As regulators look closer at acquisitions they should be extremely wary of unintended consequences. The current system works well for everyone, most of the time.
Understanding the differences between platforms and Aggregators is critical when it comes to considering regulation.
Data portability is friendly to consumers, but it has very little to do with encouraging competition, at least relative to interoperability.
Google’s approach to travel mirrors its approach to Shopping, which, correctly or not, was already ruled to be illegal in Europe. Then, Disney+ rolls out like a movie, and fails like a service. Plus, more on Instagram and influencers.
Instagram is removing likes, because it says it cares about user welfare. Is that the reason, or is Instagram finally taking on influencer marketing?
Making principled stands should not mean absolutism: Facebook should seek to ameliorate its trade-offs. Then, Facebook’s earnings continue to show higher costs, plus where Zuckerberg is right and wrong in defending the Instagram acquisition.
The Department of Justice antitrust chief gave a speech yesterday that should make tech nervous, particularly Google and Facebook. Then, why Google and Facebook’s scale defense is not sufficient.
A review of the potential antitrust cases against Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon suggests that only Google is vulnerable.
Breaking down the Chris Hughes article about breaking up Facebook: it’s better than you think. Plus, the fundamental paradox when it comes to arguments about regulating Facebook.
Pinterest’s S-1 shows why too much funding can be bad for startups, while Zoom’s S-1 shows the benefits the come from being great. That, by extension, is a result of the enterprise and consumer markets flip-flopping.