Why Big Tech Will Never Be Broken Up
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2019
- Should companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook be broken up? More importantly, is it even possible to break up the Big Tech, considering the immense role these companies play in our private and business life? ⭑ Subscribe to Business Casual → gobc.tv/sub
⭑ Enjoyed the vid? Hit the like button!
📚 If you enjoyed this video about #BigTech and want to learn even more, we recommend you read the book "The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google" by Scott Galloway 👉amzn.to/3es6z9i (note: as an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases).
Your support makes our content possible! ❤️
Follow us on:
► Twitter → gobc.tv/twtr
► Instagram → gobc.tv/ig
► Facebook → gobc.tv/fb
► LinkedIn → gobc.tv/linkedin
► Reddit → gobc.tv/reddit
► Medium → gobc.tv/medium
⬇️Exclusive Sponsor Offers (Only For BC Fans) ⬇️
✪ Sign-up for Acorns! 👉 gobc.tv/acorns
✪ Skillshare (get 2 months free) 👉gobc.tv/skillshare
✪ Try DollarShaveClub (just $5!) 👉dollarshaveclub.com/bc
✪ Try Blinkist free for 7 days! 👉gobc.tv/readblinkist
#BigTech #Google #Amazon
⚠ 📣 *MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT:* Business Casual is suing CZcams. We have just published a feature-length documentary about our case. It is being censored. If you are a fellow creator, you need to watch this. ➡ czcams.com/video/4IaOeVgZ-wc/video.html
Yes
With the current lobbying system, no politician will be willing to act on these large companies.
The FTC and DOJ literally announced recently their division of oversight to more effectively look into anti-trust claims against these particular companies. No politician needs to act: entrenched bureaucracies, largely immune to politics, will do any work necessary. For good or ill.
I'm not sure what you meant by "lobbying system", so I'd love to read a more thorough explanation from you on it.
I enjoy this channel, but this video is incredibly naive.
@@undeadquixote79 I believe the involvement of politicians would make these agencies to handle the issue more urgently. The same way Theodore Roosevelt had his administration prosecute such cases, if a president wanted to do so today he would definitely have an impact as opposed to looking away.
Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still unclear on your "lobbying system" remark.
Our current president is on record as saying these companies need to be looked into for censoring content that favors him/promoting content that disparages him. As he presides over all federal executive agencies, I don't know what else could or should be done on this matter on a national level.
That said, to be honest, I have no idea how I feel about the entire situation, except that I think this video glossed over Google's (Alphabet's) stature and ignored a lot of relevant data to the discussion.
Genuinely appreciate the response, though. Thanks.
Whatever comes of this will affect us all and I think none of us has any idea yet of how.
@@undeadquixote79 well said.
then change your lobbying system...
the background music makes everything sound epic lol
yea, the music track is awesome
@Crebs Park Real effective argument and discussion skills here. I bet you're invited to every family gathering.
Robert Thallium HAHAHA
That in combination with those glorious slow-pan graphics
we don't even need anti-trust, we just need to stop allowing them to claim to be platforms while acting as editors.
Unless you allow all video to be legal than they will need to be allowed to remove videos, because you know ISIS promotional video was on youtube before they start removing it.
These Tech companies won't be broken up under Anti-Trust, but likely turned into utilities, thus reducing their power, influence and market value.
Over the last couple of years Congress has been debating if Facebook should be made into a utility and tightly regulated and controlled under the FCC.
@@jamesgaddis6189 First off I just want to say I am a democrat. However there are times when on my side of the aisle people can get a little silly. This is a prime example. An industry is designated a utility. Such as natural gas if that is the primary power source the state or city you live in. The water/sewer industry and the garbage industry because water and sewer are considered necessary for home owners and garbage pickup for homes and office buildings necessary for the public health. The whole industry is subject to regulation because of the necessity of the service provided. There is no such thing as saying we will not regulate the industry but we will call just one company a utility and regulate the single company like one.
@Abdullah Reagan "Quiet clear" is a deliciously ironic typo.
What gingerbeargames wrote cannot possibly be a myth because it's an opinion. A call-to-action, even, surely nothing that is in the realm of fact or falsehood, truth or myth. What the "law says", regardless of whether it actually does or not, is precisely what such a statement would seek to change. Frankly, I'm in agreement gingerbeargames. I'd also demand that the press be required to report interviews they conduct in verbatim fashion: anything else is character assassination.
Platforms have to be editorialised. I think what you’re attempting poorly to express is the notion that platforms like CZcams and Facebook become legally culpable when they are publications and that they appear to be doing so by targeting opinions they dislike. But all platforms have to do that to some extent otherwise they would become filled with the vilest or content.
The scope of this presentation is limited, if and when these companies are broken up. Will set a new legal precedence, since we have never faced organizations like these before.
Internet monoplies are a whole new beast. New generations who understand the power of internet and tech companies need to/will develop new laws to regulate them and protect our rights.
Trust busting came about in part because the business environment changed from the simple jeffersonian idea of each yeoman family owning there own farm to one man owning an entire industry.
Similarly with new industries, technologies and economic dynamics between producer and consumer there should be laws that fit that ever evolving dynamic to ensure our rights and prosperity as individuals
But if you destroy big companies, China will surpass the US and become the Global powew. Then the chinese will be the world model of life, with they communist dictatorship. Is that that you want? I guess no. To prevent this from happen, those companies need to be strong as ever.
I'm not talking to you as an american. No. I am a brazilian who understands the need of preserve a democracy as a global power. Think this way, china only allowed its citizen to hold private propety in the 90's, and this was because they needed to grow economically to spread their revolution. But if the revolution consume the world, there is no need to allow the citizen to have privace, then, they can change the constitution, if they have one...
The motive I am saying it to you, it's to that you maybe can change your mind and try to do the same as I did to you, convice other people which hold the same thought as you. Also, I hope that some lost soul comes by and see this text.
Thank you for you attention.
@@akemap4 This is a comment with no basis which is talking about nothing. This is a useless generalistic comment. Please delete it and stop spreading stupid ideas which you too don't know anything about. Thanks! On the other hand Kevin, your comment was very good and I totally agree with you!
You can just use another service, they lose all they power if they start abusing consumers, if you let them abuse you then you are stupid (cof cof apple users cof cof)
@@akemap4 I appreciate you recognizing my country as the light of democracy in this world, but it's not big tech companies who keep that light on, it's the American Navy. It controls the world's sea lanes and can permit or deny trade to any major power in the world. In this, it can contain large authoritarian powers like China and ensure democracy worldwide
Yea , right , their not greedy. They make the laws. Your not thinking this through.
Why assume that Bork's 45-year-old opinions will rule forever? The nature of anti-trust changed with Bork and Reagan, it can change again.
@@donkey7921 Idk, I think his point regarding the App Store is legit. Compare the Android app ecosystem to the Apple app ecosystem - Apple controls their market absolutely and their 30% commission seems like a clear abuse of their control.
Artful Dodger But its like steam, if the app is more popular apple takes a lower percentage
Bork was a cancer to anti-trust
He's a good boi
@@donkey7921 on Android you can use one of dozens of app stores with no extra effort so consumers have options. On iOS you can only use the app store unless you jail break.
8:37 I was a bit confused when I saw Bezos sitting next to Reagan
Evilsamar ---- That photo was from a meeting that Trump had with tech CEOs. They simply photoshopped Reagan into the place of Trump.
And Tim Cook lol
Wasn't the other guy in the picture from Microsoft.
@@bruxi78230 no you are wrong, its not photoshopped
@@Someone-cd7yi ---- Exactly that's Satya Nadella from MS. Although our friend B Dutta says it's not a photoshop job. Hahahahhahaha, I have to assume he's joking.
One thing about standard oil, they actually brought down the price of oil by a ton for consumers.
I can't wait till apple comes out with a $3000 iphone. my laughing won't ever be contained
Let’s just hope other brands don’t follow their example. *cough* headphone jack
Well with constant inflation it could happen before you know it.
Samsung have a $2000 dollar phone already
@@jerry3790 Yeah it can't happen. Apple can do whatever the hell they want, but as far as other brands go, they primarily run android; there's competition. To this day, there are amazing phones for just about 500 dollars, and with arm processors becoming cheaper and cheaper, consumers have better options for less money. If a brand did what you suggested without having a very good reason for it(and considering that most tech standards are open for implementation, such as 4g), they'd go bankrupt.
P.S.: None of this applies to apple lmao.
you are laughing by them making net billions? You are weird. Dont be salty, because they are making money and you dont
@@robosergTV that's not even what he was talking about. He's just saying that it would be funny if Apple releases a 5000 dollar iPhone, especially since it's obvious that the iSheep will buy the phone anyway
The problem simply is your failure at evaluating when consumers are loosing trough a business or not.
Issue is with economic power you get political power. Market with to big companies isn't free market.
No market with too big government isn t free market
@@epicgamer8938 the whole point of government is checks and balances and its long overdue.
@@blahblah60 yep
No, the problem is that people are using the population's hatred towards large companies like Google and Apple to undermine America's position in the world which will cause economic turmoil for decades to come. Finally completely an 80 year old plan... to destroy our nation.
checks and balances are must, big government isn't good but big companies are even worse..
Extremely misleading to mention the Standard Oil 90% market share fact and imply that it was bad without mentioning that their prices were lower than anyone else's AND they stayed low when they had the "monopoly." Or that Standard Oil was broken up years after it's peak, that it was already losing market share because other new competitors entered the market and innovated.
Monopoly is bad by any definition, ask the Nazis with the Volkswagen and the Soviets with their state sponsored vodka
Rockefellers wealth actually increased during the breakup lol
Excellent. Half of the video is dedicated to the framework of Antitrust, which makes everything that follows much more easier to grasp. Once again, great video on a very pertinent topic. The sum of the parts here is not even close to the whole.
I love this channel. Thanks for the very informative videos
Your ads always insert perfectly
The article Amazon Antitrust Paradox is a pretty interesting read
I am amazed this video failed to mention AWS and how it maybe could and should be broken off the retail division of Amazon.
Brilliant theatrical business historical case, thank you for reminding me of the business model using trusts. Great work!
They can be broken up by innovation made by the competitiors
Networking effect is too strong. And what is there to be innovated, despite losing so much practicality of using big tech?
@@someonesomewhere3817 time travel
@@user-qi6ig6gb8x Did you see Hackerman's guide? You know its illegal right?!
@@someonesomewhere3817 thats legal in my country
They have more resources in the form of data centers and near-monopoly access to internet users so they eat up the smaller companies for lunch.
Insightful video...as always by Business Casual. Good start to the day and came away feeling I learned something new.
Loving the flow of your video!
You put so much effort in your videos I just love it
Nothing about how AT&T, the bell system, was broke up, when there wasn't really a reason to break it up?
Lack of competition. Especially in long distance services. New technologies like microwave transmitters and fiber optics allowed companies like MCI and Sprint to provide products at a competitive price. The only way the consumer could get those new products was by ending Ma Bell's government enforced monopoly.
what is the music in the background?
The video quality is superb! Nice job
Sigh! I used to know - and talk to - SO many people.
Now I can't even get them to LOOK UP.
Didn't see that coming in 1970...1980...1990.
Another reason why they can't be broken up is bcoz there are lot of people working. If you break up a company, just imagine what would happen to all those people.
You have to corner the market if you want to jack prices as you see fit. None of these companies has a corner on the market, and none are efficient enough to undercut the competition and corner the market. Apple's "Walled garden" approach only gives them a monopoly over online sales of software for apple products, not all smartphone and desktop computer software. If you don't like it, you can always buy a PC or an Android phone.
Aside from consumer protections, working conditions are a significantly viable area to be contended with. A glimpse at various farming businesses illustrates that salient point.
8:43 ........the photoshopping skills are amazing.
giant corporations should never be allowed to buy other giant corporations. they should never get so big that they need to be broken up in the first place, and it never happens without aquisitions and mergers. smaller individual companies promote competition and fairness.
A big problem is, that for instance Amazon is selling server capacities and using that money to tamper prices. This is killing the competion, as they don't have the resources to compete
Apple is fine.
There's a reason Samsung is such a worthy competitor. Their phones are more open; its the reason my entire family owns one.
Do a video on whether the government should break up Big Telecoms? Do we really have a lot of choice with the ISPs and are their predatory practices harmful to the consumer? Is the internet a utilty?
How do you do your animations with the moving photos?!
Only if someone breaks up Luxottica soon...
Personally I don’t think the size of tech companies has become much of a problem yet and I don’t see how splitting them would help. If anything it would be inconvenient.
yeah, meddling with elections and politics around the world, shaping public opinion and controlling the flow of information, censoring people for having unapproved opinions and in some cases ruining their careers and livelihoods. Not much of a problem, right?
s0nnyburnett As far as I’m aware election meddling is done by those using the platforms, not the platforms
themselves.
Shaping public opinion is a result of the echo chamber that is the internet and will happen with any size of corporation.
Censorship is dictated by advertisers and what type of content they want to be associated with.
Also, there’s no need to be hostile. You can disagree and still be polite.
We agree thats why amzn, goog and FB r among the top 3 holdings in our CZcams portfolio
I actually can see just Facebook being broken up. The rest not really
100 years before - Someone probably saying you can't break up Big Oil Companies .
I call bullshit , everything goes down , so will big tech one day
I saw your video, and I understand what basis the anti-trust laws are now based on now, and the only thing I wanna say is, I'm still a big fan of separation of big power, regardless. Also, based on those anti-trust laws, are Google's business practices supposed to also involve extracurricular activities like social engineering like we say in the google leaks?
7:40 I see you have the felix app installed too
The big technology companies have branched into so many businesses that it is difficult to define them as monopolies in the traditional sense. None of them dominate only a single industry.
What might make more sense is to force the tech giants to separate by division which would lead to the emergence of new companies that would still dominate specific areas of technology. For example, if Google was forced to spin off CZcams as separate company, CZcams would still dominate video sharing while the parent company would dominate online search. Both are simply the best at what they do.
This is honestly a great video
Please make some videos on some just started company - maybe just like your friends who started internxt...
Why didn't you talk about political power/ideological driven search engine ?
Bill Because it was not the point? The point of this video is why laws against monopoly doesnt apply to these tech giant.
@@paramutjeasakul5537 it exactly the point, it can certainly be look into
Don't break them up, then. Limit their power and influence. Make them pay for every single ounce of power they gain. Whatever is in business, stays in business.
7:55 I didn't think instagram was really a "competitor" to facebook at the time they acquired it. Hadn't been on my radar as a facebook competitor at the time anyway.
Amazon is so much more than just ecommerce. It's easy to forget of all the other services they own because of all the different names. Which is of course isn't neccissarily a violation of antitrust as mentioned at the end
Tf2 Man Co was the largest monopoly hands down.
Amazing content❤️
The Reagan policy does make sense in the case of Netflix. People don't want more competition there because that hurts consumers. It wouldn't hurt consumers if all content was available on all services kind of like music.
We need to break apart content creation and content delivery. Whether I pay Netflix or Amazon, I should be able to watch all the shows.
Media piracy was a problem for all media productions in the 2000s and 1st half of 2010s and Netflix solve that. The people want fair prices and good products/services not exactly competition, and that is what Netflix provided. The major entertainment productions became envious of it so they made their own. What happened next was people returned back to piracy instead.
4:14 oh thats absolutely true ... and in those cases the state should run them or at the very lest they should be non profit organizations..
Very informative, thanks
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, Dagg!
What are the freeware alternatives to DashLane?
Hello mr Jordan. I'd like to know if you will upload on skillshare lessons about commodities and forex market. i really liked your lessons on the platform and, since i have interest in those subjects, i'd like to know if you plan on doing that. thank you for your attention and stay smart
Data....Data, data, data, data: Therein lies the basis for a consumer protection antitrust suit and civil liberties case. It is a paradox because nobody can jump in and compete with Google, Amazon's, or Apples hardware infrastructure and/or computing capacity, nor access the largest troves of consumer behavior data - which is also basis for antitrust as it makes them a monopolistic in that way- but they can compete with each other, marketize and retail their collected data (when and what doesn't hurt them of course) and aren't one company with a grip on an industry, but rather a hand full of companies, each with various (sometimes overlapping) specialties (products services) and vertically integrated subspecialties that represent an increasing dominance and control in 1) how, where, and what people consume 2) the share of total customers.
The internet really has become like a web.
Have you tried buying Apple Music subscription with an Android phone? Or market through Facebook / Instagram? It's getting more expensive and inconvenient with every year. That's the whole point.
"Facebook deserves the most anti trust attention, bought its biggest competitor (instagram), could exploit its power by abusing privacy"
"You should be focusing on your online privacy more than ever"
At the end: "Make sure to follow me on instragram!"
Oh that irony... They all have just the power that we give them. Why not choose some alternative?
I think Facebook showed often enough that they don't care at all about privacy.
Hi, your videos are really cool. Do you mind doing De Beers Sa company next?
Business Casual and Polymatter again?
these are good points, but i do think that consolidation has now become absurd. for instance, allowing comcast to merge with nbc-universal. i think the pendulum will always be swinging, and right now the relatively light touch the government has with major corporations has non-economic effects, such as the perception of corruption.
Bro plzzz do an video on stock market!
You didnt described MS and Oracle inc.
Fantastic video. Seems like you have read the fantastic book Big Is Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business (The MIT Press) by Robert D. Atkinson.
Does anyone tell me how we can make videos like this where audio and video match simultaneously
as a libertarian i do not believe that any legal action should be possible against Apple because, whatever they do, it should be their decision to make money how they want. I have never purchased any Apple product, this does not mean in any way that I believe other peoples' right to purchase Apple products should be restricted (which legal action against the company would cause)
Dont be so sure - nothing lasts forever
The “customers” of FB and Google are the advertisers, not the users. These advertisers are being charged high fees by monopolistic bullies. This is the reason these companies need to be broken up.
Felix at 7:42
Tech companies are here only for 2 decades so there is no guarantee for big tech to survive for 100 + years
how can you say that
The problem is the horizontal integration: Google controls Chrome and Android, and they use the defaults in their favour, like having Google as the default browser in Chrome and in Android. People doesn't change the defaults
“Raganomics “👍🏻
it doesn't mean they can lock people , people make them giants as they offer their good services . for example , remember when Nokia had the highest market shares in mobile phones before 10-12 years ago , and when they weren't able to offer a good or new products they fall immediately and people adopt their rivals products as they offer better products (or software) . same for these companies , at certain point when they not able to offer good things they will fall with all their what called Monopoly .
i don't understand how i have watched this 5 times already🤯
Yeah, none of us understand how or why you did that, either.
@@ryanfgrantjr3009 oh thanks now it's 6👍🏾
@@keemshakes lol......likedyour funny comment, keem......haha :)
When companies become monopolies, they stop being innovative and are eventually lose market share to other companies. This would be the case if the market was 100% free.
Yeah... does't seem to be the case with google any time soon
Any sources to back that up?
More likely theyll prevent any competitors from rising up. This is when it ceases being capitaism and turns into pure monopoly. Only enriching itself while it feeds off the economy(not paying taxes for billions).
@@ElucarioYEAH Probably an economics textbook
Why couldn't a monopoly be more innovative than a small company? They'd have billions more to devote to R&D.
Microsoft anti trust was based kind of on the same basis like these. Google monopoly is in the Chrome ecosystem, same as Apple
Consumer welfare, when business people said it. That word just become very dubious
In each correction of the US marketplace, there has been just one man driving it. From Sherman and Teddy to FDR, Truman and Reagan.
America has various effective and fast means of changing legislation (by international standards). Congress, the supreme courts and the courts of the various states all play a part.
The only two things we know for certain is that 1- the American Marketplace has changed every time it has been threatened and 2- it will do so again in the future. Expect big changes in the near future. Laws will change rapidly to accommodate these changes. Possibly these changes will happen sooner than we think.
Bit disappointed you didn't even mention the Microsoft anti-trust case around the 2000s, and the steps Microsoft took to avoid losing the case or it from happening ever again.
8:40 lol, that guy kind pf looks like Tim Cook
Man your usually so thorough. I was surprised you didnt go into the fact that large tech companies use entirely different business models to undercut and dominate markets that arent even in. Like how say Amazon can use their AWS profits to go undercut all competition in say grocery stores. Or how Apple can turn out so much profit to undercut spotify since they purpisfully sell it as a loss leader. The same strategy could be applied literally to any other business model killing all local competition. I think this is the main cause of the problem here. Theyre getting so large they can subsidize basically all competition who physically cannot afford to compete on their level.
We don't need to break up big tech. We just need to enforce a more stringent privacy protection law.
why not both?
@@wursthans852 they didnt harm consumer in the sense that those industry didn't deliberately supresse competition and forbid new entry into the market. They are big simply because we use them as they are out cup of tea, this may change quickly.
@@Petethecoolguy they supress competition in many cases but in a sense of ill buy anything so im the only one i mean how can u avoid fakebook if they own insta and whatsapp? because of that and normies beeing normies everyone uses them
meanwhile in s. korea naver, kakao talk and daum are dominating everthing lol
Nice ad!
there are other reasons too but this is a great video
i'm no expert. i think these cases differ strongly from past cases because they control the sources of information, and they (eg, google, facebook) don't make their biggest money (i'm not sure) from the people who use them. neither the users nor the content creators pay them directly, and the ones that pay them are not the majority of users and creators. quite a different kind of business.
I guess the most damage will be done to Apple, because if the lose the Anti-Trust case, they will have to allow App Store competitors on iOS and they will also have to refund all developers because of the high fee they charge when publishing an app on the App Store
Oil rules the word, the biggest trust.
Columbus Ohio is really the heart of it all, really.
You sound like Otto (the boat) from Pajama Sam.
Nothing stays forever
7:39 when you see it
By recommend
Unfortunately?
how do you make this kinda epic video
Please do C. Hoare & Co or just The Hoare Family
Till the consumers are happy !!
Great video but I hate those damn transitions at the end at (8:52). Like I get it you need ad revenue to continue making great videos but Dashlane sounds like some really late software. There’s a number of software I already have to store my passwords not to mention Google Chrome does it for free. I hate just being sold to in a transition like that... I wish he made the transition less subtle, more obvious.
Surely, the main point is will they ever pay their tax?
What about shadow ban and control search results.