Category Archives: Business

Elon Musk rips off title ‘World’s Richest Man’ from Jeff Bezos: Net worth $180 billion

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Bezos knocked from #1 slot that he has held since 2017

According to Bloomberg, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX just passed up Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person. While this, in and of itself is a fact that many will likely fetishize, the real story here is why and how.

There could not, IMHO, be two people more diametrically opposed in terms of motivation, inspiration and method. Both obscenely rich now? Of course. In each case because of stock holdings in companies they founded? Right again.

After that it is all a study in contrasts and contradictions. For example, as recently as Christmas eve 20o8 Elon Musk was nearly bankrupt and was on the verge of losing both SpaceX and Tesla. Later as recently as 2019, Tesla was in a deep financial hole.

Was this a case of bad management? Apparently not. What it was related to was the prime difference between Bezos and Musk. Musk has always only had one mission. Was it having the world’s most dominant eCommerce company? (or any other kind). One that would destroy entire business categories and be called the “grim reaper” due to it’s destruction of markets and competitors?

No – Musk has always wanted to save the world from itself. Tesla’s stated official mission is:

Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. … Teslabelieves the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.

Tesla / Elon Musk

Perhaps the cynical would say this is just some kind of veil hiding a capitalist and monopolist hunger a la Bezos. But they’d be wrong. Musk has openly stated that he is willing to share various proprietary technical information with his competitors if it would help the world’s transition to sustainable energy succeed faster. Would Bezos give away Amazon’s secrets. Take a guess.

Read more: Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why

Another interesting tidbit – Both SpaceX and Tesla have publicly disavowed all copyright claims to their photos, videos or other marketing assets. They also do zero paid advertising. This is brilliant and has made them money in the end, but more importantly it is additional proof that it is the success of the mission, a mission that ultimately benefits all humanity more than any singe individual, that is paramount in his thinking.

Though Musk may not realize it, he and Steve Jobs are kindred spirits

The only other highly successful tech visionary that had this kind of focus on the real success, which can by definition only ever be success for all, if Steve Jobs. With so much misinformation and focus on meaningless stats, like whose stock is worth the most paper dollars (printed at will by the Fed) at any given moment, it is often misunderstood that the mission and the sincerity and effectiveness of the mission that will always matter in the end.

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

Probably the greatest gift Bezos ever has or ever will give to humanity was via his divorce. Any other “charitable” act he will ever commit will be, first and foremost, have the goal of improving his image and stroking his massive ego.

Therein lies the difference.

Early Thursday Tesla shares (TSLA) rose by 6%, and further lifting the CEO’s stock holdings and options by $10 billion, resulting in the net worth of approximately $191 billion.  

Musk edged past the Amazon founder who is currently has the net worth of around $187 billion. 

He later added, “Well, back to work …”

Musk, who pinned the following past tweet from 2018 explained his intentions and how he will use money from his success, “You should ask why I would want money. The reason is not what you think. Very little time for recreation. Don’t have vacation homes or yachts or anything like that.”

Bill Gates is trailing as the third world’s richest person at $132 billion. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on  Big Tech,  Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple Innovation in 2021 and Beyond

Apple had a big year – but how big will first become apparent in 2021

By now, it is not unexpected for the latest iteration of the iPhone, iPhone 12 in this case, to do well and even best the competition across the board in any given year. While it is nearly an automatic ritual that doubt will be cast, and the demise or at least diminution of the iPhone and Apple are predicted, nearly every year the opposite in the case.

Read More: Apple 32-core M1X chips for Mac Pro are just the tip of the tip of a very important iceberg…

This year was different. There was plenty of doubt – but the surprise announcement of the M series of chips for mac and the even more surprising benchmarks and performance improvements pretty much obliterated the doubters. 

Not only that, but a layer beneath that headline news was a secondary layer of innovation and areas where long planned improvements came to fruition.

The first steps into a massive multi-year system software transition, one that will eventually merge the mobile operating systems of the iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, etc with the mac, moved seemingly ahead of schedule, with the huge improvements in iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur.

And all the various services such as Apple TV+ and many other offerings made huge strides as well. 

As a matter of fact, a list of all the upgrades, added features and new services and products would be so long and varied that the transcription is beyond the reach of a simple article such as this one. 

However, that alone is not where some of the biggest changes and most surprising evolutions have occurred. The real “action” so to speak is in the integration and unexpected by-products of the merging and deepening of all the new features and settings. 

Take for example the macs that feature the M1 chip. It is not the chip itself, not even the new operating system that has the most impact on the performance or usability of the machines. 

It is the integrated functionality of the various elements of the chips – Apple M1,  the first ARM-based system on a chip – composed of several different components including the CPU, GPU, unified memory architecture (RAM), Neural Engine, Secure Enclave, SSD controller, image signal processor, encode/decode engines, Thunderbolt controller with USB 4 support, all of which are made more powerful by the continuously upgraded software system.

This – a kind of invisible interactive and synergistic ecosystem – not only has at it’s heart the “whole widget” philosophy legacy of Steve Jobs, but also a new and insanely futuristic definition of “whole” which now includes these proprietary Apple chips (CPU, GPU, NE), plus A.I. / machine learning and system core operating as one continuously evolving and reinforcing “unit”. 

The future is already here, we just don’t see it like fish, maybe, never heard of a thing called water…

This new concept of the constantly increasing potential advancement in efficiency and power is not only the new standard basis for what constitutes computing technology at Apple, but will emerge as the ultimate re-definition of what “power” in computing means at all.

Similar to the internet – where the evolution and development is at stone age levels compared to where it will (and must) eventually reach in decades and even centuries, computing (or “personal” computing as it was dubbed in the last century) is also in very early and very primitive stages of evolution and this next step represents an early beginning, not a destination or accomplishment of a goal. 

Even Apple has stated that the initial transition of a unified operating system shared by mobile and desktop / laptop devices, iOS / macOS, will be years still in development and implementation. 

Meaning, in 2024 we may see the first real life trails and dissemination of a new kind of computing system, and, more importantly, computer assisted communicating, made possible by the complete integration of these hardware, software and A.I. advances. 

Just in time, because the threats of global warming, pandemics, political upheaval and economic disaster need, more than anything, enhanced learning and communication that can be aided, we must fervently hope, by improved digital tools. A better bicycle, so to speak. 


Fortunately, Apple has our back on this. And in 2021 more, much more will be revealed, if 2020 was any hint, of an exciting future not just for technology, but for the creative uses of it for the betterment of humankind. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Trump Continues to Block Stimulus Bill and has now Vetoed Massive $740 billion Defense Pkg.

The 14 day countdown to January 6th “Coup-Day” has begun

After threatening to veto the $900 billion stimulus package that was passed by congress on Monday, Trump has so far not officially done so and has not yet made further comments on the matter. The possibility of an actual veto means that the bill would not go forward without either changes to appease Trump or a vote to override the veto, if it comes to that. 

Representative Peter King, in an interview, not surprisingly called Trump a turncoat, essentially: 

“Why didn’t the president say this before? Why did his administration say it had to be $600? They were the ones driving this. Nancy Pelosi wanted $2,000 all along, and I’m not a Pelosi fan. Bernie Sanders wanted $2,000. The president and his administration refused to give it, and now he’s trying to somehow double back. He’s leaving Republicans out there hanging out to dry after signing off on an agreement and asking us to vote for it.”

Rep. Representative Peter King on the Joe Piscopo Show

Surprise, Trump double-crossed his Republican friends, imagine that.

This chaotic situation, so typical during the Trump years, means that there are three probable outcomes for the stimulus package so desperately needed by Americans.:

1. If Trump vetoes the Stimulus package:

The resolution of the situation could be delayed, indefinitely. The law allows 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto legislation. If he chooses not to act, the bill normally would become law.

However, in this case the stimulus package was attached to the government funding bill. Current funding expires on December 28th. Since the separate defense bill has already been vetoed by Trump (see below), there will likely be a session next week to attempt to override that veto. An additional vote could be added.

2. Trump sides with Democrats and Republicans fight this new (insane) Trump / Democrat coalition. 

In this case it’s possible that the Unanimous Consent request put forth by Democrats would be voted on, even by tomorrow, and passed. Unlikely but perhaps a Christmas miracle? 

3. Trump signs the bill anyway

Third possibility is that the original version of the bill is ultimately not blocked by Trump (he flip-flops), and then could go forward without an over-ride to the threatened potential veto. 

“If the president truly wants to join us in $2,000 payments, he should call upon Leader McCarthy to agree to our Unanimous Consent request” 

—Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Democratic Reps. Rashid Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., announced on twitter that they have crafted an amendment to raise the amount of the stimulus checks.

“Me and @AOC have the amendment ready,” “Send the bill back, and we will put in the $2,000 we’ve been fighting for that your party has been blocking.”

“We spent months trying to secure $2,000 checks but Republicans blocked it. Trump needs to sign the bill to help people and keep the government open and we’re glad to pass more aid Americans need.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer 

All of this along with a potential government shutdown on Monday, and today’s veto of the massive $740 billion defense bill that was already announced. The Senate voted overwhelmingly , with a veto-proof majority of 84 to 13, to approve the huge defense package but now face a necessary override vote. 

Trump threatened to veto this bill because there is no repeal of Section 230 in it. A repeal of Section 230 would be huge news, though unlikely, as it is a law shielding internet companies from any liability for third party postings on their websites.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook vs. Apple vs. Google vs. U.S. Gov: War of Giants is at Hand

Above: Photo ubisoft / Lynxotic

The battle is getting very public and will get louder and nastier

The full page newspaper ads taken out by Facebook, where they proclaim themselves the champion of small business and attack Apple directly are interesting and curious on many levels. 

It will take a series of articles to attempt to untangle the confusions and endless, often intentionally fostered, misconceptions that will most certainly arise in this battle of titans. 

At the heart of the matter is, however, the largest misconception humanly possible, the idea that these monstrously huge companies, and how they operate, are anything at all related to “normal”.

The fact that all of us have seen the role of the internet in general increase over the last 20+ years, and have therefore had to deal with, and in some cases, go through and cooperate with these behemoths, may be the status quo that has developed, particularly in the last decade, but it is without precedent on many levels. 

The size, power and influence is beyond comprehension and this clouds every issue

Before even beginning to contrast one giant against another one must first confront the very existence of entities of this magnitude. It’s fair to say that never in history has such a tiny group of companies, and by extension, individual humans, controlled so much of the economy and so much of that impacts the society and our experiences. 

This chart is not current. If it were the disparity would be far larger and even more astounding:

This information, for a human, is so out of whack that you would have to stare at this chart for days before it could even sink in. And, as it it only a chart of size, built on company market capitalization, the power and influence, which represents and ever larger disparity, is not represented. 

The dominance overall is so extreme as to be humanly incomprehensible. And by all measures the disparity between the big tech firms and “everybody else” grows literally by the second. 

If you are afraid of A.I., you’re too late, the world is already controlled by computers and software via these companies

Facebook is probably the best example to illustrate the problem of market power and dominance on a level that is so far beyond traditional methods of measurement that even government antitrust investigations are barely able to begin to access the potential violations.

“The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. “

— D.L.
Click Here to See “Automating Humanity
Also Available on Amazon.

The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. Since the iPhone and later Samsung / Android revolutionized information and photo sharing, it has been accepted as a simple reality that Facebook controls nearly all the “social networking” that is done with that data. Why?

What is Facebook? Most would say they are a “social media company” but that can mean anything you want it to mean. They claim they are in the business of “connecting people” yet they derive massive wealth and profit from advertising, and “monetizing” their network, the largest network of “social users”, by far. 

And if they are interested in connecting people, then what do those people own of the network that they themselves comprise? That would be nothing. 

What say do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally “are”? None. 

What trust do they have to surrender to the company, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and more (all controlled 100% by a guy named Zuckerberg)? 100%

“What ‘say’ do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally ‘are’? None.”

— D.L.

Who authorized Facebook (or Google) to amass vast databanks of private personal information from a huge chunk of the world’s population, and use that data to amass fortunes of unheard of size using secret proprietary algorithms that they have zero requirement to disclose? Well, technically, users, inadvertently and without understanding, did. Otherwise: No-one. 

Click Here to See “Weapons of Math Destruction
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Well, technically all of this was “allowed” via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, and states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This, effectively, protects websites and “platforms” such as Facebook, from lawsuits in the case that a “user” posts something illegal. There are exceptions, for example, for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.

This fact does not remove responsibility for building a system that gives massive financial benefit to Facebook, Google, etc and very little, in reality, by way of return or influence to the “user”.

It’s as if a man figured out a way to use mental-telepathy to rob banks and could never be caught or prosecuted due to the fact that no one had ever robbed a bank that way before. And then he claimed that he should be allowed to continue doing it forever, with impunity.

Click Here to See “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

What would Facebook and Zuckerberg have if the billions of “users” stopped using its network? Nothing. 

How little sense this makes just goes on and on. There could be 100s of pages of similar questions and answers and the end result would be a slightly better understanding of the absurdity of the very existence of such a “service” or company or whatever this is.

Why absurd? In a nutshell, Facebook controls private networks that exist “inside” a more public network called, for lack of a better term, “the internet”. And, because of what could be termed a mistake of history they represent a dominant, near monopoly, in the “space” which in this case is currently called “social networks”.

The dominance and the definition of monopoly can be argued endlessly (and likely will be in the coming antitrust cases) but, in the end, the numbers don’t lie. Only one person benefits, in direct payments of trillions of dollars, from a near monopoly in social networks. The billions of people, the very people who are the network, do not. 

A bleak analysis, perhaps, but is there any light at the end of this tunnel?

The current increase in antitrust cases, both in the US and Europe, is a canary-in the-coal-mine moment and the wars over all the arising issues has begun and will go on for years. 

Read more: The Markup is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates how powerful institutions are using technology to change our society and a great place to learn more about it

The fact that Facebook is heavily advertising that they are the “good guy” while Amazon and Google do the same, is both ridiculous and sad, since “good guys” don’t have to buy ads to draw attention to that fact. 

Click Here to See
Ten Argument for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

And the fact that these companies have already started, both in word and deed, to attack each other directly, is an indication of just how serious and all pervasive these mega-wars will be. This is just the beginning. 

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

While none of the companies depicted on the chart above can be said to be without blame for the world of injustice and malfunction that is the internet, and by extension, our world, there is one company that stands apart from the others in so many ways and for so many reasons that they, amazingly, represent some hope within the madness. 

And, not coincidently, they are the one that is already being attacked, in print and software, as the wars begin: Apple. 

How Apple actually represents hope to clean up the tech universe that, arguably, they are most responsible for having created, is likely a hard sell with those that want to lump all these huge companies together. Because, after all, they are all huge. 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. More on this and other burning questions in our next episode, so stay tuned. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook, Google, Antitrust and the All Pervasive Underestimation of the Big Tech Threat

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

The opinions expressed “pro” or “con” regarding big tech abuses of power are both overlooking far more serious issues that lie beneath

After years of public and insider opinion gradually shifting from a state of wonder, awe and hero worship of tech giants and their founders and CEOs, toward a more skeptical stance, and now, finally, government action begins; the fundamental issues that lie beneath are still barely mentioned, let alone widely understood.

In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.

While past antitrust cases were complex and difficult to understand fully, particularly for the general public, from the little known A & P case in the 30s and 40s to Standard Oil and Ma Bell / AT&T, in each case there were complex issues to address.

However, one simple thing tied them together that could be understood by virtually anyone: businesses that have a win-at-all-costs approach to business tactics and then achieve monopoly power almost always use that power to fulfill ambitions based on self-perpetuating greed at the expense of society as a whole.

Many, from all walks of life, particularly in the U.S., worship the ethos of “winner take all” and even if they are at the lowest levels of the economic ladder still cheer on the most ruthless and morally bankrupt “winners” as heroes, using a bizarre logic, that somehow they might one day see themselves in the winners circle.

This perspective is similar to societies where dictators, such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or emperors are worshiped fervently by the very people that are most exploited and downtrodden under their regimes. Perhaps this is a hardwired genetic human trait, impossible to alter.

In the case of tech giants of the internet era, beginning with Microsoft and its antitrust case, a similar dynamic is no less present, and, no different from the steps that dictators take to encourage obedience and worship from their subjects. In this case it’s massive amounts of money and power used for required self-serving PR and the brutal economic repression of any dissenting voices.

Try to find a book on Amazon’s Jeff Bezos that is not a hero-worship nonsense-title purporting to offer you a way to become a “business genius” like him. You will find a few exceptions, of course, these purporting to offer “hard-hitting” investigative journalism and a sober look at the “real facts”.

These will be watered down, meekly subservient, weak and impotent tombs barely scratching the surface of any negative perspectives on the real problems Amazon and its founder have created, not only for millions of people around the world but for society as a whole.

Even among those that are the most incisive and have a real desire to “dig-deep” and reach the roots of the real problems, there is often still the a priori assumption that somehow, the 26 year evolution of business models that could “succeed” in internet and software based business are to be measured on a scale that presumes that the business models themselves are basically valid, simply because they were able to survive and create massive, nearly immeasurable, wealth for a tiny handful of individuals. .

Taking into account the pervasive pro-big-business bias, it is a miracle in a sense, that the public opinion has shifted so far, to the point where antitrust actions can be seen as valid, by enough of the public at large, that these giant monopolistic tech companies are called into question at all.

The miracle, if we call it that, is only a reflection of just how purely evil and out of control the situation has become, and how many people have been harmed, and in how many different ways this harm has occurred.

From teen suicides to thousands of bankrupt and struggling small businesses to privacy rights trampled in the dirt, the list of abuses and harm, if it were ever brought to light, could fill a thousand page treatise and would read like a recounting of the atrocities of war.

And then there’s the fact that the war is fought with computer code and over territory that has no physical address

Much as collateralized debt obligations and other arcane “synthetic” financial products nearly collapsed the entire world economy in 2008, partially due to the intentional complexity, which served only to hide the stupidity, complex computer algorithms are now at the heart of an ever larger and even more dangerous economic debacle that continues to unfold.

And much of the lack of any pushback against this is the simple ability to hide behind the complex computer methods and concepts that have allowed tech giants to build an even bigger and more dangerous kind of monopolistic behavior than even the so called “Robber Barons” of the Gilded Age.

Even those, in government or in the press, who are pushing back are doing so with, apparently, little understanding of the real dangers that are buried in the code and in the tricks used by very sophisticated, technologically educated people in control of these trillion dollar behemoths.

For example, Facebook is already claiming that the government should not be able to question the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp because they already approved the mergers at the time they happened.

In his excellent article published on medium.com , Will Oremus points out:

But I looked up the FTC’s public statements following those reviews, and it states explicitly that the matter should not be considered permanently settled.

“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” the FTC’s closing letter said. It added, “The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also in that article, titled; ‘Competition Is for Losers’: How Peter Thiel Helped Facebook Embrace Monopoly the idea succinctly embodied in the title which refers to a Wall Street Journal piece on Thiel’s book “Zero to One” which he describes as having been “embraced as a business bible in Silicon Valley and beyond” and quotes from including this characterization:

(Thiel) made the case for monopoly as the ultimate goal of capitalism. Indeed, “monopoly is the condition of every successful business,” he asserted. With it, you’re free to set your own prices, think long-term, innovate, and pursue goals other than mere survival. Without it, you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.

And this provides the context within which the current struggle unfolds. To understand the real dangers of the total domination of the internet, which has become the vital lifeline of our economy and social existence, by a handful of trillion dollar companies, that not only embrace limitless greed and dictatorial status within their industry, but see it as the divine right that they hold, and believe they are entitled to aspire toward without interference.

And in another context such behavior would be known as immoral, destructive to society and social justice, and if the laws are adequate to apply; criminal.

And there’s the rub. The antitrust statutes, possibly already inadequate to take on this new kind of robber, have also been weakened since the 80s. Add to that how the pre-existing biases are heavily slanted toward minimizing any accountability for such behavior and is follows that any real reform must rise from the public at large.

The birth of the internet was anything but immaculate

The tragi-comic farce of the story, when seen through the lens of internet history, is how Facebook, Google and Amazon all followed the same absurd arc.

From “underdogs” with massive losses and no income to ridiculously “valuable” “FANG” members championed from the rooftops as heroic winners of darwinian battles to build out the internet for profit. And, finally, after decades of unfettered expansion, being seen more and more for what they are: profit-seeking scams using each a different method to restrain competition and destroy the most valuable asset humanity has ever built: the internet itself.

The complexity of the scams is still the most useful cloak for them to hide behind, each with a different insanely complicated way to force what is a public asset, the internet, into a tool for private greed, at the expense of any real innovation. And the victims are not the competitor firms that they might have destroyed (or bought), but rather the entire population of any territory that they control, with North America being the center of the empire.

The question asked for example of Google or Facebook should not be, “do they provide any services from the public can benefit, in exchange for their obscenely privileged monopoly control over “search” and “social networking”, respectively. The question should be “are they the best possible solution, from the perspective of what is in the best interest of society, for those extremely important functions in our new digital world.

It is not enough to say that “consumers have chosen” each as their go-to tool. If any company or group of companies could do a better job of enabling humanity to communicate, interact and become educated via the internet, why should those other solutions be buried forever under a mountain of greed and self-interest?

This is the infinitely elusive point: No different than Bernie Madoff, the damage they have wrought, by destroying what could have been, will only be understood once they are either gone or forced to cease what they depend on for domination, which would lead to their ultimate demise over time, just as Peter Thiel himself stated:

Without (a monoply), you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.

Or as Jeff Bezos explained, in what his become his predatory raison d’être: The competition is always one-click-away. This makes every other online seller, in his view, an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, no matter how small, no matter how weak.

In this sick paranoid view of the world it is truly an all or nothing struggle for survival, with death of all competitors, literally and figuratively, the only acceptable outcome.

With this mindset at the heart of these companies, and with the government and most of the press taking a milk-toast submissive approach (in contrast) the struggle to rein in these monstrous, utterly corrupt empires, will take years if not decades.

However, 2020 will always be seen as the beginning of the end the the gruesome mistake of history that these companies represent.

Companies that achieved dominance and monopoly control of a system meant for public benefit, through the most destructive methods they were able to devise, and then redoubled efforts infinitely to expand using those same destructive and corrupt methods.

In the end there is only one power large enough to intervene, as already at their current size, and while, like a virus, they double in power and economic domination almost annually, and that is the power of the billions that use their platforms everyday. Change will arise when they have damaged themselves by damaging the very societies they prey on, and once damaged, those societies will have no choice but to shed them like the murderous parasites that they are.

That will not happen anytime soon. The general view of these companies, is still very mild and forgiving. And it’s important to note that each case is different and this article applies only to Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Just as most have either forgiven or forgotten the massive bailouts that criminal companies were gifted during the 2008 financial crisis, the perception that these massive tech companies are at worst mildly anti-competitive and at best harmless and just practicing good, successful capitalism, will not be changed overnight.

It can only come after much more pain at the hands of this corrupt system that currently controls the internet, and therefore, our digital lives.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook Antitrust Case Kicks-off with a Bang: 46 States on board, Google Next Up as California Joins in

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.

“For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition. By using its vast troves of data and money, Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company perceived to be potential threats.”

–New York attorney general, Letitia James, representing the state group, at a news conference

After the 18 month long investigation, charges are finally arriving, well after Facebook has already made extensive retaliatory changes to its products. The changes that were implemented, which interlinked the functionality of Facebook apps with Instagram and WhatsApp, are clearly meant to try and make it technically impossible, or at least difficult for them to function separately again.

This amounts to a way of using computer code to fabricate a “moat”, basically an excuse or impediment which they hope, apparently, would make it impossible to reverse the changes, in the event they are forced to sell off the previously separate companies.

The brazen and obvious action which appears designed to impede and block any remedies that the court could impose is reminiscent of the now infamous “move fast and break things” motto often attributed to Mark Zuckerberg, and the, just as famous, Silicon Valley truism “Ask forgiveness not permission”.

This kind of preemptive obstruction, while not necessarily illegal in any way, is nevertheless a perfect reflection of the attitude also associated with Facebook via Peter Thiel: “Competition is for Losers” phrase which stems from title of a WSJ article on Thiel’s book and which was adopted fondly by the billionaire.

It is important, from a layman’s perspective, to note that being big or being, effectively, a monopoly, is not enough, necessarily, to justify drastic government imposed remedies. The behavior, however, in other words, wether or not there was abuse of the power a monopoly affords, is crucial.

In the past several years Facebook has been found to be guilty of abuses, primarily in European cases, as have Google and Amazon. All the evidence, so pervasive as to be easily noted by even a casual observer, points to a pattern of behavior that could be seen, and possibly even proven to be, predatory and abusive of market power.

The response from Facebook has been anything but substantive, with the initial defense being a very weak statement that the government should not be allowed “do-overs”:

“Those acquisitions were cleared and if you can buy a company, and eight years, 10 years later, the government can clear them and unwind it — that’s going to be a really big chilling problem for American business, we are not going to be competitive around the world,”

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, in a recent interview with Tamron Hall

The facts in no way back up this surprisingly flaccid response, since the mergers were, in fact never, “approved” just not blocked at the time, and in public statements, in writing, the FTC clearly and specifically stated:

“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.”

As for the decades old “we are not going to be competitive around the world,” comment that is the oldest excuse for awarding big internet companies with special status to run amok going back to Al Gore’s “Internet Superhighway” exemptions from the early 90s.

To quote Kara Swisher in a recent New York Times opinion piece:

“Those charged with regulation have given companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon a very wide berth to grow into some of the most valuable entities in the history of the planet. Their founders are among the richest people ever.”

— Kara Swisher, in the New York Times

And, in case anyone is feeling sorry for poor Facebook, it’s also pertinent to point out that what they claim to need or be entitled to is exactly the kind of special treatment and license to break rules that others would have to abide by.

And that status and privilege is exactly what enabled Facebook (and Amazon and Google) to become so massive and so intensely inclined toward abuse of market power in the first place.

“Action as the public interest may require. “ Remember that phrase, you may be hearing it often, over the next few years, in relation to Facebook, Google and Amazon. And, in the end, it is the public verdict in the marketplace that will ultimately have the power to intercede with enough force to achieve change.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple leak: Hardware Reveal Event Likely on December 8th

Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Hints and Leaks are becoming commonplace – this time it’s the features that wow

Rumor Reports have surfaced that Apple is planning a hardware reveal event for December 8th, 2020, likely at the usual 11am PT time slot. The leak was said to some from an internal memo, and Service providers have been told to expect changes on Tuesday. MacRumors reports that this type of prior warning to suppliers has coincided historically with new products being launched.

What product(s) might be launched?

 It’s not likely that a major product will be launched (so no new MacBook or iPhone, for example), but some possibilities that have been mentioned are an AppleTV update or the ever elusive AirTags.

AirTags have been in development for months now. However, Apple has kept most details on the elusive product under wraps. We expected to hear some specifics on the AirTags at the company’s September and October press events, but although those occasions offered lots of other exciting launches, they remained silent on the Tags.

Read More: Apple iPhone 12 Pro Models are Coming Immediately and There’s More

Only now have two new Apple patents come out for AirTags, featuring illustrations and suggestions about how the devices might work and where they could be useful— The answers might be more expansive than we thought.

In essence, AirTags are exactly what we expected them to be: Apple products akin to a Tiles, which can be placed on any object and thus track it. Intuitively, their primary function is to help users find lost items such as keys, wallets, or phones by sending out a locational signal to Apple devices. Reportedly, these signals will be more precise than any GPS, directing people to within feet of the Tag.

The new patents, however, suggest that the AirTags’ tracking abilities could be useful beyond just recovering everyday items. They could, for example, be attached to emergency equipment like fire extinguishers or defibrillators, helping people find such crucial tools in unfamiliar environments. They could also be used to track people via Apple Watches or the wristbands featured in the patent illustrations. While tracking human beings raises major ethical questions, it could also save lives in the events of kidnappings or missing people.

Read More: Apple debuts ‘Apple One’ – offers mega Bundling service that will compete against the technological hegemony

Beyond such grave alternatives, the patents also suggest more leisurely uses for the AirTags. By attaching them to one’s body, they could serve as advanced gears in augmented reality gaming platforms, or play a role in the new Apple Fitness+ app by monitoring posture and other health matters.

Tags could also be placed in public areas to send signals directly to other Apple devices with useful information such as maps and guides. The patent offers the example of a business placing a Tag at its entrance, ensuring that everyone who enters receives a map of the building.

When Apple delays (as with the MagSafe surprise just announced) good things happen…

As of right now, rumor has it that the AirTags will launch in March 2021, but given their perpetual delays so far and the precarious state of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard to say for sure when these devices will really become available. Nevertheless, the latest patents suggest that AirTags are going to be much more than mere Tile replicas. With that in mind, perhaps they will also be more worth the wait.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Check out all our Apple Coverage

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Amazon declines to join Google, Facebook and Microsoft in French “Tech for Good Call”

As antitrust suits loom, a digital tax appears as additional government option

Related to French “digital tax” hopes, and which may have future repercussions for other tech related regulation attempts, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have” signs on for the “Tech for Good Call”. Amazon has declined which Apple continues to negotiate, according to reports. 

A list was released by the French government with signatures of 75 executives of tech companies who have signed up to the initiative so far. Notably, the list included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft President Brad Smith. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook were absent, however. 

Read more: Apple is Coming: Facebook, Amazon and Google Surveillance facing US scrutiny and danger from New Software

For nearly three years President Emmanuel Macron of France has attempted to  convince  tech giants to begin collaborating with governments to seek remedies for a list of global challenges. Examples are; fighting hate speech online, preserving privacy or paying a so-called “digital-tax”, presumably to offset negative economic effects of the overwhelming dominance of big tech.

Reuters reports that Macron’s advisers said on Monday that the president had asked tech companies to sign up to a new initiative called “Tech for Good Call” underlining principles for the post-COVID world. This development comes as “anti-big-tech” sentiment is increasing, particularly during the massive profit spike the giants are enjoying due to a devastating world-wide pandemic.

A general publicity based initiative could be leverage for negotiations to rein in tech giants

Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent  the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.

Read more: Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare War

Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.

In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.

In an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, citing multiple sources, that federal and state regulators are preparing four or more antitrust cases against the two online giants, separate from the antitrust case that the DOJ and 11 states launched against Google in October

The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.

Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent  the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.

Read more: Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare War

Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.

In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.

In an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, citing multiple sources, that federal and state regulators are preparing four or more antitrust cases against the two online giants, separate from the antitrust case that the DOJ and 11 states launched against Google in October

The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.

“The supportive chorus of elected officials is giving assurance to [the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)] and the [Federal Trade Commission (FTC)] that they have the political support they need to blunt [the companies’] efforts … to pressure the agencies to back off or water down their cases,” former FTC Chairman William Kovacic told WSJ.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable EnergyRacial Equality & Justice and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Small Business Dilemma: are Big Solutions Hiding in plain sight?

https://cdn.useriver.com/RiverTrailer_v2.mp4

Above:Content Discovery App – River video Clip Introduction

An Unlikely Holy Grail: User Sophistication and the Will to Exist Online

In late 2018 a small firm was looking into opportunities in organizing an online co-op for small businesses (CSSinc), similar to the co-ops created by farmers during the great depression. Where else to start than a trade show of more than 1000 small businesses in Las Vegas. In an informal test, they checked all the web sites listed in the show directory as an indicator of the state of web sophistication among the participants.

Story Cover feature image by Joshua Chun 

Shockingly, nearly 90% were either primitive and barely functioning or not functioning at all, yielding a 404 error or “site not found”.

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe

Naturally the 10% that were functioning, a few of which at a high level, were all the largest companies attending the show. With costs to set up, and even designing a company web site, at an all time low, why would so many pass up the opportunity to make use of this powerful tool?

‘This is Water’  and the internet dilemma that has swallowed the world

From The New Yorker:

In 2005, David Foster Wallace addressed the graduating class at Kenyon College with a speech that is now one of his most read pieces. 

In it, he argues, gorgeously, against “unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.” He begins with a parable:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

This oft quoted passage is about how the world around us can be easily misunderstood by lack of awareness. And, maybe, by the lack of any perceived need to notice what’s really going on. 

The two most shocking things about the anecdote above, regarding 90% of small businesses lack of internet presence (or sophistication), are how this could be the case after more than 20 years of the internet being at the center of commerce and, well, life, and what it says about the “water” we are all swimming in. 

Read more: Apple Search is Coming: Google, Facebook & Amazon Surveillance

2020 is the year that the internet became even more important for all our lives. Less obvious is that it is also the year that the problems and obstacles are more important than ever to overcome, and that starts with seeing the water we are all swimming in. 

The Social Dilemma’ is also a Small Business Dilemma

In this acclaimed documentary (available on Netflix) a lot of both problems and solutions focus on the dangers of the current giant-tech dominated internet environment on the “end-user” and the general public. 

The Social Dilemma on Netflix

While that sphere of influence is a serious and growing problem, it is the control and domination by a few massive companies, to the virtual exclusion of smaller businesses, that, to a large degree caused the sick, twisted inequitable and unfair system in the first place. 

The relative size imbalance is literally so massive that it is rendered incomprehensible, and, like water to the fish mentioned above, invisible. 

A happy shiny logo of, say, coca-cola, looks just as harmless (or menacing, depending on the perspective) as that of Amazon or Facebook, who may be hundreds of times larger in market-cap than the soft-drink giant with long history as a “big” American company. Size of this magnitude is impossible to conceive of by most of us.

But the perception of the giants that control the internet as harmless, or even beneficial and to be admired, is rapidly changing. Therein also lies the potential for probably the only hope of positive change for small business and for society in the US and across the globe. 

A Revolution of Perception is Required and already Underway

Part of the problem, one that is growing, admittedly, every day, is the sheer scale of the inequity and corruption. Why even try, as a small business, to go up against the giants that “own” the water we swim in?

Ultimately what is necessary is a sea-change (forgive the continued metaphor) within overall population, both consumers and small businesses. And that starts with the perception that it is the “people” that decide how and what the internet will be who will be “permitted” to interact. An Algorithm own as proprietary secret software by an internet behemoth? Or a decentralized more kaleidoscopic solution that was an inherent promise from the initial days of the internet’s creation?

The signs of change are all around. The “direct to consumer” trend that has produced massive success stories also paved the way for the emerging system of smaller companies being able to reach out directly and actually do business with customers with, sometimes, minimal involvement of the giants. 

The signs that this can work are gradually being seen – shopify’s success in offering software and services to businesses wanting to establish a direct connection to buyers is a growing trend. There are many other companies that have recognized the trend and are trying to ride this wave toward a different method of communication between businesses and so-called consumers. 

Here are some examples of companies that are taking a new approach to the way we communicate and interact online:

However, the ultimate driver of positive change in the internet will be the increased sophistication of users, both professional and at the individual level. 

User Sophistication and Trust: an unlikely but all-important Grail

Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, TikTok and more have all embraced direct in-app-shopping as a way to expand beyond content.  Even Google has started a program to allow buyers to purchase from search results without leaving the platform. While these initiatives are all coming from the giant tech firms themselves, they are, ultimately, sowing the seeds of their own demise. 

They are, in essence, teaching buyers to forego the now standard system of choosing between Amazon and “the rest” in online shopping. This choice, helped along by billions in losses to subsidize “impossibly low” prices plus free shipping paid for by Amazon’s loss-leader strategies, was never a fair or realistic one and created the massive, unsustainable imbalances in online commerce we see today. 

The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1-click-away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.

D.L.

The greatest obstacle has never been the massive price-dumping schemes or even the sell-at-a-loss free shipping concept that kept buyers from having a second choice in e-commerce. It has been the lack of user sophistication of the sellers and the buyers in the online forum which prevented easier movement from one online option to another. 

The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1 click away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.

So called “moats” and systems to block users from initiating and exercising choice are built-up and keep getting deeper and more complex. But sophisticated users can, and eventually will, easily just opt-out at any time, when alternatives that they prefer begin to proliferate. 

And there is a growing and invisible ocean that already exists all around us. As far-fetched as it may seem “the ocean we swim in” will one day be in no way similar to the deeply problematic one we swim in today and a thorough a change from the bottom up as well as the top down will, finally, bring about a new era in online communication and commerce. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable EnergyRacial Equality & Justice and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Father of Fractals is Google Doodle Star: Who is Benoit Mandelbrot?

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1329770660177047552/pu/vid/640x640/L6CqbeZPCfEz6Q9S.mp4?tag=10

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Mathematics and Philosophy meet in Fractal Pioneer’s Unique Career

Benoit Mandelbrot, the renowned French-American mathematician, died on October 14th, 2010 at the age of 85, and would have turned 96 today.  To celebrate, Google published a doodle in his honor.   An additional part of the celebration, Google launched an  interactive “Explore” feature to allow users to view the endless patterns of the Mandelbrot set. 

Click to see “Fractals and Chaos
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

If you don’t know what a fractal is, simply put, it is a never-ending pattern.  As defined by the Fractal Foundation: “They are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.  They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop“. There are many examples of fractals in nature, in fact virtually all natural phenomena can be seen as being fractal based. 

Mandelbrot is best known for fractal geometry, which is a term he coined in 1975 to describe a new branch of geometry that sought to explain of the irregular shapes and processes found within nature.  His research has contributed valuable knowledge in many different fields including physics, medicine, geology, art and even finance. 

Wide ranging influence continues to this day

His fractal theory have even found its way into pop culture, with graphical images created by his algorithm placed on t-shirts, posters, album covers, and even inspired a song called “Mandelbrot Set” by Jonathan Coulton and the text “The Colours of Infinity” by Arthur C. Clarke. 

The mathematician won numerous awards, including the prestigious ‘Wolf Prize” in 1993 for Physics and even had a small asteroid named in his honor in 2000 called ’27500 Mandelbrot’.

Mandelbrot made significant contributions to the study of financial markets as a fractal based system that conforms to the concept that all of nature, and the entire universe, is also fractal based. A great body of overlapping work exists between the studies of the financial markets done by Mandelbrot himself as well as the way his fractal concepts figured into the work of Ralph Nelson Elliott and Robert Prechter of the ElliottWave.com

The basis of Elliott’s theory is to describe price movements in financial markets as recurring, fractal wave patterns. This core insight was, in essence an outgrowth of the recognition that, when looking at various time frames in stock market charts, and therefore the human behavior that generated those patterns, the result is no different than looking at, for example, a sea coastline from various altitudes – which reveals a fractal. 

The insight that produced this theory not only established and inspired the stock trading strategy based on the Elliott Wave Theory, but also more recently led to Robert Prechter’s Socionomic Theory. Socionomics is a new science using the benefits of Elliott Wave Theory in understanding not only finance and economics but also social behavior, popular culture and politics which can be seen as interpreting nature using fractal based concepts. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Mandelbrot,  Big TechEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Alibaba’s post-COVID Singles’ Day sales event tops $74 Billion

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Increased sales showcase China’s recovering economy post-pandemic 

Alibaba Group Holding Limited held its annual Singles’ Day sales event and shattered its 2019 sales.  The event, which is typically held on the 11th of November was extended an additional 3 days and contributed to the large number of sales.  

Read More: PS5 vs. Xbox X – The next-gen consoles to go head to head this week

This year, the shopping extravaganza yielded huge number with the company reporting $75.1 billion dollars (498.2 billion yuan). These numbers have already beaten the record haul that last years Singles’ Day event brought in at $40.5 billion (268.4 billion yuan). 

Although it’s often dubbed as China’s equivalent to Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Singles’ Day is much bigger. This year,  Nov 1-3 kicked off the event, with the sales event ending midnight of 11/11.

Xiaofeng Wang, an analyst for Forrest Market Research commented on the consumer’s post-covid consumption habits, “China’s economy has seen a strong recovery and Chinese consumers’ purchase behaviors have already returned to pre-pandemic levels, if not higher”. 

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1326577603696709632/vid/1280x720/lLdvpq6ECV5ymEkp.mp4?tag=13
Recap of singles’ day 2020 / alibaba group twitter account

A modern China remake of Cyber Monday 

The origin of Singles’ Day comes from the event’s date, 11/11 or “double eleven,” which references the number one as it relates to being single and not in a relationship (one is the loneliest number after all). When it first occurred in 2009, it was a kind of an anti-Valentine’s Day when single people could splurge and purchase gifts for themselves.

 In its more recent years, Singles’ Day has welcomed all, regardless of their relationship status, and has turned into a major online shopping event where consumers across the globe can buy name brand items at discounted prices. 

Because of its worldwide popularity, this ‘single’-day sales event was eventually rebranded into the Global Shopping Festival in 2015 as it became more like a “holiday season celebrated by merchants and consumers worldwide.”

Although Alibaba is a Chinese e-commerce site, nearly half a billion shoppers participate around the world as they bolster global reach through its multiple websites dedicated to handling sales between China and specific global regions, with Hong Kong, US, Australia, UK, and Japan accounting for some of the international buyers that take part. 

Last year, the event’s launch included a countdown celebration gala with big-name musical performances from Jackson Yee, G.E.M. and Taylor Swift.  Due to the stark difference from last year and China still recovering from the pandemic, Alibaba decided to scale back on live events and instead relied on live-streaming. For the 2020 event, pop star Katy Perry made an online appearance to perform one of her hit songs during the gala late Tuesday night. 

Alibaba has reported stronger than previous expected earning for its fiscal second quarter, undoubtedly following China’s ease of the coronavirus lockdown restrictions. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple Search Plans & Potential are Casting a Massive Shadow on Google Anti-Trust Case

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Search Battle Lynxotic Predicted is about to Breakout Big time

In a year that has already offered AppleOne5G, and perpetual AirTag teases, Apple Inc might have yet another major project hidden up its sleeve. According to a report from the Financial Times, the tech company has recently partaken in research and development indicative of creating a new original search engine.

Read More: Apple iPhone 12 Pro Models are Here and There’s More

For years, Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices. This is part of an ongoing deal between the two companies where Google pays Apple a pretty penny to foreground their services. Now, however, Google is facing an antitrust suit from the Department of Justice. This case claims that Google has a monopoly over search and directly sites its relationship with Apple as evidence.

If the DOJ manages to win against Google, it could be the end of its search engine arriving pre-encrypted in all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Thus, an in-house Apple search engine comes at an opportune time. Not only will it provide Apple with a new default search platform, but it will also muster some competition against Google— one of the things that the antitrust case desperately calls for.

Any Engine at All by Apple is Earth-shattering to the Status Quo of Big Tech

Nothing is set in concrete about this speculative Apple search engine yet. All we know for sure is that the latest version of iOS 14 shows signs of increased search technology. Under the upgraded operating system, iPhone users can type in questions directly on their devices’ home screens and arrive at Internet results without any middleman. This has also led to an uptick in Apple’s spidering tools, which comb and datafy the web for a smoother search experience. 

These changes in iOS 14 are subtle, but given the context, they could be laying the seeds for something much larger. Tellingly, former Google head of search John Geannandrea also oversees these recent Apple advancements. Geannandrea joined Apple three years ago, and while his main focus at the company has been Siri thus far, he obviously has the expertise and experience for helming a Google-like project.

Some believe that Siri is the base of Apple’s increased search interests. Perhaps the new technologies are simply working to refine the voice assistant rather than setting up a wholly alternative Google competitor. At the same time, though, with the proper expansion, Siri could very well evolve into a worthy Google rival, especially if it becomes the one-stop search engine on all Apple devices.For now, users will just have to wait while events unfold. Experts say that the antitrust case against Google will go on for years, and if Apple is indeed developing its own search engine alternative, it will likely take just as long.


Check out all our Apple Coverage

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Looming Economic Collapse and Ways to Prepare; Historic Echos and Warnings

Photo Collage / Book Publishers

2008 and it’s Aftermath was a Wake Up Call that was Heeded by Virtually No-one

There are many good films on the economic collapse of 2008 (The Big Short is a favorite), also known as “The Great Recession” for fear of using the “D” word. Books too have opined on the lessons learned and, in some cases, taken dubious credit for the “rescue” of the world economy.

Read More: Conspiracy Theories are gaining adherents like never before: where’s the Reality?

Watched or read closely, these books, with the exclusion of the self-congratulatory ones mentioned above, all point to a sobering conclusion: the underlying issues that nearly led to a protracted worldwide economic collapse were not solved or fixed but “the can was simply kicked further down the road”.

Unfortunately, they also agree that “further down the road”, currently around 11 years later, translates to “soon”. Accordingly, we’d all be wise to revisit the 2008 crisis and read some of the conclusions, in detail, that have been drawn from a deeper study of the remaining and very serious issues faced as we go further forward into the 2020’s.

So much of our destinies are tied to economics, it is always a wise area to begin to look for solutions to all macro-dilemmas 

Of course, now, in a crowded life-raft of a planet, we also have the rising threat of Climate Change, the ongoing and terrifying challenges associated with global pandemics and sociopolitical trends, that point towards anything but harmonious co-operation, within and between societies around the world. 

All the more reason to embrace what at times appears to be the lone bright spot, in this saga of seemingly-endless doom and gloom: we have educational resources available and the modern marvel of human-networked-communication devices (a.k.a. the internet and the software and hardware we use to access it), is becoming a more powerful ally by the hour. 

Here are books we highly recommend to start your journey towards your heroic contributions to finding solutions and hope, as we look to the future:

The Great Devaluation: How to Embrace, Prepare, and Profit from the Coming Global Monetary Reset

Click here to see “The Great Devaluation
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

The Great Devaluation is the #1 bestselling book that explains why the real crisis facing the world today is not the Coronavirus. The real crisis facing the world is explosive government debt and deficits. Governments are now left with no choice but to spend more than they make, borrow more than they can ever repay, and devalue their currencies to cover it all up.

Former Hollywood storyteller Adam Baratta brings monetary policy to life in this follow-up to his national bestseller, Gold Is A Better Way. You’ll learn how and why Federal Reserve polices have facilitated an explosion in government debt and have systematically undermined the world financial system in the name of profit. The result? An out of control system where financial inequality has become a ticking time bomb set to blow up the global economy. Click here to see “The Great Devaluation” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.

Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

Click here to see “Crashed
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

We live in a world where dramatic shifts in the domestic and global economy command the headlines, from rollbacks in US banking regulations to tariffs that may ignite international trade wars. But current events have deep roots, and the key to navigating today’s roiling policies lies in the events that started it all–the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath.

Despite initial attempts to downplay the crisis as a local incident, what happened on Wall Street beginning in 2008 was, in fact, a dramatic caesura of global significance that spiraled around the world, from the financial markets of the UK and Europe to the factories and dockyards of Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, forcing a rearrangement of global governance. With a historian’s eye for detail, connection, and consequence, Adam Tooze brings the story right up to today’s negotiations, actions, and threats–a much-needed perspective on a global catastrophe and its long-term consequences. Click here to see “Crashed” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.

Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, Seventh Edition

Click here to see “Manias, Panics, and Crashes
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

This seventh edition of an investment classic has been thoroughly revised and expanded following the latest crises to hit international markets. Renowned economist Robert Z. Aliber introduces the concept that global financial crises in recent years are not independent events, but symptomatic of an inherent instability in the international system.

Covering such topics as the history and anatomy of crises, speculative manias, and the lender of last resort, this book puts the turbulence of the financial world in perspective. Click here to see “Manias, Panics, and Crashes” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.

The Fed and Lehman Brothers: Setting the Record Straight on a Financial Disaster

Click here to see “The Fed and Lehman Brothers
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

The bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers was the pivotal event of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed. Ever since the bankruptcy, there has been heated debate about why the Federal Reserve did not rescue Lehman in the same way it rescued other financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns and AIG. The Fed’s leaders from that time, especially former Chairman Ben Bernanke, have strongly asserted that they lacked the legal authority to save Lehman because it did not have adequate collateral for the loan it needed to survive.

Based on a meticulous four-year study of the Lehman case, The Fed and Lehman Brothers debunks the official narrative of the crisis. It shows that in reality, the Fed could have rescued Lehman but officials chose not to because of political pressures and because they underestimated the damage that the bankruptcy would do to the economy. The compelling story of the Lehman collapse will interest anyone who cares about what caused the financial crisis, whether the leaders of the Federal Reserve have given accurate accounts of their actions, and how the Fed can prevent future financial disasters. Click here to see “The Fed and Lehman Brothers” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.

Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System–And Themselves

Click here to see “Too Big to Fail
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

Brand New for 2018: an updated edition featuring a new afterword to mark the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis. The brilliantly reported New York Times bestseller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington to give the definitive account of the crisis, the basis for the HBO film.

In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin–a New York Times columnist and one of the country’s most respected financial reporters–delivers the first definitive blow-by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world’s economy. Click here to see “Too Big to Fail” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.

Crash of 2008 and What It Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets

Click here to see “The Crash of 2008
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also available on Amazon.

In the midst of one of the most serious financial upheavals since the Great Depression, George Soros, the legendary financier and philanthropist, writes about the origins of the crisis and proposes a set of policies that should be adopted to confront it.

Soros, whose breadth of experience in financial markets is unrivaled, places the crisis in the context of his decades of study of how individuals and institutions handle the boom and bust cycles that now dominate global economic activity. In a concise essay that combines practical insight with philosophical depth, Soros makes an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the great credit crisis and its implications for our nation and the world. Click here to see “The Crash of 2008 and What it Means” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Economic CrisisPolitics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Launch of SpaceX’s Starlink and iPhone 12 5G highlights inferior US Broadband: will shake-up ISPs

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / SpaceX

The problem of slow and expensive broadband access in the USA is not a technological one. The US lags behind due to the pseudo-geographical monopolies held by various ISPs and the ability they have enjoyed to be able to gouge customers with high priced bad service. Lack of competition often results in slow progress or no progress. 

That is all about to change. You don’t need to have a technician to analyze the various 5G systems, or compare carriers chances of “winning” to realize that the very fact that speeds and options are increasing exponentially is going to re-write the map when it comes to who controls the cash-cow subscription gravy train. That system is about to collapse.

Read More: The iPhone 12 could see a Serious Sales Boom for Apple due to 5G and Starlink Internet

In steps Elon, and his little copy-cat-side-kick Jeffy Bezos, and now the landscape is about to become unrecognizable

First, 5G speeds rival or exceed the former fixed / desktop speeds which had commanded a premium for the geographically entrenched providers. 5G home systems will also be available in many areas that will be competitive in speed, price and convenience.

SpaceX’s Starlink is a serious project; with nearly 1000 satellites already in orbit out of an eventual 12,000 and launches continuing almost weekly with 60 each time. This ambitious plan will eventually completely encircle the earth with interconnected satellites that will link through intermediary “ground stations” with up to 1 million planned for USA alone. Each ground station is just under 19 inches (.48 m) across.

Read More: Elon Musk broadband milestone as SpaceX Starlink Public beta begins, nearly 800 Satellites Orbiting

“It looks like a UFO on a stick,” according to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk “It’s very important that you don’t need a specialist to install. The goal is for … just two instructions and they can be done in either order: Point at sky, plug in.”

Satellite Broadband, such as SpaceX’s Starlink will not only add ubiquitous 100mbps and higher, low latency coverage, it will also cover the same areas with high population density, major cities, where both current systems and 5G are also focusing. 

Exact pricing is as yet unknown but it is extremely likely that there will be a high pitched battle over customers once the various systems go into the next phase of the rollout. And all of this is not factoring in additional players in 5G and satellite systems.

Longer term (2 years +) there will be major world-wide implications of this shift toward more and faster options in internet connectivity

The first shift, primarily driven by the geographical independence of satellite broadband such as Starlink, will be a decentralization of populations at massive scale. While we are looking at a world where, due to the current pandemic countermeasures, WFH a.k.a. work-from-home is becoming more than a temporary factor. As many as 20 major companies such as Google and Microsoft have announced extended or permanent work-from-home policies as of October 2020. 

There are already plenty of very serious discussions about what will be done with all the skyscrapers and office buildings once there are no workers to fill the offices. This is not idle chit-chat. A migration has already begun away from the insanely overpriced rents and home prices in places like Silicon Valley, to take advantage of the work-from-home-anywhere approach.

Extrapolate based on increased speed and availability of connectivity to millions of locations not currently viable, each of which soon to have internet at minimum speeds rivaling the current world champion Liechtenstein (see above), and you will recognize the beginnings of an exodus of epic proportions.

Just in time, unfortunately, for an economic upheaval due to the aftermath of the still-ongoing global pandemic and, of yes, the issues of accelerated global warming, which will, coincidentally, affect costal “elite” cities like Miami, SanFrancisco, New York and others around the world to a disproportionally large degree. 

“The reality is that a technological utopian vision, one where the world is able to shift to sustainable energy and regenerative farming, and create economies based on prosperous and equal distribution of the wealth generated by those systems, [along with AI and robot technology powered by sustainable clean energy], can only be realized by an acceleration of learning and positive social change. “

-DL

These changes, to be clear, are not all “bad” nor are they all the cause of negative side-effects such as the current covid-19 outbreak. 

The reality is that a technological utopian vision, one where the world is able to shift to sustainable energy and regenerative farming, and create economies based on prosperous and equal distribution of the wealth generated by those systems, [along with AI androbot technology, powered by sustainable clean energy), can only be realized by an acceleration of learning and positive social change

Change is urgently needed to build out the human networked communication system that will enable the learning and cooperation which is the only hope for the survival of our species. 5G, the iPhone 12 and SpaceX’s Starlink Satellite Broadband are going to be huge factors, in making the first baby-steps toward that change, possible.. 


Check out all our Apple Coverage

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Exaggerated Confusion around 5G and iPhone 12 is the beginning of a new era for internet access

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Apple

Most articles on 5G since the Apple iPhone 12 launch event on October 13th have been looking in the rearview mirror to predict the future: 5G will “disappoint” due to the slow buildout, technical limitations of the format, and various issues with all the competing systems and carriers, and these arguments are casting doubt on the much touted potential. 

This perspective misses the point on so many levels it’s difficult to know where to begin to unpack the myriad of misunderstandings.

Read More: The Real Meaning of 5G, iPhone 12 Pro and the SpaceX Race to build Satellite Broadband

Much of the technical discussion has been focused on the various flavors of 5G and the associated limitations and advantages of each. The fact that the fastest 5G, which goes by the sub-category moniker millimeter wave, is not instantly available everywhere for the 5G capable iPhones, and that they will not be in the hands of most consumers before next year, has been met with feigned shock and bewilderment.

And further, they highlight the confusion mounting over the various providers and the various flavors: 5G, 5G E, 5G UW or 5G+ as they are designated by “service indicators” on the iPhone 12 itself.  Verizon Communications Inc., T-Mobile US Inc. and AT&T Inc. each have their own systems they have developed and are building out – looking for a piece of the 5G market, expected to be around $1.15 trillion by 2025.

Read More: Apple iPhone 12 Pro Models are Coming Immediately and There’s More

First and foremost – since Apple and iPhone are the leader of all innovations in the marketplace – not necessarily by the sheer number of handsets sold, but by the focus on increasing technical and aesthetic quality and appealing to the top demographic,  not to mention the majority of early adopters, it is precisely the fact that, until now, the iPhone 5G handset did not yet exist, and for that reason the buildout is not further along. 

The fact that in real-world tests it is already performing at up to 7 times the fastest previously available connections, was coupled inevitably with the caveat; physical locations where these speeds can be accomplished are currently hard to find. 

Due to the technical issues with this ultra-high speed version of 5G, the inability to travel more than very short distances and the lack of ability to penetrate obstacles or walls, the possibility to get these amazing speeds are, at present, more likely to be found in outdoor locations. 

This is, admittedly, an odd conundrum, but you can be sure, with the upcoming massive increase in competition for ISP customers, it is one that will find at least some viable solutions very soon. There are many billions at stake for those that can find ways to improve this issue. 

“Standing in front of a camera store in South of Market, I got 5G speeds reaching 2,160 megabits a second, which was 2,900 percent faster than 4G. Even where it was a tad slower — behind the Safeway parking lot in the Marina district — the 5G iPhone drew speeds of 668 megabits a second, which was 1,052 percent faster than 4G.”

 – Brian X. Chen for the New York Times

The carriers have not had the market to build for and needed to be pushed by a huge influx of iPhone 12 owners. Then, meaning now, they will begin to compete with one another for that extremely lucrative group of users. And that rising competitive battle is not the only one looming on the horizon. 

Regardless of the ultimate time frame of the build-out, there is an obvious and very meaningful conclusion that we can reach here: 1 year from now things will look very different in the options available for those who want to work and play with the help of a faster internet connection (meaning, obviously, everybody).

RankCountryDownload Speed (Mbps)Upload Speed (Mbps)# Download Tests# Upload TestsNo. IPs
1Liechtenstein199.2839.78969810
2Hong Kong112.3291.4047825589933
3Denmark107.7866.022149522217912
4Switzerland93.6041.4465614743501907
5Netherlands93.4827.5889478939709044
6Sweden91.3686.0420812238752071
7Iceland80.1924.3031443555
8Finland79.4018.39948710395526
9Andorra76.6756.2015917633
10Bermuda74.2119.2758963146
11San Marino61.899.76433
12Norway58.9549.7313841142982083
13United States54.9910.4519723352126398364898
SOURCE / fastmetrics

As can be seen from the chart above (source: fastmetrics) in early 2020 the US ranked 13th in desktop download speed while mobile speeds ranked even worse coming in at #33 (various sources have US at #10 for fixed broadband). Liechtenstein is nearly 4x faster, on average, than the US. Also note that the highest average is one-tenth to one-twentieth of the eventual “ideal conditions” speeds of 5G.

The future of connectivity can only get better and faster from here. And with the power of Apple, the iPhone 12 and that huge affluent user base the improvements will begin soon and quickly accelerate to a fever-pitch by next year’s iPhone launch. (Will they call it the iPhone 13?)..


Check out all our Apple Coverage

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Short and Tragic Life of Quibi: Obituary for a Hollywood Experiment

PHOTO COLLAGE / LYNXOTIC

The unconventional streaming service is done – a flameout less than seven months after launching

On October 21stThe Wall Street Journal caught a whiff that a certain young video streaming service was about to bite the dust. Rumors turned out to be true, as the hardly six-month-old Quibi shut down that same day.

Quibi was an unconventional streaming service from its very beginning, a risky idea from Hollywood veterans Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman. Conceptualized in August 2018, their idea was to create a streaming platform dedicated to short-term content on mobile screens. The founders figured that people might appreciate “quick bites” of entertainment on the go— hence the service’s name.

Read More: Quibi Gone after Shortest Stint in Streaming History: WSJ Reports

Although the idea was irregular, Katzenberg and Whitman were still able to work their magic and build up hype for the product. In the months leading up to its April 2020 launch, Quibi ads were everywhere, many of them featuring notable celebrities. The moguls behind the project also raised over $1.75 billion from high-profile investors and garnered an additional $150 million in ad revenue from the likes of Pepsi and Walmart. In the final hours before its release, Quibi was starting to look like a forthcoming underdog success story.

But when the launch happened, audiences quickly realized some issues with Quibi. It lacked particularly alluring content; the small-screen “Turnstyle” optimization was unusual; many questioned, “Why pay money for such a service when there are so many free mobile streaming destinations like YouTube or TikTok?”

Evidently, Quibi was off to a rough start, but the road only got rockier. In May, a lawsuit emerged as the video company Eko sued Quibi for infringing on a patent for the “Trurnstyle” technology.

Now with heavy criticism and a legal battle on their hands, Quibi’s viewership also started to dwindle. The number of subscribers was actually disappointing from the very beginning, but the figures really started declining around Quibi’s three-month birthday, when the service’s lengthy free trial was running out.

Why did it fail? And what does it means for streaming to come?

According to The Verge, one report estimated that Quibi lost ninety percent of its subscribers in July, just when they were all supposed to start paying the monthly fee: $4.99 with ads, $7.99 without ads.

All of these factors could have played into Quibi’s premature demise this week. However, the formal announcement, penned in a letter from Katzenberg and Whitman, blamed the coronavirus. While COVID-19 has helped other streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ boom, forcing audiences to seek home entertainment as theaters closed, it has done the opposite for Quibi.

Essentially, part of Quibi’s appeal was to attract a mobile audience— people who were riding trains or sitting in waiting rooms. Now that most people are working from home and avoiding public spaces, a short piece of visual narrative watched from a smartphone does not seem as appealing, even if the service did just launch its first TV app a few days ago.

Read More: Read More: Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start: Katzenberg Blames Underperformance On Coronavirus

The other part of Katzenberg and Whitman’s letter stressed how Quibi could not carry on as a stand-alone company. Allegedly, the partners tried getting Apple, WarnerMedia, Facebook, and NBCUniversal to acquire Quibi, but no one was buying. Thus, they had no choice but to close up shop.

Quibi stood as a big Hollywood experiment from the get go. Although both of its founders were well experienced in the entertainment industry, a small-screen subscription based streaming service would be considered a bold endeavor for anyone to sell.

We can blame Quibi’s failures on timing, pandemics, competition, or simple over-ambition, but in the end, the only hard truth is that the platform lasted a very short time. Perhaps the shortest time ever for a recognizable streaming service.

Sometimes, Hollywood rewards audacity, like when a young director breaks the rules or a studio chooses to invest in a chancy intellectual property. However, for every Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” or Disney’s acquisition of Marvel, there are a million projects that didn’t make it. Sadly, Quibi is one of them.

In the streaming war, an ongoing battle where Disney+ and Netflix seem to be winning while HBOMax, AppleTV+, and NBCUniversal’s Peacock hold their ground, Quibi will go down as the young, daring private, sent out by senior officers to storm the trenches, only to take one in the gut early on.

We will never know what it could have been, and there may be others like it to come. For now, though, Quibi may be a cautionary tale for entertainment executives, one that has alas met a hasty epilogue. 


Find books on BusinessSustainable EnergyScreenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Justice Department finally issues antitrust suit against Google for “unlawfully maintaining monopolies”

Internet giants finally receiving long overdue legal scrutiny

After months of investigation and inquiry, the United States’ Justice Department has formally accused Google of illegally sustaining a monopoly over search and search advertising in America. The Department filed the lawsuit on October 20th in the U.S. District Court, beginning what could be a turning point in the Internet economy.

Read More: Amazon, Facebook, and Google will be accountable if Anti-trust law revisions hold

Republicans and Democrats alike have been watching big tech companies for a while now, scrutinizing the big four—Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon – as they’ve grown into corporate behemoths and played cat-and-mouse with American antitrust laws. Only now is the federal government (along with over forty states and jurisdictions that have investigated Google) finally making a move to attempt to keep these juggernauts in check.

Antitrust laws essentially make sure that American businesses cannot develop into illegal monopolies. Monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, sfor example, exclusionary or predatory acts. 

Conventionally, the laws protect consumers from situations where a single company holds all of the supply. In the current digital age, though, most of these services are nominally free to consumers. Nevertheless, they can still become hegemonic at the expense of competition.

Because the site’s ascendency has left consumers with the impression that they are unaffected, superficially, Google personnel have long been able to refute the fact that they hold a proper monopoly. However, given that eighty percent of Internet searches go through Google, many politicians (and users) suspect something legally dubious at hand.

As is also the case with Amazon and Facebook there are, like an iceberg of crimes hiding beneath the waterline, these giant firms are engaged in many practices are highly anticompetitive. The behaviors, however rampant,  have either gone unnoticed or, in a purported attempt to bolster internet commerce in a general way, have been intentionally overlooked by governing bodies for decades.

In order for the case to effectively convict Google on antitrust laws, the Justice Department must prove two things. First, that Google has dominance over search. Second, that it actively stifles competition in the search market through deals with other companies.

The fact that Google has dominance over search is quite hard to argue against nowadays. To sell the second part of the case, however, the DOJ will have to look into Google’s business behaviors and deals with other companies such as Apple.

Google essentially pays Apple up to $11 billion to be the default search engine on all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. This is just one example of Google buying its way to the top of the market and making sure that other search engines do not stand a chance.

Of course, Google denies doing anything illegal or sidestepping antitrust laws. The company argues that users actually retain choice when it comes to search engines, but people consistently go to Google for quality. As for the deals with companies like Apple, Google likens it to a cereal brand paying a grocery store for a better spot on the shelf. To Google, it’s simple business.

The courts, however, might not find it quite so simple, as many politicians are reframing antitrust laws in their perspective toward the case and the online marketplace.

This is not the end of the story but barely the beginning with many revelations yet to come

American antitrust laws, and how they are applied, are severely outdated. Most of them were written over a century ago when computers (let alone the Internet) were hardly a concept. Despite a few public outings where tech moguls have had to answer before Washington, the Federal government has not taken much action against these massive modern institutions. Exceptions include a 2001 antirust case against Microsoft for maintaining a monopoly over PC software and a former near-trial against Google when the Federal Trade Commission investigated the Alphabet Inc. for antitrust in the early 2010s.

Meanwhile, other countries have been far more active in holding big tech accountable. The European Union enforces much more timely antitrust policies, and has brought three cases against Google in recent years.

In America, however, Google has been riding off of the free market since its very conceptualization at Stanford University in 1998. The same could be said for Amazon, or Facebook and their respective, nearly mythic, ostensibly humble origins. While this nation’s laws and economy give companies the unique ability to grow, thrive, and expand into global phenomenon, they also have a duty to protect the people and even the playing field when those same companies abuse freedom or gain too much power.

This case will not be a short ride. It will likely take years, but such is the slow, magnificent, changing tide of justice and progress.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Social Dilemma: Forget the Critics and Watch this Important Netflix Documentary Now

This is not just entertainment: This is Real

As you might be aware, a new documentary is on the top ten most watched list on Netflix and is getting a lot of attention. The Social Dilemma is a well made documentary, directed by Jeff Orlowski, that aims to reveal the problems, very very big problems that have arisen, mainly in the past decade in the way social media and internet platforms generally, are operating and prospering.

While that may sound harmless at first blush, it’s the sheer scale; trillions of dollars, and the lack of any product or service, other than to advertisers, that begs the question: at what expense to humanity?

This is a big, important subject and is one that is extremely difficult to cram into an “entertaining” documentary. Here, an attempt is made to tackle that difficulty in two main ways.

First there are many on-camera interviews with almost exclusively former and current Silicon Valley insiders, many of whom where partially responsible for the very systems and methods that are being called into question here, and second, the two inter-twined semi-fictional dramatic elements, clearly meant to help viewers that may lose interest in discussions of algorithms, machine learning and corrupt business models.

Choosing insiders is not an oversight but by design

The choice of such a long list of high level tech insiders as interviewees is important and meaningful. The very fact that people, most of whom profited and made careers out of building these systems and platforms, are willing, now, to passionately speak out about them, and agree that they are horrific mistakes that have the potential to destroy not just people’s lives but humanity and the planet itself, speaks volumes.

Read more: Dig deeper into Netflix’s “The Social Dilemma” with these books

While there are many other scholars, journalists and witnesses that could, and should, have their ideas and opinions heard, it is the extreme fact that insiders are willing to address these problems so candidly and so passionately, that helps this to be a mind-blowing and impossible to ignore documentary film.

Companies like Google and Facebook are some of the wealthiest and most successful of all time. They have relatively few employees. They just have this giant computer that rakes in money, right? Now, what are they being paid for? That’s a really important question.

-Jaron Lanier, founding father of virtual reality, computer scientist

The film must be seen, and the information absorbed, to understand the true importance, but, in a nut-shell, what is becoming more obvious by the minute is that the combination of massive power based on worldwide near-monopoly status, and a business model that has no contribution to make or product to sell, has allowed these platforms to amass trillion dollar fortunes in a lethal mix that must be stopped at all costs.

”The first fifty years of Silicon Valley the industry made products, hardware, software, sold them to customers, nice, simple business. For the last ten years the biggest companies in Silicon Valley have been in the business of selling their users”.

-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist

Critics fail to see the film’s urgency and instead nitpick it as an imperfect entertainment product

There are layers of irony in the fact that the weaknesses decried by many critical articles written about this film are the same ones that the film is pointing to, and a major force, one that propelled these online platforms to positions of virtually unlimited power in the first place: human weaknesses and short attention spans.

”The classic saying is: “if you’re not paying for the product, then, you are the product”

-Classic Silicon Valley truism

The interviews are powerful and the quotes and alternately chilling and illuminating. So much so that it is actually difficult to absorb all at once. Many reviewers chose to simplify this reality by boiling the many serious quotes down to “dystopian” cliché, as if the end of the world is a topic for a cartoon movie review. Others harped on the weakness of the acted-out semi-fictional stories as not being the optimum way to get the real data and facts across.

The two narrative threads portrayed by actors revolve around an imaginary semi-suburban mixed family and their interactions with technology platforms and social media and a fictional visualization of the “back end” of the software systems used by the giant platforms (Facebook, Google, etc).

This back end software is elevated to a “triple-android” character, portrayed by Vincent Kartheiser, of Madmen fame, as sort of automaton-triplets that embody the actions of the software, AI and the integrated instructions, presumably from Zuckerberg himself (or the equivalent at Google or other platforms. (character name is, revealingly, “AI”)

This is a new kind of marketplace now. It’s a marketplace that never existed before. And it’s a marketplace that trades exclusively in “human futures”. Just like there are markets that trade in pork belly futures or oil futures. We now have markets that trade in human futures at scale. And those markets have produced the trillions of dollars that have made the internet companies the richest companies in the history of humanity”

-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”

While these filmic-devices are not ideal or particularly precise in showing the problems with the entire complex system, they are, nevertheless, a good choice to find a way for the statements of the interviewees to be dramatized. They can help people who are not technical analysts to viscerally grasp the deep and serious problems being discussed. Without these elements the film’s audience would be, almost certainly, far smaller. This fact was not appreciated by many reviewers, however.

”Many people call this ‘surveillance capitalism’. Capitalism profiting off of the infinite tracking of everywhere everyone goes, by large technology companies whose business model is to make sure that advertisers are as successful as possible”

-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology

One reviewer even mistook the fictional anthropomorphic portrayal of software algorithms and artificial intelligence, all three by the same actor, as a real “unnamed” social platform and that these characters were supposed to be employees of the “unnamed” platform!

All of this confusion is directly related and lies at the heart of the eponymous dilemma being addressed. If the interview subjects, many of whom have become extremely rich from their contributions, are terrified of the evil power of these systems and platforms, what can be done to stop them from getting even bigger and more powerful and eventually destroying us all?

What chance of understanding and solving the problem to the rest of us have?

”How much of your life can we get you to give to us? We often talked about, at Facebook, this idea, of being able to just “dial that” as needed. And we talked about, you know, Mark (Zuckerberg) have those dials… “let’s dial up the ads a little bit”, dial up the monetization, just slightly… At all these companies there’s that level of precision”

-Tim Kendall, Facebook / former director of monetization, Pinterest / former president, CEO / Moment

Such a question sounds almost like a joke to anyone who has not followed and investigated the rise of these behemoths and the “legal” and yet criminal behaviors they perpetrate on a global scale, amplified by computing and financial powers that would have been unimaginable even 2 decades ago.

Therein lies the rub.

The beginning of the end of malignant big tech structures or of us?

The only criticism that stands out to this reviewer is that the message of doom was portrayed as an open question with not much in the way of suggestions for solution, or ways forward other than “delete your social media accounts”.

”there are times when there is a national interest, there are times when the interests of people, of users, is actually more important than the profits of somebody who is already a billionaire”

-Roger McNamee, Early Facebook investor and Venture Capitalist

While that, in and of itself, is a start, the reality is that governments around the world, particularly in Europe and Australia have convicted the giants of criminal behavior on multiple occasions and there are many pending anti-trust actions, not to mention grass roots support for radical change to laws and regulations as a response to the truly destructive nature of these platforms.

“These markets undermine democracy and they undermine freedom and they should be outlawed. This is not a radical proposal. There are other markets that we outlaw. We outlaw markets in human organs. We outlaw markets in human slaves. Because they have inevitable destructive consequences.”

-Shoshanna Zuboff PhD., Harvard Business School Professor, emeritus and author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”

In an odd way the truth of even the most hyperbolic statements is what makes it so hard to keep people engaged. If these platforms and, in particular the dangerous and destructive business models that they are allowed to operate under, are not replaced or at least broken up, this could represent an even larger threat to humanity than climate change or nuclear war, so where do we start to dismantle them?

”We could tax data collection and processing. The same way that you, for example, pay your water bill, by monitoring the amount of water that you use. You tax these companies on the data assets that they have. It gives them a fiscal reason to not acquire every piece of data on the planet.”

-Joe Toscano, Google / Former experience design consultant and author of “Automating Humanity”

This is where interviewing and asking some very distinguished people who were, in part, responsible for building these systems, falls apart. Why should they be expected to have a solution for a problem that they, admittedly, were a part of creating?

”What I see are a bunch of people who are trapped, by a business model, and economic incentive and shareholder pressure that makes it almost impossible to do something else.

-Tristan Harris, Google’s former design ethicist and co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology

The answer is, of course, that they should not be expected to be the ones with the solutions – though their support of finding solutions and tackling the problems is very valuable, indeed. This is why this film deserves not criticism as an imperfect entertainment vehicle, but rather support and recommendation, as an important beginning in recognizing the threat posed by these business models; to mental health, economic prosperity and political stability of all nations.

”Whether it is to be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment…”

-R. Buckminster Fuller, Inventor, Author, Futurist

Please Subscribe to help us bring you more news and stories like this: Lynxotic YouTube Channel


Check out all our Tech Coverage

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Tump’s Madness – The American Dream is Dead: Lincoln Project Ad

Trump is losing it. Yes, we’ve all seen it. The mind is going. Fast. The Lincoln Project has done it again with a spot on depiction of the unraveling wannabe despot. Funny but no joke. Serious as a heart attack- VOTE


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple is Coming: Facebook, Amazon and Google Surveillance facing US scrutiny and danger from New Software

Apple will expose the worst of predatory surveillance by Facebook, Amazon and Google with new privacy features

While wrong is wrong regardless of the perpetrator, when it comes to gargantuan tech behemoths, a company with a clearly defined mission such as Apple or Tesla are in a different category than Amazon, Facebook and Google.

While Tesla’s stated mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy” and Apple’s original mission statement, written by Steve Jobs was “to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind”, predatory vultures hide behind ridiculous slogans like “aim to be Earth’s most customer centric company” (while decimating partners and competitors by any means necessary) and “don’t be evil” (don’t get caught) and “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” (…all while stealing data for profit from every person on earth).

Click to See “Steve Jobs
and to help Lynxotic
and Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

It’s just not the same – particularly as Steve Jobs, while at Apple, pushed himself and his company to invent and build many powerful examples of “tools for the mind” and Elon Musk’s Tesla brought the electric car back from the dead (after it was nearly snuffed out by big oil) and is making incredible headway in revolutionizing battery and solar technology, all with a view to literally save the planet from a climate catastrophe.

Bezos? Became the richest living human via the destruction of millions of small business and jobs all while undercutting competitors by selling virtually anything he got his hands on at a significant loss; simply to cause the demise of any competitor or partner that might threaten his rise to idiotically massive personal wealth.

Zuckerberg? Pioneered ways to suck data from virtually every human with a view to monetizing every living soul exclusively for himself and his company. Illustration? Dividing Facebook’s market cap by the number of employees it has yields the sum of $14,906,500.00 per employee. Macy’s? That’d be $16,829. (Thanks to Scott Galloway for the numbers)

Read More: In Understatement of the Century, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says Amazon “destroyed the retail industry”

Google merely owns (91.75% as of June 2020) the search entryway to all web sites. It decides if you should or should not find them. If it can boost profits by hiding one and featuring another, either through “paid search” or by pointing you toward its own properties while hiding competitors from you, it will do exactly that. Ask the European Union’s anti-trust investigators. For them, this company is a convicted law breaker.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/Safari-Privacy-BigSur.mov
EXCERPTs FROM APPLE PRESENTATION FOR privacy settings FROM WWDC 2020

The Beginning of the End for Infinite Tracking: Apple’s EcoSystem will Protect Users Privacy

Click to See Apple Products
and to help Lynxotic.

Announced at WWDC 2020, Apple is adding serious features to its various new operating systems. One big feature in Safari is the ability to track, and block as desired, all manner of data intrusions. These are not only identified, but shown and tracked and analyzed with a kind of professional dashboard, showing just how invasive and persistent these invisible spies are.

Apple is big, with more than 1.4 billion devices. Starting in around 2021 they will all be able to identify and block data surveillance by Amazon (the largest of all spies), Google and Facebook, among others. Thanks that’s not a big deal? Think again.

Read More: Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other

…the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.

– D.L.

Tracking the Trackers will Change Your Life

Tracking the trackers is a clear and aggressive privacy stance, taken by the one company among the big four, that does not have a huge stake in you being the victim of online surveillance and tracking.

Not to say that Apple is blameless. Many are complaining about its fee structure for software sold by third parties via the app stores. While this issue is certainly a valid one, the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Zuckerberg Promises Change as Facebook Value plummets $56 Billion after Ad Boycott

A building chorus of dissenting voices from well heeled and carefully researched corporate ad buyers

Zuckerberg faces the music (collage / Lynxotic)

The Facebook ad boycott has been going on for several weeks now, as more and more companies are abstaining from promoting content on the social media website until it makes greater amends to eliminate hate speech on its platform. At first, many expected that the boycott would not be enough to spark real change. After all, only about a hundred companies are engaged in it, and Facebook hosts over 8 million advertisers. However, now that a few key players have joined the movement, Facebook is facing palpable financial and PR consequences, heralding an indirect response.

Companies started to boycott ads on Facebook earlier this month, as civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, Sleeping Giants, Color Of Change, Free Press and Common Sense criticized the site for providing a platform for racist and bigoted content. These groups were particularly critical of Facebook failing to censor President Trump‘s inflammatory post regarding the Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death. In the post, Trump stated, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” endorsing a hateful rhetoric riddled with dark precedents.

Facebook was defensive of allowing Trump’s post go unedited at first, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg playing the free-speech card that has kept Facebook relatively unaccountable in the past for the mounds of unsavory content plastered on the site.

Now, however, Facebook is waking up to a significant hit to the wallet.

Major ad contributors have joined the boycott against Facebook including Verizon, Coca-Cola, Unilever, and dozens upon dozens more, with most making a statement that they will abstain from advertising on Facebook through the summer or until the site changes its methods. It is part of a movement titled “Stop Hate For Profit,” targeted at companies that make money off of bigotry.

Money matters, apparently, particularly big, big sums

As mentioned above, the companies who have joined the movement are but a drop in Facebook’s ocean of advertisers. Nevertheless, amidst the boycott and all of the negative PR Facebook has acquired as a result, the site’s stock price has dropped significantly. On Friday, June 26th, its stock went down more than 8%, representing a loss $56 billion in market value for the company. Even for a company like Facebook, that is not exactly chump-change.

Non-coincidentally, later that same day, Zuckerberg released a statement outlining Facebook’s plans to be more proactive about censoring content on the website. In a thirteen minute video and accompanying post, the CEO explained that going forward, Facebook will be making more efforts to ensure that all users feel safe on the website. This includes prohibiting ads that target or demean certain demographics, making it more apparent when content is or is not deemed “newsworthy,” and increasing security for content related to the upcoming election, flagging hoax videos and removing the spread of misinformation.

A long list of convictions and potential crimes is beginning to mount

The larger question exists as to why now, after facebook’s lax and predatory behaviors are well known and documented, suddenly these major advertisers have woken to the urgency of change? BLM and antitrust, along with a long list of highly critical investigative reports from major news over a period of years, might just be building into a tsunami of anti-facebook sentiment too big to ignore.

It was Facebook’s complacency with spreading misinformation during the 2016 Election—as well as the Cambridge Analytica privacy breeches— that instigated the website’s fall from grace nearly four years ago. Since then, Facebook among other big-tech labels have been the subject of greater criticism for their role in politics, culture, and public discourse.

While Zuckerberg’s latest video feels more substantial than most of his responses to criticism. It attempts to off some possible real solutions to the problems rather than just hollow suggestions or distractive rebranding techniques. Still, many are not satisfied, hoping that Facebook will focus more on removing all hateful content rather than simply flagging it, or adjusting its corporate allegiances so they stop selling data to or providing a platform for institutions that aim to disenfranchise people.

As the boycott continues, perhaps Facebook’s response will grow more progressive, but Zuck and his company continue to toe that delicate line between upholding freedom of speech and quelling unambiguously offensive content. Likewise, it will be interesting to see what the boycotters do in the coming months. Facebook is a crucial advertising platform for most of these corporations. By the end of the summer, will they start using the site again, or will they continue to hold out until greater change comes about?

To endorse the former would seem like a sellout, like the entire boycott was but a disingenuous gesture. However, to carry on with the boycott indefinitely begs the question of how much Facebook needs to adjust itself before returning to the public’s (as well as other business’) good graces.

Ultimately, the question is whether real change is finally coming; for us all to have a choice of more than a single, solitary option for our social media network (facebook), search engine (google) or eCommerce destination (amazon).


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Elon Musk’s Boring Company gets Ontario Airport project Green-light

High-Occupancy Autonomous Electric Vehicle (AEV) proposal Courtesy The Boring Company.

On June 3rd, 2020, the San Bernardino Country transportation (SBCTA) agency voted to move forward with a proposal for a high speed tunnel from Elon Musk’s Boring Company.  The tunnel would link Rancho Cucamonga with the Ontario International Airport.  If finalized, this would mark the third major accomplishment from the company.

Read More: Battery Day Bombshell

The Boring Company is currently in progress working on the tunnel to connect the Las Vegas Convention Center which has been slated to be operational by CES in January of 2021. The company also won the contract to build an express loop for Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport which is pending. 

The SBCTA Authority Board of Directors support and view the tunnel as a cheaper and faster alternative to the other above-ground rail projects. With the unanimous vote for the proposal, staff will begin to pursue the project deeper and postpone the $3 million study that was to be conducted for airport-rail connections. 

Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County Supervisor introduced introduced the idea after touring and taking a ride in the test tunnel at The Boring Co. facility in Hawthorne, California.

“It get us thinking in a new way.  This is something that can be done relatively quickly and inexpensively.”

Curt Hagman / San Bernardino County Supervisor

The proposal involves building a 2.8 mile tunnel that would take passengers in electric cars to and from the airport with speeds up to 127 miles per hour ranging from 90 seconds to 2 minutes to reach its destination.  The tunnel would be approximately 14 feet in diameter and 35 feet below ground.  The original plan called for customized Tesla cars, however according to Hagman, the company is set to develop electric vans in order to seat more people, up to 12 passengers and their luggage, which would increase the daily capacity of up to 1,200 people per day. 

SBCTA estimates the final cost of the project could range near $60 million with costs of upwards of $75 million which is significantly less expensive than the alternative light rail systems that were quoted in the range of $1-1.5 billion.  

Read More: SpaceX Starship Plans for The Moon, Mars and Beyond

The Ontario Airport Loop is expected to be complete in approximately 4 years which is again far faster than the 10 years quoted for the construction of light railing systems. The SBCTA Director of Transit and Rail, Carrie Schindler explained in a statement given to local news, “It is much more cost-effective. I do anticipate the need for outside funding but at a reduced level as compared to building surface projects.”


Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.