[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)