Connect with us

Tech

What does breaking up Big Tech really mean?

Published

on

What does breaking up Big Tech really mean?


This past fall, the Federal Trade Commission and 48 state attorneys general filed suit against Facebook, charging it with illegally maintaining a monopoly over the social-networking space “through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct.” Soon after, the US Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general filed suit against Google, charging it with illegally maintaining a monopoly over the search and search advertising markets. Apple is currently locked in a civil trial with game developer Epic Games, which is challenging Apple’s control of its App Store on antitrust grounds.

Last summer, the US House Judiciary Committee concluded a 19-month investigation into alleged anticompetitive activity by the tech titans. The resulting 450-page report described the companies as “the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons” and recommended that the government take action against them. 

It’s easy, of course, to dismiss anything that comes out of Washington or Brussels as political posturing, but in this case that would be a mistake. President Joe Biden has named some of Big Tech’s sharpest and most vocal critics—including Columbia University professor Tim Wu, author of the book The Curse of Bigness, and Lina Khan, who served as special counsel to the Judiciary Committee during its investigation—to important roles in his administration. Europe is putting in place tougher regulations to try to limit Big Tech’s power. And antitrust action, at least with regard to the tech industry, has become that rarest of things: a bipartisan issue in Congress.

What’s arguably more important is that we’re in the middle of a radical shift in the intellectual discussion—one that has made it much easier to go after Big Tech. In many ways, we seem to be going back to the antitrust vision that determined US policy toward big companies for much of the 20th century, a vision that’s much more skeptical of the virtues of size and much more willing to be aggressive in keeping companies from exercising monopoly power.

America’s key antitrust laws were written around the turn of the 20th century. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914 remain on the books today. They were written in broad, far-reaching (and ill-defined) language, targeting monopolists who engaged in what they called “restraint of trade.” And they were driven in large part by the desire to curb the giant trusts that had, via a series of mergers and acquisitions, come to dominate America’s industrial economy. 

The quintessential example was Standard Oil, which had built an empire that gave it essentially complete control over the oil business in the US. But antitrust law wasn’t just used to block mergers. It was also used to stop a host of practices that were deemed anticompetitive, including some that nowadays seem routine, like aggressive discounting or tying the purchase of one good to the purchase of another.

In reality, the four companies have very different businesses that raise very different antitrust questions and will lend themselves to very different antitrust solutions.

This all changed with the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Instead of worrying about big companies’ impact on competitors or suppliers, regulators and courts started to focus almost entirely on what was called “consumer welfare.” If a merger, or a company’s practices, could be shown to lead to higher prices, then it made sense to step in. If it didn’t, antitrust regulators generally took a hands-off approach. That’s why Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, Amazon’s acquisition of Zappos, and Google’s acquisitions of DoubleClick, YouTube, Waze, and ITA all sailed through the regulatory approval process without a hitch. 

No longer, though. Over the past four or five years, scholars, politicians, and public advocates have begun to push a new idea of what antitrust policy should be, arguing that we need to move away from that narrow focus on consumer welfare—which in practice has usually meant a focus on prices—toward consideration of a much wider range of possible harms from companies’ exercise of market power: damage to suppliers, workers, competitors, customer choice, and even the political system as a whole. They’ve done so, not surprisingly, with the Big Four squarely in mind. 

But what exactly would reining in Big Tech’s power look like? Short answer: It depends very much on which company you’re going after.

The targets

While antitrust advocates often rhetorically lump Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook together, creating a memorable image of four giant “gatekeepers” collectively controlling access to the digital economy, in reality the four companies have very different businesses that raise very different antitrust questions and will lend themselves to very different antitrust solutions.

Take, for a start, Apple. It is the most valuable company in the world, as of this writing worth more than $2 trillion. It’s also the most profitable company in the world. And yet, when it comes to discussions of antitrust and Big Tech, Apple often seems like an afterthought. In Wu’s book, Apple barely makes an appearance, and in Senator Amy Klobuchar’s new book, Antitrust, which is a ringing call for remaking and enforcing anti-monopolization policy, the discussions of Apple seem more cursory than central to her thesis.

That may be in large part because Apple has become a behemoth mostly on its own—while it has made plenty of acquisitions, its recent growth is mainly due to the simple fact that it has introduced three of the most successful and lucrative technology products in history, and that it has continued to convince customers to keep upgrading to the next generation of products. Even in this new world, it is not illegal to become hugely successful by building the proverbial better mousetrap.

To be sure, Apple has antitrust issues, which center on its requirement that all developers who are making apps for the iPhone and iPad sell their goods through the App Store, with Apple collecting a 30% fee. So it’s possible Apple will end up having to let developers sell directly to consumers, or even allow independent app stores. Even so, it could still collect a licensing fee from any app that wanted to be on the iPhone. And most users would, in all likelihood, continue to use the App Store regardless, if only out of habit and convenience. 

So in the grand scheme of things, Apple wouldn’t seem to have that much to worry about from increasing antitrust pressures. 

Amazon’s situation is more complicated. It, too, has the fact of organic growth going for it; while it has made its share of acquisitions, it has grown mostly on its own, driven by its relentless appetite for selling more, its huge investment in infrastructure, and its willingness to spend huge amounts of money in order to win and keep customers. Its biggest antitrust problem stems, paradoxically, from something it created itself: Amazon Marketplace. 

Tech

The hunter-gatherer groups at the heart of a microbiome gold rush

Published

on

The hunter-gatherer groups at the heart of a microbiome gold rush


The first step to finding out is to catalogue what microbes we might have lost. To get as close to ancient microbiomes as possible, microbiologists have begun studying multiple Indigenous groups. Two have received the most attention: the Yanomami of the Amazon rainforest and the Hadza, in northern Tanzania. 

Researchers have made some startling discoveries already. A study by Sonnenburg and his colleagues, published in July, found that the gut microbiomes of the Hadza appear to include bugs that aren’t seen elsewhere—around 20% of the microbe genomes identified had not been recorded in a global catalogue of over 200,000 such genomes. The researchers found 8.4 million protein families in the guts of the 167 Hadza people they studied. Over half of them had not previously been identified in the human gut.

Plenty of other studies published in the last decade or so have helped build a picture of how the diets and lifestyles of hunter-gatherer societies influence the microbiome, and scientists have speculated on what this means for those living in more industrialized societies. But these revelations have come at a price.

A changing way of life

The Hadza people hunt wild animals and forage for fruit and honey. “We still live the ancient way of life, with arrows and old knives,” says Mangola, who works with the Olanakwe Community Fund to support education and economic projects for the Hadza. Hunters seek out food in the bush, which might include baboons, vervet monkeys, guinea fowl, kudu, porcupines, or dik-dik. Gatherers collect fruits, vegetables, and honey.

Mangola, who has met with multiple scientists over the years and participated in many research projects, has witnessed firsthand the impact of such research on his community. Much of it has been positive. But not all researchers act thoughtfully and ethically, he says, and some have exploited or harmed the community.

One enduring problem, says Mangola, is that scientists have tended to come and study the Hadza without properly explaining their research or their results. They arrive from Europe or the US, accompanied by guides, and collect feces, blood, hair, and other biological samples. Often, the people giving up these samples don’t know what they will be used for, says Mangola. Scientists get their results and publish them without returning to share them. “You tell the world [what you’ve discovered]—why can’t you come back to Tanzania to tell the Hadza?” asks Mangola. “It would bring meaning and excitement to the community,” he says.

Some scientists have talked about the Hadza as if they were living fossils, says Alyssa Crittenden, a nutritional anthropologist and biologist at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, who has been studying and working with the Hadza for the last two decades.

The Hadza have been described as being “locked in time,” she adds, but characterizations like that don’t reflect reality. She has made many trips to Tanzania and seen for herself how life has changed. Tourists flock to the region. Roads have been built. Charities have helped the Hadza secure land rights. Mangola went abroad for his education: he has a law degree and a master’s from the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy program at the University of Arizona.

Continue Reading

Tech

The Download: a microbiome gold rush, and Eric Schmidt’s election misinformation plan

Published

on

The Download: a microbiome gold rush, and Eric Schmidt’s election misinformation plan


Over the last couple of decades, scientists have come to realize just how important the microbes that crawl all over us are to our health. But some believe our microbiomes are in crisis—casualties of an increasingly sanitized way of life. Disturbances in the collections of microbes we host have been associated with a whole host of diseases, ranging from arthritis to Alzheimer’s.

Some might not be completely gone, though. Scientists believe many might still be hiding inside the intestines of people who don’t live in the polluted, processed environment that most of the rest of us share. They’ve been studying the feces of people like the Yanomami, an Indigenous group in the Amazon, who appear to still have some of the microbes that other people have lost. 

But there is a major catch: we don’t know whether those in hunter-gatherer societies really do have “healthier” microbiomes—and if they do, whether the benefits could be shared with others. At the same time, members of the communities being studied are concerned about the risk of what’s called biopiracy—taking natural resources from poorer countries for the benefit of wealthier ones. Read the full story.

—Jessica Hamzelou

Eric Schmidt has a 6-point plan for fighting election misinformation

—by Eric Schmidt, formerly the CEO of Google, and current cofounder of philanthropic initiative Schmidt Futures

The coming year will be one of seismic political shifts. Over 4 billion people will head to the polls in countries including the United States, Taiwan, India, and Indonesia, making 2024 the biggest election year in history.

Continue Reading

Tech

Navigating a shifting customer-engagement landscape with generative AI

Published

on

Navigating a shifting customer-engagement landscape with generative AI


A strategic imperative

Generative AI’s ability to harness customer data in a highly sophisticated manner means enterprises are accelerating plans to invest in and leverage the technology’s capabilities. In a study titled “The Future of Enterprise Data & AI,” Corinium Intelligence and WNS Triange surveyed 100 global C-suite leaders and decision-makers specializing in AI, analytics, and data. Seventy-six percent of the respondents said that their organizations are already using or planning to use generative AI.

According to McKinsey, while generative AI will affect most business functions, “four of them will likely account for 75% of the total annual value it can deliver.” Among these are marketing and sales and customer operations. Yet, despite the technology’s benefits, many leaders are unsure about the right approach to take and mindful of the risks associated with large investments.

Mapping out a generative AI pathway

One of the first challenges organizations need to overcome is senior leadership alignment. “You need the necessary strategy; you need the ability to have the necessary buy-in of people,” says Ayer. “You need to make sure that you’ve got the right use case and business case for each one of them.” In other words, a clearly defined roadmap and precise business objectives are as crucial as understanding whether a process is amenable to the use of generative AI.

The implementation of a generative AI strategy can take time. According to Ayer, business leaders should maintain a realistic perspective on the duration required for formulating a strategy, conduct necessary training across various teams and functions, and identify the areas of value addition. And for any generative AI deployment to work seamlessly, the right data ecosystems must be in place.

Ayer cites WNS Triange’s collaboration with an insurer to create a claims process by leveraging generative AI. Thanks to the new technology, the insurer can immediately assess the severity of a vehicle’s damage from an accident and make a claims recommendation based on the unstructured data provided by the client. “Because this can be immediately assessed by a surveyor and they can reach a recommendation quickly, this instantly improves the insurer’s ability to satisfy their policyholders and reduce the claims processing time,” Ayer explains.

All that, however, would not be possible without data on past claims history, repair costs, transaction data, and other necessary data sets to extract clear value from generative AI analysis. “Be very clear about data sufficiency. Don’t jump into a program where eventually you realize you don’t have the necessary data,” Ayer says.

The benefits of third-party experience

Enterprises are increasingly aware that they must embrace generative AI, but knowing where to begin is another thing. “You start off wanting to make sure you don’t repeat mistakes other people have made,” says Ayer. An external provider can help organizations avoid those mistakes and leverage best practices and frameworks for testing and defining explainability and benchmarks for return on investment (ROI).

Using pre-built solutions by external partners can expedite time to market and increase a generative AI program’s value. These solutions can harness pre-built industry-specific generative AI platforms to accelerate deployment. “Generative AI programs can be extremely complicated,” Ayer points out. “There are a lot of infrastructure requirements, touch points with customers, and internal regulations. Organizations will also have to consider using pre-built solutions to accelerate speed to value. Third-party service providers bring the expertise of having an integrated approach to all these elements.”

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2021 Seminole Press.