Posted on 07/26/2016 11:58:19 AM PDT by milton23
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., insists that “competition is dying” in the tech industry because of giant corporations like Google, Amazon, and Apple.
But to entrepreneur Christopher Searles, they don’t pose a threat to companies like his. In fact, quite the opposite, he tells The Daily Signal.
“As a tech entrepreneur and small business owner, I don’t see any of these companies as holding me back. Rather, they enable me to do things that I would never have been able to do 20 years ago,” Searles said in a phone interview. “We need to spend our resources encouraging and promoting innovation so the next Google, Amazon, Apple, or Facebook can come along to change the game entirely, not just try to grab a seat at the table.”
Searles started his first software company focused on developing streaming video applications, Promollis, in 2003 as a junior at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, then sold it in 2007 before starting the Long Island-based Searles Media, a technology consulting firm advising small businesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysign.al ...
She speak big pile of buffalo poo poo .
The DEM-O-RATS could say the 1+1=3. It could be proven that they are wrong and they still will be given the nod.
Most of that’s true. They can make it tough in some cases though. If you set up an Amazon store with items they don’t have and they see success they’ll start carrying the items and compete. Tricks can also be done with app stores though usually from a bigger competitor than you with lawyers to cause takedowns of your app or bogus bad reviews, and not from Google or Apple directly though they will favor big company apps.
If Warren is really concerned about small tech companies she should look at regulations:
* It’s hard to hire/fire employees
* It’s extra hard to hire/fire employees when you get your 50th.
* It’s hard to get the contract with a big company who insists you follow the regulations of that company even though you don’t have 50 employees (obamacare, eeoc, insurance, etc). If the big company doesn’t the gov’t may accuse them of outsourcing to avoid regulations.
* A big company can get by with paid family leave. A small company may lose 50% of some function for weeks (e.g. 1 of 2 sys admins, or sales people or ... are out) Having to pay them while being significantly understaffed in a critical function can kill a company trying to make it.
I can list a dozen others both from the point of view of a small business owner (now and in the 90s) and a hiring manager at a fortune 100 company.
As the hiring manager I had to jump through all sorts of hoops to hire small technical companies that did work far better than our “preferred vendors”. But “preferred vendors” could check all of the “preferred vendor boxes” in the application (almost all boxes were related to government regulations and reporting). My company could literally make a small business succeed by the amount of work but more often than not we had to go the safe route of a large company with a staff larger than the entire small company to deal with regulations.
Since when does this witch care about competitive markets?
She’s an idiot.
She has no clue as to what competition means. In the dimwit world, of course, by competition...what they mean is having a few players which they can extract favors from, and manage their competition, and determine who gets what...so that the ruling class continues to get rich.
But real competition is ...um...not like that.
Consider what the Google sub, YouTube, has done in the world of broadcast media.
This is the greatest vehicle for competition and pure markets the world has ever known.
Simply put....ANYONE can create. They do not require the permission of YouTube. Nor are they guaranteed payment by YouTube. They simply get paid when they have enough viewers to make their content one where Google advertisers desire that space. When Google makes money from advertisers, then they pay the content providers. There are no questions, ifs ands or buts. It just happens.
Its extraordinary. And it has radically decentralized media in this world.
And YouTube does it all on an employed staff of under 200. (I’m sure they have subs of many accountants, etc., but still...just a few employees). And it’s all very public, and very audited, as befits a public company.
Now...people in flyover countries/states have a voice in media. That is...if they can convince viewers to watch them, and they can make a LOT of money providing content.
Finally....YouTube with its studios in New York, treats their content providers VERY, VERY well...in fact, I’d say FAR BETTER than the studios of old treated their content providers. That was a top down, abusive, monopolitic system filled with good ole boys.
But media is now forever changed.
And all because of Google/youtube.
This is one of those miracles of the market that shows up every now and then. We should be so grateful.
She’s an injun, she doesn’t know about hightech, she is still amazed at the locomotive that runs through the Hakowie camp with Wild Eagle.
Mr. Searles is a fool. What he doesn’t seem to recognize or chooses to ignore is that “Big Governmnet” in the form of regulators is coming for Big Tech (and by association little tech too).
Tatonka heap big poo. or big poo heap?
in this one area, Fauxahontas has a point. Amazon Web Services and google /youtube offer great service at a low price. At the same time they have near monopoly control and influence.
Youtube was recently exposed as censoring. They’ve been called out, but have they really paid a price? They are so powerful.
At the time of the first antitrust laws being passed, the oil companies and US Steel were offering record low prices.
It is something to think about, even though the source is a squinty-eyed lying weasle hypocrite.
Great post!
Elizabeth Warren couldn’t find her a$$ using both hands.
“Google, Amazon, and Apple”
What? No Microsoft who everyone hates? ;-)
Thank you. I am very passionate about YouTube because it gives us little people in flyover country a place to bring virtuous content to the whole world. And to get rich doing it.
YouTube is one of the most freedom-enhancing innovations of all time.
Of course it cuts both ways, as socialists, etc., can use it also. But that’s the same as the First Amendment. Just give us freedom, and we will take our chances with the outcome!
I wish more conservatives would get excited about YouTube, because this is where younger people spend all of their time (well, here and other streaming services). If we do well here, it will make all the difference in the world to us!
Don’t dump that mess on us! - my Tribe has taken enough hits for our team..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
