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.
Facebook is coming out with its own cryptocurrency; the implementation details are less interesting than the opportunity in payments generally, and why Facebook is uniquely placed.
How Microsoft Teams differs from Slack, then Facebook’s F8 keynote is nominally about privacy-focused social networking, but is in fact about competing with Snapchat (again!).
Microsoft is a trillion dollar company, and has more growth opportunities than ever; Facebook, meanwhile, remains firmly in control of its own destiny when it comes to driving revenue growth in the long run.
Twitter and Snap both had encouraging earnings, for reasons that were both similar and also unique to each company and their history. Perhaps there is hope for consumer tech companies after all — and maybe Facebook and Google aren’t so bad.
Snap’s announcements at its Partner Summit signaled a new strategy that makes a lot of sense. The company, though, needs to show that it can execute.
Recent regulation highlights why Mark Zuckerberg’s call for regulation was so self-serving. The place where regulators should actually start is advertising.
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.
Senator Warren’s proposal about how to regulate tech is wrong about history, the source of tech giant’s power, and the fundamental nature of technology itself. That doesn’t mean there aren’t real problems — and potential solutions — though.