New iOS browsers on way without WebKit; Apple prepping Safari for competition
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
webkit/blink/geeko are financed (and steered) by the same people: blackrock/vanguard = apple = alphabet(=google) = microsoft = starbucks = etc.
Actually, their interest would be to trash one they have direct control on (ppl working on it would be "reallocated" or ...) for instance webkit, and keep only blink, and geeko (only there to dodge anti-trust since they don't have a direct way to steer it).
What's need to be done actually is to save the web from them: restore noscript/basic (x)html on the bazillions of online services which could be provided in a good enough fashion, just need to add the <video> <audio> element with a standard way to seek into streamed video/audio via the URL (t=xxxxxx in milliseconds).
I guess the only way is very strong technical regulation: the big must interoperate with the shmol.
That seems highly unlikely to have any truth to it.
For instance, msft CEO is on the board of directors of starbucks. And everything is like that in blackrock/vanguard galaxy. It is public info on internet, and you can start on wikipedia.
Then it is more the other way around which is unlikely to have any truth to it: it would be hardly believable that actual owners of big tech companies do not have any say to big tech steering.
There is some kind of exception: amazon, still mostly own my Mr Bezos, then driven by himself. Once he sells his shares, vanguard and blackrock will become the actual owners of amazon (they are right behind Bezos)... but I don't know what kind of relationship between him and vanguard/blackrock (you would have needed heavy investment to build amazon from somewhere and "be chosen" to get the money to be able to do that).
Even if they did have the power to fire one of these CEOs, that doesn’t give them any leverage at all over small details like browser strategy, because their only option would to replace the CEO with someone who understands much less about the company. I.e. they can really only do anything if the CEO is manifestly failing.
Honestly your argument doesn’t work, and doesn’t reflect shareholder influence.
It is actually your argument which does not work: no one would believe the actual owners have no saying about to where and how _theirs_ companies are steered.
msft is using blink already, I would not be surprised to see apple align on that. But they have to care about anti-trust stuff, financing geeko may not be enough.
This is circular. You are claiming this but haven’t shown any evidence.
You ignore the fact that you’re just wrong about who chose the CEOs of Apple and Google.
And, you don’t seem to know anything about who owns these companies either. What percentage of Apple do you imagine Blackrock owns?
I am not the one on the unbelievable side here, mate.
Why do you thing msft CEO is at starbucks board, and you can look deeper via internet public info and this habit of CEOs members of the board of the other companies which are owned by the same companies is kind of smelly and not an sole case. This behavior is not limited to blackrock/vanguard and the USA, you know the cumulative wages are very "motivational", but it gives good hints at who belongs a CEO.
If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind, but the percentage is stable among most companies I did check, and in most cases (exception with amazon in which Mr Bezos has still control). But they are THE major owners in control and that almost EVERYWHERE.
As I said, this is public info on internet, you can start on wikipedia but you have web sites (which work even without google blink/geeko or apple webkit, aka absurdely and grotesquely massive and complex web engines) which reference the same info (A quick search on google... lol). You can do easily your research (I wish EU companies were as "search-enabled" than the US companies).
Another stinking stuff, hard to find, then it would require to get more verifications, would be some giga-fishy "debts" sucking out a company profits: one day I got a site with starbucks gigantic "debts" sucking out tons of money out via chronic interest rates: some of those debts were most in us currency, but some not (japanese yen as far as I can recall). I will keep that in mind for any further digging.
Wrong.
Just as you are wrong about Blackrock or Vanguard having the ability to fire Google’s CEO, or having chosen Apple’s CEO. I note that you continue to evade this point despite it being central to your reasoning.
Why make these silly conspiratorial arguments if they can be debunked using easily googled facts? Why double down when you’ve been caught out? Are you just hoping people won’t check?
Your position is simply not based in reality.
As I said, this is public info and people can check that whatever you can post on this forum.
And again, I am not on the unbelievable side here, you are: you have to proove this duo which are the major owners in all of big tech, do not have any say in the steering of the companies they _own_.
Edit: I did a quick re-check, 5 minutes of "googling" (lol), and 1 new site brought something new in 2023 the other sites did not put forward for alphabet (unlike for meta/facebook for instance, which I did not mention for this reason), founders are still in control (like metafacebook) because their shares are actually voting super-shares (first time I see that mention for alphabet). So vanguard/blackrock, it's apple/intel/msft/amd/nvidia/etc (starbucks/pepsi...) and you can exclude metafacebook/amazon and very probably alphabet(google), waiting for the other sites to sync on this information though.
Funny, in the context of this news: it would mean alphabet(google) founders are going straight against one critical apple software component which is in control of their own major share holders. Wow, the smell of this is... so filthy...
This is simply a false statement. Holding a single digit percentage of a company doesn’t make you “the major shareholder”.
> As I said, this is public info and people can check that whatever you can post on this forum.
They should check, and so should you.
> And again, I am not on the unbelievable side here, you are: you have to proove this duo which are the major owners in all of big tech,
They aren’t ‘major owners’. They own a minority of shares, whether considered together or separately.
> do not have any say in the steering of the companies they _own_
They don’t own the companies.
They own a small percentage of the shares of each of the companies, completely insufficient to win any votes.
I see you’ve walked back your claim about Google now that you’ve checked the facts. At some point hopefully you’ll see that wherever you got this whole argument from, you have been misinformed.
As I said in my previous post, that would make the context of the news even more awkward and weird.
And you are wrong, it does not change anything for all the other companies without "super voting shares" from big tech, actually, it expanded (unless the super voting shares information is missing too for amd, intel, nvidia, etc) and it does not change the fact, again, that you are pushing something that nobody sane would believe: major owners of a company would have no say in the company steering and management?? I am not the stubborn guy here mate, actually, I start to feel sorry for you.
No. I’m saying you’re just wrong about them being major owners. If it was true, you’d be able to easily show us some evidence.
Blackrock and Vanguard are minority shareholders in the companies you list and don’t have enough votes to control the boards or fire executives.
You are simply making false claims about who owns these companies. That’s all that’s happening.