investment officer of Berkshire Hathaway; Marvelle Sullivan Berchtold, a Managing Director of JPMorgan Chase; and Beth Galetti, a Senior Vice President at Amazon. The longer-term management team, headquarters location and key operational details will be communicated in due course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malapropismic Depository Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/1/2018 at 2:49 PM, Springfield said: Too long Needs tiny url But it's more fun to tell someone to "Go Duckduckgo it", instead of "Go G00GLE it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Unilever will get a lot of praise on this and other high dollar advertisers will follow suit. But remember, facebook is only a `platform` not responsible for anything, lol http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/media/unilever-advertising-facebook-google-swamp/index.html On 2/4/2018 at 4:03 PM, No Excuses said: tech sector is going to be a challenge from an anti-trust standpoint, because trust busting isn't going to solve some of the major issues with how these companies handle data and provide services. Im not sure that entered into his argument at all. This is about arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Oh yahh, and this just in from Goldman Sachs, they are an "investment platform" now. So, they should be good going forward, which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 1 minute ago, zoony said: Unilever will get a lot of praise on this and other high dollar advertisers will follow suit. But remember, facebook is only a `platform` not responsible for anything, lol http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/media/unilever-advertising-facebook-google-swamp/index.html Good for them. Effectively telling Facebook and Google that their brand is too toxic. I like it. I fear that this catches Facebook and especially Google between a rock and a hard place though. I get your "just a platform" argument, but drawing the lines here without pissing off a ton of people is probably impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Good for them. Effectively telling Facebook and Google that their brand is too toxic. I like it. I fear that this catches Facebook and especially Google between a rock and a hard place though. I get your "just a platform" argument, but drawing the lines here without pissing off a ton of people is probably impossible. I think some basic, good faith efforts to clean up their act would go a long way. There is no industry on earth that has been given a free pass to chase profits at all costs like google and facebook. Hell, even exxon has more of a sense of social responsibilty than these two I like that the american public is slowly waking up to it. I like even more that advertisers are catching on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, zoony said: I think some basic, good faith efforts to clean up their act would go a long way. Agree. 2 minutes ago, zoony said: There is no industry on earth that has been given a free pass to chase profits at all costs like google and facebook. Agree. They are almost entirely unregulated. 2 minutes ago, zoony said: Hell, even exxon has more of a sense of social responsibilty than these two Agree re: Facebook. They are worthless. Google I think more highly of. 2 minutes ago, zoony said: I like that the american public is slowly waking up to it. I like even more that advertisers are catching on. You have more faith in humanity than I do then. When I talk about catching hell for drawing lines, I think people's perception of what is "true" are so skewed that this exercise is going to be a cluster****. Like, if Facebook bans some content because it, for example, says that Obama is muslim (which is objectively untrue), 30+% of Facebook users will throw a hissy fit and claim they are going to boycott FB. Can Google not put up sponsored content for InfoWars (or, to be fair, whatever the lefty equivalent is)? That probably violates the law or, at minimum, is likely to result in expensive litigation. Google (the search engine) isn't the internet police. It can't stop the Westboro Baptist Church from putting up a website. I'm not sure what steps they could take. It's probably a bit easier for Facebook and Twitter, since they are a contained space that they own. As much as I would like to say, YEAH **** IT, BAN ALL LIES, I think it gets really tricky when you actually try to implement it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Paying in Rubles im sure. We are merely a platform! https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted February 20, 2018 Author Share Posted February 20, 2018 Quote Setting up shop on Amazon’s platform has helped Gazelle Sports stabilize its sales. But it’s also put the company on a treacherous footing. Amazon, which did not respond to an interview request, touts its platform as a place where entrepreneurs can “pursue their dreams.” Yet studies indicate that the relationship is often predatory. Harvard Business School researchers found that when third-party sellers post new products, Amazon tracks the transactions and then starts selling many of their most popular items itself. And when it’s not using the information that it gleans from sellers to compete against them, Amazon uses it to extract an ever larger cut of their revenue. To succeed, sellers need to “win the buy-box”—that is, be chosen by Amazon’s algorithms as the default seller for a product. But according to ProPublica, “about three-quarters of the time, Amazon placed its own products and those of companies that pay for its [warehousing and shipping] services in that position even when there were substantially cheaper offers available from others.” As more third-party sellers have agreed to sign up for these services, Amazon has repeatedly raised its fees, with fulfillment fees rising this year by as much as 14 percent for standard-size items (and more for oversize goods), on top of similar increases in 2017. It’s easy to mistake Amazon for a retailer. After all, the company, which was founded in 1995, sells more books and toys than any other retailer, and is projected soon to become the top seller of clothing and electronics. It now captures nearly $1 of every $2 that Americans spend online. Quote Instead, it’s that Bezos has designed his company for a far more radical goal than merely dominating markets; he’s built Amazon to replace them. His vision is for Amazon to become the underlying infrastructure that commerce runs on. Already, Amazon’s website is the dominant platform for online retail sales, attracting half of all online US shopping traffic and hosting thousands of third-party sellers. Its Amazon Web Services division provides 34 percent of the world’s cloud-computing capacity, handling the data of a long list of entities, from Netflix to Nordstrom, Comcast to Condé Nast to the CIA. Now, in a challenge to UPS and FedEx, Amazon is building out a vast shipping and delivery operation with the aim of handling both its own packages and those of other companies. By controlling these essential pieces of infrastructure, Amazon can privilege its own products and services as they move through these pipelines, siphoning off the most lucrative currents of consumer demand for itself. And it can set the terms by which other companies have access to these pipelines, while also levying, through the fees it charges, a tax on their trade. In other words, it’s moving us away from a democratic political economy, in which commerce takes place in open markets governed by public rules, and toward a future in which the exchange of goods occurs in a private arena governed by Amazon. It’s a setup that inevitably transfers wealth to the few—and with it, the power over such crucial questions as which books and ideas get published and promoted, who may ply a trade and on what terms, and whether given communities will succeed or fail. This is crazy, but go on thinking this is all okay. The Nation: Amazon Doesn’t Just Want to Dominate the Market—It Wants to Become the Market 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 45 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said: This is crazy, but go on thinking this is all okay. The Nation: Amazon Doesn’t Just Want to Dominate the Market—It Wants to Become the Market And dont forget Amazon getting ready to get xx number of years completely tax free by whatever city it blesses with its new HQ presence Does the occupy wal street crowd know about this? Why yes, yes they do... theyre the ones begging for amazon to come to their city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 On 2/2/2018 at 2:36 PM, PleaseBlitz said: Here is the fundamental difference. WalMart sells things made by others. They are a retailer and nothing else. That is all they will ever be. Profit margin is the only thing that makes them money. Amazon does a zillion different things, including retail, but not limited to retail. Many of those lines of business, like their video streaming and production business, web services, advertising, server farms, drones, supermarkets, etc etc and who know what the **** else they are doing, are still very much in the startup phase. Investors are willing to bet on each of those new lines of business because Amazon has a demonstrated ability to turn them into gold. THAT is where the excitement by investors comes from. And those infant lines of business bring their overall margins down, even though their retail margins are probably in line with WalMart. If youre interested, start at around 18:20. He says exactly what i tried to illustrate for you. Many companies are in the unfortunate situation of turning profit He also explains what i was referring to with regard to how markets value amazon vs wal mart earlier in the video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 A bunch of digital news outlets like Gannett and Buzzfeed announced massive layoffs recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Wow, I didn't think Facebook could be more evil. https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-game-playing-kids-and-their-parents-out-of-money/ Quote Facebook orchestrated a multi-year effort that duped children and their parents out of money, in some cases hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and then often refused to give the money back, according to court documents unsealed tonight in response to a Reveal legal action. The records are part of a class action lawsuit focused on how Facebook targeted children in an effort to expand revenue for online games, such as Angry Birds, PetVille and Ninja Saga. The more than 135 pages of unsealed documents, which include internal Facebook memos, secret strategies and employee emails, paint a troubling picture of how the social media giant conducted business. Facebook encouraged game developers to let children spend money without their parents’ permission – something the social media giant called “friendly fraud” – in an effort to maximize revenues, according to a document detailing the company’s game strategy. Sometimes the children did not even know they were spending money, according to another internal Facebook report. Facebook employees knew this. Their own reports showed underage users did not realize their parent’s credit cards were connected to their Facebook accounts and they were spending real money in the games, according to the unsealed documents. For years, the company ignored warnings from its own employees that it was bamboozling children. A team of Facebook employees even developed a method that would have reduced the problem of children being hoodwinked into spending money, but the company did not implement it, and instead told game developers that the social media giant was focused on maximizing revenues. When parents found out how much their children had spent – one 15-year-old racked up $6,500 in charges in about two weeks playing games on Facebook – the company denied requests for refunds. Facebook employees referred to these children as “whales” – a term borrowed from the casino industry to describe profligate spenders. A child could spend hundreds of dollars a day on in-game features such as arming their character with a flaming sword or a new magic spell to defeat an enemy – even if they didn’t realize it until the credit card bill arrived. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 On 2/19/2018 at 9:00 PM, zoony said: If youre interested, start at around 18:20. He says exactly what i tried to illustrate for you. Many companies are in the unfortunate situation of turning profit He also explains what i was referring to with regard to how markets value amazon vs wal mart earlier in the video Yep, same guy whose argument I could destroy using one (1) of his own slides earlier in this thread. This guy is in the unfortunate situation of having cameras record his nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Facebook 1 of 4 companies hated more than the Washington Redskins yay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 That's just how the video game industry works these days across the board PB. All games have to be monetized now with some sort of continuos service or through small in-game purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Why would a parent link their CC to facebook? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Quote A number of organizations, including ProPublica, have developed tools to let the public see exactly how Facebook users are being targeted by advertisers. Now, Facebook has quietly made changes to its site that stop those efforts. ProPublica, Mozilla and Who Targets Me have all noticed their tools stopped working this month after Facebook inserted code in its website that blocks them. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency-tools?fbclid=IwAR1zmLw-KfFeuAibb-xjpKvzx71GmbnTLEJ7U-DJzO-VeaB7qE1dkAzNuVI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Amazon has built itself up almost like an online Walmart. They have become such a one stop shop for *everything* that if they disappeared tomorrow people would panic. Plenty of us are old enough to remember online shopping pre-Amazon, or at least before Amazon because this huge "too big to fail" online retailer. These days, other than very specialized or custom made items, you don't really need to go anywhere other than amazon. Not saying you can't, you certainly can, but the convenience factor is there. I remember a lot of the smaller online retailers I would buy movies or music or other items from would slowly get bought up by Amazon as they could no longer compete. It really is Walmart all over again, just online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Amazon, Google and Facebook are really just not great companies and there should be laws written to curtail what they can do with your personal data. Apple, at least keeps your stuff private and doesn’t market you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 It's because Apple is too busy eavesdropping on you. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/personaltech/facetime-bug-iphone-hack.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said: It's because Apple is too busy eavesdropping on you. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/personaltech/facetime-bug-iphone-hack.html I know that you’re being cute. But if you want your info to remain private, to the best ability of the company, then Apple is your best bet (compared to the other FANG) companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now