“Moat-building” acquisitions like Apple’s will be in the FTC’s spotlight.
Watch live as FTC Chair Lina Khan sits discusses her plans to take on Big Tech:
In her first on-camera sit-down since assuming the role, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan will speak with Andrew Ross Sorkin, CNBC anchor and New York Times DealBook founder, and Kara Swisher, host of Times’ “Sway” podcast and a CNBC contributor, for an exclusive interview. During the conversation, Khan will discuss the antitrust landscape, the growing power of big tech as well as the FTC’s approach to the current wave of mergers and acquisitions, among other topics.
Cue the video:
My take: Timely, important interview by two of the best.
Watching this interview, it reminded me of an individual Trump presented to the Senate as a lifetime appointment for a Federal Judge. The person had not even gone to court at any level; Federal or State Court. Had not even done a deposition. What a Joke! This individual withdrew their name, and rightly so. I see the same parallels here with one major exception; Kahn took her job!
What was very telling was the reaction from Khan when her “Famous Paper” written at Law School was brought up as a topic. She didn’t like being attacked and had quite the interesting look on her face. Much like a Heisman Trophy Winner being asked about a crummy performance after a big game where his team lost.
Watching anyone in an interview deflect away hard questions with the canned responses of: “A phenomenally important question; A difficult question; A good question; blah, blah, blah.” Says lots about her skill set as she’s way in over her head IMO with this appointment.
On the bright side, she might be okay for Apple as she did state whether privacy is adequate as a general concept for consumers. Which plays directly into Apple’s wheelhouse. What does concern me though is her open hostility to any concept of a “Moat” that consumers appreciate having the opportunity to partake for ease of use and privacy purposes.
She really fell by the weigh side when she stated: “Asking people how to handle questions of degradation of competition or harm”, reeks of embracing the likes of Epic Games and the “Coalition for App Fairness” as her trusted advisors. It was also quite noteworthy listening to the comment about her approach to antitrust that was set forth in the written article by Larry Summers. Love him or hate him, it was quite telling and it struck me as if she had just had her heart pierced by an arrow.
My overall perception of the interview is she’s exactly what I thought: An academic activist with no real world experience being put in charge of a massive Agency who dreams of a utopia without realities. I’m certain the rank and file at the FTC are unimpressed with her appointment with a background totally devoid of any actual legal trench warfare.
Money quote:
“An academic activist with no real world experience being put in charge of a massive Agency…”
Compared to the dunderheads of the previous administration, she’s a breath of fresh air. Let’s give her a chance, shall we? She’s got a huge job to do bringing ethics back to corporate America. Plenty of time to find out whether she’s up to the task.
I for one invite scrutiny of Apple’s business practices – as long as everyone else’s business gets the same scrutiny (I’m looking at you, Microsoft!).
I am much less convinced by the arguments (Sweeney, et.al.) about ‘the app store monopoly’ on iOS devices. That’s because in part I don’t agree with the fundamental principle that iOS is itself a sufficient definition of “the market”. Those advocating such investigations need to identify precedent where a single vendor platform is accepted by courts as “a market” for purposes of anti-trust investigation.
And for the record, I’m not convinced that it’s the FTC’s purpose to “bring ethics to corporations.” The purpose is to ensure corporations follow the law, and an absence of law in a particular area is itself the absence of any basis for FTC to act. The push for ethics needs to come from shareholders, and in particular the large institutional investors. That’s an area where Warren Buffet has been influential, I wish other large investors would follow that lead.
Apple is THE biggest tech company the world has ever seen, and is destined to grow much bigger. You keep insisting that there has to be even more of a reason to investigate it, but in this new world of behemoth tech companies, some of which are KNOWN to have flouted the rules and put the customer second to earnings, there is no more justification needed to do a searching examination of each and every one of them.
That is NOT a waste of precious time as you said elsewhere on this site today. IMHO. In fact, I consider it a civic duty that has long been shirked.
I would put Apple up against any competitor on a moral basis, as long as the playing field is level. They will prevail.
What it boils down to is whether or not individuals ought to be appointed to these Governmental Agencies based on their body of work, as opposed to writing a term paper? I’m not going to say the prior appointments were any better, as I haven’t done any research as to her predecessors. As far as being a “breath of fresh air”, a canister of oxygen would make do.
Would you give this person the keys to your brand new Lamborghini to drive after she was issued a learner’s permit? Would you hire her to represent you in any legal matter of significance based on her scant resume’? That’s the prism I’m looking through in this situation.
IMO, there were far better candidates to fill this position as opposed to a novice political appointee who wrote a term paper in Law School.
“…there were far better candidates to fill this position…” That’s true, but you can say that about any public servant. I’d also make the point that there are plenty of candidates that might seem superior but wouldn’t have the intelligence or open-mindedness to do as good a job. But my larger point is simply that we need to give this person a chance.
Here is an example: I hold no degree beyond high school. In certain elements of my life, that means exactly nothing, and many folks with Phd’s couldn’t match me.
I couldn’t agree more! The “School of Hard Knocks” has my utmost respect!
That’s why I would rather have you or any of the other: “School of Hard Knocks” Graduates in this position. By comparison, Khan couldn’t carry your briefcase to the office! But she wrote an impressive term paper, say others! That means nothing compared to real world experience!
We agree that there’s no substitute for experience. Some things just can’t be taught outside the school of life.
That said, we were all young once. Let’s see what happens when she tries to spread her wings….