zlacker

I’m not sure how the point stands. The iPhone was introduced during that tenure, then the App Store, then Jobs decided Google was also headed toward their own full mobile ecosystem, and released Schmidt. None of that was a conflict of interest at the beginning. Jobs initially didn’t even think Apple would have an app store.

Talking about conflicts of interest in the attention economy is like talking about conflicts of interest in the money economy. If the introduction of the concept doesn’t clarify anything functionally then it’s a giveaway that you’re broadening the discussion to avoid losing the point.

You forgot to do Oracle and Tesla.

>>svnt+(OP)
> Talking about conflicts of interest in the attention economy is like talking about conflicts of interest in the money economy. If the introduction of the concept doesn’t clarify anything functionally then it’s a giveaway that you’re broadening the discussion to avoid losing the point.

It's a well established concept and was supported with a concrete example. If you don't feel inclined to address my points, I'm certainly not obligated to dance to your tune.

>>doktri+ca
Your concrete example is Netflix’s CEO saying he doesn’t want to do advertising because he missed the boat and was on Facebook’s board and as a result didn’t believe he had the data to compete as an advertising platform.

Attempting to run ads like Google and Facebook would bring Netflix into direct competition with them, and he knows he doesn’t have the relationships or company structure to support it.

He is explicitly saying they don’t compete. And they don’t.